Corona Virus

[Big Dave]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've said it about 10 times but I'll say it again, the pentalties aren't harsh enough, hence why these people don't care.

When you have people like this, increasing penalties often has little impact.

[Big Dave]

35 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Absolutely heartbreaking, the human cost of this.

 

 

That is truly awful.

 

However according to Trump, the US has passed its ‘peak’ of infections.

[Dahnsouff]

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Big Dave said:

When you have people like this, increasing penalties often has little impact.

 Nutters are nutters ..........

 

they’re everywhere ...........

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

The worst thing for me is the headaches and my sleep, I keep having bad dreams and waking up with a headache. It probably happens 3 times a week and then I get stressed too as I've got a lot on my mind atm. I've tried to open the windows and keep myself hydrated to make it slightly better.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, Lionator said:

It's not no 

 

This does sound promising to my inexpert eye.

 

Don’t claim to have followed the modelling/maths, but the gist seems to be that the population is unlikely to be uniformly susceptible to infection. This means that if infection/immunity is acquired by natural means as opposed to by vaccination, the most likely people to be infected early on are those with high susceptibility. This then only leaves those that are less susceptible to infection, thus lowering the effective R more than might be expected if everyone were uniformly susceptible.

 

There seemed to be a similar argument for those that have more connections/interactions with others. Some people are much more connected than others, (e.g. travel more, meet more people, are in closer contact with others such as on tube trains, etc). These people are more likely to get infected and more likely to pass the infection on, so are again likely to be taken out early (infected and rendered immune or die). This means that those that remain for a potential second wave are likely to be less connected, again reducing the effective R.

 

I believe that they combined both of these effects into a single parameter CV in their graphs, and the good news (assuming that their modelling is correct) is that as CV increases (I.e. bigger unevenness in susceptibility and/or connectedness), the threshold for herd immunity rapidly diminishes, and could be as low as 10% or 20%.

 

This would certainly be a game changer I’d think, but the actual value of CV is unknown, though they seem to think that for other viruses it is a significant factor.

 

Edited 3 May 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Beechey]

Daily dose of optimism

 

 

Edited 3 May 2020 by Beechey

[Mike Oxlong]

Gove is a far more capable performer than Hancock, Raab or Patel in the daily briefings 

[Lionator]

22 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This does sound promising to my inexpert eye.

 

Don’t claim to have followed the modelling/maths, but the gist seems to be that the population is unlikely to be uniformly susceptible to infection. This means that if infection/immunity is acquired by natural means as opposed to by vaccination, the most likely people to be infected early on are those with high susceptibility. This then only leaves those that are less susceptible to infection, thus lowering the effective R more than might be expected if everyone were uniformly susceptible.

 

There seemed to be a similar argument for those that have more connections/interactions with others. Some people are much more connected than others, (e.g. travel more, meet more people, are in closer contact with others such as on tube trains, etc). These people are more likely to get infected and more likely to pass the infection on, so are again likely to be taken out early (infected and rendered immune or die). This means that those that remain for a potential second wave are likely to be less connected, again reducing the effective R.

 

I believe that they combined both of these effects into a single parameter CV in their graphs, and the good news (assuming that their modelling is correct) is that as CV increases (I.e. bigger unevenness in susceptibility and/or connectedness), the threshold for herd immunity rapidly diminishes, and could be as low as 10% or 20%.

 

This would certainly be a game changer I’d think, but the actual value of CV is unknown, though they seem to think that for other viruses it is a significant factor.

 

Summarised it better than I could! It's only a preprint so it's not been peer reviewed and published but it makes logical sense. A good way of measuring this might be how many healthcare workers have now got immunity, if it's a lot higher than the general population then this prediction might ring true! 

 

 

[StanSP]

Why does this guy want to names of those people doing the inquiry? Hardly a pressing matter right now is it? 

 

To claim racism about all the disproportionate BAME deaths is a strong one, and could be wildly off the mark. Odd question to ask in my opinion. Not exactly something for a daily briefing. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Why does this guy want to names of those people doing the inquiry? Hardly a pressing matter right now is it? 

