The pandemic update from Britain: sniffer dogs and the return to work

England has approved a coronavirus antibody test that’s 100% accurate and highly specific. If England goes ahead and adopts it, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will probably do the same.

Being highly specific? That means it’s able to detect even a fairly weak antibody response. Being 100% accurate? That means it’s right. It’s a technical concept that sciency people like to use, but we can all get our heads around it if we pay attention.

The problem with the test is that it depends on a blood sample, so it has to be done by a medical person with a big, scary needle, and then processed in a lab. 

Why, other than the big, scary needle, is that a problem? Because you can’t just toss a bunch of tests in the mail for people to do at home and go home for a beer. You’ll have to organize testing. Preferably competently, and that’s where we hit a snag.

Irrelevant photo: love-in-a-mist

In the UK, the best way to do that would, almost inevitably, be through the National Health Service and, most heavily, local GPs, although they might need some extra (is anybody paying attention here?) money and staff. 

The government will probably centralize it, though, and hand the contract to huge private companies who’ve proved their competence by screwing up the testing program that’s in use now, which isn’t for antibodies but for current infections. Believing that private companies are more efficient than governments is a religious cult. 

And when the evidence shows that the opposite is true? You just draw the circle tighter and pray harder.

It’s an contradictory situation, though. Here’s a government demonstrating governmental incompetence through incompetent privatization and people who argue that government would be more competent criticizing the government for incompetence.

Did you follow that?

You might think that both sides of the disagreement should be equally unhappy, but you’d be wrong. Money’s being made. Someone’s happy.

*

Just so’s we all understand this: It’s still not clear whether having antibodies to Covid-19 means you’re immune to it. Widespread use of the antibody test should give us some information about that.

What immediate good does the test do, then? Almost everything I read on the subject talks about people who’ve been exposed going back to work, happy in the knowledge that they won’t get the bug again, although we don’t exactly know that and neither do they. They might be immune. We hope they’re immune.

And, since I’m splashing cold water on things, the test having been approved isn’t the same and the test having been bought. Or produced in large enough numbers. The government and the test’s developer, Roche, are talking. You know, price, quantities, delivery dates, can we get it in blue? 

No? We really like blue.

The government’s also talking to the developers of other tests. Hang in there. We’ll know something eventually.

*

Last weekend, lockdown restrictions were eased here in England and people who couldn’t work from home were urged to go back to work if they could do it safely, so Grant Shapps, Britain’s transport secretary, was flung to the press so he could reassure the nation. 

How’d he do that? He told us that the government doesn’t “know how the virus will respond” to lockdown’s semi-end. 

I feel deeply reassured, and I hope you do as well. 

Why was the transport secretary the one to get thrown to the press? Partly because people–having been told to avoid public transportation if they could–are using public transportation because how else are they supposed to get to work? Most people don’t have private planes. 

Also because he drew the slip of paper with the big red X on it.

He was especially reassuring about public transportation in London. 

“We have got the British Transport Police out there and we are even bringing in volunteers to remind people that we don’t want to see platforms crowded.”

Anyone who sees a crowded platform will then understand that they’re surplus to requirements and disappear in a cloud of blue smoke.

Would Shapps himself get on a crowded bus or train? an interviewer asked. Well, no, he said. And no one else should either. Please see cloud of blue smoke, above. 

In a different interview, he said, “Even with all the trains and buses back to running when they are, there will not be enough space. One in 10 people will be able to travel without overcrowding.” 

The news is full of pictures of packed tubes, trains, and buses in London. He’s an asset to the nation, Shapps is.

I’m still trying to figure out what “back to running when they are” means. 

*

I suppose this is where I have to write about a railway ticket office worker, Belly Mujinga, who was told she had to work out on the concourse instead of behind the ticket office’s barrier, although she had respiratory problems. 

“We begged not to go out,” a colleague said. “We said, ‘Our lives are in danger.’ We were told that we are not even allowed to put on masks.”

A passenger spat at her and a co-worker and said he had the virus. Both women came down sick and Mujinga has died of the virus, leaving a widower and an eleven-year-old daughter.

A GoFundMe campaign has raised over £27,000 for the family. Which is heartening, but she’s still dead.

Mujinga’s employer, Govia Thameslink, has only just given CCTV footage of the spitting incident to police, after weeks of being asked for it. The spitter was described by a witness as male, white, fiftyish, and well dressed. The women he spat at asked their managers to call the police. That was on March 22. The police say they only got a report on Monday. 

Rail unions are threatening to strike if drivers and passengers aren’t protected from overcrowding. Let’s hope they include other workers as well, in memory of Mujinga if nothing else.

*

So what are you supposed to do if your boss pressures you to go back to work but you don’t feel it’s safe–if, say, you’ve got a medical condition, or a family member who does, or an eight-year-old with no school to go to, or the workplace is too crowded, or your boss says you have to work out on the concourse? You probably have some protection under the law, but you’ll have to be pretty damn brave to claim it, because it could mean taking your case to an employment tribunal. It may mean risking your job.

How much money did you say do you have to fall back on?

