Scrutable

JQH wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:57 am

TopBadger wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:32 pm So this is frightening...

What the 1918 flu's hidden history can teach the coronavirus era

https://flip.it/7._14u

The best we can do is not be as complacent as the people of 1918 — and choose leadership that offers reality-based responses.

Looks like we're f.cked then. Trump gutted the CDC and claims it's a hoax. Over here, Matt Hancock's claims to have been working with the supermarket chains to guarantee the food supply have been denied by the industry.

shpalman wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:02 pm

shpalman wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:20 pm ... and the publication of UK deaths data is temporarily paused while an urgent review is carried out...

You'll notice that it was so urgent when it was asked for on the 17th of July that they're only doing it now.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... -and-cases

Reduced by 5000 - there's now a 28-day cutoff because the UK has no system for declaring when covid-sufferers no longer have covid.

About 3.4 million people in England have been infected with Covid-19, a figure far higher than previous estimates, a study suggests.

The results come from the world’s largest home testing programme to find antibodies for the coronavirus, a study involving more than 100,000 volunteers and carried out by Imperial College London.

Conducted with the use of a simple finger-prick home test said to be easy and accurate enough for mass surveillance studies, the programme suggested 6% of England’s population had already been infected with Covid-19 by 13 July.

shpalman wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:02 pm

shpalman wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:20 pm ... and the publication of UK deaths data is temporarily paused while an urgent review is carried out...

You'll notice that it was so urgent when it was asked for on the 17th of July that they're only doing it now.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... -and-cases

Reduced by 5000 - there's now a 28-day cutoff because the UK has no system for declaring when covid-sufferers no longer have covid.

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:32 am

shpalman wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:02 pm

shpalman wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:20 pm ... and the publication of UK deaths data is temporarily paused while an urgent review is carried out...

You'll notice that it was so urgent when it was asked for on the 17th of July that they're only doing it now.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... -and-cases

Reduced by 5000 - there's now a 28-day cutoff because the UK has no system for declaring when covid-sufferers no longer have covid.

See also here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 200812.pdf

Recent studies have indicated that antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 drop significantly within 2 months. In this preprint, Wu et al. analysed antibody responses in 349 individuals who were among the first to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. All antiviral antibody titres significantly increased in the first weeks after disease onset, followed by a contraction phase, where IgM became undetectable at around week 10–13. Importantly, although Spike-targeted IgG (IgG-S) declined over time, it remained detectable at relatively high levels until the end of the 6-month study period. IgG-S titres correlated closely with neutralizing capacity, although exact correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2 are still elusive. These results suggest that antibody responses in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 follow a prototypical progression and result in a sustained memory response, suggesting long-term protective immunity.

Hunting Dog wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:08 pm Me and other-half have both been 'randomly selected' to take part in a UCL/Mori/NHS research thing which involves them sending you a swab test by post and picking up by courier, to "assess the level of infection in the community" - test is for active cases, not for anti-bodies of past cases

we both said Yes to doing it, although we haven't had any symptoms and have (except for short, masked and sanitised visits to a few small local shops) been completely isolated since March, so I'm reasonably sure I can predict the result would be negative

thought we should probably still do it though, as if everyone that thinks they'd be negative declines to do the test I assume that would skew the results unhelpfully? or would people that think they might be positive be more likely to drop out?

Hunting Dog wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:08 pm Me and other-half have both been 'randomly selected' to take part in a UCL/Mori/NHS research thing which involves them sending you a swab test by post and picking up by courier, to "assess the level of infection in the community" - test is for active cases, not for anti-bodies of past cases

we both said Yes to doing it, although we haven't had any symptoms and have (except for short, masked and sanitised visits to a few small local shops) been completely isolated since March, so I'm reasonably sure I can predict the result would be negative

thought we should probably still do it though, as if everyone that thinks they'd be negative declines to do the test I assume that would skew the results unhelpfully? or would people that think they might be positive be more likely to drop out?

AMS wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:38 pm 292 positive cases in a Northants sandwich factory.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... orthampton

Raises a few questions - for example, is this is a setting where people would have been wearing masks even before covid? And like abbatoirs, it's presumably a cold environment.

Also, is this enough of a cluster to put Northampton into a local lockdown?

discovolante wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:47 pm

Hunting Dog wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:08 pm Me and other-half have both been 'randomly selected' to take part in a UCL/Mori/NHS research thing which involves them sending you a swab test by post and picking up by courier, to "assess the level of infection in the community" - test is for active cases, not for anti-bodies of past cases

we both said Yes to doing it, although we haven't had any symptoms and have (except for short, masked and sanitised visits to a few small local shops) been completely isolated since March, so I'm reasonably sure I can predict the result would be negative

thought we should probably still do it though, as if everyone that thinks they'd be negative declines to do the test I assume that would skew the results unhelpfully? or would people that think they might be positive be more likely to drop out?

