Shut the supermarkets ?

[PTR]

It's not a case of blame; it's a case of understanding where the problems lie and putting measures in place.

I'm certainly not looking to blame or scapegoat anyone. I have a 5yr old in school, and I agree that schools should be left open and that we should accept the risk.

Its when people pretend things are what they're not that I speak up. We need to be honest about it, not hide behind crap like "kids don't catch it".

 

[DaveH]

The point of this thread is that the school kids are the people carrying it between everyone.
If 1/3 of all infected people are school kids, and they don't have symptoms, then they move around into the rest of the community, spreading it!

Why is this so hard to grasp?

This is what they did in Liverpool, isn't it? Test as many people as possible.
But as said before, not many will want to subject their seemingly-healthy kids to an invasive/horrible test. I've done it, it is horrible tbh.

It is not hard to grasp. I understand the concept, just there is no direct evidence that everyone catching it is catching it from school kids.

Are you saying the vast majority of people who have caught this have direct close contact with children of school age? I’d be interested in the source of that data.

The national r number is back down to 1.0-1.1. A few weeks ago it was 1.4-1.5 ( a good bit of news in itself ). Rhenr number is the amount of people an individual will infect. Lets not inflate the figures by 5% as that is misleading, and stick with 28% from the other report. That puts the R number for school kids at 2.57. That is a staggering amount, yet no health body has picked this up or is making much of a deal about it.

There can only be two conclusions from this, either school kids are not the major (but I accept a significant chunk, along with others) cause of the problem, or there is a conspiracy amongst health bodies to cover this up. Which is it?

 

[PTR]

It is not hard to grasp. I understand the concept, just there is no direct evidence that everyone catching it is catching it from school kids.

Are you saying the vast majority of people who have caught this have direct close contact with children of school age? I’d be interested in the source of that data.

The national r number is back down to 1.0-1.1. A few weeks ago it was 1.4-1.5 ( a good bit of news in itself ). Rhenr number is the amount of people an individual will infect. Lets not inflate the figures by 5% as that is misleading, and stick with 28% from the other report. That puts the R number for school kids at 2.57. That is a staggering amount, yet no health body has picked this up or is making much of a deal about it.

There can only be two conclusions from this, either school kids are not the major (but I accept a significant chunk, along with others) cause of the problem, or there is a conspiracy amongst health bodies to cover this up. Which is it?

You're proving my point. All the science says that 28% increase in R rate was due to schools - across over a hundred countries. This wasn't just a UK study.
This is the evidence!

What % of adults do not have direct contact with a school age child.
Then also add to that how many are not in a bubble (legal or otherwise) with another adult who does have direct contact with a child.
I would be very surprised if this isn't at least 50% of all adults.

For me, as an example. If my daugher brings it home, its very likely to get 2 parents. Also, we may be using both sets of grandparents, so that's another 4 people at risk. Also 2 toddlers. So that's 3 kids who might not show any symptoms who might be infectious for well over a week. There's every chances that one infection at school could create 8 infections. Oh, and they might also all go to a childcare facility. Good luck counting that bubble.
And NONE of that will be traceable to school kids, as they didn't get a test & didn't have symptoms. So it'll get blamed on the corner shop, or whatever.

For some reason, the government here is keeping the impact on kids under wraps.
Conversely, in Spain, it was kids who were clamped down on the most during the first lockdown. They weren't allowed outside for months.

 

[0321safc]

Those people who've been confirmed - how many have kids, or look after kids, or are in a bubble (legal or otherwise) where the other members have kids that are in some form of education?

Second question. Why didn't those who were "convinced" get a test? Is it because they're billy bullshitters by any chance, just like group 1 above?

No the 3 people I know who’ve had it are all in their 60’s and 70’s and none have grandchildren. One asymptomatic, one bad for a week and the other just felt like they had a cold. Distant relatives of mine.
In March and April it was hard to get hold of a test, many members of my family lost their taste and smell but that wasn’t made an official symptom to get a test until later on (contrary to the advice of pretty much every other Western nation). I think I’ve probably had it asymptomatically. A few friends also lost their taste and smell.

