Social distancing /self isolation rules

[AylwardS]

This may be a waste of time but I thought this article might be of interest to some

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

Given the changing advice and now schools and universities are back I?m waiting for pubs to be closed or other measures from lockdown reintroduced. I hope I?m wrong but the government action so far hasn?t filled me with confidence.

It makes sense the more restrictions are lifted the more people we meet and the opportunities for transmission increase.

We all need to do what we can so we don?t go back to lockdown. Worryingly the average age for reported cases has gone down. If you are younger you might not get too ill but you could pass it to someone who isn?t as resilient as you.

It?s been said those worried should stay home and let the younger generation go out if they want. I think the figures by age group show that was what was happening but cases have still risen and there are now more than 10 times as many cases in the 20-29 age group as in the 70-79 age group. In certain places you tend to come into contact mainly with your age group but at some point you come into contact with other age groups.

The virus doesn?t respect age groups so we all need to work together to manage the spread so we can have something like a normal life.

[seenbeen]

Letting the young do what they want is fraught with problems

1) Many of them are symptomless but contagious

2) They will carry on as normal and congregate in crowds etc ( which many have been doing anyway)

3) They will pass the virus on to other young or other people who will go home to older parents or grandparents or sick people.

People need to go to work. People need to go to school. A hard core of people - as witnessed at the Piers Corbyn rally etc. will do just as they like- regardless of what the government and its scientific advisers prescribe.

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one.

Also young people are not going to read the EDF- they are out doing what they want.

[Penguin68]

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one.

It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its host - so many viruses mutate to become less lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over a few days it changed to something which offered its hosts a much longer life).

So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity.

It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated - its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22 lurking to make their New Year appearances.

It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect themselves from the young - stressing to those in multi-generational households the risks they present and even (where they can) social distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager' images I believe the young will respond better to 'encouragement' from within their own families than heavy handed government moralising, sloganising or police enforcement.

[seenbeen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already

> done so- then we are back to square one.

>

> It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its

> host - so many viruses mutate to become less

> lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over

> a few days it changed to something which offered

> its hosts a much longer life).

>

> So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing.

> Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its

> host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity.

>

> It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely

> that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated -

> its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry

> the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may

> already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22

> lurking to make their New Year appearances.

>

> It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect

> themselves from the young - stressing to those in

> multi-generational households the risks they

> present and even (where they can) social

> distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager'

> images I believe the young will respond better to

> 'encouragement' from within their own families

> than heavy handed government moralising,

> sloganising or police enforcement.

Syphilis is a bacterium (not a virus) and only the less virulent strains got passed on because people infected with the virulent strains were covered in sores, they smelled, and they were physically disabled....hardly attractive to sexual partners.

Most virus (any virus) carriers and spreaders are infectious before they know they are sick anyway so everyone needs to take precautions.

I was in a large shopping centre today- signs up everywhere to wear a mask or face covering and about 30% were NOT wearing them or had them on under the chin(?) or not covering the nose. The vast majority were under 35 as myself and my companions noted.

[Blah Blah]

Seenbeen is quite right. Syphilis is not a good comparison. Even comparison to the common cold is a poor analogy because that is caused by a human rhinovirus (HRV) which is not a coronavirus.

You are absolutely right about complacency leading to a rise in infection rates and there is no way of protecting older people simply by telling them not to mix with younger people. Firstly, many won't do that, but also, if infection rates rise enough, the virus will be transmitted on door handles, from the postman, delivery drivers, and a multitude of other ways that do not require close human contact. This is something we all have to do together, as a society. Making the world a no-go for older people, just so that younger people can do as they please is not the answer.

[JohnL]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already

> done so- then we are back to square one.

>

> It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its

> host - so many viruses mutate to become less

> lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over

> a few days it changed to something which offered

> its hosts a much longer life).

>

Surely that's because ill people stay in or don't have sex if they're ill and look ill BUT with COVID-19 we have a long period of activity when people are infectious with this and still go out and don't change behaviour.

Even more worrying it seems to go to some animals and back again. I've no idea what that could lead to but no chances being taken in this tale of mink (all slaughtered)

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-outbreaks-at-european-mink-farms-shows-virus-may-pass-from-animals-to-humans-12040878

[Blah Blah]

It is indeed the longish incubation period that is the problem. And that is the idea behind track and trace, to mitigate that when someone presents with symptoms. But that track and trace system has to be comprehensive to work. You can't be half hearted about it, and everyone has to comply. At present, about a quarter of people don't or won't.

[Peckhampam]

or can't be traced

[JohnL]

Listening to the CMO and CSO today it seems immunity doesn't last that long and that's the received wisdom now. I get the feeling they were talking about immunity from infection lasting less than a year.

Bad news as without a vaccine we can get Covid again and again.

Good news at present is that treatment appears to be improving.

[Blah Blah]

It is a mixed picture at the moment. Immunity appears to significantly drop off after a few months. But we have this with influenza and rhinoviruses, so this is not an unprecedented scenario. We have just become used to having vaccines for everything that was an epidemic problem until the recent past.

