Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, LCFCbwoi said:

See, this is what infuriates me. You can’t pick and choose what sections of hospitality you’re going to keep open and what you’re going to close.

 

either, evidence proves that hospitality is the main driver of the virus and you shut all hospitality or it doesn’t. Students are one of the main drivers of the virus atm and I’m guessing that’s due to being in tightly packed university halls and not due to them being out all the time. Forcing students back to university for them then to find out all the classes are going to be online is a massive joke. 

 

And that’s not on the students for me, that’s on the Government, Universities and Landlords

Correct, it's the student I feel sorry for alright and have been out to be the bad guys when they are just pawns in the game sadly.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, AjcW said:

A bit of Nottingham context as someone who lives there, every single one of those areas listed is University Accom/Student Flat based apart from St Annes so i'd say that data is pretty spot on for showing the student return was the issue. Even St Anne's depending on the boundary they've drawn contains a great deal of shared housing (large properties converted into multi occupancy) 

 

 

I'm from Nottingham, you're spot on. All those areas are choc full of students. I'd argue St Anns backs onto Woodborough Road, Sneinton and the like where loads of students also live.

 

Not difficult to see where the problem lies. Be interesting to see if blabbering Boris imposes blanket solutions to what appears to be a nuanced problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Cambridge university are testing all  students once a week. By combining samples by household  ( pooling) they can do this with just 2000 tests a week.

And of course a fair chunk of the increase in identified cases is because of that.  When the students were at home, they weren't tested.  Now they're at university, they are tested.  Of course they will find more cases.  If you have a sample of 20,000 people and 1% of them have coronavirus, almost all of them asymptomatic, then you have 200 new cases this week that you wouldn't have found last week.  Repeat that across all universities, and you will find the number of identified cases will increase.

 

Randomly test 2 million students and you will find enough cases to panic our very panicky politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Randomly test 2 million students and you will find enough cases to panic our very panicky politicians.

I would suggest that the lesson should be that when encouraging large numbers of young people to move around the country into new  environments where they will inevitably mix there should have been a plan to test them initially and find the small number of cases before it could spread within the student halls.  
 

Having said that I think that there may be an element now of increased testing in those halls finding more cases.  The problem is distinguishing between increased testing because you are screening because of  a known outbreak and increased testing because more people are ill  with symptoms and go for tests.

Edited by Stivo
Use screening to describe that form of testing
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Suggest he drops his suit off to the dry cleaner (if they can remain open) on the way out.  State of the bloke.

Said the same on the politics thread half hour ago. A bit of pride in ones appearance and some personal grooming wouldn’t go amiss. Some may argue it’s difficult to take his message seriously if he can’t take himself seriously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:
Said before you can’t blame the current govt for the tough decisions they face but bloody hell, the lack of competence is terrifying. 

as, by definition, is the level of incompetence …...…….

 

seriously, how can they be trusted to make the right decisions when they cant even organise a meeting  ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Said before you can’t blame the current govt for the tough decisions they face but bloody hell, the lack of competence is terrifying. 

I think at this stage you probably can because they're just as culpable for getting us in to this terrible stage as anyone else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And of course a fair chunk of the increase in identified cases is because of that.  When the students were at home, they weren't tested.  Now they're at university, they are tested.  Of course they will find more cases.  If you have a sample of 20,000 people and 1% of them have coronavirus, almost all of them asymptomatic, then you have 200 new cases this week that you wouldn't have found last week.  Repeat that across all universities, and you will find the number of identified cases will increase.

 

Randomly test 2 million students and you will find enough cases to panic our very panicky politicians.

Absolutely spot on, we beat the virus by not testing for it.  Good one Mr Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StanSP said:

I think at this stage you probably can because they're just as culpable for getting us in to this terrible stage as anyone else. 

 

Disagree to an extent despite hating the lot in charge as much as anyone 
 

Europe is equally facing the same upward curves despite their own track and trace systems plus governments who probably went even stronger with their restrictions. The human race in a Western culture clearly struggles to observe such restrictions.  
 

However you can do it in such a way that doesn’t have so many **** up’s along the way and inconsistencies

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Absolutely spot on, we beat the virus by not testing for it.  Good one Mr Trump.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood.

 

I'll make it simpler.  Before universities went back, virtually none of the students were tested and we found virtually no positive cases.  Now that universities have gone back, loads of students have been tested and we found loads of cases.  How much of that increase in positive tests is because we have tested more, and how much is the expected increase brought about by moving groups of people around the country?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Said the same on the politics thread half hour ago. A bit of pride in ones appearance and some personal grooming wouldn’t go amiss. Some may argue it’s difficult to take his message seriously if he can’t take himself seriously. 

He's a scruffy tramp. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dsr-burnley said:

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood.

 

I'll make it simpler.  Before universities went back, virtually none of the students were tested and we found virtually no positive cases.  Now that universities have gone back, loads of students have been tested and we found loads of cases.  How much of that increase in positive tests is because we have tested more, and how much is the expected increase brought about by moving groups of people around the country?

I still don't understand why you think testing is a problem.  Before universities went back the students were at a much lower individual risk of contracting the virus and becoming a potential carrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I still don't understand why you think testing is a problem.  Before universities went back the students were at a much lower individual risk of contracting the virus and becoming a potential carrier.

Yeah I think you're on the right side of this argument. The only way of avoiding what has happened was to make term one of Uni home based. Simple as that.

 

As Carl has said, 2 million tests might have just shown up a few positives back when the R was low and people were in their homes. And testing once they'd got to Uni would have just highlighted the impending crisis. 

 

There was only one solution and they wouldn't have agreed to that due to the fact it would have crippled the private rental sector for Universities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I still don't understand why you think testing is a problem.  Before universities went back the students were at a much lower individual risk of contracting the virus and becoming a potential carrier.

I don't think testing is a problem.  You're way off beam there - nothing I said was meant to imply that testing is a problem.

 

I was just suggesting that if you take a random sample of people who were not tested last week and you do test them this week, the increase in positives can't be said to be all new cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't think testing is a problem.  You're way off beam there - nothing I said was meant to imply that testing is a problem.

 

I was just suggesting that if you take a random sample of people who were not tested last week and you do test them this week, the increase in positives can't be said to be all new cases.

they have to be fairly new, don't people usually stop testing positive after a couple of weeks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation started after I described the screening style testing at cambridge.  
 

DSR Burnley is correct, if you screen a large population e,g all students or all nhs employees then you should expect to Identify a batch of new cases which may not otherwise have been found.  That does not necessarily translate into an increase in prevalence within that population.

 

On the other hand if you are offering tests only to those with symptoms then an increase in cases probably does mean an increase in prevalence in that population.

 

I would hope that decisions are made taking account of such nuances.

 

When it comes to cases what matters most is the change week on week, and care needs to be taken  to factor out changes that occur because of random testing/change in testing availability.

Edited by Stivo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

they have to be fairly new, don't people usually stop testing positive after a couple of weeks?

Yes, that's the idea.  But then if the virus is at a stable level you would find that the positive tests dropping off the radar would be replaced with people who were negative last time.

 

The idea is that if no students were tested last week and all two million were tested this week, you would expect the number of cases to rise by 11,000 purely on increased testing and random presence of the disease.  If it rises by significantly more, as you would expect, then it's because of the students coming together.  Northumbria for example had 770 positive tests out of 26,000 students (though I don't know how many of the 26k were tested); you would expect to randomly find 1 in 170 infected, which is 150 or so, and therefore the suggestion is the disease is a bit rampant in Northumbria university.  No surprise there.  Newcastle had 90 tests - which proves absolutely nothing without further information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...