 

[DaveH]

You're proving my point. All the science says that 28% increase in R rate was due to schools - across over a hundred countries. This wasn't just a UK study.
This is the evidence!

What % of adults do not have direct contact with a school age child.
Then also add to that how many are not in a bubble (legal or otherwise) with another adult who does have direct contact with a child.
I would be very surprised if this isn't at least 50% of all adults.

For me, as an example. If my daugher brings it home, its very likely to get 2 parents. Also, we may be using both sets of grandparents, so that's another 4 people at risk. Also 2 toddlers. So that's 3 kids who might not show any symptoms who might be infectious for well over a week. There's every chances that one infection at school could create 8 infections. Oh, and they might also all go to a childcare facility. Good luck counting that bubble.
And NONE of that will be traceable to school kids, as they didn't get a test & didn't have symptoms. So it'll get blamed on the corner shop, or whatever.

For some reason, the government here is keeping the impact on kids under wraps.
Conversely, in Spain, it was kids who were clamped down on the most during the first lockdown. They weren't allowed outside for months.

The science does not say there has been a 28% rise in the R rate. What are you talking about.

Have you got a link to a published paper that says schools are the major cause? I don’t mean your conclusion that 28% is a majority.

I think you sum it up well and answer one of my questions in the last paragraph. All through this, various health bodies have published papers and make statements to the press about the science, a reasonable amount of which has conflicted with what the government has been saying or doing. Opposition political parties have been all over it. But the government are keeping the impact of schools under wraps. SAGE have been openly critical of the government but agreed to keep this under wraps. I.e. there is an agreed conspiracy between all the health bodies to cover this up and defend the government on this. Now I know what sort of things you believe in your posts make a bit more sense.

 

[STUMPY]

Yup I said that a while back and still believe so now. Peterlee Town Centre today was the busiest I've seen it for a very long time, it was packed. Asda as usual was wacky races.

Apparently the galleries asda was rammed today also. Checkout queues were down the aisles so they shut the doors for a while. I work for an FM company in asda's but thankfully on nightshift. We are going onto dayshift for the last 2 weeks prior to Christmas and expected to spend 45 hrs per week walking up and down the aisles constantly doing surveys. Cant say im looking forward to that.

 

[raindog]

I've gone and shopped everyday of the week... in areas Barnsley Doncaster with high numbers. Shop for my own family and both my mother and my wife's parents who have been self isolating since it kicked off However I had a positive test in April so probably still immune but I've had days where I've felt crap and had a raised temp. Perhaps I'm a super spreader

 

[Wise Man Says]

I have noticed that they seem to allow far more people into supermarkets than was the case in April / May , surprised numbers weren’t restricted again during LD 2....

Just been in my lercal Waitrose and it was busy, people were congregating in the fridge area and some were chatting. Very high level of mask wearing (minus the lady who served me at the checkout who had a face mask around her chin).

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Have you got a link to a published paper that says schools are the major cause? I don’t mean your conclusion that 28% is a majority.

I have just looked at summaries of studies in Spain, by Public Health England, by the World Health Organisation and by a United States organisation; and all of them conclude that schools are not causing spikes in transmission, with PHE claiming children are far more likely to pick it up at home than at school.

They claim this to varying degrees, although there's a caveat in that they note there is still much to be understood about the roles of schools and children in transmission. The one in Spain was particularly interesting and they're adamant that opening schools makes absolutely no difference, and they base this on extensive contract tracing.

I don't know enough about the studies and how they have been conducted to dispute any of that, but as I say the ONS figures/data from around the beginning of September to 13 November in this country suggests 28% of those infected were between 2-16 years old and as that percentage increased during that period there was a corresponding decrease in those over 34.

