Coronavirus

[Tredman]

Teachers aren’t furloughed are they?

 

[Rui_CostCo]

This sounds bonkers, do you have any evidence?

It's all out there hiding in plain sight

R is the basic reproduction number of the virus, which is being calculated based on new number of cases, which by definition only includes people who have tested positive. The fact people with symptoms have been told just to isolate themselves and are not all being tested is common knowledge. The fact that free tests are being offered to people who have never shown any symptoms or felt in any particular danger is also common knowledge.

Yesterday's Cases slide states that this does not include all cases, just people who've been tested

The slide after states that we are dealing with estimates

The Statistical notes for the slides states that the R is based on Estimates, and is based on a study of people with or without symptoms


Source
2020-05-14 COVID-19 Press Conference Slides - for publication

 

[AndyWolves]

It's all out there hiding in plain sight

R is the basic reproduction number of the virus, which is being calculated based on new number of cases, which by definition only includes people who have tested positive. The fact people with symptoms have been told just to isolate themselves and are not all being tested is common knowledge. The fact that free tests are being offered to people who have never shown any symptoms or felt in any particular danger is also common knowledge.

Yesterday's Cases slide states that this does not include all cases, just people who've been tested
View attachment 2811
The slide after states that we are dealing with estimates
View attachment 2809
The Statistical notes for the slides states that the R is based on Estimates, and is based on a study of people with or without symptoms
View attachment 2810

Source
2020-05-14 COVID-19 Press Conference Slides - for publication

None of that shows how they're calculating R.

 

[AndyWolves]

Quite agree but what if the schools are not safe and teachers won't go? How do you socially distance in a school?

I'm sure you cannot leave a child under fourteen on their own.

There aren't any perfect answers to any of this. That's not the govts fault, it's the nature of being in a global pandemic.

We have to do what's best, and if that means getting primary school children back in being taught by teachers who are in the lower risk categories then that's what we have to do.

The point, which I think you've made as well numerous times, is that for the overwhelming majority the virus isn't really an issue for them.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

None of that shows how they're calculating R.

Estimated average number of people who had COVID-19 (England)

This study addresses an important clinical priority: finding out how many people across the UK have a COVID-19 infection at a
given point in time, or at least test positive for it, either with or without symptoms; how many new cases have occurred in a given time period; and how many people are ever likely to have had the infection. It will also enable estimates of the rate of transmission of the infection, often referred to as “R”. ONS have published further
information on the strengths and limitations of the estimates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey pilot: England, 14 May 2020

This study has been criticised for many reasons

 

[AndyWolves]

Estimated average number of people who had COVID-19 (England)

This study addresses an important clinical priority: finding out how many people across the UK have a COVID-19 infection at a
given point in time, or at least test positive for it, either with or without symptoms; how many new cases have occurred in a given time period; and how many people are ever likely to have had the infection. It will also enable estimates of the rate of transmission of the infection, often referred to as “R”. ONS have published further
information on the strengths and limitations of the estimates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey pilot: England, 14 May 2020

This study has been criticised for many reasons

Thats the pilot study though, and nothing is said about hospital admissions being used or any other testing numbers being used

 

[Papper]

We have to do what's best, and if that means getting primary school children back in being taught by teachers who are in the lower risk categories then that's what we have to do.

The lower risk going out to work is exactly what I would have advocated from the beginning. But as Paddy alluded to earlier in the thread what if that person takes the virus home to another who is vulnerable. For me the furlough should have been set until a vaccine was available to those who are highly vulnerable and those in the same household. Trouble is yo then get somebody say even those with mild symptoms risk long term damage. Glad I'm not Johnson - the sniping doesn't really add to a shitty situation.

 

[Papper]

Estimated average number of people who had COVID-19 (England)

This study addresses an important clinical priority: finding out how many people across the UK have a COVID-19 infection at a
given point in time, or at least test positive for it, either with or without symptoms; how many new cases have occurred in a given time period; and how many people are ever likely to have had the infection. It will also enable estimates of the rate of transmission of the infection, often referred to as “R”. ONS have published further
information on the strengths and limitations of the estimates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey pilot: England, 14 May 2020

This study has been criticised for many reasons

The GIGO analogy fits this. They know fuck all until everybody has been tested for antigen/antibody. All they know for any certainty is mortality per day of lockdown. The situation in London is quite remarkable but given teh dependancy on public transport to get around the cynic in me thinks it's all a PR stunt to get people moving - after all the lion share of tax paid in the UK eminates from that area.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Thats the pilot study though, and nothing is said about hospital admissions being used or any other testing numbers being used

I'm not sure i understand the bit about Hospital admissions?

