Shut the supermarkets ?

[Shieldsman]

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?

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?

It’s the positivity rate. The % of people testing positive following a test. The numbers you seem to be referring to are raw numbers of cases which are not a useful means of comparison. For example, there are fewer people in the 10-19 age group than any age group until you get to 60-69.
There’s also the fact that young people are far more likely to be asymptomatic and therefore less inclined to be tested indicating that raw figures amongst this group are significantly suppressed.
Last Friday, following guidance from public health Cumbria, the entire population of Richard Rose Academy in Carlisle were advised to be tested. I dare say all 660 of their pupils did not get tested. It turned out 78 students were positive.
The issue of coronavirus amongst the school population is being swept under the carpet as it doesn’t fit the government rhetoric of schools must stay open no matter what. Whilst I don’t deny for a moment the importance of children being in school there’s a wider issue here that being that adults are being expected to continue to work in close proximity to the age group which has the highest positivity rate all of whom are wearing no face coverings in classrooms and are not socially distanced.
As I mentioned in a previous post a partner of a member of support staff I know has died as a consequence of the virus - he is permanently at home, she only goes to school to work. Several school staff I know are currently seriously ill with it. Personally, I’m in an age group deemed vulnerable and have to just get on with it.
I appreciate your comments and enjoy discussing the merits of school-based education v moving more of it online. I value yours and everyone else’s opinion however, I would say it’s considerably easier to argue for children staying in school when you don’t have to go into a school and mingle with close to 2000 people who’s age group has the highest positivity rate of any group every day of the week.

 

[DaveH]

It’s the positivity rate. The % of people testing positive following a test. The numbers you seem to be referring to are raw numbers of cases which are not a useful means of comparison. For example, there are fewer people in the 10-19 age group than any age group until you get to 60-69.
There’s also the fact that young people are far more likely to be asymptomatic and therefore less inclined to be tested indicating that raw figures amongst this group are significantly suppressed.
Last Friday, following guidance from public health Cumbria, the entire population of Richard Rose Academy in Carlisle were advised to be tested. I dare say all 660 of their pupils did not get tested. It turned out 78 students were positive.
The issue of coronavirus amongst the school population is being swept under the carpet as it doesn’t fit the government rhetoric of schools must stay open no matter what. Whilst I don’t deny for a moment the importance of children being in school there’s a wider issue here that being that adults are being expected to continue to work in close proximity to the age group which has the highest positivity rate all of whom are wearing no face coverings in classrooms and are not socially distanced.
As I mentioned in a previous post a partner of a member of support staff I know has died as a consequence of the virus - he is permanently at home, she only goes to school to work. Several school staff I know are currently seriously ill with it. Personally, I’m in an age group deemed vulnerable and have to just get on with it.
I appreciate your comments and enjoy discussing the merits of school-based education v moving more of it online. I value yours and everyone else’s opinion however, I would say it’s considerably easier to argue for children staying in school when you don’t have to go into a school and mingle with close to 2000 people who’s age group has the highest positivity rate of any group every day of the week.

I think we are both reading the same stats and coming to different conclusions - that is the nature of stats and one reason I always preferred pure & applied maths.

Either way if schools are super spreaders at the root cause of this or not, there are some other interesting bits we can hopefully agree on.

The first is numbers of those infected are dropping in all but school age groups. Lockdown seems to be working for all but school kids, which makes sense and the schools are exempt from lockdown. Even Universities which are still mostly normal are vastly improved. With supermarkets the title of this thread, it does suggest leaving them open is not having a negative effect.

The second is that the stats do show there was a small dip in infections at school age during the week of October half term, but not big enough to make a difference.

To me, it shows the SAGE advice was probably right. If we had done this lockdown over an extended half term so both adults and school kids were locked down at the same time, it would have been more effective. We would have been starting from a lower number of infections, so probably could have driven it down faster.

