Southwark Covid figures up ? 26/08

[Nigello]

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKSOUTHWARK/bulletins/29be9fd

Whilst numbers are still low, there have been 49 new cases in Southwark in the last seven days. The number of new cases has nearly doubled in Southwark in the last week and numbers are rising across London.

A high proportion of new cases are for people aged 18?34. We also know that most transmission is still amongst family and friends.

[Penguin68]

The number of new cases has nearly doubled in Southwark in the last week and numbers are rising across London.

From a low base, of course. In terms of real impact, it is the numbers being admitted to hospital, of those, those moving to ICU, of those, those being ventilated which are the important figures. And these still seem low.

The young seem admirably fitted to throw off this virus with little real impact on their health. For many, it is no more alarming than a common cold, for some even less so. So long as they stay away from the elderly and vulnerable the more young people who get it, the better, frankly, if they do gain some immunity (6 months to a year?) which is now being suggested. In effect, they are being inoculated against the virus - and will start to build the numbers that herd immunity would require.

I would suggest to the young - go out and party, rub together, enjoy life - but stay away from the vulnerable - social distance when you are not partying, wear masks on public transport and in enclosed spaces. And if the vulnerable keep up the hand washing, mask wearing and social distancing we may get through this OK.

[ed_pete]

Interesting. The bulletin was issued on 26/8 at 5:20pm, and included data for 7 days up to 24/8 which includes 20/8. That was a bad day in relative terms with 12 cases and the last time we had that many on one day was 1st May. However the number for Tuesday 25th was zero. Total for the last 5 days 21/8 to 25/8 is 24.

On balance though the number of cases is increasing, the 7 day rolling average for June was less than 2 per day and July less than 2.5. Of course we could just be testing more people now than then.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Southwark

[pk]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So long as they stay away from the elderly and vulnerable the more young

> people who get it, the better, frankly, if they do

> gain some immunity (6 months to a year?) which is

> now being suggested. In effect, they are being

> inoculated against the virus - and will start to

> build the numbers that herd immunity would

> require.

but people have been reinfected in much less than the 6-12 months that you (randomly) guesstimate

so i'm not sure that anyone with informed knowledge is suggesting herd immunity is a good strategy - you got a credible source?

>

> I would suggest to the young - go out and party,

> rub together, enjoy life

this strikes me as a reckless suggestion based on little or no science

[seenbeen]

Sweden has been bandied about as a good example of the herd immunity approach as it didn't impose a compulsory lockdown.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

[seenbeen]

Today we had 2 deliveries of post and a parcel necessitating the actual postman ringing the bell- no social distancing anymore by either of the deliverers.

Also I had to ask a builder and a surveyor (who were expected) who came to the door to put masks on before entering. People in Southwark are getting slack....

[Penguin68]

but people have been reinfected in much less than the 6-12 months that you (randomly) guesstimate

I don't believe there is any evidence of re-infection anywhere - some early cases were re-interpreted as testing failures. Can you cite any authority for this? - I would be happy to stand corrected.

[pk]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but people have been reinfected in much less than

> the 6-12 months that you (randomly)

> guesstimate/i>

>

> I don't believe there is any evidence of

> re-infection anywhere - some early cases were

> re-interpreted as testing failures. Can you cite

> any authority for this? - I would be happy to

> stand corrected.

what about you answer the questions i asked of you?

if you google 'covid reinfection' you'll find multiple reports from credible sources from this week

here's one of many:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/experts-reveal-two-patients-have-reinfected-covid-19/

if you search 'covid herd immunity' you don't

in fact the top result on my search (the Lancet) says that 'the creation of herd immunity by natural infection' is 'an ill-defined and dangerous notion'

[pk]

seenbeen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sweden has been bandied about as a good example of

> the herd immunity approach as it didn't impose a

> compulsory lockdown.

> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-sw

> edens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-

> success-story/

"What is clear is that so far Sweden has had a more protracted outbreak with far more deaths per capita than its neighbours."

it'll be interesting too how it plays out of the course of the pandemic, but not sure the above shows herd immunity is a great plan (or that Sweden will achieve it, they haven't yet)

[Penguin68]

..

[pk]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Just killing the italics

not sure what the above means, but seems very unimportant

i answered your question

you going to answer mine?

[Penguin68]

so i'm not sure that anyone with informed knowledge is suggesting herd immunity is a good strategy - you got a credible source?

Of course herd immunity is a good strategy - it is precisely what a vaccination programme tries to create - on the basis that some people cannot be vaccinated because of other conditions - what you are challenging is the creation of herd immunity through infection - which in general may be a poor idea (although Sweden's figures, who followed this course) are not much worse (indeed on some measures better) than ours.