 

[AndyWolves]

The lower risk going out to work is exactly what I would have advocated from the beginning. But as Paddy alluded to earlier in the thread what if that person takes the virus home to another who is vulnerable. For me the furlough should have been set until a vaccine was available to those who are highly vulnerable and those in the same household. Trouble is yo then get somebody say even those with mild symptoms risk long term damage. Glad I'm not Johnson - the sniping doesn't really add to a shitty situation.

Agree with that.

Are people really expecting to be on furlough for 12-18 months though, that just isn't realistic.

 

[machin05]

Unsurprisingly not "following the science" when it comes to sending kids back to school - https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-chief...-he-hasnt-assessed-school-reopening-guidance/

 

[Papper]

Agree with that.

Are people really expecting to be on furlough for 12-18 months though, that just isn't realistic.

Not sure, furlough those I said and test to fuck until some semblence of herd immunity was set and it could have possibly reduced the furlough. Trouble is the media hysteria and an incompetent governement put paid to that - plus that cunt Ferguson.

 

[AndyWolves]

I'm not sure i understand the bit about Hospital admissions?

I don't think they explicitly said which other data, apart from the pilot study, they were using to calculate R

 

[Papper]

Uk 256 deaths. Coming down quicker than a whore's knickers. Is Johnson's 12 weeks prediction close ?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It’s encouraging. Another week of data like that and there might be a further loosening. Obviously we need to wait for two weeks to see if there has been any effect from the loosening measures announced on Sunday.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

I don't think they explicitly said which other data, apart from the pilot study, they were using to calculate R

As far as I am aware, since April 27th the announcements on the infection rate have been based on that pilot, which are all estimates, only include private households, and excludes "anyone in hospitals, care homes or other institutional settings".


What they're not explaining whilst creating their panel of armchair experts is potential issues with the data such as the significance of the confidence levels in their assessment of 148,000 people which mean it could be as low as 94,000, but could also be as high as 222,000. They could be over estimating by 54k and underestimating by 74k which are pretty big swings.

My initial point was that if you asked most people who are watching the daily updates, they would tell you that the infection rate is below 1 and is falling , when the reality is it's a guess. An educated guess, but a guess all the same.

Would people feel as comfortable knowing and understanding we are acting on a statistical guess and the size of that guess as they are believing they're listening to scientific fact? I don't think they would be.

 

[The Weasel]

I keep seeing the phrase "until we get a vaccine"...that's clearly not driven by the science as the human race has never developed a successful vaccine for a coronavirus (that works with humans): https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616

I reckon best we can hope for is they develop drugs that enable you to live with the virus rather than die from it (like they did with HIV).

 

[Johnny75]

Uk 256 deaths. Coming down quicker than a whore's knickers. Is Johnson's 12 weeks prediction close ?

What an unfortunate comparison.

 

[AndyWolves]

As far as I am aware, since April 27th the announcements on the infection rate have been based on that pilot, which are all estimates, only include private households, and excludes "anyone in hospitals, care homes or other institutional settings".


What they're not explaining whilst creating their panel of armchair experts is potential issues with the data such as the significance of the confidence levels in their assessment of 148,000 people which mean it could be as low as 94,000, but could also be as high as 222,000. They could be over estimating by 54k and underestimating by 74k which are pretty big swings.

My initial point was that if you asked most people who are watching the daily updates, they would tell you that the infection rate is below 1 and is falling , when the reality is it's a guess. An educated guess, but a guess all the same.

Would people feel as comfortable knowing and understanding we are acting on a statistical guess and the size of that guess as they are believing they're listening to scientific fact? I don't think they would be.

I don't think anyone thinks that the R estimate is based on testing everybody. It's kind of obvious it's made on estimates, models and predictions, hence they give a range rather than one number

 

[Rui_CostCo]

I havent watched all of them, on the whole they're tedious, lacking in substance and tend to annoy me, but I'm happy to be corrected on the fact I don't think anyone has said so far
'We estimate that there are 148,000 people in the UK with Covid but that may only be around 65% of the true number, we just don't know at the moment.'

You're making assumptions on things being obvious to a large number of people who believe every lie that drips from their favourite politicians lips.