Does basing comparisons on excess deaths help to deal with these variables as suggested by the government?
Printable View
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
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.....
a cardiff city member of staff tests positive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52863552
What’s happened to the Covid Alert System? As I thought this was the public guide as to when restrictions would be relaxed as it combined ‘R’ with number of cases.
There was a bit of fanfare that we were progressing towards level 3. It was presented daily at one stage but has disappeared as far as I can tell since 22nd May.
Let's be honest, the 'R' number is pure guesswork anyway, sin't it? How could it be anything else if you can have the virus and not even know about it?
Preston striker Jayden Stockley has apparently tested positive. He's apparently asymptomatic and feeling no ill effect, and said: "It came as a complete shock. I got a call from the doctor when I came back from training. I felt brilliant, put a good session in and his number came up. We were aware we would get a call if our test was positive and I was thinking 'no, surely not', but he told me and it was a surreal moment."
I think Boris & Co have just about given up on the pretense that they're following the science. They're just letting things gradually return to normal and to be honest I don't think they've got much option to do otherwise given the hopeless mess they've made of the situation since the outset.
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..
Here's a couple of articles from May claiming the r rate is probably as low outside hospitals and care homes as you suggest;-
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...laims-11985343
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ostly-affects/
One is from an individual who it appears has some expertise on the subject and the other is a "government source" - I've always been cynical about quotes from Government sources, a feeling that has increased an awful lot over the last couple of months.
I don't quite understand. England are currently on level 4 of the Covid alert system but they've now announced that the vulnerable people who've been shielding can leave the house on Monday. So how have they jumped from level 4 to level 1 overnight?
Attachment 3865
It feels a bit like let's see what happens and hope for the best over the bridge at the moment, I'm glad we're letting them plough the road
I just read that Tim Matthews the man who reported the second sighting of Dominic Cummins in Co Durham had admitted he was lying and had not seen him. He said he did it is "A Joke". Also the retired teacher who reported him to the Police broke the rules himself when he drove 250 miles to collect his daughter who was self isolating in Berkshire, but he didn't declare it until his daughter was suddenly seen at his home and he had to admit it.
Apparently the thing was orchestrated by Baroness Armstrong, a very pro remain anti-brexit supporter who wanted to get back at Cummins for winning the exit referendum.
It also seems that Jeremy Hunt is one of the people briefing against the PM after he lost out in the race to be the New leader of the party.
And in other news MP Rosie Duffield had admitted she breached lock-down rules by visiting her 'Married Lover'.
All these people are as bad as each other.
Any word from people ITK about what city are going to do about their games if the restrictions are lifted by the Welsh Government?
And if the travel to use a ground in England will the police stop and find them for making an unnecessary journey more than 5 miles from home are will they be classed as going to work?
I don’t see how that changes much, his own statement was what was being debated anyway. They are all as bad as each other but that doesn’t make any of them less wrong.
I agree 100% but it does make one doubt more and more anything that is reported in the media.
I have said for a long time that when the media put up x number of 'ordinary' people that tends to show that the public is for or against a thing it should be obvious that if they held a different view and didn't agree with the argument that particular media outlet was making they wouldn't be included in the interview. not always but generally the point holds.
That aside it just demonstrates that you can't trust any of them.
Id be very shocked if we didn’t get a second peak in England, things had to be relaxed but it all seems a bit hit and hope atm.