Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[the other bob wilson]

I see there's a study today saying that seventy per cent of those testing positive (not sure if it's for England only or the UK) report no symptoms. This must mean that the percentage of the population who have had the virus has to be higher than the figure of seven per cent I hear a lot of surely?

[Baloo]

What did Matt Hancock mean in today's briefing when he said we need to really focus on the R rate for the country as a whole before potentially applying localised lockdown measures? He seemed to say it every time it was mentioned that R may be over 1 again in certain regions. Not having a dig just couldn't follow this point which he made several times.

[xsnaggle]

What did Matt Hancock mean in today's briefing when he said we need to really focus on the R rate for the country as a whole before potentially applying localised lockdown measures? He seemed to say it every time it was mentioned that R may be over 1 again in certain regions. Not having a dig just couldn't follow this point which he made several times.

I think what he meant was that they get information form a lot of different sources and have to put it all together and find a common way forward. If for example it's 1.1 in liverpool them presumably it is lower somewhere else. That's not a lot of comfort to liverpudlians but I think they also consider the falling infection rate and stuff like that when they consider regional actions.

[the other bob wilson]

I think what he meant was that they get information form a lot of different sources and have to put it all together and find a common way forward. If for example it's 1.1 in liverpool them presumably it is lower somewhere else. That's not a lot of comfort to liverpudlians but I think they also consider the falling infection rate and stuff like that when they consider regional actions.

I thought he said the R was between .7 and .9 all over the Uk and so I assumed that what he meant was that, as long as that was the case, there was no need for localised lockdowns, but he seemed somewhat distracted throughout the briefing to me and so I might have got the wrong end of the stick.

[xsnaggle]

I thought he said the R was between .7 and .9 all over the Uk and so I assumed that what he meant was that, as long as that was the case, there was no need for localised lockdowns, but he seemed somewhat distracted throughout the briefing to me and so I might have got the wrong end of the stick.

I wasn't sure myself. What I posted is what I "think" he meant. But I don't believe they'd knowing let the R go up to 1.3 or whatever number which would cause everything to go tits up. Even the government can't be that stupid. Can they????

[cyril evans awaydays]

I wasn't sure myself. What I posted is what I "think" he meant. But I don't believe they'd knowing let the R go up to 1.3 or whatever number which would cause everything to go tits up. Even the government can't be that stupid. Can they????

This was supposed to be a public information briefing I guess?

[jon1959]

What did Matt Hancock mean in today's briefing when he said we need to really focus on the R rate for the country as a whole before potentially applying localised lockdown measures? He seemed to say it every time it was mentioned that R may be over 1 again in certain regions. Not having a dig just couldn't follow this point which he made several times.

I missed it today, but if he did say that he is contradicting the government message from earlier in the week. Regional R rates seem to be significant or not depending on the political priority of the day!

[CCFCC3PO]

I see there's a study today saying that seventy per cent of those testing positive (not sure if it's for England only or the UK) report no symptoms. This must mean that the percentage of the population who have had the virus has to be higher than the figure of seven per cent I hear a lot of surely?

Not really. The 7% figure is obtained from recent anti-body tests, and those tests included people who reported no symptoms. The 70% figure would suggest that 4.9% of the population have had covid-19 with no symptoms, and 2.1% have had the virus and reported symptoms.

[Gofer Blue]

If you look at today’s graphs showing the number of people in hospital suffering with COVID19, the data for Wales show that the end of the curve has been flat for the last 3 -4 weeks (difficult to be precise as the x axis is not fully annotated). Indeed it looks like there might even be an increase at the end whereas every other region has the curve continuing to fall. Not a good sign I would have thought? No-one from the media has commented on this as far as I know.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.go...with_Annex.pdf

[cyril evans awaydays]

I see there's a study today saying that seventy per cent of those testing positive (not sure if it's for England only or the UK) report no symptoms. This must mean that the percentage of the population who have had the virus has to be higher than the figure of seven per cent I hear a lot of surely?

This is a really informative website from the University of Cambridge study. It is only for England but the summaries are really informative and the stats and graphs likewise. Things like the estimate that 16% of 5-14 year olds in England have been infected but just 0.001% of those infected (IFR) have died compared with only 3% of over 75 year old being infected but of those 23% have died. Nothing new in terms of what we have been told around the disproportionate impact on the young and old but stark when you see the supporting statistics.

Similarly there are some informative graphs tracking the R rate particularly around key points of changes in Government Policy in England. The massive falls in R just after the lockdown and the increases as policies were softened on May 12th with attendant increased likelihood that R is above 1 by English Region as we move towards the 1 June additional softening where there is no data yet.

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

[goats]

This is a really informative website from the University of Cambridge study. It is only for England but the summaries are really informative and the stats and graphs likewise. Things like the estimate that 16% of 5-14 year olds in England have been infected but just 0.001% of those infected (IFR) have died compared with only 3% of over 75 year old being infected but of those 23% have died. Nothing new in terms of what we have been told around the disproportionate impact on the young and old but stark when you see the supporting statistics.

Similarly there are some informative graphs tracking the R rate particularly around key points of changes in Government Policy in England. The massive falls in R just after the lockdown and the increases as policies were softened on May 12th with attendant increased likelihood that R is above 1 by English Region as we move towards the 1 June additional softening where there is no data yet.

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Things looking good in Germany and Italy now as things have opened, as did schools in France a month ago....

[cyril evans awaydays]

Things looking good in Germany and Italy now as things have opened, as did schools in France a month ago....

Not sure what point you are making. Are you saying that the R rate and number of daily infections in Germany and Italy was the same as ours when they took comparable measures to ease the lockdown therefore we have strong evidence from elsewhere that we will see similar results?

[CCFCC3PO]

Not sure what point you are making. Are you saying that the R rate and number of daily infections in Germany and Italy was the same as ours when they took comparable measures to ease the lockdown therefore we have strong evidence from elsewhere that we will see similar results?

If he is saying that, then he is wrong. The R rate in Germany was at 0.65 when the lockdown was announced.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...st-in-six-days

https://public.flourish.studio/visua...sation/2720245