Coronavirus

[jimmyp]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-germanys-r-number-rockets-again-from-1-79-to-2-88-12012143

 

“Germany's coronavirus R number has leapt again - from 1.79 on Saturday to 2.88 on Sunday, official figures show.

The Robert Koch Institute for public health (RKI), which has been publishing the country's COVID-19 statistics, said the new number is based on a four-day average. On Friday it was 1.06.”

 

Why are we seeing a huge amount of staff from meat processing plants testing positive for the virus? 

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-germanys-r-number-rockets-again-from-1-79-to-2-88-12012143

 

“Germany's coronavirus R number has leapt again - from 1.79 on Saturday to 2.88 on Sunday, official figures show.

The Robert Koch Institute for public health (RKI), which has been publishing the country's COVID-19 statistics, said the new number is based on a four-day average. On Friday it was 1.06.”

 

Why are we seeing a huge amount of staff from meat processing plants testing positive for the virus? 

Low temperatures allow the virus to be viable outside the body for longer. In addition, food processing plants have to circulate this frigid air. It appears that conditions necessary to suppress normal food-based pathogens are party-time for the novel coronavirus. Couple that with the fact that meat-processing is highly labour-intensive, i.e. lots of people working long hours inside in close proximity.

It doesn't augur well for winter.

[Sith Happens]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

Low temperatures allow the virus to be viable outside the body for longer. In addition, food processing plants have to circulate this frigid air. It appears that conditions necessary to suppress normal food-based pathogens are party-time for the novel coronavirus. Couple that with the fact that meat-processing is highly labour-intensive, i.e. lots of people working long hours inside in close proximity.

It doesn't augur well for winter.

especially as it seems out of control in south America with Brazil seemingly unwilling to tackle it, it reappearing elsewhere seems a matter of when not if.

 

[Tamworthram]

9 hours ago, jimmyp said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-germanys-r-number-rockets-again-from-1-79-to-2-88-12012143

 

“Germany's coronavirus R number has leapt again - from 1.79 on Saturday to 2.88 on Sunday, official figures show.

The Robert Koch Institute for public health (RKI), which has been publishing the country's COVID-19 statistics, said the new number is based on a four-day average. On Friday it was 1.06.”

 

Why are we seeing a huge amount of staff from meat processing plants testing positive for the virus? 

There must be a logical answer but my tiny brain can’t cope with it this early in the morning. Surely an “accurate” R rate can only be calculated based on tests carried out and a high rate is arrived at if you have a high number of new infections. From what I can see, new infections in Germany have been fairly consistent and, only above 1,000 once in the last month.

The Germans seem to have got most things right and I’m sure their estimates can be relied upon. I just don’t understand it.

[A Ram for All Seasons]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

Low temperatures allow the virus to be viable outside the body for longer. In addition, food processing plants have to circulate this frigid air. It appears that conditions necessary to suppress normal food-based pathogens are party-time for the novel coronavirus. Couple that with the fact that meat-processing is highly labour-intensive, i.e. lots of people working long hours inside in close proximity.

It doesn't augur well for winter.

It's also a very exploitative trade. Many if not most of those affected are Romanians and Bulgarians on short-term contracts. They also share cramped accommodation with each other.

The main offender is a guy called Clemens Tönnies, a billionaire meat tycoon who is also chairman of FC Schalke 04.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

There must be a logical answer but my tiny brain can’t cope with it this early in the morning. Surely an “accurate” R rate can only be calculated based on tests carried out and a high rate is arrived at if you have a high number of new infections. From what I can see, new infections in Germany have been fairly consistent and, only above 1,000 once in the last month.

The Germans seem to have got most things right and I’m sure their estimates can be relied upon. I just don’t understand it.

You don't necessarily need a high rate of new infections - just more than there were before. If you only had 1 case in an entire country, then a few days later you had 3, then over that time period (assuming person 'A' had infected persons 'B' and 'C') you would have an R of 2.0. On the other hand, a localised spread in a single (for example) meat factory is going to have a huge impact where the original numbers were low, but a much lesser impact on R where the original numbers were high.

What really worries me is that we have had a really benign spring and this thing took off the way it did. 

[Tamworthram]

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You don't necessarily need a high rate of new infections - just more than there were before. If you only had 1 case in an entire country, then a few days later you had 3, then over that time period (assuming person 'A' had infected persons 'B' and 'C') you would have an R of 2.0. On the other hand, a localised spread in a single (for example) meat factory is going to have a huge impact where the original numbers were low, but a much lesser impact on R where the original numbers were high.

What really worries me is that we have had a really benign spring and this thing took off the way it did. 

That’s a good point and, as you say, a single localised outbreak would have a big impact and can distort the overall figure. I do wonder then, when they said R rate was approaching 3 the figure reported should be taken in context. Maybe it’s just the media that likes a scary headline figure (do they have the equivalent of the Daily Mail?).

[Curtains]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-germanys-r-number-rockets-again-from-1-79-to-2-88-12012143
 

This must be a concern 

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, Curtains said:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-germanys-r-number-rockets-again-from-1-79-to-2-88-12012143
 

This must be a concern 

See my posts above for a scientific non-political answer.