It is hard to know what to do about school kids. The experience online is poorer than in person, and kids need that social time. My daughters class (secondary school) has been isolating for 2 weeks and they have done reasonably well with it, but it is not as good. My son is in primary school and his school has had only one or two infections - which is odd as a school a mile away has decided to close completely because of infections in staff and each year. When we were locked down March to June, he was getting a few worksheets and some days did all his schooling in 40 minutes. Most of what he did needed parental interaction, which was difficult to balance with our work. We also ended up making up stuff for him, just so he was not playing computer games.

I think his age would really suffer if schools closed again, but perhaps for things like holidays it could be mixed. Online teaching a week before, an extended break and a week online before fully returning. If that coincided with a general lockdown, that would keep numbers to a manageable level all round. It would be madness to just pick on schools, close them down, but then allow things like pubs, restaurants and cinemas to reopen.

 

[TheWhitePony]

Sage said if we opened something we had to shut something else. Schools vs pubs etc.

As for supermarkets, based on my trip out today, enforcement of masks would be a start.

 

[Shieldsman]

I think we are both reading the same stats and coming to different conclusions - that is the nature of stats and one reason I always preferred pure & applied maths.

Either way if schools are super spreaders at the root cause of this or not, there are some other interesting bits we can hopefully agree on.

The first is numbers of those infected are dropping in all but school age groups. Lockdown seems to be working for all but school kids, which makes sense and the schools are exempt from lockdown. Even Universities which are still mostly normal are vastly improved. With supermarkets the title of this thread, it does suggest leaving them open is not having a negative effect.

The second is that the stats do show there was a small dip in infections at school age during the week of October half term, but not big enough to make a difference.

To me, it shows the SAGE advice was probably right. If we had done this lockdown over an extended half term so both adults and school kids were locked down at the same time, it would have been more effective. We would have been starting from a lower number of infections, so probably could have driven it down faster.

It is hard to know what to do about school kids. The experience online is poorer than in person, and kids need that social time. My daughters class (secondary school) has been isolating for 2 weeks and they have done reasonably well with it, but it is not as good. My son is in primary school and his school has had only one or two infections - which is odd as a school a mile away has decided to close completely because of infections in staff and each year. When we were locked down March to June, he was getting a few worksheets and some days did all his schooling in 40 minutes. Most of what he did needed parental interaction, which was difficult to balance with our work. We also ended up making up stuff for him, just so he was not playing computer games.

I think his age would really suffer if schools closed again, but perhaps for things like holidays it could be mixed. Online teaching a week before, an extended break and a week online before fully returning. If that coincided with a general lockdown, that would keep numbers to a manageable level all round. It would be madness to just pick on schools, close them down, but then allow things like pubs, restaurants and cinemas to reopen.

Agree with all of that other than Universities are far from normal. My son has just started Newcastle University and hasn't set foot on the campus once having all of his lessons online. I think folk need to bare in mind that in lockdown 1, schools were told on the Thursday evening they were closing on the Friday - there was no time to plan for any home based learning - it had never been done before. I'd like to think your children have been better provided for if they have missed lessons this term.
As you will have gathered, I'm in education and am seeing first hand what impact the virus is having on children and more worryingly staff. Several staff at my institution are or have been seriously ill. There's a feeling that staff are lambs to the slaughter being forced into a non-ventilated environment (a classroom) with 30 older teenagers, none of whom are wearing face coverings isn't right in the middle of a pandemic. I can't think of any other sector where staff are being forced to work in such close proximity to so many people wearing no face coverings. If it was safe there'd be no lockdown and office staff would be back to work. They aren't because it's not.

 

[DaveH]

Sage said if we opened something we had to shut something else. Schools vs pubs etc.

As for supermarkets, based on my trip out today, enforcement of masks would be a start.

Is mask use generally falling? It seems to be being mentioned more. I'm trying to remember, but I don't think I've been to a supermarket for 2 weeks now and then it was very quiet, so I didn't notice anyone without.