Now to me I think there's a case for saying that either the studies are wide of the mark or the ONS data, which is a sample of 128,000 people, is somehow not representative of transmission in the community.

I would have thought that the majority of parents of 2-16 years olds are over 34, so if children are catching it at home then why is there a marked decrease in the % of over 34 years old who are catching it at the same time there is a marked increase in the % of 2-16 year olds catching it?

I have just looked at summaries of studies in Spain, by Public Health England, by the World Health Organisation and by a United States organisation; and all of them conclude that schools are not causing spikes in transmission, with PHE claiming children are far more likely to pick it up at home than at school.

They claim this to varying degrees, although there's a caveat in that they note there is still much to be understood about the roles of schools and children in transmission. The one in Spain was particularly interesting and they're adamant that opening schools makes absolutely no difference, and they base this on extensive contract tracing.

I don't know enough about the studies and how they have been conducted to dispute any of that, but as I say the ONS figures/data from around the beginning of September to 13 November in this country suggests 28% of those infected were between 2-16 years old and as that percentage increased during that period there was a corresponding decrease in those over 34.

Now to me I think there's a case for saying that either the studies are wide of the mark or the ONS data, which is a sample of 128,000 people, is somehow not representative of transmission in the community.

I would have thought that the majority of parents of 2-16 years olds are over 34, so if children are catching it at home then why is there a marked decrease in the % of over 34 years old who are catching it at the same time there is a marked increase in the % of 2-16 year olds catching it?

And, I've just had a look and the average age of becoming a parent in this country is 31 mother and 34 father. So, I think it's fair to say a large majority of parents of 2-16 years olds will be over 34 years old. If children were picking it up at home you would expect to see a corresponding rise in the % of infections in over 34 years olds and a decrease in 20-27 years olds (as the former two age groups eats into the latter's % share).

 

[Shieldsman]

I’m against any more loss of education for kids personally.

We lose one Christmas piss up for the sake of the education of the youth is a happy trade off for me.

It's not just about the loss of education for children though. Even saying that, all schools are set up to deliver online learning should the need arise.

The real issue here is all of the most recent data states that secondary school and increasingly primary school children have the highest rates of infection. Yes, they are fine but they take the virus home with them and spread it to adults. There's also the issue of school staff being forced to work in what must be the only indoor environment in any sector where the wearing of face coverings is not recommended.
An LSA at my wife's school contracted the virus in school (she does not go anywhere else as her housebound husband is very vulnerable). Sadly, he's now longer with us as a result of contracting the virus from her. That's not right.

I have just looked at summaries of studies in Spain, by Public Health England, by the World Health Organisation and by a United States organisation; and all of them conclude that schools are not causing spikes in transmission, with PHE claiming children are far more likely to pick it up at home than at school.

They claim this to varying degrees, although there's a caveat in that they note there is still much to be understood about the roles of schools and children in transmission. The one in Spain was particularly interesting and they're adamant that opening schools makes absolutely no difference, and they base this on extensive contract tracing.

I don't know enough about the studies and how they have been conducted to dispute any of that, but as I say the ONS figures/data from around the beginning of September to 13 November in this country suggests 28% of those infected were between 2-16 years old and as that percentage increased during that period there was a corresponding decrease in those over 34.

Now to me I think there's a case for saying that either the studies are wide of the mark or the ONS data, which is a sample of 128,000 people, is somehow not representative of transmission in the community.

I would have thought that the majority of parents of 2-16 years olds are over 34, so if children are catching it at home then why is there a marked decrease in the % of over 34 years old who are catching it at the same time there is a marked increase in the % of 2-16 year olds catching it?


And, I've just had a look and the average age of becoming a parent in this country is 31 mother and 34 father. So, I think it's fair to say a large majority of parents of 2-16 years olds will be over 34 years old. If children were picking it up at home you would expect to see a corresponding rise in the % of infections in over 34 years olds and a decrease in 20-27 years olds (as the former two age groups eats into the latter's % share).

