Social distancing like the adults is a pretty low bar though Social distancing like the adults should be doing i'll give ya I seem to recall seeing a list/chart of all the main 'activities' and their predicted (I can't think of the word, ability to assist in covid spread, spreadability, lets go with that, covid is now a cheese) 'spreadability' and schools were pretty high. I also seem to recall places of worship were fairly high, and pubs were lower than both school and places of worship which brought about the "why the heck are pubs shut then" arguement from the usual suspects. I remember thinking why aren't schools and places of worship shut too. Nieces school had a few kids get it, and even though they were in bubbles kids in other years got it - assumed it was them but who knows. Brother in laws school a teacher/ta got it so they shut the entire school, i think a few other staff members got ill. Luckily both my nieces and brother in law avoided it.
The government isn't sure where all the PPE it paid billions of pounds (literally, I'm not exaggerating, billions of pounds) for is... so the NAO is paying consultants to find it. Amaze.
I recently had somebody challenge me with a slightly more nuanced anti-COVID stance than the usual tinfoil hattery - they acknowledged that all the broad strokes of the virus are true and accurate, but disputed the idea that asymptomatic carriers pass it on to any statistically significant extent. Based on that, they asserted that a lot of the lockdown measures are unnecessary and overkill, that outdoor gatherings and socializing are fine and that basic restrictions (masks, hand hygiene, etc.) would suffice. Reading between the lines, I interpreted this as them maybe believing what it was expedient for them to believe, given that they dislike lockdown and want to socialize, but nevertheless I challenged myself to google my way through it. On a first pass the stuff I could find from reputable bodies ranged from 'no evidence either way' and 'insufficient evidence so far' to a bit of evidence both ways, variously. This Nature Medicine paper from April 2020 inferred that people are most infectious when presymptomatic and that this could account for 30-57% of secondary cases; but based on the sample and models they're using, they also infer that this mostly occurs in "settings with substantial household clustering". This Guangzhou Medical University summary paper from June 2020 finds contradictory information from the limited size studies available at the time (their sources variously suggesting that asymptomatics are about as infectious as symptomatics [4% vs 6%], then that asymptomatics are only a third as infectious [R factor below 1 vs R factor of nearly 3]) but speculates that due to serious difficulties in methodology and evidence gathering for asymptomatic carriers, the actual infectiousness might be underestimated by those studies and asymptomatics should be given more scrutiny; this Elsevier Ltd study from August 2020 uses a slightly wider sample (but still far too small) and (in my skimreading opinion) better methodology and seems to find no evidence of infectiousness, and limited evidence against; this summary paper from BMJ in December 2020 basically says "we still don't know anything/enough" several times over, reiterating the inherent difficulty of investigating asymptomatics (because mostly you don't know who they are, how many they are or how many more asymptomatic cases they create). Based on a mixture of these and common or garden variety reasoning, I do wonder if basic viral precautions would be sufficient rather than full lockdowns, especially in light of the fact that the George Floyd protests in the US ended up having a negligible effect on COVID rates, to everyone's surprise - experts speculated after the fact that it must've been because they were all outdoors and wearing masks*. However, I'm vigilant against the possibility that I'm only straying in that direction because it's what I want to believe, because like everyone else, I'm sick of lockdown. Thoughts? *edit - for comparison, this case study of two separate flights, which again found a very low infectiousness rate in a closed environment - 6 and 3 asymptomatics respectively, in contact or a shared space with 327 and 205 non-infected respectively, resulted in 1 new infection on each flight. They speculate that the temporary removal of masks and the use of shared bathrooms on the aircraft were key factors in one of those.
I'd not take too much solace from studies conducted on aircraft, as stated in the article they have ruddy good filtration systems that the air is passed through many many times during a flight. Unless you're sat in a row with a carrier I reckon you're very unlikely to become contaminated whilst sat in cattle class.
Aye, I'm mindful of that point. Just grasping for whatever data google brings up, at this stage in the digging.
