Jump to content

January47

Member
  • Post count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Average

About January47

  • Rank
    Reserve Team

Recent Profile Visitors

987 profile views
  1. If you look at the data and have regard to the confidence internals there is actually no significant difference between the two numbers. Most non scientific people would not appreciate this but I would expect the bbc scientific correspondent to do so. Why are forced to pay money to this organisation.
  2. A question for those in health care system: if there are less C19 cases in the hospitals, does the requirement for PPE reduce significantly?
  3. This is the most important 'information ' published recently. Its by Public Health England and Cambridge ie not some rentaquote 'scientist' on Sky. The government and its advisors would have known this prior to making their reduced lockdown announcement at the weekend. And the impact of the reduced lockdown would have been modelled in to see its effect on the R number. Behind this data is the obvious assumption that there is now at least partial herd immunity (maybe 40% in london) having a significant effect on transmission. add some social distancing to that and you get the low R figure. The most remarkable 'fact' (a estimate really) is that the infection rate in London has now dropped from over 200.000 per day to 24.
  4. There was also a report today that health care workers were no more likely to die than the general public. I thought this quite an important finding as it would suggest the reported lack of Ppe didn’t have that much of an effect. Goes against the narrative
  5. That data shows a correlation between type of job and rates of death not that the type of job causes an increased risk. Other factors particularly other health issues and income probably show a similar pattern. I’d guess there would be a similar pattern if job type was correlated against deaths from any cause.
  6. Missed out also not being in intensive care
  7. Sorry mate I feel you are making some interesting comments but fundamentally can’t understand what the hell you mean
  8. No it doesnt and I watched the Micky adams team
  9. Stop plastic production tomorrow if you want tens of millions of jobs lost, starvation....this is a long term deliverable and is actually starting to happen.....although a lot of it is in opposition to probably the overriding goal of sustainability
  10. Completely agree. And they can’t legislate for every scenario so that the media vultures can pounce and say but what about this It’s a slow release of the conditions whilst monitoring the infection rates
  11. Interesting thanks for that. Key thing for me if you are under fifty and healthy it’s not really that life threatening
  12. In what way. They have pretty much until now been in step with the rest of the Uk. And I think they have similar levels to the rest of the Uk. they just don’t get the media treatment as Boris et al
  13. I'm not saying that this is wrong however I'd be a little cautious. We had an extremely mild winter and as shown on the graph expected deaths for several months were well below normal so some of this could be a case of catching up. There are so many parameters affecting these numbers that its difficult to make conclusions until you get the benefit of hindsight and more data/research.
  14. And on another around numbers of deaths etc. Population of Wuhan is 12 million; I'm guessing 200k deaths a year. In winter over 2 months I think you would expect to see 42k deaths. So sounds a lot but is what you might expect. As i've said before these figures cant be taken in isolation but need to be compared to a control.
  15. However the class action lawsuits through the American courts will order hundreds of trillions of dollars against china
×
×
  • Create New...