Public Health England are saying the exact opposite. Saying that, claiming supermarkets are the main cause of transmission ahead of secondary schools basing this evidence on the NHS test and trace app is totally nonsensical given that the age of consent for that app is 16. A tiny minority of people on a school site (adults) will have the app. Taking this into account secondary schools must be the main course of spread by a huge distance. It doesn't take any sort of statistical genius to note what has happened to infections and deaths since early September when schools reopened.

Supermarkets most common Covid exposure location in England, data show

Finding comes from NHS Test and Trace app data between 9 and 15 November

www.independent.co.uk

All of these kids and staff from this school in Carlisle must have picked up the virus from home.

Covid: Carlisle school pupils to study at home for a further week

Home schooling is extended at the Richard Rose Central Academy after 95 positive tests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[DaveH]

It's not just about the loss of education for children though. Even saying that, all schools are set up to deliver online learning should the need arise.

The real issue here is all of the most recent data states that secondary school and increasingly primary school children have the highest rates of infection. Yes, they are fine but they take the virus home with them and spread it to adults. There's also the issue of school staff being forced to work in what must be the only indoor environment in any sector where the wearing of face coverings is not recommended.
An LSA at my wife's school contracted the virus in school (she does not go anywhere else as her housebound husband is very vulnerable). Sadly, he's now longer with us as a result of contracting the virus from her. That's not right.


Public Health England are saying the exact opposite. Saying that, claiming supermarkets are the main cause of transmission ahead of secondary schools basing this evidence on the NHS test and trace app is totally nonsensical given that the age of consent for that app is 16. A tiny minority of people on a school site (adults) will have the app. Taking this into account secondary schools must be the main course of spread by a huge distance. It doesn't take any sort of statistical genius to note what has happened to infections and deaths since early September when schools reopened.

Supermarkets most common Covid exposure location in England, data show

Finding comes from NHS Test and Trace app data between 9 and 15 November

www.independent.co.uk

All of these kids and staff from this school in Carlisle must have picked up the virus from home.

Covid: Carlisle school pupils to study at home for a further week

Home schooling is extended at the Richard Rose Central Academy after 95 positive tests.

www.bbc.co.uk

The data says that 10-19 year olds are now the fifth highest group, not the top like you say.

 

[mcq10]

It's not just about the loss of education for children though. Even saying that, all schools are set up to deliver online learning should the need arise.

The real issue here is all of the most recent data states that secondary school and increasingly primary school children have the highest rates of infection. Yes, they are fine but they take the virus home with them and spread it to adults. There's also the issue of school staff being forced to work in what must be the only indoor environment in any sector where the wearing of face coverings is not recommended.
An LSA at my wife's school contracted the virus in school (she does not go anywhere else as her housebound husband is very vulnerable). Sadly, he's now longer with us as a result of contracting the virus from her. That's not right.


Public Health England are saying the exact opposite. Saying that, claiming supermarkets are the main cause of transmission ahead of secondary schools basing this evidence on the NHS test and trace app is totally nonsensical given that the age of consent for that app is 16. A tiny minority of people on a school site (adults) will have the app. Taking this into account secondary schools must be the main course of spread by a huge distance. It doesn't take any sort of statistical genius to note what has happened to infections and deaths since early September when schools reopened.

Supermarkets most common Covid exposure location in England, data show

Finding comes from NHS Test and Trace app data between 9 and 15 November

www.independent.co.uk

All of these kids and staff from this school in Carlisle must have picked up the virus from home.

Covid: Carlisle school pupils to study at home for a further week

Home schooling is extended at the Richard Rose Central Academy after 95 positive tests.

www.bbc.co.uk

I did two online lessons yesterday with my year 11 and year 12s as they were all self isolating due to three positive cases.

It was an absolute disaster. Half them didn’t bother to log on. Those who did clearly were not listening and or were doing something else. The vast majority of these are decent kids who work had in the classroom usually.

