Corona Virus

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

London is superior. 

It's all gobbledygook. Just look at what Robert Koch institute says. Who talks like that.

Edited 15 May 2020 by yorkie1999

[Lionator]

37 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They reckon the R rate is only 0.4 in London, that's ridiculous! It was 2.3 in March.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8322575/Londons-key-coronavirus-R-rate-falling-lockdown.html

Interesting, that study is here and is done by Cambridge so it is from a renowned source https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/

 

If that 0.4% is maintained in London you could perhaps suggest that some sort of herd immunity level has been reached in London for a whole host of possible reasons.

 

From an unqualified but informed position I think this goes one of three ways.

 

1) We're opening things up too early, infection rates pick up immediately and increase undetected for a month because we have no tracing system and before we know it we're back in lockdown halfway through June. This would be a complete disaster and by far the worst outcome in terms of controlling the disease.

 

2) We open up slowly enough to control the virus and we're in a position where 'normality' is almost restored at the end of summer. Covid is found to be seasonal and everyone anticipates a second wave in the winter however we have a test and trace system which is functional, we have made progress on treatments and understand a lot more what makes someone vulnerable. That means cases will increase but we are better equipped to deal with it and don't have to lockdown, although we do shield the vulnerable. A vaccine may even be available for emergency use in vulnerable people.

 

3) As suggested in several recent studies, there is a level of cross immunity from other coronaviruses or blood types/genes can protect against serious disease, therefore only a certain % of the population is vulnerable. As 10-20% of the London population have had the disease and 5-10% elsewhere, herd immunity has been reached and the virus transmission is incredibly low with the odd outbreak in countries here and there. Vaccination is required as immunity probably isn't forever but we survive the worst of the pandemic.

[Bellend Sebastian]

24 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Think it looks something like this: 

 

I'm so tempted to divert my run so it goes past the event this is based on.

 

Would love to see who actually goes, but not too close up, for all kinds of reasons

[rachhere]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Interesting, that study is here and is done by Cambridge so it is from a renowned source https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/

 

If that 0.4% is maintained in London you could perhaps suggest that some sort of herd immunity level has been reached in London for a whole host of possible reasons.

 

From an unqualified but informed position I think this goes one of three ways.

 

1) We're opening things up too early, infection rates pick up immediately and increase undetected for a month because we have no tracing system and before we know it we're back in lockdown halfway through June. This would be a complete disaster and by far the worst outcome in terms of controlling the disease.

 

2) We open up slowly enough to control the virus and we're in a position where 'normality' is almost restored at the end of summer. Covid is found to be seasonal and everyone anticipates a second wave in the winter however we have a test and trace system which is functional, we have made progress on treatments and understand a lot more what makes someone vulnerable. That means cases will increase but we are better equipped to deal with it and don't have to lockdown, although we do shield the vulnerable. A vaccine may even be available for emergency use in vulnerable people.

 

3) As suggested in several recent studies, there is a level of cross immunity from other coronaviruses or blood types/genes can protect against serious disease, therefore only a certain % of the population is vulnerable. As 10-20% of the London population have had the disease and 5-10% elsewhere, herd immunity has been reached and the virus transmission is incredibly low with the odd outbreak in countries here and there. Vaccination is required as immunity probably isn't forever but we survive the worst of the pandemic.

It's fascinating that figure in London, especially when you consider the pictures of people on public transport even after the lock down began. 

[Chocolate Teapot]

10 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Interesting, that study is here and is done by Cambridge so it is from a renowned source https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/

 

If that 0.4% is maintained in London you could perhaps suggest that some sort of herd immunity level has been reached in London for a whole host of possible reasons.

 

From an unqualified but informed position I think this goes one of three ways.

 

1) We're opening things up too early, infection rates pick up immediately and increase undetected for a month because we have no tracing system and before we know it we're back in lockdown halfway through June. This would be a complete disaster and by far the worst outcome in terms of controlling the disease.

 

2) We open up slowly enough to control the virus and we're in a position where 'normality' is almost restored at the end of summer. Covid is found to be seasonal and everyone anticipates a second wave in the winter however we have a test and trace system which is functional, we have made progress on treatments and understand a lot more what makes someone vulnerable. That means cases will increase but we are better equipped to deal with it and don't have to lockdown, although we do shield the vulnerable. A vaccine may even be available for emergency use in vulnerable people.

