Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Witty and Valance briefing today

174 replies

CrunchyCarrot · 21/09/2020 11:24

Here's my rough transcript of what was said. Apologies for any typos as I was having to rush to get it all down.

Valance spoke first and reminds us how virus is spread.
Slides showing what is happening in Spain and France
as disease spreads, expect to see increase in hospitalisations and thence deaths.
England data (but is similar across UK) - cases per 100,000 population by age groups. Can see an inc across all age groups (lowest children). Proportion of positive tests have risen. Samples across pop show a similar increase.

ONS study, about 70,000 across UK have covid infection and about 6000 per day are getting infection,
Numbers are clearly inc across all age groups, a little different across all areas. This is leading to an increase in hospitalisation.

Reminds us how quickly virus can move. Slide showscases up to mid Sept (3,105 new cases) Think cases are doubling roughly every 7 days. If this continues, then there would be 49,000 new cases on 13 October per day. Challenge is to slow that down.

Final word - immunity slide. Vast majority of people get antibody response, some are neutralising antibodies. They fade over time, there are cases of some people being reinfected. Under 8% of pop have been infected and produced antibodies. The vast majority of us aren't protected and are thus susceptible to the disease.

Witty speaks - shows 2 maps of England. 1st shows total rate of transmission, and second map shows change of rate of transmission. We've seen smaller outbreaks growing larger over time. Rising cases are happening throughout England.

In-patient cases in England from 1st Aug. Up till then, cases had been falling, but since 1st Sept steady sustained increase in cases. This tells us if this carries on unabated then the no of deaths will continue to rise on an exponential curve. Seasons are against us, they benefit respiratory viruses and will likely benefit Covid. Next 6 months we have to collectively take this v seriously.

Is this a milder virus than that in April? No evidence he can see of that. Still says for many this is a mild infection (younger age groups) but in older age groups can be quite serious. Mortality rates will be significantly greater than that of seasonal flu. This virus is more virulent than flu.

Treatment is better, more drugs and more effective treatment, but not enough to eliminate or take cases right down.

Four ways in which this viruas will have a significant effect:

  1. direct Covid deaths (get virus, die of it)
  2. overwhelming of NJHS emergency services
  3. v. important - if the NHS is having to spend a large part of its effort on Covid cases, then it will lead to a reduction in treatment and diagnosis of other diseases, i.e. indirect deaths
  4. Some things we have to do will impact on mental health and economy. V difficult balance. Too littel and virus gets out of control, toomuch and damage to economy etc.

If I increase my risk I inc the risk to everyone around me, then everyone they are in contact with, eventually it will reach those who are vulnerable.

4 things we can do collectively to help:

  1. reduce individual risk - hands, face, space, masks
  2. isolate virus - by self-isolation and contact tracing. Travel from high risk areas - self isolate.
  3. most difficult - break unnecessary links between households. Reduce social contacts.
  4. Science - drugs, vaccines

Valance - we'll be living with this virus for some time.

One part is vaccines. Good progress being made. Several vaccines are in v late stage clinical testing. UK has access to a range of different vaccines and is in a good position for supply. We don't yet know if they will work, may be small amounts by end of this year
May see larger amounts in first half of next year.

In the meantime must get in control of this virus.

OP posts:
MotherOfDragonite · 21/09/2020 17:04

@MoaningMurlock

I’m sorry I can’t remember his name, one of their expert corespondents, they were interviewing him on the BBC directly after the briefing.

He didn’t mention the exact number, just that they had been very surprised in the big rise of women aged 20-40 being admitted to hospital for COVID. He speculated about it being because of care/front facing work that women were more likely to do.

It was Prof Calum Semple (I remember as he has a very similar name to a friend of mine!)

I was glad that he said it. I notice that the gender breakdown is not given in any of the official graphs but I assume it is noteworthy. I will try to dig the original data out of the government site if I can (it's often hidden in Excel files).

HeIenaDove · 21/09/2020 17:06

@StopGo Im so sorry for your loss Flowers And absolutely disgusted to see posters on here using it as emotional blackmail

mediumperiperi · 21/09/2020 17:06

@Beebityboo

How many women in that age bracket have been hospitalised recently? That's really scared me, surely that's as a result of schools going back? Sad.
Could also be the end of shielding in August meaning more carers going into homes?
MotherOfDragonite · 21/09/2020 17:30

@mediumperiperi I think you are probably right about formerly shielding women going back to work contributing to the case numbers, but how many women in their 20s to 40s were shielding due to extreme clinical vulnerability are really working in care work or retail etc? I think the numbers for that overlap are likely to be quite low I think.

The ONS data says that "An estimated 627,000 (28%) clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) people previously worked before being advised to shield." This includes men and women of all ages of course.

"Of those who normally worked, 36% are now working from home and 5% are continuing to work outside the home (an estimated 32,000). Of those who continue to work outside the home, an estimated 19,000 would be unable to meet their financial obligations if they stopped working."

31% have been furloughed and cannot work from home - they may still be furloughed. 5% have been furloughed but could work from home - they're likely going to return to working from home. 17% have stopped working. And 6% received self-employment income support scheme as cannot work from home.

