My new online project...

Saturday, 9 May 2020

Things will never be the same: Part III - Risk


For Bartek

How will social interactions look after the pandemic abates? asked Bartek over on Facebook. The answer lies in how we as individuals adjust our tolerance to risk.

Before Covid-19, whenever you left home, you always lived with the slightest risk of death, injury, infection, becoming the victim of crime, losing your wallet, keys, phone or other valuables. Risk is ever-present, we balance on the edge of chaos. Smoking poses a health risk, as does excessive alcohol consumption. These are risks we take, to varying degrees of consciousness.

We have an instinctive idea as to the size of that risk - some greater than others, some fairly minimal. That idea is built up over time in a heuristic manner; Bayesian inference. "I wasn't run over by a bus yesterday nor the day before, so I'm unlikely to be run over by one today." Scrambling up mountains of ballast on a building site to get a better photo. Crossing a railway line other than over a bridge or level crossing. Riding a motorbike. Taking risks means you have to be conscious of what you're doing - my mother's wise words - "Quid quid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem" (Whatever you do, do prudently and be conscious of the [possible] outcome) ring in my ears when I undertake any activity that involves a modicum or risk. The risk is about balance; balancing, say, the pleasures of smoking (for those born with that particular gene), against the dangers of premature death. Driving too fast balanced with the risk of being involved in a car crash. We have some idea of the risks we are taking.

But post-Covid-19? Sauntering out into crowded buses, bars, cinemas, conference centres - should we as a society take that risk? Or is it down to individuals to assess the risk for themselves?

We will be slowly forced out of lockdown by economic pressures. Neither our governments nor our businesses can afford a lockdown that lasts indefinitely. The risk, that had until now been shouldered by the state, will pass to the individual.

How much risk are you prepared to take?

Would you wander into a leper colony or into a hospital ward full of patients with typhus? Without personal protective equipment? Or into a crowded bar full of strangers in the post-Covid-19 world? Read this blog post from Paul Garner, professor of infectious diseases and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine to see what the disease is like - even if you don't end up in hospital. Fancy your chances?

It's Russian roulette. But how many bullets, and how many chambers?

The actuaries are still out.

One in a million?

Let's look at Poland and the UK [source: Worldometers.info/coronavirus/]

UK: right now - active cases: 179,779

Poland: right now - active cases: 9,406

Let's assume, on the basis of countries with far higher rates of testing than either the UK or Poland, that for every confirmed case there are ten more wandering around, either as asymptomatic carriers, or showing only mild symptoms that don't merit medical attention.

So the UK has around 1,797,790 carriers of the virus. And Poland has 94,060.

The UK's population is 67.8 million. Poland's is 38.2 million. Your chance of meeting someone carrying the virus? In the UK, it's 1 in 38. In Poland, it's 1 in 406. Do you feel lucky? Your chances of catching it are slimmer if you both take precautions. Infected people touch door handles, parcels, packaging, hand rails. They cough and sneeze, spraying droplets into the air. If that infected virus carrier is wearing a mask, and you're also wearing a mask, the risk of infection falls dramatically. If you wash your hands after going out into the public - and develop the muscle-memory not to touch your face, the risk falls dramatically. If you ignore all the health advice - your risk of catching and spreading the virus further increases.

The virus isn't evenly spread around the country - there are geographic clusters of infection, and within those towns and cities there are hotbeds such as care home or hospitals. We know how long the virus can survive on door handles or on plastic work-tops (up to 72 hours). We know that washing your hands with soap, not touching your face, wearing a mask and giving a suitably wide berth to anyone not wearing a mask will decrease the chances of you catching it.

But catch it you still can - just like you can die in a road traffic accident. This Thursday in Poland, nine people died in road accidents; 14 died of Covid-19. [In the UK on Thursday, 539 died of Covid-19. In one day.]

As the pandemic (seems to) get less virulent, so governments need to unfreeze the economy. As this happens, the state will be relinquishing responsibility for its citizens' health - but the citizens themselves need to take that responsibility back. Vulnerable groups (high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, other pre-existing conditions, the elderly) should not venture out without exercising all possible precautions. I have noticed over the past few days that younger Poles have forgotten about masks in public, either dispensing with them all together, or else having them dangling loose and useless. Indoors they are more useful - mask-wearing remains de rigeur in shops.

The risk for the young is low. I won't be taking that risk myself - I will continue to wear a mask on in public, keep a small plastic bottle (from soy sauce in a sushi set!) filled with 95% spirytus rektyfikowany in my pocket as hand sanitiser, wear gloves and maintain a very generous social distance.

You might say I'm overdoing it - but the risk is as yet unknown. No doubt actuaries are working day and night on spreadsheets analysing all the factors that will determine how much risk there is out there. The simple answer is - we don't know. We're learning from day to day, but there's still a long learning curve ahead of us.

Will the virus mutate? It's mutating already, into milder and deadlier strains. Will it come back in a second wave? Likely, if societies and individuals let their guard down.

You take your risk. I'll take mine. As in my previous post, it's an age thing. If you're young, you have far more need to interact with your peers. It's part of your biology. At my age, real-life social interaction is far less important. I'm happy with things as they are - I'm not going to be putting myself into harm's way until the disease has been beaten. Part of this is a reliable antibody test. Could it be that I've already had Covid-19 but in a form so mild that I never even noticed it? Until there's a test available for antibodies in the bloodstream, I don't know. Will there be a vaccine for Covid-19 that's effective across all its various mutations? 

Don't know. These are just the known unknowns. There are unknown unknowns about Covid-19 that no one's yet pondered upon.