I see a hell of a lot of chin wearers, they seem to be growing. I've always seen plenty, even since before it was enforced, which was really odd. Lately it seems that every time I do go out, I can bet one seeing 3, even though I only go out at quiet times. Some are staff.

Agree with all of that other than Universities are far from normal. My son has just started Newcastle University and hasn't set foot on the campus once having all of his lessons online. I think folk need to bare in mind that in lockdown 1, schools were told on the Thursday evening they were closing on the Friday - there was no time to plan for any home based learning - it had never been done before. I'd like to think your children have been better provided for if they have missed lessons this term.
As you will have gathered, I'm in education and am seeing first hand what impact the virus is having on children and more worryingly staff. Several staff at my institution are or have been seriously ill. There's a feeling that staff are lambs to the slaughter being forced into a non-ventilated environment (a classroom) with 30 older teenagers, none of whom are wearing face coverings isn't right in the middle of a pandemic. I can't think of any other sector where staff are being forced to work in such close proximity to so many people wearing no face coverings. If it was safe there'd be no lockdown and office staff would be back to work. They aren't because it's not.

Sorry, when I said normal for Universities, I did mean unchanged by the lockdown. They are certainly not normal compared to this time last year.

 

[OohBaldyBally]

The social distancing has completely gone out of the window in supermarkets. I was in both ASDA and Sainsbury’s over the weekend and it’s a joke. Other than the wearing of masks, it’s just back to normal. No one way systems, no limiting of numbers in the shop etc. People brushing past each other and leaning over people to pick up produce.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

The social distancing has completely gone out of the window in supermarkets. I was in both ASDA and Sainsbury’s over the weekend and it’s a joke. Other than the wearing of masks, it’s just back to normal. No one way systems, no limiting of numbers in the shop etc. People brushing past each other and leaning over people to pick up produce.

Same at the huge Tesco’s next to the stadium. Like you say, other than the majority wearing masks there is no real change. The distancing in queues once inside is minimal at best.

 

[Shieldsman]

Is mask use generally falling? It seems to be being mentioned more. I'm trying to remember, but I don't think I've been to a supermarket for 2 weeks now and then it was very quiet, so I didn't notice anyone without.

I see a hell of a lot of chin wearers, they seem to be growing. I've always seen plenty, even since before it was enforced, which was really odd. Lately it seems that every time I do go out, I can bet one seeing 3, even though I only go out at quiet times. Some are staff.

Sorry, when I said normal for Universities, I did mean unchanged by the lockdown. They are certainly not normal compared to this time last year.

Following on from yesterday’s discussion...

Two primary school teachers fighting for life in intensive care with coronavirus

The two staff members from the same primary school are both being treated at Blackpool Victoria Hospital's intensive care unit. They remain in a critical condition

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[DaveH]

Following on from yesterday’s discussion...

Two primary school teachers fighting for life in intensive care with coronavirus

The two staff members from the same primary school are both being treated at Blackpool Victoria Hospital's intensive care unit. They remain in a critical condition

www.mirror.co.uk

I think that is a hard one to know and how far do you go? While schools are not the root cause of this, they are a problem as it creates an environment where it can spread. Shut them down would solve that and it is what we did in March. But it raises the question, if we are doing that, do we shut absolutely everything down and for how long? Like I said, it would seem crazy shutting down schools to protect teachers, but leaving pubs, gyms, non-essential shops open and not protect those one.

I honestly don't know what the solution is there.

 

[Shieldsman]

I think that is a hard one to know and how far do you go? While schools are not the root cause of this, they are a problem as it creates an environment where it can spread. Shut them down would solve that and it is what we did in March. But it raises the question, if we are doing that, do we shut absolutely everything down and for how long? Like I said, it would seem crazy shutting down schools to protect teachers, but leaving pubs, gyms, non-essential shops open and not protect those one.

I honestly don't know what the solution is there.