So we can take 627,000 and subtract 137,940 people (22%) to account for:

  • the 36% already working from home
  • the 5% who've continued working outside the home (as they wouldn't be more likely to have contributed to a new September rise)
  • the 17% of shielding people who've stopped working
  • the 5% furloughed who can work from home

And we're left with 231,990 that's the total number of shielding people who may have gone back to work now. I can't find data for gender or age breakdown but I'm going to guess that half could be female and perhaps half of those female and 20s-40s? So, c. 58,000 people. Generously I suspect the age range will be skewed towards the older range.

Not high enough to contribute to a really noticeable rise, I strongly suspect.

EvilPea · 21/09/2020 17:52

I think this was the key bit that needs covering in the media;

The problem is if I increase my risk I increase the risk to everyone else. You cannot in a pandemic just take your own risk, you are taking a risk on behalf of everyone else

Pomegranatepompom · 21/09/2020 18:07

Absolutely agree @EvilPea but I think there are too many people who won’t accept this 😢

RepeatSwan · 21/09/2020 19:00

@EvilPea

I think this was the key bit that needs covering in the media;

The problem is if I increase my risk I increase the risk to everyone else. You cannot in a pandemic just take your own risk, you are taking a risk on behalf of everyone else

Yes this stood out to me too.

I felt the briefing was perhaps someday certain Tory MPs!

RepeatSwan · 21/09/2020 19:00

Grr 'perhaps aimed at'

Jrobhatch29 · 21/09/2020 19:07

Can anyone help me understand something from the briefing? Maybe I'm just very tired and not understanding properly. They said 50,000 cases a day would result in 200 deaths a day. At the peak we had over a thousand deaths a day. I thought it was estimated we had 100,000 cases a day back then? How does that work? I cant figure out the maths and I'm very tired!

Bouncycastle12 · 21/09/2020 19:11

I’d really recommend Ed Conway from Sky on all this. He’s very good on the data - and frankly a lot less terrifying than some.

herecomesthsun · 21/09/2020 19:11

I think the 200 deaths a day might possibly be in a few weeks time. After that, who knows?

The reasonable worst case scenario for winter is 80- 120k, so deaths could go high.

On the other hand, improved management techniques in ICU might keep it down a bit.

Bouncycastle12 · 21/09/2020 19:12

I don’t get that either @Jrobhatch29 - the figures are all absolute worst case scenario

Jrobhatch29 · 21/09/2020 19:15

I cant get my head around it. By their numbers today the 100,000 cases a day at peak must have been an underestimate? Think they delibrately make it confusing.

Jrobhatch29 · 21/09/2020 19:19

@Bouncycastle12

I’d really recommend Ed Conway from Sky on all this. He’s very good on the data - and frankly a lot less terrifying than some.
Will check it out thanks
SquirrelScorn · 21/09/2020 19:25

It’s due to a different pattern of infections and improved treatment. So a LOT of cases in the first peak were in care homes and other vulnerable populations. If they’re now mostly among people in their twenties then the total deaths will be lower. And treatments have improved as well.

RatanPostmaster · 21/09/2020 19:26

Thank you so much for the summary OP. Flowers

Jrobhatch29 · 21/09/2020 19:46

@herecomesthsun

I think the 200 deaths a day might possibly be in a few weeks time. After that, who knows?

The reasonable worst case scenario for winter is 80- 120k, so deaths could go high.

On the other hand, improved management techniques in ICU might keep it down a bit.

I'm watching BBC now and it says the 200 deaths follow a month after nearly 50,000 cases. Whilst still absolutely awful, surely things are alot better than in march/April if if 100,000 cases caused 1000 deaths a day?
Witty and Valance briefing today
Coquohvan · 21/09/2020 20:14

@Bouncycastle12

I’d really recommend Ed Conway from Sky on all this. He’s very good on the data - and frankly a lot less terrifying than some.
Looked EC up he’s an economics media correspondent, Public Administration Degree + MA in English.

We will know in the coming days what the governments next move will be.

soloula · 21/09/2020 20:47

I've just been reading Ed Conway on twitter. Nice to see a different perspective. The gist of it was that with exponential growth a small difference in your starting hypothesis can make a big difference to your outcome so if cases double every 10 days instead of 7 it would be 10k cases daily rather than 49k. Still massive but clearly much better than the scenario that was 'not a prediction' presented today...

TooExtraImmatureCheddar · 22/09/2020 09:56

I suppose the difference in the data and the estimates might be that no one got tested unless they were in hospital in March/April/May. So there were loads of people who may have had it but don't know for sure. Whereas now if you think you have it you can get tested (sort of. Eventually.).

mediumperiperi · 22/09/2020 18:26

I think that the deaths are lower because doctors know how to treat CV now and with extra symptoms (like the loss of smell/taste and rash), people know to get tested and isolate sooner.
I also think that care homes know how to deal with CV now and hopefully hospitals aren't discharging positive patients back to care homes.

LoverOfAllThingsPurple · 22/09/2020 18:40

Thank you Smile

Helensmelon · 22/09/2020 22:10

Thank you op, wish my minutes were this good, any tips?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread