Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[The Lone Gunman]

He’s hardly alone though, labour got there arses handed to them in a plate last election, hugely embarrassing for them with some of the seats they lost. I won’t comment though, I hate the stuff.

Let's be honest, Johnson's ascension to power began with the Brexit referendum. I think the chances that he'd be Prime Minister and Cummings would be the government's top adviser without that Leave vote are slim to none.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

You've neglected to mention a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, a variety of other health issues and the fact that a significant and ever-growing percentage of the population are sick to the back teeth of living like this.

The simple fact of the matter is that a full-scale lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure. There are valid arguments to suggest it began too late or it wasn't stringent enough in the UK, but that's effectively in the past now. You only have to have walked the streets in recent weeks to realise that things have changed significantly and many of the predictions about how things will work going forward are fanciful at best.

The ideas of either an indefinite continuation of the current restrictions or a reintroduction of earlier restrictions if the infection rate rises again are unworkable. Personally, I don't see any value at all in suggestion the lockdown should continue. It's just pointless.

Bloody hell. Never thought I'd read that !

[The Lone Gunman]

Bloody hell. Never thought I'd read that !

Why? It's been my pretty much my position all along.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Why? It's been my pretty much my position all along.

Hang on. I remember 'discussing' with you around 8 weeks ago about the authorities telling an old couple to clear off from Llandaff Fields. I've been a sceptic [as I am with a lot of things] about lockdown from day 1.

[xsnaggle]

You've neglected to mention a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, a variety of other health issues and the fact that a significant and ever-growing percentage of the population are sick to the back teeth of living like this.

The simple fact of the matter is that a full-scale lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure. There are valid arguments to suggest it began too late or it wasn't stringent enough in the UK, but that's effectively in the past now. You only have to have walked the streets in recent weeks to realise that things have changed significantly and many of the predictions about how things will work going forward are fanciful at best.

The ideas of either an indefinite continuation of the current restrictions or a reintroduction of earlier restrictions if the infection rate rises again are unworkable. Personally, I don't see any value at all in suggestion the lockdown should continue. It's just pointless.

I agree, I've said for weeks that people will push back against it eventually, and the bigger the divergence between governing bodies the harder people will push.

[The Lone Gunman]

Hang on. I remember 'discussing' with you around 8 weeks ago about the authorities telling an old couple to clear off from Llandaff Fields. I've been a sceptic [as I am with a lot of things] about lockdown from day 1.

It was nine weeks ago, during the first full week of the UK lockdown, and at that stage the police were right to tell the pensioners (who had driven to Llandaff Fields) to clear off.

In my opinion, the original lockdown regulations in this country lacked common sense, were not stringent enough (particularly in terms of exercise and travel) and the guidance provided by the government was far too woolly and open to interpretation. However, as I said at the time, a full-scale lockdown (and let's be honest, we never really had one of those) could only ever be a temporary measure.

Since then, the effects of the virus have become more and more clear in terms of the percentage and age of the population it is affecting, and the government's guidance has become ever more ridiculous - especially the situation that has evolved regarding different rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The whole thing has been a badly-managed mess, but that doesn't alter the fact that a lockdown, regardless of how stringent it is, could only ever be temporary in nature.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

I agree, I've said for weeks that people will push back against it eventually, and the bigger the divergence between governing bodies the harder people will push.

As Mark Drakeford says ".. this is not an invitation to go into a garden, have a few beers ...".

[The Lone Gunman]

As Mark Drakeford says ".. this is not an invitation to go into a garden, have a few beers ...".

People haven't needed an invitation for that. They've been doing it for at least a month already.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

It was nine weeks ago, during the first full week of the UK lockdown, and at that stage the police were right to tell the pensioners (who had driven to Llandaff Fields) to clear off.

In my opinion, the original lockdown regulations in this country lacked common sense, were not stringent enough (particularly in terms of exercise and travel) and the guidance provided by the government was far too woolly and open to interpretation. However, as I said at the time, a full-scale lockdown (and let's be honest, we never really had one of those) could only ever be a temporary measure.