How are schools not the root cause? I guess you’ve noticed that in the last few weeks pubs, gyms and non-essential shops have been closed to protect workers in those sectors? It’s pretty obvious that the data that inspired this thread has been deliberately manipulated.
Supermarkets - 18.3%
Secondary schools - 12.7%
Primary schools - 10.1%
Hospitals - 3.6%
Care homes - 2.8%
Colleges - 2.4%
Warehouses - 2.2%
Nursery / pre-school - 1.8%
Pubs - 1.6%
Hospitality - 1.5%
University - 1.4%
Manufacturing - 1.4%
Households fewer than five - 1.2%.

So that will be 28.4% from education then. Secondary and primary being responsible for nearly a quarter of cases alone sounds pretty root cause to me.

 

[DaveH]

Where did that data come from and over what time period?

I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over again. If schools were the root cause then each child would be infecting 2.5-3 adults. That is massively above the R rate. That is huge.

If it were schools, then this lockdown would not be making a different as the schools are open, but numbers are falling. Why is that? Schools are a contributor but not the main cause.

Also, you are falling into saying what the others have said and talking conspiracy now. Why is no health body or opposing political party making a big deal of this, if it were true.

In what world is 28.4% a majority? You are saying yourself that 71.6% of spread is NOT from education, so how can that be the root cause.

 

[Shieldsman]

Where did that data come from and over what time period?

I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over again. If schools were the root cause then each child would be infecting 2.5-3 adults. That is massively above the R rate. That is huge.

If it were schools, then this lockdown would not be making a different as the schools are open, but numbers are falling. Why is that? Schools are a contributor but not the main cause.

Also, you are falling into saying what the others have said and talking conspiracy now. Why is no health body or opposing political party making a big deal of this, if it were true.

In what world is 28.4% a majority? You are saying yourself that 71.6% of spread is NOT from education, so how can that be the root cause.

Somewhat pedantic. 28.4% is clearly the main cause based on that data set. It doesn’t fit either party’s rhetoric to close the schools - they know they’d be too much public opposition. Why prioritise closing pubs and hospitality which contribute to 3.1% combined?

 

[PTR]

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.

Release today: Covid infections amongst children, survey taken around Xmas

Press releases | National Education Union

Our latest press releases.

neu.org.uk

• 1 in 27 secondary children 1 in 40 primary children

That's one kid in every class, give or take. So of course they spread it around, and of course it gets taken home. This isn't a crackpot survey, this is an ONS study - they utterly agree with everything I've been saying:

" "The Government can't seem to decide whether schools are safe or unsafe. Let this data end their confusion. Schools are clearly driving infection amongst children, and then onto the wider community. This peaked on Christmas Day with 1 in every 27 secondary-age children and 1 in 40 primary-age children infected. In London this rises to 1 in 18 secondary pupils and 1 in 23 primary pupils. These figures are truly shocking and entirely the result of Government negligence. "

 

[the dude]

I don't think they should close but they should go back to limiting numbers allowed it.

 

[Brett]

I don't think they should close but they should go back to limiting numbers allowed it.

Morrison’s today were limiting people in the store

 

[DaveH]

Release today: Covid infections amongst children, survey taken around Xmas

Press releases | National Education Union

Our latest press releases.

neu.org.uk

• 1 in 27 secondary children 1 in 40 primary children

That's one kid in every class, give or take. So of course they spread it around, and of course it gets taken home. This isn't a crackpot survey, this is an ONS study - they utterly agree with everything I've been saying:

" "The Government can't seem to decide whether schools are safe or unsafe. Let this data end their confusion. Schools are clearly driving infection amongst children, and then onto the wider community. This peaked on Christmas Day with 1 in every 27 secondary-age children and 1 in 40 primary-age children infected. In London this rises to 1 in 18 secondary pupils and 1 in 23 primary pupils. These figures are truly shocking and entirely the result of Government negligence. "

It does seem to be on the rise in the youngsters at the moment. From the data:

Age group​	1 September​	2 January​	​
​	Number​	% of total​	Number​	% of total​	Increase​
Age 2 to School Year 6​	110​	20.8%​	1,700​	11.2%​	-9.59%​
School Year 7 to School Year 11​	40​	7.5%​	2,950​	19.4%​	11.84%​
School Year 12 to Age 24​	130​	24.5%​	3,160​	20.8%​	-3.77%​
Age 25 to Age 34​	120​	22.6%​	2,570​	16.9%​	-5.76%​
Age 35 to Age 49​	50​	9.4%​	1,970​	12.9%​	3.51%​
Age 50 to Age 69​	40​	7.5%​	1,810​	11.9%​	4.35%​
Age 70+​	40​	7.5%​	1,060​	7.0%​	-0.58%​
Total​	530​	​	15220​	​	​

It is a more worrying time for school kids that is certain.

That is a 11% increase in the percentage of the population of year 7 to 11 year olds with the infection, though surprisingly 2 to year 6 has seen a big drop. I would have thought they were the group least likely to not social distance. Annoyingly Uni and young adult age is grouped in with year 12 and above, so you can't see what is happening there. Ages 35 to 69 have also seen a percentage increase. Though interestingly, if you grouped year 11 and younger together, there is not much of a difference in spread across the age ranges since September, with the drop of 25 to 34s at -5.76% being the biggest change, most of that slack being picked up by 35 to 69 year olds.

With pubs shut and reduced contact for adults in tier 4 areas, I'd have expected a much bigger jump in the under 18s.

 

[PTR]

It does seem to be on the rise in the youngsters at the moment. From the data:

Age group​	1 September​	2 January​	​
​	Number​	% of total​	Number​	% of total​	Increase​
Age 2 to School Year 6​	110​	20.8%​	1,700​	11.2%​	-9.59%​
School Year 7 to School Year 11​	40​	7.5%​	2,950​	19.4%​	11.84%​
School Year 12 to Age 24​	130​	24.5%​	3,160​	20.8%​	-3.77%​
Age 25 to Age 34​	120​	22.6%​	2,570​	16.9%​	-5.76%​
Age 35 to Age 49​	50​	9.4%​	1,970​	12.9%​	3.51%​
Age 50 to Age 69​	40​	7.5%​	1,810​	11.9%​	4.35%​
Age 70+​	40​	7.5%​	1,060​	7.0%​	-0.58%​
Total​	530​	​	15220​	​	​

It is a more worrying time for school kids that is certain.

That is a 11% increase in the percentage of the population of year 7 to 11 year olds with the infection, though surprisingly 2 to year 6 has seen a big drop. I would have thought they were the group least likely to not social distance. Annoyingly Uni and young adult age is grouped in with year 12 and above, so you can't see what is happening there. Ages 35 to 69 have also seen a percentage increase. Though interestingly, if you grouped year 11 and younger together, there is not much of a difference in spread across the age ranges since September, with the drop of 25 to 34s at -5.76% being the biggest change, most of that slack being picked up by 35 to 69 year olds.

With pubs shut and reduced contact for adults in tier 4 areas, I'd have expected a much bigger jump in the under 18s.

Are you telling me you're arguing with ONS?

 

[Mikeftw]

I don't think they should close but they should go back to limiting numbers allowed it.

Most have pharmacies anyway so would be a no go anyway unfortunately

 

[TDalt]

Apart from the obvious idiots, there’s not much social distancing you can do in most supermarkets, as they’re designed to get the most amounts of goods in to sell, not to allow loads of space between shoppers. Although why they bother with “security” that never does anything I don’t know, waste of space and a waste of a wage.

 

[DaveH]

Are you telling me you're arguing with ONS?

No. I'm cutting and pasting their figures with an enhancement to show the percentage of cases in each age group. I also followed up to make the comment that I'm surprised the spread by age group has not changed that much since September, except the 2 to year 6 cases shifting up a level to the year 7 to 11 age groups.

Not sure what else to comment. Is there a point you are trying to make?