Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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]

Re: Coronavirus update

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

[Baloo]

Re: Coronavirus update

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 .

Does basing comparisons on excess deaths help to deal with these variables as suggested by the government?

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

I think most people are happy with it as a key indicator of where we are......

Although the 'R' number hasn't exactly been a regular topic of conversation with the people I've been encountering during the last ten weeks, when it has been discussed (admittedly only on a couple of occasions with a small group of people) the verdict has been unanimous - confusing, don't really get it, etc.

Today, England’s deputy chief medical officer said live on TV: "This virus has a natural R number of 3. One case will infect three more people."

That'll do for me and, I suspect, most others.

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Although the 'R' number hasn't exactly been a regular topic of conversation with the people I've been encountering during the last ten weeks, when it has been discussed (admittedly only on a couple of occasions with a small group of people) the verdict has been unanimous - confusing, don't really get it, etc.

Today, England’s deputy chief medical officer said live on TV: "This virus has a natural R number of 3. One case will infect three more people."

That'll do for me and, I suspect, most others.

It’s a virus looking for hosts, and unchallenged it’ll move from one host to three others, mainly through close human to human contact. In relatively few moves it can spread rapidly 1 infects 3, 3-9, 9-27, 27-54 etc

By reducing human to human contact, plus good hygiene we reduce the chance of it finding hosts, to the degree that one person with virus spreads it, on average, to less than one person, so eventually it can’t find hosts and disappears. The balance easing lockdown is to ensure that we keep the chances of it infecting people under control...ie R less than 1

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

It’s a virus looking for hosts, and unchallenged it’ll move from one host to three others, mainly through close human to human contact. In relatively few moves it can spread rapidly 1 infects 3, 3-9, 9-27, 27-54 etc

By reducing human to human contact, plus good hygiene we reduce the chance of it finding hosts, to the degree that one person with virus spreads it, on average, to less than one person, so eventually it can’t find hosts and disappears. The balance easing lockdown is to ensure that we keep the chances of it infecting people under control...ie R less than 1

Sorry about my maths...27 -81.....

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Coronavirus update

It's fascinating in that the virus, like all living organisms (apart from Sludge Factory) lives in order to reproduce but it either kills its hosts or finds that its hosts survives the attack of the virus.....