 

3) As suggested in several recent studies, there is a level of cross immunity from other coronaviruses or blood types/genes can protect against serious disease, therefore only a certain % of the population is vulnerable. As 10-20% of the London population have had the disease and 5-10% elsewhere, herd immunity has been reached and the virus transmission is incredibly low with the odd outbreak in countries here and there. Vaccination is required as immunity probably isn't forever but we survive the worst of the pandemic.

I really really hope you're right. I really want to go to a pub soon.

 

Also I think the thought of football without any fans is more depressing than no football.

Edited 15 May 2020 by Abrasive fox

[Crinklyfox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

old wyg ??

 

I was.  Five rugby pitches and I was tripe on all of them.  Plus had to run round them for distance training.  Played football with my mates at lunchtime.

[Izzy]

Coronavirus infection rate in UK creeps up

The infection rate in the UK has increased and is close to the point where coronavirus cases could increase, government scientific advice says.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Coronavirus infection rate in UK creeps up

The infection rate in the UK has increased and is close to the point where coronavirus cases could increase, government scientific advice says.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194

This is because they are testing more people, Boris said so.
 It stands to reason if you don’t test anyone then no one has got it, if you test everyone, a lot of people have got it. More tests equals more people who have it. Wait till the anti body testing comes on line and we discover 40 million people have already had it. The media will think all their Christmas’s have come at once.

Edited 15 May 2020 by yorkie1999

[Guest Markyblue]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

This is because they are testing more people, Boris said so.
 It stands to reason if you don’t test anyone then no one has got it, if you test everyone, a lot of people have got it. More tests equals more people who have it. Wait till the anti body testing come on line and we discover 40 million people have already had it. The media will think all their Christmas’s have come at once.

I think if that was the case the media would be devastated.  They have a vested interest in bad news for as long as possible. 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I was talking to a mate this morning who's brothers a builder, i don't know the ins and outs of how he gets paid but he's self employed but the firms he works for sort out his taxes etc. He's furloughed and started getting money from the scheme but he's trying to get some work, getting offers of 80 quid a day instead of 200 quid a day, but the government are giving him 120 quid a day, He's not going back until he makes more money for working than sitting on his arse all day, why should he. There must be 10's of thousands in the same situation, how's that going to end? It's all bonkers. 

It’s a bit nuts ....... I have odd days I need an extra person in my warehouse but rather than being able to call someone in and save the govt paying a days money out, I have to get a temp in so a days wages are overpaid .......seems a bit crackers ..... 
 

 

1 hour ago, Crinklyfox said:

I was.  Five rugby pitches and I was tripe on all of them.  Plus had to run round them for distance training.  Played football with my mates at lunchtime.

pushed down the hill first day ?????
 

 

 

[yorkie1999]

37 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

I think if that was the case the media would be devastated.  They have a vested interest in bad news for as long as possible. 

Yes but the media know that one day it will all be over and probably realise that 90% of the nation aren’t glued to the news channels on their TV sets anymore, if news came out that 40 million people had already had it, imagine the public outcry about wtf is going on. 

[martyn]

Antibody tests in Spain suggest 5% of their population have had it. Probably not too much of a stretch to say it's similar here (i.e. remove the 0 from 40 million).

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They reckon the R rate is only 0.4 in London, that's ridiculous! It was 2.3 in March.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8322575/Londons-key-coronavirus-R-rate-falling-lockdown.html

Could it be to do with a lot of the people who are packed into trains and the Underground have been all along and most would have caught it by now (many without symptoms, most with mild symptoms), and most other people are furloughed or working from home so at a much lower risk of catching it?

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

Could it be to do with a lot of the people who are packed into trains and the Underground have been all along and most would have caught it by now (many without symptoms, most with mild symptoms), and most other people are furloughed or working from home so at a much lower risk of catching it?

Vallance knows the numbers and I recall he reckons London would have approaching  10% positive anti body test results 

[Ross-Kemp]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a bit nuts ....... I have odd days I need an extra person in my warehouse but rather than being able to call someone in and save the govt paying a days money out, I have to get a temp in so a days wages are overpaid .......seems a bit crackers ..... 
 

 

pushed down the hill first day ?????
 

 

 

Recruitment is my field pal, might be able to do you a FoxesTalk discount on your temp rates 

[oxford blue]

23 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Cool thanks.

 

I honestly have no idea nor am.i trying to be sarcastic...but don't new laws need to be passed in parliament, debated, amended and then sent to the Lords before being sent back and ratified? 

