jump to navigation

COVID-19: What Can We Do to Reduce Social Distancing March 27, 2020

Posted by mwidlake in biology, COVID-19, off-topic, science.
Tags: , , ,
2 comments

<<<< COVID-19 Basics: What it is & what it does to us
<<…. COVID-19 Outlook for the Month(s) Ahead
The Coming UK Peak and Beyond >>

Summary

The impact of COVID-19 on our society and our economy is going to be long and hard. I hope I am not the first to come up with this idea, but just in case…

Having everyone on lock-down on and off for months will be hard to maintain. But not everyone will need to be in lock-down. You do not need to be locked down if you are immune.

I think we need to look at having a “COVID-19 Immunity Card” – you get the card to prove that you are probably immune to COVID-19 and that you are no longer a danger to others and are not in danger yourself.

Once you have a card you no longer have to abide by social distancing measures in the same way as those not immune. You are also a known “safe” person who can interact with those who are not. This would be particularly reassuring in the “caring” industries.

The number of people with cards will grow over time due to:

  • People being diagnosed with the disease and recovering – not many yet.
  • People being tested and found to have had the disease (possibly without knowing and have recovered) – coming soon?
  • People who have been vaccinated against it – future group.

There are potentially serous drawbacks to this idea. Such a card would be a source of division for as long as we have them and they would be a huge target for criminal activity, but it could help us “sleep with the tiger” of COVID-19.

It could/would allow our economy, health services, and society function more effectively whilst we are living with COVID-19.

Background – Once we “stop” COVID-19 this time, we have a problem…

The UK, like a growing number of countries, is now in a strong, country-wide, social shut-down. The aim is to suppress COVID-19 (see COVID-19: What’s Going To Happen Now ) i.e. drop the levels of person-to-person transmission (The “R” number) below 1. If each person with COVID_19 infects fewer than 1 other person on average, the spread stops. Quickly. It will take another 2-3 weeks for those already infected or sick (as of the date I am writing this, 27/3/20) to develop the symptoms and possibly need hospital treatment, so between now and mid-April we will see cases continuing to rise rapidly, followed by the number of deaths.

Then, something like Mid-April onwards, new cases will drop and, less slowly, the number of deaths.

COVID-19 will have been stopped. However, it will not have gone away, it will still be in the population. If we relax the social isolation we are currently living under, it will start spreading again and we will have another outbreak. Why? As only a small percentage of the population will be immune to the SARS-COV-2 virus. Governments are giving the impression that we will have “beaten COVID-19!” at this point, when the first peak of cases has come and gone, but the scientific consensus is clear that it will return if we all start living normally again. There are several studies going on at present to model what we can do and how. For example, China is relaxing restrictions and the world-wide epidemiological community is watching. For example, this Imperial College Paper on how China is coming out of strict social distancing is interesting.

I think of this as sleeping with a tiger that we don’t want to wake up.

The Imperial/WHO/MRC paper does cover all of this and suggests a way of relaxing social isolation steps and re-introducing them, over a 2 year period. The chances are, this is all going to go on far longer than most people realise and way longer than any of us want!

Reasoning on why COVID-19 will be with us “until something changes”.

The rest of this post is me being an “Armchair Epidemiologist” – proposing untested ideas with only a tenuous grasp of the true facts. But I thought I would put this out there. Note, there will be a lack of links to any solid references from this point. When you see this in articles discussing scientific ideas, it usually indicates it is a thought experiment.

There is general scientific consensus that, if we had better testing, the Case Fatality Rate would be about 1-2%. Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is the percentage of diagnosed cases that die. What we actually need is the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of COVID-19:- Taking into account all people who get the disease (whether they show symptoms or not or were tested or not) what is the percentage of people who die. See the Wikipedia entry on CFR for more details of CFR and IFR.

IFR is being argued about by the scientific community as you have to test a large, random set of people to see how common the disease is and testing by most countries is limited to suspected cases. Thus estimates are being made. The really good news is that the estimates of IFR are a lot lower than CFR. numbers seem to vary from 0.2% to 0.6%. See this pre-print of an article on CFR/IFR  and this paper by Nuffield Primary Care Health Sciences  at Oxford University. I’ll be pessimistic and take 0.5%

I am assuming the  Infection Fatality Rate is 0.5%

The reason we need the Infection Fatality Rate is that we can then calculate the number of infected people from the number of people who died – ONCE number of infection and deaths have reduced to low numbers again. You can’t do this (well, I can’t) when the number of new cases or deaths is increasing.

If 10,000 people die in the peak of cases we are currently enduring, if it is killing 0.5% of people and ICU limits are NOT exceeded, that means 2 million people will be immune once the peak has passed (as 99.5% of that 2 million have it and survive).

However, 64 Million will not be immune.

As has been described, we could now relax social distancing and let businesses and the economy start up to some degree again – but then tighten up social distancing again when cases or ICU admissions rise. We have a series of mini-outbreaks.