Yup. That’s what most people say.  

In an interview, an employment lawyer said government guidance “seems to be suggesting that everyone who is not attending work but is unable to work from home should return to work, but they haven’t given much guidance to employers and employees about what exactly is expected if they have these difficulties turning up.”

She also said, “For example, if you’re a single parent with childcare obligations, we’ve seen some really unfortunate stories of mothers who are the sole parent and they’re stuck with children and they’ve been issued unfair ultimatums by their employer, wanting them to attend work on short notice when it’s just not possible.”

In the meantime, the business secretary, Alok Sharma, said workers don’t have an automatic right to walk out if they feel their workplaces are unsafe. 

“If somebody feels their workplace is not safe, they have to take that up with their employer,” he said. “If they don’t feel they are getting any traction they absolutely should get in touch with the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority.”

If I can translate that, if your workplace isn’t safe, you should follow the steps outlined above, keep on working, and hope you don’t die. 

Jason Moyer-Lee of the Independent Workers of Great Britain, which represents gig workers, said, “The return to work instruction is predicated on workplaces being safe because they follow new Government guidelines. The guidance is not law and is not mandatory.” In other words, he doesn’t think there’s much way to enforce it.

Just I think I’m too cynical–.

*

Teachers’ unions are saying the proposals to reopen schools in England on June 1 are unworkable. They’ve urged teachers not to “engage with” preparations.

No, I’m not sure what “engage with” means either. Teachers will, though. They teach things. Whatever needs to be known, they know it. 

Schools have been told that they don’t need protective gear, that they don’t need to keep the recommended six feet of distance between people, and that smaller classes and hand washing (sorry–stringent hygiene; maybe we’re talking about deodorant) will keep them safe.

They have not been told to sing “Happy Birthday” while stringently hygienizing themselves.

None of the teachers’ unions were contacted about the reopening before it was announced last Sunday.

Stay tuned. It should be interesting. 

*

A group of scientists who set up an alternative to the government’s official science advisory group have warned that the current strategy will bring more outbreaks of the virus and rolling lockdowns. It called for a campaign to test and trace, and to isolate infected people–and to scrap centralized testing and rely on GPs and local health teams, who can respond quickly to local outbreaks.

The current testing system doesn’t bother to send the results to GPs. And (anecdotal evidence warning here) doesn’t necessarily send the results to the people who’ve been tested either. Because what’re they going to do with them anyway? They’re all ignorant savages and it’ll only frighten them.

*

Oh, hell, let’s take a break for a little good news. The furlough scheme, which pays up to 80% of furloughed workers’ wages while they’re off work in the pandemic, will be continued until the end of October, although the small and medium-size print is changing. As of August, furloughed workers can go back to work part time. And at some point–and no one knows where the point is right now–companies will have to start picking up part of the bill. 

How much does it cost? About £12 billion per month.

How much did the 2008 bank bailout cost? About £850 billion.

There is support for the self-employed, but everything I read about it leaves me more confused than I was before. A program exists. It leaves some people out. It seems to have just started registering claims and what self-employed people were doing for money until now is anyone’s guess. But it’s better than no support at all.

Sorry, this was supposed to be our good news break, wasn’t it? Okay, how about this: 

Sniffer dogs are being trained to detect the virus. Dogs can already be used to spot cancer, Parkinson’s, and malaria. It’s still in the trial stages, but if it works they should be able to spot people with no symptoms. Our dogs know when we’re carrying treats, even when we think we show no symptoms, so yes, I do believe this could work.

My thanks to Catladymac for pointing me at this story. I’d have missed it.

*

And from the Department of Silver Linings comes this bit of news: The coronavirus lockdown could break the chain of transmission for HIV. The problem with HIV–other, of course, than that it kills people quite horribly–is that there’s a period of up to a month between the time a person’s exposed and the time current tests can detect it. And people can pass it on during that time. 

People who are on the current treatments can’t pass on the infection, and a drug that people can take both before and after sex reduces the risk of getting it, so the number of new cases in Britain is dropping anyway. But if no one has sex with new partners, it just might be possible to find everyone incubating the disease before they pass it on, treat them, and stop the spread of the infection. 

*

When I started doing more frequent virus updates, I thought they’d be short. What’s happened, though, is that the more attention I pay to this, the more I find to include. I’m oddly apologetic about that, although I didn’t invent the virus. Or the idea of an update. Hell, if you don’t want to read them, you won’t.

Take care, everyone. Listen to doctors and scientists and your own good sense. Stay well.

44 thoughts on “The pandemic update from Britain: sniffer dogs and the return to work

  1. Believing that private companies are more efficient than governments is a religious cult.

    Amen to that.