 

I don't recall any of that.

 

 

If you're interested and to explain: The Coronavirus Act received its first reading in the Commons on 19.3.20, and passed through all its stages in very quick time receiving Royal assent on 25.3.20.(There was some debate in Commons, very limited debate in Lords as it went there on 24.3.20 completing all its stages in a day.) As with many acts, there is provision to make secondary legislation (in this case, section 93 in the Act), which are the regulations referred to in my  previous post. This subordinate law can be made by ministers - effectively just by laying before parliament. This legislation - in the form of a 'statutory instrument' (SI) - often provides the details(or amendments) to an Act of Parliament. (You will see the revised legislation was the 500th SI to be laid through Parliament this year, which gives an idea of their frequency - most just making minor changes to laws ot permitting road closures for example.

[Rain King]

Had a video meeting with work today. Apparently we are obviously "wanting to get back into the office" which we will "hope to do so by August".

[Paninistickers]

9 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

If you're interested and to explain: The Coronavirus Act received its first reading in the Commons on 19.3.20, and passed through all its stages in very quick time receiving Royal assent on 25.3.20.(There was some debate in Commons, very limited debate in Lords as it went there on 24.3.20 completing all its stages in a day.) As with many acts, there is provision to make secondary legislation (in this case, section 93 in the Act), which are the regulations referred to in my  previous post. This subordinate law can be made by ministers - effectively just by laying before parliament. This legislation - in the form of a 'statutory instrument' (SI) - often provides the details(or amendments) to an Act of Parliament. (You will see the revised legislation was the 500th SI to be laid through Parliament this year, which gives an idea of their frequency - most just making minor changes to laws ot permitting road closures for example.

Thanks. I was interested but not that interested. But appreciate the clarity and effort. 

 

Just hope the laws are repealed just as easily and quickly when the time comes. I think it only took about 80 years to get rid of the emergency first world war licencing laws to close boozers at 11pm

[January47]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

This is because they are testing more people, Boris said so.
 It stands to reason if you don’t test anyone then no one has got it, if you test everyone, a lot of people have got it. More tests equals more people who have it. Wait till the anti body testing comes on line and we discover 40 million people have already had it. The media will think all their Christmas’s have come at once.

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.

[Pliskin]

Isn’t the data lagging? So we won’t get a true idea of where we are at with “R” until next week? 

[StanSP]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Coronavirus infection rate in UK creeps up

The infection rate in the UK has increased and is close to the point where coronavirus cases could increase, government scientific advice says.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194

 

16 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Isn’t the data lagging? So we won’t get a true idea of where we are at with “R” until next week? 

That's what I thought, too.

Plus, I think Germany's rate initially went up after they eased lockdowns and then gradually went back down.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Ross-Kemp said:

Recruitment is my field pal, might be able to do you a FoxesTalk discount on your temp rates 

can you get someone to Harlow for 7:45 am for twelve quid an hour ???

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, martyn said:

Antibody tests in Spain suggest 5% of their population have had it. Probably not too much of a stretch to say it's similar here (i.e. remove the 0 from 40 million).

Tests in Iceland, where there is  a lot less people and therefore more accurate because they can test relatively more people suggest that 50% of the population are asymptotic. 

[lildave3]

8 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Really torn about the return to schools thing.  My daughter is in reception class, so would be amongst the first to go back.  I'm not especially worried about her health, more the possible wider impact of increased community transmission. Imagine if one of the teachers died as a result?

 

At the same time, I don't think being stuck at home with two parents working almost full-time and little other social contact is doing her much good either.

 

Part of me thinks, sod it, might as well get it over with because I can't see there won't be some Coronavirus risk out there for months or even years and it's going to be impossible to avoid completely

My daughter is also in reception class and we replied saying we will send her as soon as the school re-opens. Can definitely notice a difference in her without the school routine even though she only started last August. I’ve been working throughout this so it’s been down to my partner with her and a 2 month old so she isn’t exactly getting much homeschooling or even the attention she is used to. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Tests in Iceland, where there is  a lot less people and therefore more accurate because they can test relatively more people suggest that 50% of the population are asymptotic. 

Can you link please? 
 

I thought it was 50% of those testing positive were asymptomatic (around mid April).  Unless you’re extrapolating these results out which isn’t completely unreasonable ..... issue with that being that examination of asymptomatic positive cases in Italy showed no antibodies present so presumably they could be infected again and spread again ???