We have a population of 66 million. At 2 Million becoming immune in each “Outbreak”, we would need 20 outbreaks to get to a level of people who have had the disease where herd immunity is stopping the disease spreading – 60% or 44 or so million people (but we would still have 22 million susceptible to the disease).

With a peak every 2 months (so no single one exceeds the expanded capabilities of our NHS) getting to 60% immunity would take… several years. This is why all those discussions about getting herd immunity in weeks or months is, frankly, naive. We could only have that happen if we did not control the outbreak.

It might be that we can work out a level of social distancing that allows the economy to keep some semblance of normality and the COVID-19 cases at a level the NHS can keep up with, but that is a very, very fine tightrope to walk.

In any case, if we do not simply let COVID-19 rip through our society (killing more people than it would if controlled, as it vastly overwhelms the health services) we have to sleep with the tiger until we we have another option. But I think there is a way to make sleeping with the tiger more comfortable.

People will become immune to SARS-COV-2

A reliable, widely available test for seeing if someone has had COVID-19 and is now resistant to the  SARS-COV-2 is desperately needed and, I think, will become available soon – in a couple of months, long before a vaccine arrives.

We will then have 2 ways of knowing someone is immune:

  • Those who were tested positive for COVID and survived. They are immune.
  • Those that pass an antibody test. They are probably immune – depending on the reliability of the test. There could be several tests that have different levels of reliability.

These people can be given an “I am immune” card and they will not be limited (at least not so much) in lock downs.

Initially there will only be a hundred thousand people who can have the card, as they have been identified by testing to have had COVID_19,  have got better, and are now immune . But, crucially, a disproportionately high percentage of them will be NHS and first responder workers. This is because those groups are suffering very high exposure to COVID-19, by the very nature of what they do. The ranks of these groups are (and will continue to be) literally decimated by COVID-19. Lots and lots and lots of nurses, doctors, lab staff, cleaners, police, paramedics, GPs are going to be in the first wave getting ill.

Once we have the cheap, reliable antibody test , we can look for the rest of the 2 million.

As you can see, the more testing we do, both for having COVID-19 or for having antibodies against SARS-COV-2, the more people we can give an immunity card.

Over time, especially if we have further outbreaks, the number of people who are immune and are found via the above will increase.

Later, when vaccines are developed, there will be a third group of people we can count as immune:

  • Those who are vaccinated
  • Better still, those who are vaccinated and are latter tested for (and pass) an antibody test.

The first vaccines are likely to not be very effective – think the low end of the level of protection the annul ‘flu vaccines achieve, 20-40%. The antibody tests to confirm you have immune to SARS-COV-2 might also vary. But the details on the card will give which tests and vaccines you have had.

The card will hold details of why the person is immune, what test(s) were used to identify they had the disease, what vaccine(s) they had had, and when these events occurred. Minimal details would be held on the card itself.

A central database would hold the details of vaccination & test efficacy, corroborative information about the person etc.

If the reliability of historical tests or vaccinations change, then the immunity status of the individual may change.

The database of information would of course need to be well secured, kept in more than one place (so that a single IT disaster does not destroy all this key information) and protected. These are technical problems that can be solved.

Drawbacks off the COVID-19 Immunity Card

The cards will need to be very reliable, trusted, and protected from abuse.

Both the data they hold (or link to) and the information about the person the card is for needs to be highly dependable. The data needs to specify which sort of immunity this person has, when they were ill (if they have been) or tested, when any vaccine(s) were administered and when. It may turn out that immunity to SARS-COV-2 will reduce over time (that is, our immune systems “forget” about the disease) and the virus may mutate over time such that it avoids our immune response (whether natural or via vaccine).

The link to the person will need to be reliable, so no one can use a stolen or fake card. Obviously pictures, basic information, etc need to be on the card for a quick check, and information on the card links to a data source that can be used to further check identity and give more detailed information about immunity, such as may be needed if the person is in a medical situation.

It strikes me that this is a perfect use for blockchain. Each card, the data associated with it, when & how it is updates, can be accurately tracked in a way that is very, very hard to fake.

The data and the card should link to nothing else. There would be a temptation to be able cross reference the medical data with socioeconomic data, geographic information, even information about shopping habits to see if there are any correlations between between these factors and how people respond to COVID-19. This would be a nightmare as it introduces questions of consent, privacy, abuse of the data, fear of being spied upon.  Ensuring this card is for one purpose alone, with no link to anything else, would reduce the next drawback.

ID cards by the back door.

This will effectively be introducing ID cards, which some people object to strongly on moral or philosophical grounds. I’m not going to do more than note that this is an issue and observe that many societies have ID cards already. If these cards are kept to this one purpose, it would help make them more acceptable.

Criminality

Of course, as soon as such a valuable thing as a card that allows you to avoid social limitations is available, some people will want one, even though they know they are not immune. Criminals will want to create and sell them, so we need something, probably several things, (again, like a blockchain identifier on the card) to help guard against this. I would also suggest we would want to see strong punishment of individuals who try to use a fake card or get one by deceit. After all, these are probably the same selfish gits who bought all the toilet paper. As for criminals trying to make and sell fake cards, the punishments would be draconian – they would be putting a lot of people at risk.