This time three years ago:
En Marche! [Polish regional bus 'network']

This time six years ago:
Jeziorki spring pictorial

This time seven years ago:
Kitten time

This time eight years ago:
Warsaw - Centrum to Jeziorki by train with super-wide lens

This time nine years ago:
Loose Lips Sink Ships - part II

This time ten years ago:
Jeziorki in the infra red

This time 11 years ago:
Some rain, at last!

4 comments:

  1. On social distancing, is it me or has the verb ‘to distance oneself’ changed its meaning?

    I will not be original in saying that it has been burnished recently after languishing for tens or maybe hundreds of years in the territory of negative meanings, though that in itself is interesting too. We have been conditioned by politicians, church and corporations to value ‘togetherness’: family, community, team (‘team’ and ‘CV’ go together like soap and water!). Introverts have always had a hard time of it. Suddenly it is good to avoid others.

    But that’s hardly the point, however much it bears on my next observation. For the reasons listed above, it seems to me that, until recently, we have used the verb ‘to distance oneself’ in the figurative sense, only or mostly, as in ‘to avoid dealings with another person (or be tainted by an idea)’. Since when was it used in the sense of ‘to avoid physical contact with or touching another person’? Since January this year, it would appear.

    In fact, and again due to social pressures, even the good old Anglo-Saxon words, which can generally be relied on to stick, have seen their original meaning eroded. ‘Keep away from’ (unless you’re talking about a dog or a cliff edge) tends to be used in the figurative sense. ‘Keep away from that boy! He is bad news,’ – may actually mean that even though you share a desk with him at school, you shouldn’t pall up with him.

    So, my conclusion is that coronavirus has restored the original meanings of words. Where have we been all this time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Polish doctors have work out a (currently a simple version) of a calculator which estimates your probability of death if you contract COVID-19. For a healthy male aged 32, the probability is 0.03%. Probably I am more likely to die from cancer than from COVID-19. What I should care more about is not to infect others, if I am an asymptomatic carrier.

    We will be forced out of lockdown not only by economic pressures but by our innate desire to socialise with other humans, counterbalanced by fear of the virus.

    Read the post by professor Garner. If his father is 97, quite probably he is markedly older than me, yet several relatively young (aged less than 50) people who have recovered from COVID-19 claim the illness is absolutely awful.

    Active cases in Poland now: 9,498 (yet another peak) - still we are not in the downward trend.

    But quite recently we were told it is estimated 2% of Kraków residents have COVID-19 antibodies. For a large city, the percentage might be higher, but assume 1% of Poland's population have gone through COVID-19. 382,000 people vs. 16,000 confirmed cases means less than 5% of the infected have been detected. After confirming a patient diagnosed with pneumonia in December 2019 in France had been down with COVID-19 at that time, we know the virus had been around much earlier. Back-testing in Poland also is requisite to ascertain the timing of first infection in Poland.

    This has two implications: firstly, means actual mortality rates are lower than we thought (much below 1%), secondly it means for a while we had lived with the virus and for several weeks our lives had not been turned upside down.

    Masks deserve a separate note (which I will commit in Polish to my fb wall), but note basic cotton face masks protect not the wearer, but other people. Those young people you see without masks do not increase the risk of infection to themselves, put at peril health and life of people they can have contact with.

    Cycled today with lads of my ages or somewhat older (age range 30 - 45). We all complained about negative effects of social isolation on our psyches. This should not be disregarded. Attempts to take care of mental balance might cause increased risk COVID-wise. I believe relaxation of social discipline has been observed for some two weeks now. Soon we will either see an increase in new cases or will learn despite treating social distancing rules loosely, detrimental effects will be far lesser than we expect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People aren't good at computing risk (or, for that matter, maximising utility). They work by narrative, generally based upon experience ('I can cross the road because the bus is a way further down the street') and sometimes based upon authority. There's potential for a misplaced impression of experience ('I'm young and it's no more than flu') and for poorly-delivered authority (look no further than Boris Johnson's ramblings last Sunday). Then there is cost: it's cheap and easy to wear a mask, if one is so inclined; and so much cheaper than shutting down the economy.

    I'm wary of statistics, which may be well suited to the 'small world' of games of chance where rules are clear and odds fixed, but aren't appropriate under conditions of uncertainty. One might try to calculate the odds of a male non-smoker of a certain age dying of Covid-19, however our personal characteristics are so much more complicated: our unique genes, level of virus loading from Covid-19 and others, fitness, tiredness, mental state, and so on. Exposure to the virus isn't a fixed odds game for non-smoking men aged 40, or for any other group. All the chambers may be empty, or several may be loaded: one just doesn't know.

    I'm also conscious of cause and effect. If I run out in front of a bus, I may die: however injury to anyone else is unlikely. I'd be taking a chance for myself. But if I don't take care about infection, my elderly neighbour or a colleague's parent might get very sick or die, or maybe someone I've never heard of my suffer. At that point experience usually fails (this situation is, after all, new to most of us), which leaves intellect (for those who can figure things out) and authority (for the others) as means of defence. Hence the need for our leaders to be clear.

    Finally, here in the UK, I'm conscious that our leader probably has little idea of how ordinary people think, what life is like without a nice garden to relax in, or what it's like to be under financial pressure. Conditioned by life amongst the educated and cultured, I feel sorry for Boris as he flounders around trying to explain an 'intent' that many won't be able to grasp. He's accompanied by a sign language interpreter - but he needs an interpreter for the common people too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great comments guys - in particular WHP's excellent description of chance and uncertainty in face of virus-loading factors. Student SGH's point about back-testing and antibody tests is crucial if we are to get to the heart of the pandemic. The University of Manchester has suggested that a quarter of the UK's population has already had Covid-19. So 2% of Krakow means there's a lot more to go round :-(

    Jacek Koba - I think like me you are quite happy not being bothered by other human beings! :-)

    ReplyDelete