 

To claim racism about all the disproportionate BAME deaths is a strong one, and could be wildly off the mark. Odd question to ask in my opinion. Not exactly something for a daily briefing. 

Minefield. Would be rash to form any outcome so early, as such it should not be chased by the public at this point.

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The worst thing for me is the headaches and my sleep, I keep having bad dreams and waking up with a headache. It probably happens 3 times a week and then I get stressed too as I've got a lot on my mind atm. I've tried to open the windows and keep myself hydrated to make it slightly better.

Glad it's not just me feeling this. I'm getting headaches a few times a week and getting tired every day, even when trying to be productive. 

[WigstonWanderer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html?referringSource=articleShare
 

Article discussing why some countries seem to be hit harder by this infection than others. No simple answers, probably a combination of factors.

[WigstonWanderer]

46 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Daily dose of optimism

 

 

Don’t want to be a killjoy, but there is a clear pattern of under reporting deaths for Sunday and Monday AFAICT.

[st albans fox]

The fella from the telegraph is a moron ....

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Don’t want to be a killjoy, but there is a clear pattern of under reporting deaths for Sunday and Monday AFAICT.

Correct but the direction of travel is definitively down..... how fast is a issue but it seems to be notable if you strip out the non hospital settings data and can therefore compare with previous figures 

[WigstonWanderer]

16 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Correct but the direction of travel is definitively down..... how fast is a issue but it seems to be notable if you strip out the non hospital settings data and can therefore compare with previous figures 

Oh yes, not arguing with that.

 

Have they not added non hospital settings data historically to the John Hopkins figures? I usually use this site for charts, etc:

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

 

I thought they got corrected.

 

On the current (what looks like virtually linear) declining trend I’d estimate about another 5 weeks before deaths virtually peter out, though there could be a much longer tail at low levels. That of course assumes that the current restrictions remain in place and that they are respected.

Edited 3 May 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Pliskin]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've said it about 10 times but I'll say it again, the penalties aren't harsh enough, hence why these people don't care.

Just baton the bellends to death. They won’t do it again then. 

[davieG]

Seems the there's a rise in A&E activity after the 8pm clap for the NHS somewhat ironic.

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Don’t want to be a killjoy, but there is a clear pattern of under reporting deaths for Sunday and Monday AFAICT.

This is correct, however if you follow the trends of Sunday deaths, this is the lowest since March. It's actually the lowest death toll since late March of any day.

At this point the trend is very clear

Edited 3 May 2020 by Beechey

[StanSP]

 

 

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

On the current (what looks like virtually linear) declining trend I’d estimate about another 5 weeks before deaths virtually peter out, though there could be a much longer tail at low levels. That of course assumes that the current restrictions remain in place and that they are respected.

I find that the graph mapping reported deaths by the date of death shows the clearer trend.  The last few points are unreliable as all they data for them hasn’t arrived yet.

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-3rd-may/

[davieG]

[Nod.E]

3 hours ago, Big Dave said:

That is truly awful.

 

However according to Trump, the US has passed its ‘peak’ of infections.

Why is it surprising their numbers are bigger? They have a population of 382 million people. It'd be surprising if they weren't in the thousands.

 

0.0009% of their population died today.

0.0013% of our population died on the day we reached our peak.

 

I'm actually so disappointed with how easily people are shocked by big numbers. It's all relative. The media wouldn't be so powerful in swaying public opinion if the public weren't so bloody stupid.

Edited 3 May 2020 by Nod.E

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Why is it surprising their numbers are bigger? They have a population of 382 million people. It'd be surprising if they weren't in the thousands.

 

0.0009% of their population died today.

0.0013% of our population died when we reached our peak.

 

I'm actually so disappointed with how easily people are shocked by big numbers. It's all relative. The media wouldn't be so powerful in swaying public opinion if the public weren't so bloody stupid.

Well, the US has a way lower population density and our politicians weren’t saying we were passed the peak on our worst day, and we also weren’t stopping the lockdown at this point or demanding food producers remain open using a trumped up war time dictat, but apart from that, it’s a fair point.