The circumstances are complete different though when they are at home. Motivation of teenagers is hard at the best of times.

There is no way I can get my students to do as well as they could normally by being at home.

 

[Shieldsman]

I did two online lessons yesterday with my year 11 and year 12s as they were all self isolating due to three positive cases.

It was an absolute disaster. Half them didn’t bother to log on. Those who did clearly were not listening and or were doing something else. The vast majority of these are decent kids who work had in the classroom usually.

The circumstances are complete different though when they are at home. Motivation of teenagers is hard at the best of times.

There is no way I can get my students to do as well as they could normally by being at home.

I know the feeling. That's their problem (or their parent's problem for not ensuring they are doing what they are supposed to do). As I've mentioned, the issue here is not the most effective method for children to receive an education - it's people's health. Several staff I know are seriously ill, some in their late 50s and early 60s. As I mentioned earlier, a partner of a LSA I know has died as a result of contracting the virus which could only have been caught by his wife in school. It's not all about progress 8.

The data says that 10-19 year olds are now the fifth highest group, not the top like you say.

'The highest rates are amongst secondary-aged children and older teenagers and young adults.'
Paragraph under the regional graphs. Data from the ONS published on Friday.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) roundup - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

 

[DaveH]

'The highest rates are amongst secondary-aged children and older teenagers and young adults.'
Paragraph under the regional graphs. Data from the ONS published on Friday.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) roundup - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

I'm surprised at ONS for the data and the lack of raw figures, especially that sentence which is a bit misleading, or can be interpreted each way. The expansion on that statement can be seen at:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This survey is being delivered in partnership with University of Oxford, University of Manchester, Public Health England and Wellcome Trust.

www.ons.gov.uk

Scroll down to section 5. You see that rates are now generally dropping for all age groups except infant and junior school age children where it continues to rise. So what that statement means is that the highest rate of increase is in school aged children. A side good news story there is year 12 to 24 age group is falling massively. This includes lots of University students, so it looks like that area is under control.

However, although there are still rises in this area, the ONS report does not give any sense of scale. Older age groups are falling, but the full data set has been used in the PHE reports:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936671/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w47_FINAL.PDF

The school age group is continuing to rise but it is clearly still the 5th largest group of infections, it is just the biggest riser. It suggests that if trends continue then school age groups will become the biggest group, but is not yet by a fair way.

What is interesting is that although schools and Universities have stayed open and cases rise, they have fallen in other age groups. There are two broad possible ways other age groups could be picking this up. One is schools being super-spreaders and bringing it home or it is spreading in other areas two. If it were the first as people claim, then with cases still rising in schools you would expect cases in other age groups to continue to rise. They do not, which strongly suggests schools are not super spreaders and covid has been spreading in many other areas too, which are now closed down.

It also suggests that SAGE had a good point back in October. They suggested having an extended October break with a lockdown. If we had done that, I would expect drops in the school age group too.

 

[TravellingMackem]

They ask you for 5 days of places visited. I’d bet the majority of people visited a supermarket in the last 5 days. Hardly a surprise. Especially in smaller communities where there are less choice of supermarkets to visit, then they’ll be a common visitation place between most of the population.

 

[Mackem DJ]

They ask you for 5 days of places visited. I’d bet the majority of people visited a supermarket in the last 5 days. Hardly a surprise. Especially in smaller communities where there are less choice of supermarkets to visit, then they’ll be a common visitation place between most of the population.

But also a convenient source to blame for the thousands a day taking the piss, mixing households but not having the bollocks to admit to it.

 

[DaveH]

But also a convenient source to blame for the thousands a day taking the piss, mixing households but not having the bollocks to admit to it.

That is a big consideration in the data. It is one thing looking at raw figures but the bit where it breaks down relies on humans bother remembering and telling the truth.