I am suggesting that, before a vaccine is available, if those who are little troubled by the virus do become immune to it (or if their next infection is very much less troublesome than their first, possibly including the level to which they can infect others) then they will create, for the winter months when we might expect Covid-19 to be worse, some sort of wall which may reduce the impact of the next wave.

I'd far rather they understood their risk - and the risk they might pose to others - get infected now, get over it (avoiding exposure to the vulnerable) and create that wall which may make the second wave spread less damaging.

We almost certainly are going to have to live with Covid-19 in the population for the foreseeable future - we cannot continue as we are - damping down all fun and all economic activity. We cannot expect the young to continue to protect the old, with nothing in it for them. Far better we let them have some enjoyment whilst continuing to be careful of the vulnerable.

[Renata Hamvas]

In Southwark many young adults live in the same household as other adults, typically parents and sometimes grandparents. The numbers are rising across London. The advise that we would like residents to take on-board is to keep your distance from others, wear a mask in shops and on public transport, wash your hands thoroughly and regularly, get tested and self-isolate if you suspect you have Covid-19 symptoms. Self-isolate if anyone in your household/bubble or if recent contacts have Covid-19 symptoms.

It's going to be more challenging with schools opening up over the next couple of weeks. Secondaries will have whole year bubbles. The fact that different schools mix on the same buses and many secondary pupils travel by bus to school, does mean that year bubbles won't be self contained units at all in London (even with staggered lessons within year groups in individual schools)!

Renata

[Sue]

seenbeen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Today we had 2 deliveries of post and a parcel

> necessitating the actual postman ringing the bell-

> no social distancing anymore by either of the

> deliverers.

> Also I had to ask a builder and a surveyor (who

> were expected) who came to the door to put masks

> on before entering. People in Southwark are

> getting slack....

I agree.

Whilst many tradespeople still are taking precautions (thank you Don Simpson, ace car mechanic, who went to great lengths to explain what he was doing to keep him and myself safe) a plumber who came to my house recently took no precautions whatsoever, and this is somebody who is going from house to house and working inside.

At KwikFit when I collected my car (rear silencer replaced) I asked if they had worn gloves when handling the keys and they just looked at me as if I was mad.

So I guess/assume they didn't when moving the seat back or steering the car either. I didn't bother asking, just took the necessary action myself.

[pk]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so i'm not sure that anyone with informed

> knowledge is suggesting herd immunity is a good

> strategy - you got a credible source?

>

> Of course herd immunity is a good strategy - it is

> precisely what a vaccination programme tries to

> create - on the basis that some people cannot be

> vaccinated because of other conditions - what you

> are challenging is the creation of herd immunity

> through infection - which in general may be a poor

> idea (although Sweden's figures, who followed this

> course) are not much worse (indeed on some

> measures better) than ours.

>

> I am suggesting that, before a vaccine is

> available, if those who are little troubled by the

> virus do become immune to it (or if their next

> infection is very much less troublesome than their

> first, possibly including the level to which they

> can infect others) then they will create, for the

> winter months when we might expect Covid-19 to be

> worse, some sort of wall which may reduce the

> impact of the next wave.

>

> I'd far rather they understood their risk - and

> the risk they might pose to others - get infected

> now, get over it (avoiding exposure to the

> vulnerable) and create that wall which may make

> the second wave spread less damaging.

>

> We almost certainly are going to have to live with

> Covid-19 in the population for the foreseeable

> future - we cannot continue as we are - damping

> down all fun and all economic activity. We cannot

> expect the young to continue to protect the old,

> with nothing in it for them. Far better we let

> them have some enjoyment whilst continuing to be

> careful of the vulnerable.

So yes clearly I was talking about herd immunity through natural infection, sorry if that wasn?t clear to you after I asked about your suggestion that people go out and rub together to achieve herd immunity

I see an awful lot of ifs, possiblys and maybes above so not for the first time - you got any credible sources that support herd immunity thru rubbing together? Or that Sweden has got it right even tho they?ve had far more deaths than their neighbours (and haven?t achieved herd immunity)?

Otherwwise saying people should ?understand their risk and the risk to others? is pretty meaningless

[Penguin68]

In Southwark many young adults live in the same household as other adults, typically parents and sometimes grandparents.

That is true, and it is those people who need to be most careful when socialising with other young people. But equally there are numbers of young people who live with other young people (in shared accommodation) and they offer less risk to the vulnerable in the community - if they have gone to parties they need not to be visiting their parents and grandparents until they feel they can do so safely. We cannot expect young people to continue to live like Trappist monks indefinitely - if we refuse them outlets for their natural exuberance we will build up real problems - with their mental well-being amongst other things.

