Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[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]

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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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]

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.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

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.

It was a scientist writing in the Telegraph. Also a couple of other articles I've read along similar lines, but can't find them. Here's this from the Govt. own site :

R is estimated by a range of independent modelling groups based in universities and Public Health England (PHE). The modelling groups present their individual R estimates to the Science Pandemic Influenza Modelling group (SPI-M) - a subgroup of SAGE - for discussion. Attendees compare the different estimates of R and SPI- M collectively agrees a range which R is very likely to be within.


It's not the point I'm making, but it confirms that a number of organizations come up with what they think is the 'R' number and the take an average. So there may be a figure of 0.3 out there, there may be a figure of 0.1 out there. All very scientific but like all the cr*p we're having to take it's a combination of opinion, politics, with a smattering of hard evidence..