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

You don't necessarily need a high rate of new infections - just more than there were before. If you only had 1 case in an entire country, then a few days later you had 3, then over that time period (assuming person 'A' had infected persons 'B' and 'C') you would have an R of 2.0. On the other hand, a localised spread in a single (for example) meat factory is going to have a huge impact where the original numbers were low, but a much lesser impact on R where the original numbers were high.

What really worries me is that we have had a really benign spring and this thing took off the way it did. 

Are you referring to temperatures mate because the virus seems to thrive in all temperatures. I think close proximity indoors is the biggest issue .

[Stive Pesley]

So if number of reported cases is similar now, to when we entered lockdown in Mid-March, if we now exit lockdown and reduce 2m to 1m, we're not really entering a scenario too different to how it was in Feb. A second spike is surely inevitable and we'll be back in lockdown by when? End of July?

 

[Curtains]

11 hours ago, Eddie said:

Low temperatures allow the virus to be viable outside the body for longer. In addition, food processing plants have to circulate this frigid air. It appears that conditions necessary to suppress normal food-based pathogens are party-time for the novel coronavirus. Couple that with the fact that meat-processing is highly labour-intensive, i.e. lots of people working long hours inside in close proximity.

It doesn't augur well for winter.

Hopefully we will have a vaccine soon. 

[rammieib]

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

So if number of reported cases is similar now, to when we entered lockdown in Mid-March, if we now exit lockdown and reduce 2m to 1m, we're not really entering a scenario too different to how it was in Feb. A second spike is surely inevitable and we'll be back in lockdown by when? End of July?

 

1) 8% of population have had it already, that’s a fact. My opinion is a lot of those who were going to get it, will have got it.

2) High chance many are simply immune to it. T cells, immunity cross carried over from other Corona viruses etc

3) Social distancing will still continue despite one metre. A good proportion of the population will continue to stay away from people.

4) No spikes seen in areas where protests were held or VE Day celebrations were partied.
 

5) No spikes seen anywhere around the world. Cluster outbreaks yes but not a spike.

I see everyone back to normal in September. Political pressure from the public and media will drive this return to normal.

I don’t think we will have any second wave. It’ll stay flat for a while though.

Mass indoor events (Clubs the worst, then arenas and churches and conferences etc) May take a while. Everything else I see normality. I even see football stadiums open in September.

[Wolfie]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

So if number of reported cases is similar now, to when we entered lockdown in Mid-March, if we now exit lockdown and reduce 2m to 1m, we're not really entering a scenario too different to how it was in Feb. A second spike is surely inevitable and we'll be back in lockdown by when? End of July?

 

I don't think you can make that comparison when, in March, we were only testing a tiny fraction of the number we are now. Many of the positive test results now are for asymptomatic people - who, in March, would have been happily going about their days infecting god knows how many more.

Unfortunately the success of the gradual removal of restrictions relies on people following the rules and being sensible.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

So if number of reported cases is similar now, to when we entered lockdown in Mid-March, if we now exit lockdown and reduce 2m to 1m, we're not really entering a scenario too different to how it was in Feb. A second spike is surely inevitable and we'll be back in lockdown by when? End of July?

 

Social distancing will still apply, at the reduced displacement. That will give us an indication as to the relative effectiveness of 1m compared with 2m. I do think that the compulsory wearing of face masks for most people on public transport will have a significant benefit. I would go further and suggest that should be the case in some workplaces - especially, it seems, meat processing plants.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Are you referring to temperatures mate because the virus seems to thrive in all temperatures. I think close proximity indoors is the biggest issue .

Oh, I agree - but the only significant factor that seems to be largely unique to food processing is reduced temperature. I read an article about a month ago which looked into this issue with respect to meat processing in the USA and, if I recall correctly, the principle reasons put forward for the high incidence, and I stress that this was largely based upon conjecture, were:

• Frigid conditions
• Recycled air
• Workers in very close proximity (impossible to maintain social distancing)
• Long hours
• Migrant workers housed in dormitories (same people continually in close contact)
• Work buses bringing people from dormitory to workplace (same people continually in close contact)
• No facemasks

So basically just keeping the same people in close contact for pretty well 24 hours a day breathing in each other's recycled and recirculated sputum, the sort of problems people found with cruise ships.

Winter compounds problems because by then we have influenza and other seasonal illnesses which will already be causing problems for the health service.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Van Wolfie said:

I don't think you can make that comparison when, in March, we were only testing a tiny fraction of the number we are now. Many of the positive test results now are for asymptomatic people - who, in March, would have been happily going about their days infecting god knows how many more.

Unfortunately the success of the gradual removal of restrictions relies on people following the rules and being sensible.

And that's where it might fall apart, unfortunately. 'Sensible' is only a natural state for some homo sapiens. At the other extreme, you have 'Hold my beer and watch this'.

[Stive Pesley]

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

And that's where it might fall apart, unfortunately. 'Sensible' is only a natural state for some homo sapiens. At the other extreme, you have 'Hold my beer and watch this'.

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Invalid. The last one is only in "Turtle's neck" mode.

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I would go further and suggest that should be the case in some workplaces - especially, it seems, meat processing plants.

I work in food processing, and I can confirm this is not permitted as it's a contamination risk. Breath will condense inside the mask, and can drip out into the product. We've had to tell line workers to remove masks - it's a risk in itself.