Since then, the effects of the virus have become more and more clear in terms of the percentage and age of the population it is affecting, and the government's guidance has become ever more ridiculous - especially the situation that has evolved regarding different rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The whole thing has been a badly-managed mess, but that doesn't alter the fact that a lockdown, regardless of how stringent it is, could only ever be temporary in nature.

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

[The Lone Gunman]

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

R is the number of pirate sightings within British waters.

[delmbox]

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

It's the amount of people one person could infect. If it's above 1 the virus will grow exponentially, if it's below 1 it'll gradually die out due to lack of people infecting each other.

For example if the R number is 3 then each person who gets it will pass it on to 3 other people, if it's 1 then each person will pass it on to 1 other person. So if it's less than 1 then each person will pass it to "less" than one other person so it doesn't spread as much and dies.

Interestingly, left unchecked, measles has an R number of 15

[the other bob wilson]

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

Have you got anything you can link to regarding your claims about the R number? The infections by area chart I posted yesterday had something like five of the top 10 in the infections per 100,000 "league" with where I live, RCT, at the top- that is suggestive that the R number in certain parts of Wales is high compared to most of the UK.

[delmbox]

Is this true? Not been keeping up with the death counts this week. Crazy if it is

https://twitter.com/MikeCordingley/s...916943360?s=20

[Jordi Culé]

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

Is it really? Got a link? Genuinely, interested in those statistics as it would suggest the economy could be ready to rock n roll and we just needed to concentrate on care homes.

[CCFCC3PO]

Is this true? Not been keeping up with the death counts this week. Crazy if it is

https://twitter.com/MikeCordingley/s...916943360?s=20

That is true.

Today it is

Spain
Italy 111
Germany (so far 4 today)
France
Turkey
Belgium 23
Sweden 45
Portugal 13
Ireland
Poland 10
Romania 11
Hungary 7
Netherlands 20
UK 215

Average UK deaths per day over last 7 days (incl today) 243 (down 22.9%)
Same time last week, average was 315 (down 23.4%)
2 weeks ago, daily average was 411

New cases.
Average UK over last 7 days (incl today) 1948 (down 28.3%)
Same time last week, average was 2719 (down 23.6%)
2 weeks ago, daily average was 3557

[CCFCC3PO]

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

Where is it publicised?

[Jordi Culé]

Where is it publicised?

In his head.

There’s a saying north of Taffs Well for this sort of thinking “as dull as dogshit.”

I’d happily be proven wrong about Quiet Monkfish information though.

[The Lone Gunman]

It's the amount of people one person could infect. For example if the R number is 3 then each person who gets it will pass it on to 3 other people, if it's 1 then each person will pass it on to 1 other person.

This is what I don't understand. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

We are continually told this virus is highly contagious. We are told by the medical experts that anyone you come into contact with could become infected if you have the virus, even if you're not showing showing any symptoms. Then they start talking about R numbers, which apparently fluctuate.

Maybe I'm just too literal or stupid, but that sounds ridiculous to me. If anything, I think talk of the R number has confused the issue for the public, particularly when many of those discussing it obviously don't really know what they're on about.

If I have Covid-19 and I'm in direct contact with ten people today, what physical difference does an R number make?

[The Lone Gunman]

It's the amount of people one person could infect.

I've just watched a brief clip from today's briefing, during which Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said: "This virus has a natural R number of 3. One case will infect three more people."

[delmbox]

If I have Covid-19 and I'm in direct contact with ten people today, what physical difference does an R number make?

The point of the lockdown and social distancing is that you no one comes into direct contact with anyone though (as in, everyone stays 2m away from everyone else).

So without any action being taken, the R rate of Covid is around 3 or 4. However, the lockdown has brought it down to under 1. Social distancing should in theory mean that it doesn't now rise to 3 or 4 because we don't put ourselves in direct contact with 10 other people. Say you're irresponsible and do so but 100 others stick to social distancing then I guess it averages out overall?