    Just out of curiosity: ‘the link that WordPress won’t accept’ is lacking the ‘https://’ part at the beginning. I wonder whether this link works?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Never has the word ‘omnishambles’ seemed more appropriate. Have you been here long enough to pick up our phrase about the inability to organise a drinks party in a beer factory?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Entertaining ludicrosity as always. Favorite line: ‘Believing that private companies are more efficient than governments is a religious cult.’ Our PM belongs to one of the happy-clappy churches, so it fits like a glove. Glad to say that when our Conservative-equivalent State Government floated the thought bubble of privatising testing here it was pricked within 24 hours so that they could use their phones again. Just to finish on a lighter note, it is clear in both the UK (don’t start) and the US, Brazil etc the game in play is to let the pandemic run its course, relieve the government of the aged care costs for a whole raft of people and get taxpayers back to work so they can spend it on useful things, like salary increases for MPs to expand their duck ponds.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. We are starting to have meat shortages, and problems with other food supplies. Prices of what is available is going up.

    We are doing gradual reopening under strict orders on a state by state basis, controlled by the governors. That may keep the numbers stable at least, and get the food and necessary supplies moving to people who need them to survive.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Here food supplies have not been an issue (overall, although some items are hard to find), and schools, bless them, are providing lunches to kids they know to be vulnerable. Where money’s short, though, food is scarce and food banks are struggling to keep up. It’s not as bad as in the US, since there’s more income support, but it is happening.

      Like

  5. Pingback: The Idiot and the Odyssey | olderfatterhappierdotcom

  6. “the spitter was described as white, male, fiftyish and well dressed.” Please do not waste your crayons coloring me shocked over here in the YewEssAaaa.(or was that the description of their managers ?)
    And I’m guessing Alok Sharma has never heard of Upton Sinclair.

    As The Wicked Witch of the West said : “What a world ! What a world !”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Phew! Lucky we had a right royal p**s up to take our minds off this nasty virus and the brilliant way it has been handled. Blimey, its only 75 years since we jointly won the war in Europe. Seems just like yesterday but we were obviously overdue for a party. What with that, Vera Lynn and Her Maj. doing two nights on TV in one month, things must be getting a bit tough at the top.
    Love your pieces Ellen, they keep giving me ideas.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry at the toll these obscene shenanigans are taking on the people who are unable to shenaniganise the most…. perhaps a bit of both.
    May you both stay … well, I was going to say ‘sane’, but perhaps I’ll amend it to … as sane as you can be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Staying sane would wreck my writing style, so let’s settle for staying well. And yes, the choice between laughing and crying keeps circling back to me as well. Some days, I feel like I’m watching my sense of humor work all on its own, while I sit back thinking, “You know, this is really awful.”

      You stay well yourself.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. This latest gem from an Australian journalist after your own heart, Annabel Crabb: “On the day that he was to have risen nobly to his feet in Parliament as the first Treasurer since Peter Costello to deliver a Budget surplus, Josh Frydenberg instead found himself suffering a horribly-timed coughing fit at the despatch box as he attempted to deliver his speech not quite confirming how big the actual deficit will be this year, while absolutely acknowledging that it’s all extremely bad. The modest streamed viewing audience – divided between economists yelling “How many billions?” and householders yelling “Cough into ya elbow ya mug! Jeez how many times” was later assured that the Treasurer had been taken away for testing. Results came back negative for COVID-19 but positive (it is understood, though you didn’t hear it from me) for Covert-20, a new speech-inhibiting disorder emerging among Treasury ministers unwilling to be precise about just how deeply their projections have gone to custard.”

    Liked by 2 people

  10. The latest on the antibodies is that they would only give protection for about a year. I don’t think you would be immune to Covid-19 if you’ve already had it, as it’s related to the common cold and most people get one or two colds per year. Mindfulness and avoiding crowds will probably be the key to keeping clear of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It seems to mutate more slowly than the common cold–probably along the lines of the flu. But so much isn’t known yet. Right now, a year’s immunity looks good to me, because as mindful as we may be I don’t think it provides much real safety, just minimizes the risk a bit.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. For what it’s worth, I’m not aware of a test for ANYTHING that’s 100% accurate. A typical test will return some amount of false positives (the test says that X is the case, but it isn’t) or false negatives (the test doesn’t say that X is the case, but it is). Sometimes you can reduce the number of false positives very low, but you pay for that with increased false negatives. Sometimes you can reduce the number of false negatives, but you pay for that with false negatives.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s worth a good bit, I’d think. In this situation, I would think false positives are better than false negatives. A false negative leaves people running around infecting people.

      Like

  12. An additional complication: accuracy is a TERRIBLE thing to measure for things that are uncommon–say, antibodies to a new virus. The problem is that if something is rare, then a test can err towards saying that people are negative and you still get a high accuracy, since MOST people are negative. For that reason, diagnostic tests aren’t evaluated with accuracy. Instead they’re evaluated with two SEPARATE numbers, one called sensitivity (how good the test is at finding out X if X is, indeed, the case), and one called specificity (if the test says that X, how likely is that to be true?).

    It’s a shitty situation if the population is being told that you have a test with 100% accuracy. It’s extremely unlikely to be true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for that. I’d worked my way through specificity and sensitivity, but hadn’t realized that a claim of accuracy is a red flag. We seem to be surrounded by red flags lately.

      I’ve seen some wildly differing reports on how many people in a population have been infected. My fallback position is that no one really knows yet.

      Like

Talk to me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.