 

[Shieldsman]

I'm surprised at ONS for the data and the lack of raw figures, especially that sentence which is a bit misleading, or can be interpreted each way. The expansion on that statement can be seen at:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This survey is being delivered in partnership with University of Oxford, University of Manchester, Public Health England and Wellcome Trust.

www.ons.gov.uk

Scroll down to section 5. You see that rates are now generally dropping for all age groups except infant and junior school age children where it continues to rise. So what that statement means is that the highest rate of increase is in school aged children. A side good news story there is year 12 to 24 age group is falling massively. This includes lots of University students, so it looks like that area is under control.

However, although there are still rises in this area, the ONS report does not give any sense of scale. Older age groups are falling, but the full data set has been used in the PHE reports:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936671/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w47_FINAL.PDF

The school age group is continuing to rise but it is clearly still the 5th largest group of infections, it is just the biggest riser. It suggests that if trends continue then school age groups will become the biggest group, but is not yet by a fair way.

What is interesting is that although schools and Universities have stayed open and cases rise, they have fallen in other age groups. There are two broad possible ways other age groups could be picking this up. One is schools being super-spreaders and bringing it home or it is spreading in other areas two. If it were the first as people claim, then with cases still rising in schools you would expect cases in other age groups to continue to rise. They do not, which strongly suggests schools are not super spreaders and covid has been spreading in many other areas too, which are now closed down.

It also suggests that SAGE had a good point back in October. They suggested having an extended October break with a lockdown. If we had done that, I would expect drops in the school age group too.

Respectfully, the link you have posted under age analysis states....
‘The highest rates are seen among secondary school-aged children and older teenagers and young adults; however, trends vary between these groups. After a small decrease in late October and early November for both age groups, rates among secondary school-aged children now appear to be increasing again, whereas rates for young adults appear to show early signs of levelling off.’
Entirely unsurprisingly, there was a slight decrease in late October amongst school children. Of course there was, it was half-term where they won’t have been mixing as much.
Also, under figure 7 it shows that broken down by age group, years 7-11 have the highest positivity rate versus any other age group - it’s the only one over 2%. It’s also the age group which shows the steepest increase.

 

[seahamstar]

I have a delivery pass for Sainsburys which I use for online deliveries all the time , not only during lock down. I have a disabled daughter and don't drive so the only way for me to get my shopping is to get it delivered. However during the last lock down I could barely get a delivery from any supermarket due to demand and this was while the supermarkets were still open. I really don't think it would be at all possible close them and deliver to everyone.

We were similar (but with Ocado).
Not only could we not get deliveries from them, we couldn't even get logged into the site for months.

There's no way they'd be able to cope with the demand if supermarkets were to close.

 

[DaveH]

Respectfully, the link you have posted under age analysis states....
‘The highest rates are seen among secondary school-aged children and older teenagers and young adults; however, trends vary between these groups. After a small decrease in late October and early November for both age groups, rates among secondary school-aged children now appear to be increasing again, whereas rates for young adults appear to show early signs of levelling off.’
Entirely unsurprisingly, there was a slight decrease in late October amongst school children. Of course there was, it was half-term where they won’t have been mixing as much.
Also, under figure 7 it shows that broken down by age group, years 7-11 have the highest positivity rate versus any other age group - it’s the only one over 2%. It’s also the age group which shows the steepest increase.

What is rate though? The total number or the increase in numbers? It is one thing not clear from the report, but the word rate suggests an increase not the total magnitude.

For example if 10 people of age group A have covid and 100 people in group B have covid, then there is an increase of 3 in each group. That means A has grown by 30% and B has grown by 3%. If you just look at rates then wow, there is a massive problem with A. However that is not the full picture, while A has the highest rate, both have grown by the identical amount overall and the group B is by far larger.

If they are talking about the estimated percentage overall for a group, the same similarly applies. A percentage of a large group is larger than the same percentage of a smaller group. It is a little annoying that they don't include the size of each group. However the second link I provided is PHE's report from the same data, which says the age range 10-19 has the 5th highest number of cases, or do you doubt that figure?