In thinking about whether lockdowns are necessary, it is clear for all to see that when we have a lockdown, following a major increase in cases, the infection and R rates drop and then go back up when restrictions are eased.
I remember back in the days before they started skimping on fresh air I order to save fuel you could fart with impunity and rely on the ventilation system to bail you out. They were designed to cope with people smoking on board, I figure they've gone back to that. Irrespective of the exact whys and wherefores, it must be difficult to look at the graphs and think that lockdowns aren't effective.
What are we talking about when you say basic viral precautions? To me that's social distancing, mask wearing and washing hands (hands face space). This is what I assume everyone has been doing in the bits between lockdowns tbh, and yet we still arrive at the same point each time - high numbers and a lockdown required. Interesting about the George Floyd protests. Maybe outdoor activities might be much alright, but the issue, IMO, is that people can't be trusted. GIve an inch and they'll take a mile.
Asymptomatic and Pre-symptomatic are two very distinct medical terms that you need to keep in mind. So someone who comes in contact with a carrier and contracts, will become someone who can spread it before they become someone who is showing symptoms. Prior to showing the symptoms but during the period they are spreading the disease the person is presymptomatic and not Asymptomatic. If only symptomatic people spread the disease (as opposed pre or A symptomatic) life would be fantastic.
Both very valid points. I've heard a lot of people grumble about the fact that secondary schools and universities are taking kids back in, with variable countermeasures in place, while most of the business sector is frozen, which I think is a very valid grumble. Primary schools I get more - the purpose there is as much to provide socializing and developmental contact as education. Secondary and higher education, though, could be and has been done pretty much entirely remotely. It seems bonkers to me that they're opening classrooms but keeping businesses closed. Like, your education is so important we can't even risk you doing it over Teams and Zoom, but your parents' livelihoods? Less important.
Just popping out to get tested. I only leave the house for 1 day a week to go in to work, and one of em has exposed us all, lovely.
Primary school is far more important than you are suggesting. Not all children just teach themselves to read. It's actually quite hard for some and for others it take a lot to understand maths. This is fundamental stuff and it's not easy unless you happen to have a child that is both brilliant and self-motivating. Secondary teaching can be done remotely, but they are missing out nearly completely on practicals in science which does matter. Futhermore if state schools are teaching remotely, they aren't necessaily teaching the same classes over video. It isn't the same teaching content at all.
Both of my kids are in primary school and while this time round the quality of the lessons has been better than in previous lockdowns; far more structure and interaction. The online lessons are in no way a suitable alternative for being in school. My pair are suffering from not having proper interaction with their friends, the wife and I are doing the best we can but are working full time too and there is only so much you can get from a video call.
My impressions: Trendline before and after lockdowns makes it pretty clear to me that lockdowns have a pretty significant effect. Masks work, but they probably aren't at the 60-80% level that some people claim. You can obviously make the case that's because of imporper/lack of usage, but then that's a factor you have to account for when talking about masks as a strategy anyway. You can't rely on masks alone. Main risk of transmission is from prolonged indoor contact. Outdoors, or limited indoor contact (e.g. shopping in your local Tesco) is apparently relatively safe. (That said, that doesn't necessarily mean most transmission is from prolonged indoor contact.) Hand-washing and sanitization probably isn't particularly important to avoid spread (but do it anyway). Heard from a couple of disinterested parties that children are actually pretty bad at transmitting the virus (although our understanding is always changing), hence, given that there are all kinds of issues with closing schools, opening schools is probably the first measure you want to take coming out of lockdown. Could be wrong on a couple of those, but I don't think any of those points is particularly controversial.
Kind of an aside but you're missing the point of what I was saying, I wasn't downplaying the importance of primary school - I was emphasizing it. Both for social and educational purposes. Secondary I consider less important because you've already done most of your key development as a person, that's what I was getting at.
It's probably true, but then you probably have greater pressure from students (and their parents) at a critical phase in their lives.