Two-Tier Society

The cards would by their nature split society. Those who have a card would have more freedom. Those who do not would not.

Some people would never be able to get a card as they are immunocompromised  or similarly unable to be vaccinated.

Human nature says some people would discriminate or persecute people who are not immune if there was a way to identify this. I actually see this as the main reason to not have such a card.

Laws would be required to back up a repeated and strong message about why such discrimination is utterly wrong.

SARS-COV-2 Could Change

We do not yet know how the virus underlying COVID-19 will change over time. It is mutating – but ALL life mutates. We use the mutation to track how SARS-COV-2 has spread across the globe and the mutations, so far, are not known to alter it’s infection rate or how it impacts people (though I think I have seen some suggestions about this on social media that are more trustworthy than general scuttle).

However if it turns out that C-19 becomes C-23 and C-28 etc like Influenzela A, the card scheme still works but you are now stuck with identity cards and potential discrimination against those who are not immune etc.

End Life of the cards

I would want to see an agreed termination point for the cards stated when they are brought in. They or the data they link to will be deleted utterly in 3 years time. This can only be changed by a cross-political-party agreement.

 

That’s my idea. If you have any comments – for, against, highlight things I have wrong – I would love to hear.

Friday Philosophy – ICE {In Case of Emergency} January 31, 2010

Posted by mwidlake in Friday Philosophy.
Tags: , ,
6 comments

ICE is a simple concept. In this case it stand for In Case of Emergency and the idea is to store a contact number on your mobile phone under the identifier of ICE. Then if you are in an accident, suddenly become very ill or are in any other way incapacitated, your ICE number can be called. The person you list under ICE is someone who knows you well and hopefully knows of any medical conditions you have and who can get in touch with others. It can be incredibly useful to medical services to know if you are alergic to common drugs or have any known medical conditions (like heart issues or diabetes). I guess in worst scenario of you being, well, not alive anymore, it gives someone to contact who would want/need to know. What a nice, simple use of modern technology! Go one, get your phone out and put and ICE number in now.

The idea originally came from Bob Brotchie, a UK paramedic.
The idea has caught on enough that there are companies in America trying to make a bit of profit out of it {something that I feel slightly negative about} and it has a wikipedia entry.

There is one big issue, which is if you have locked your mobile phone, no one is going to be able to see your contacts and thus the ICE details. This is something that others have thought of and one suggestion is to make your wallpaper show your ICE contacts.

However, this idea of ICE only works if people know about it and use it. I became aware of this last year when I saw an old lady collapse in the street. She just stopped, staggered a little and went down, attempting to take a brick out of a wall with her head as she went down. Three or four of us rushed over, thankfully one was a nurse so she took charge of looking after the patient. We others quickly found her phone. I bet what you are now expecting me to say is that she had no ICE number. She might have, but none of us knew to LOOK for an ICE number. We took pot-luck on the number saying “Jack at work” or something and thankfully got her husband.

Maybe we were an unusually unknowing bunch of people and all you lot reading this know about ICE numbers, but given we were all turned on enough to come to the lady’s aid, one was a nurse, I work in IT and none of us knew about this useful use of technology, I suspect it is not that universal an idea yet. I only know about ICE as my H&S brother told me about it only a couple of weeks after the above incident. {He was asking me if I could see a negative side to it and all I could think of is that if someone found/stole your phone then they had a known “someone who cares” number for you, but then they also have your whole contact list if you do not lock your phone, with things like “Mum” and “Uncle Bob” on it}

However, it takes only a couple of minutes to put an ICE number on your phone, so nothing is stopping you doing it. If you have a modern “all singing, all dancing” phone you might have an ICE feature or app you can download to show ICE information with the phone still locked (my phone is only 4 months old but has no such feature, but then it was a cheap, temporary “just for the week” buy when my old phone committed suicide). A quick check shows the iPhone app can also show things like drug susceptibility and known medical issues too, which is more immediate help to emergency services than a contact number.

So, I would encourage you to put an ICE number on your mobile phone. I would also encourage you to spread the word about ICE. It’s a great, easy, simple use of technology, but only if it is popular.

All Is Well in Widlake World August 27, 2009

Posted by mwidlake in Private Life.
Tags: ,
3 comments

I’m about to post a proper blog entry but, before that, I’d like to thank those of you who contacted me to ask how my Mother was doing. She’s doing OK, she has remembered how to breath and the cause of the whole issue has been identified, is treatable and is under control.

Now I just have to brace myself for when she can speak again and tells us all how bored and uncomfortable she is. Thankfully the Nurses will take the brunt of it and they are good at being understanding. Maybe in 6 weeks we will have her back home, looking after herself and my current main employer will not have to be as very understanding as they have been (thankyou Employer).

Oh, and the skills at reading graphs came in useful again. I asked a few days ago about “That set of spikes” and the nurses got agitated. Until they realised my Mother had took off a mointoring lead as it was annoying her. Mothers huh?