This is just my interpretation of it though, I may be wrong, but that's how it makes sense to me


EDIT - just seen your post saying the R number is 3

[The Lone Gunman]

The point of the lockdown and social distancing is that no one comes into direct contact with anyone though (as in, everyone stays 2m away from everyone else).

So without any action being taken, the R rate of Covid is around 3 or 4. However, the lockdown has brought it down to under 1. Social distancing should in theory mean that it doesn't now rise to 3 or 4 because we don't put ourselves in direct contact with 10 other people. Say you're irresponsible and do so but 100 others stick to social distancing then I guess it averages out overall?

This is just my interpretation of it though, I may be wrong, but that's how it makes sense to me.

I do understand the concept (at least to a degree), but I think it's something the scientists, medical experts and politicians should have kept to themselves rather than make a key factor in their public discussions about the pandemic. I don't think it's helped at all. Indeed, I think it's not only confused the issue but it may have even given some people a false sense of security.

If they had said at the outset that if you have this virus you are likely to infect at least three more people and simply left it at that, I think the public would have understood it and the message would have been far more effective. However, by talking about getting the 'R' number down, saying stuff like 'the R is now between 0.5 and 0.8,' and displaying graphics claiming that one infected person is now infecting just 0.6 others, they've served only to complicate the issue.

[life on mars]

So have you as you know f all about me. Born Cardiff, raised on a council estate, made some money playing music in teens. Dad a fitter who had TB for years and we lived on the breadline. Only Christmas present I had one year was from the local Conservative Club. Pulled myself together after an ordinary education and made something of my life.

My wife's from Ton Pentre, dyed in the wool valley's girl and very proud of her history. I worked for many years as a rep in the Valley's areas, made many friends and have fond memories.

As for politics, Starmer would get my vote if there was an election tomorrow, but Drakeford wouldn't.

And I hope you do raise the Rhondda issue at your next Labour meeting because its cost lives

Nice. I know a lot of RCT folk who would agree with you .

One has to move on

[life on mars]

I do understand the concept (at least to a degree), but I think it's something the scientists, medical experts and politicians should have kept to themselves rather than make a key factor in their public discussions about the pandemic. I don't think it's helped at all. Indeed, I think it's not only confused the issue but it may have even given some people a false sense of security.

If they had said at the outset that if you have this virus you are likely to infect at least three more people and simply left it at that, I think the public would have understood it and the message would have been far more effective. However, by talking about getting the 'R' number down, saying stuff like 'the R is now between 0.5 and 0.8,' and displaying graphics claiming that one infected person is now infecting just 0.6 others, they've served only to complicate the issue.

I do agree .

The other worthless reported matter are graphs by country, it's never going to match whilst countries report differently , they a have different links to the outside world , some have ageing communities, different ethnicities, obesity, diabetics , Immne systems , reporting of covid on death certs are different , some countries have less care homes , some countries are less dense than ours , etc etc .

[lisvaneblue]

I do understand the concept (at least to a degree), but I think it's something the scientists, medical experts and politicians should have kept to themselves rather than make a key factor in their public discussions about the pandemic. I don't think it's helped at all. Indeed, I think it's not only confused the issue but it may have even given some people a false sense of security.

If they had said at the outset that if you have this virus you are likely to infect at least three more people and simply left it at that, I think the public would have understood it and the message would have been far more effective. However, by talking about getting the 'R' number down, saying stuff like 'the R is now between 0.5 and 0.8,' and displaying graphics claiming that one infected person is now infecting just 0.6 others, they've served only to complicate the issue.

There has been a lot on line explaining this. As said earlier the virus naturally has an R of 3 or 4. One person, primarily through physical contact will pass it on to 3or4 people, and each of those would pass on and so it escalates.
Through reduction of possible host contacts via isolation the chance of passing on is reduced. Also someone in contact with a Covid patient who practices good hand hygiene etc is less likely to allow the virus to get a hold via nose, mouth etc

So following guidance reduces the chance of the virus being able to spread through contact, thus a reduction of R,
Less than R1 and overall less cases catching it than have it.

I think most people are happy with it as a key indicator of where we are, but it is often not included in daily briefings