The good news is that so much more is understood than six months ago. The two antiviral drugs that seem to have a significant impact are reducing deaths by 20-40 percent and there are better processes for managing ICU patients.

BUT an here is the but, there are aspects to this virus that are particularly challenging for management. The long incubation period for example. Influenza shows symptoms with 2-3 days of infection by comparison. Another area of ongoing research is the damage done in those who recover. People who have genuine flu or pneumonia and recover, often struggle with things like ongoing fatigue for months afterwards as it takes much longer for the body to repair the damage done after the immune system defeats the virus. Covid is looking to behave in the same way, but covid attacks more than just the respiratory system because those ACE2 receptors are everywhere. So there is still a lot to be understood, that will take time to understand, and this can have other consequences for longer term public health resources.

At some point though, we have to learn to live with it. And this is where the difficult decisions for government lie. As individuals however, we can do a lot of things for ourselves, to stay healthy and minimise the risks of infection.

[AylwardS]

As blah blah said we, as individuals, can do things to protect ourselves.

After the threat level increased from 3-4 yesterday I?ve decided to wear a mask any time I?m outside. Don?t know about anyone else but as level 5 would mean going back to lockdown anything I can do to help avoid that seems a no brainer.

Things could have been clearer along the way but I think its now clear that washing hands, covering your face, social distancing and limiting the number of people you come into contact with reduce opportunities for the virus to transmit. Maybe action could have been taken by the government sooner but there is nothing to stop us, as individuals, doing something before they say or more than they say. The sooner the majority do the sooner we?ll be able to go back to a more normal life as the virus growth rate will meet their measures whether you think they are right or wrong.

The increased penalties the government is introducing show they?ve recognised this will not go away if left to unenforceable guidance.

To those who say we should be able to do what we want that will happen sooner the more people who take action. Look at the bigger picture.

[JohnL]

Most frightening thing today - at least 6 months (remember he said 3 weeks back in march)

Pub curfew at 10pm - if everywhere had closed at 12 pm over the summer we wouldn't have to see this - too many places staying open until 4am still (I don't know how as clubs aren't open).

Masks more compulsory but not compulsory

Masks in taxis and masks compulsory for pub and restaurant staff.

[DulwichFox]

Pubs and restaurants:-

Customers will need to wear masks whilst being seated or visiting the loo.

?100 fine for not wearing one.. (First Offence)

Masks not needed when seated.

New regulations issued by the government say fines of ?1,000 can be issued if tables are not 2 metres apart, or 1 metre if other measures such as protective screens are in place.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/21/police-in-england-to-enforce-covid-rules-on-pubs-with-fines-and-arrests

DulwichFox

[JohnL]

Thanks DF

It's still not really a pub if you can't wander around with your drink.

But not sure if I can continue to stay away for the rest of the year (and beyond). I'm beginning to have vivid dreams :)

[n dulwich northerner]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> It's still not really a pub if you can't wander

> around with your drink.

Yes, and being shown to a table in the Half Moon and then waiting for my pint made me quite sad for that reason. Nothing against them, and I've no problem giving my contact details, but I've not been back since. The Prince Regent's bar has a plastic barrier so you can get your pint and sit down outside, but for how long now?

[Blah Blah]

The key as always is going to be enforcement. I cycled home along Rye Lane a few nights ago and could see at least three restaurants not observing either the distancing or the capacity rules. Who is going to police that stuff? The same is true of mask wearing. Half the passengers on the buses aren't wearing one, or are not wearing it correctly. Until someone is responsible for enforcing these things, they will all fail to prevent the inevitable Winter spike.

[No40]

I passed Peckham car boot sale today. Carnage.

[JohnL]

Just noticed this in the opinion column of the standard https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-boris-johnson-lockdown-b36456.html

"Support bubbles are needed so those living alone do not have to endure this darkest of autumns in isolation"

I live alone and am pretty isolated during this pandemic (I'm OK with that as I choose it) but nobody has contacted me if I wasn't happy and I very much doubt anybody will - if you're alone people forget you are there and the lonely are the least likely to seek support.

[Blah Blah]

That isn't just a problem during the pandemic John but a problem at the best of times as you would probably agree. There is a lack or resources for combating isolation and loneliness, especially in age groups outside of the elderly and much of what does exist, like buddy schemes, are led by volunteers.

Southwark does have various schemes for helping those isolating during this pandemic but they do not have enough people and reources to cope with demand, so switched to only tracking those who are elderly/ vulnerable and/or self isolating some time ago. I would argue that much more could be done to help people socialise, even if that is only online, or via phone, at this time, that isn't being done. There is an assumption that everyone has family, or friends, or neighbours, they can connect with and just a distinct lack of understanding of how isolation comes about and how interconnected that is with mental wellbeing and the ability to connect with others. And the longer this pandemic goes on, the more this is going to need to be addressed imo.