[Blah Blah]

Telling young people to throw caution to the wind when we still have no vaccine or effective treatment to prevent serious illness or death is dangerous. They are not the only people who have to go out, work, use public transport etc. There is evidence emerging that immunity drops significantly after five months. It could take two years to fully understand what this virus delivers in terms of immunity, and other impacts on the body, because it takes that long to monitor infection and reinfection rates properly. So again, claiming to know anything at this stage in absolute terms is dangerous. This is precisely why medical experts are making no such claims.

Herd immunity in most cases requires use of a vaccine. Highly infectious diseases especially, require vaccine programmes to get there. We still have a winter to get through and a lot more will be learned from that. Covid mutates (just like influenza does) and we may well end up with a similar scenario where different versions of vaccines are needed to manage it. This is particularly problematic because this is not a seasonal virus in the way influenza is. And there is still a long way to go yet in finding vaccines that will work, and be safe for widespread use. Trials take as long as they take.

People must not be lulled into a false security just because the infection rates are low. They are low precisely because of everything we have done and because they can be tracked. The fear is, that when seasonal coughs and colds emerge, covid will spread quicker than symptoms show themselves, leading to the fast exponential rise in infection that sent us into a global lockdown in the first place.

So ultimately is is about balance and common sense. Finding that point at which life can be as normal as possible, but where infection rates remain manageable and containable. It might seem like there is no sense to the rules at present, but really there is. With every stage of easing, the infection data has to be closely monitored. The next big one will be the reopening of schools.

[jimlad48]

Lets also look at the deaths. From what I can make out, since May, 3 people have died in the Dulwich area of COVID. Thats not exactly a reason to panic.

[ianr]

jimlad48 wrote:

----------------

> Lets also look at the deaths. From what

> I can make out, since May, 3 people have

> died in the Dulwich area of COVID.

What's your data source? I've been wanting data at a higher level of granularity -- eg postcode area (SE21, SE22) etc) or better still postcode sector (SE22 8, SE22 9, etc) -- than what's been generally obtainable on the web

[jimlad48]

I used the ONS website - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19interactivemap/2020-06-12

Powerful stuff and makes you realise frankly how few people have died of COVID in London relative to many other causes of death.

[Blah Blah]

This is why keeping an eye on local infection rates is the best way to manage risk. No-one wants to be the one that ends up in ICU or worse. But at the same time, it is a question of odds. We can do a lot to mitigate that risk in the behaviour we adopt, and I would say that on the whole, most people have done that.

[seenbeen]

It seems people are getting slack across the country judging by the upturn in the graph.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/health-secretary-warns-extensive-lockdowns-230154302.html

[Pugwash]

Had a meal in Weatherspoons in Lewisham High Street on Thursday. Asked hubby if he filled in register of customers. he said there was not one - those who paid via AP automatically had details listed but those paying by cash or card did not have to fill in details and there was no visible recording sheet by bar. Pub was busy but people were SD.

[Penguin68]

Lets also look at the deaths. From what I can make out, since May, 3 people have died in the Dulwich area of COVID. Thats not exactly a reason to panic.

Actually, the site you linked to shows deaths from March to June 2020. In September the map will be updated to July. In those 4 months, in 'Dulwich Hill', 4 people died of or with Covid-19 - with no deaths after April.

In 'East Dulwich' there were 5 deaths. in 'Peckham Rye Common' there were 9 deaths. In 'Herne Hill and Dulwich Park' there were 3. In 'North Dulwich' 5, in 'Sydenham Hill' 3 and in 'Forest Hill West' 1.

So in the broad area we probably think of as 'East Dulwich' and its environs there were 30 deaths linked to Covid 19 in the first 4 months of the pandemic (since the beginning of March).

The bulk of the deaths were early on - in all of the locales listed there have been none in June, in most not in May either.

[jimlad48]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets also look at the deaths. From what I can make

> out, since May, 3 people have died in the Dulwich

> area of COVID. Thats not exactly a reason to

> panic.

>

> Actually, the site you linked to shows deaths from

> March to June 2020. In September the map will be

> updated to July. In those 4 months, in 'Dulwich

> Hill', 4 people died of or with Covid-19 - with no

> deaths after April.

>

> In 'East Dulwich' there were 5 deaths. in 'Peckham

> Rye Common' there were 9 deaths. In 'Herne Hill

> and Dulwich Park' there were 3. In 'North Dulwich'

> 5, in 'Sydenham Hill' 3 and in 'Forest Hill West'

> 1.

>

> So in the broad area we probably think of as 'East

> Dulwich' and its environs there were 30 deaths

> linked to Covid 19 in the first 4 months of the

> pandemic (since the beginning of March).

>

> The bulk of the deaths were early on - in all of

> the locales listed there have been none in June,

> in most not in May either.

Thats also not specifying if COVID was only, or one of multiple causes of death.

30 people in an area with a population density like ours is nothing. We literally have nothing to fear except fear itself, sadly fear is winning.