Does the study not ask things about your lifestyle? Or at least surely the results would account for/explain how it had considered variations in behaviour. If it didn't it sounds like it would be a poor study and I ain't a scientist. Presumably the random selection bit is part of it.

discovolante wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:47 pm

Hunting Dog wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:08 pm Me and other-half have both been 'randomly selected' to take part in a UCL/Mori/NHS research thing which involves them sending you a swab test by post and picking up by courier, to "assess the level of infection in the community" - test is for active cases, not for anti-bodies of past cases

we both said Yes to doing it, although we haven't had any symptoms and have (except for short, masked and sanitised visits to a few small local shops) been completely isolated since March, so I'm reasonably sure I can predict the result would be negative

thought we should probably still do it though, as if everyone that thinks they'd be negative declines to do the test I assume that would skew the results unhelpfully? or would people that think they might be positive be more likely to drop out?

Does the study not ask things about your lifestyle? Or at least surely the results would account for/explain how it had considered variations in behaviour. If it didn't it sounds like it would be a poor study and I ain't a scientist. Presumably the random selection bit is part of it.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:14 pm

discovolante wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:47 pm

Hunting Dog wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:08 pm Me and other-half have both been 'randomly selected' to take part in a UCL/Mori/NHS research thing which involves them sending you a swab test by post and picking up by courier, to "assess the level of infection in the community" - test is for active cases, not for anti-bodies of past cases

we both said Yes to doing it, although we haven't had any symptoms and have (except for short, masked and sanitised visits to a few small local shops) been completely isolated since March, so I'm reasonably sure I can predict the result would be negative

thought we should probably still do it though, as if everyone that thinks they'd be negative declines to do the test I assume that would skew the results unhelpfully? or would people that think they might be positive be more likely to drop out?

Does the study not ask things about your lifestyle? Or at least surely the results would account for/explain how it had considered variations in behaviour. If it didn't it sounds like it would be a poor study and I ain't a scientist. Presumably the random selection bit is part of it.

Not necessarily poor. Just depends upon what its trying to do.

If the aim of the study is to work out Covid prevalance then there is a limited amount of additional data that can be collected. First is the problem of entering and checking the data received into a database which will very likely cost money. If there isn't enough funding they won't be able to process additional data. Second is amount of time people are willing to devote to completing the study. If they ask too many questions there is a risk people will give up and not bother to complete the exercise.

There may also be data protection issues about collecting some lifestyle data along with a medical test. That data can be collected but it may involve additional time and costs - eg asking the participants to sign an additional consent form or further anonymizing the data.

Grumble wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:46 pm A contractor at work, who works in a different building from me thankfully, has called to say they have Covid-19. They got their test result today. They were in work yesterday. Apparently the team have been following the rules in work but have been going out for meals and so on outside of work.

discovolante wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:50 pm

Grumble wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:46 pm A contractor at work, who works in a different building from me thankfully, has called to say they have Covid-19. They got their test result today. They were in work yesterday. Apparently the team have been following the rules in work but have been going out for meals and so on outside of work.

Going out for meals isn't breaking the rules though?

discovolante wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:26 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:14 pm

discovolante wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:47 pm

Does the study not ask things about your lifestyle? Or at least surely the results would account for/explain how it had considered variations in behaviour. If it didn't it sounds like it would be a poor study and I ain't a scientist. Presumably the random selection bit is part of it.

Not necessarily poor. Just depends upon what its trying to do.

If the aim of the study is to work out Covid prevalance then there is a limited amount of additional data that can be collected. First is the problem of entering and checking the data received into a database which will very likely cost money. If there isn't enough funding they won't be able to process additional data. Second is amount of time people are willing to devote to completing the study. If they ask too many questions there is a risk people will give up and not bother to complete the exercise.

There may also be data protection issues about collecting some lifestyle data along with a medical test. That data can be collected but it may involve additional time and costs - eg asking the participants to sign an additional consent form or further anonymizing the data.

Sure, but what I perhaps didn't express very well is that those kinds of limitations should be accounted for when commenting on the results, no?

Grumble wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:07 pm

discovolante wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:50 pm

Grumble wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:46 pm A contractor at work, who works in a different building from me thankfully, has called to say they have Covid-19. They got their test result today. They were in work yesterday. Apparently the team have been following the rules in work but have been going out for meals and so on outside of work.

Going out for meals isn't breaking the rules though?

You’re only meant to go out with your household aren’t you?

When eating or drinking out with people you do not live with, you should only meet one other household if you are seated indoors.

If you are eating or drinking outdoors, you can do so with one other household or in a group of up to 6 people from different households. You should take care to limit your interactions with anyone outside the group you visit these places with.