Coronavirus Thread

[dsr-burnley]

Just now, FoxesDeb said:

The first scenario I've highlighted, why can't they form a bubble with the grandad?

 

The last one, why can't the women form a bubble and continue to see each other every night and forego the fortnightly visit from the son, if that is more important to them?

 

 

It's an illustration.  Specifically, to extend the illustration, in the first scenario they may already be bubbling with Johnny's mother's mother, and in the second, maybe the son;'s visits are important too,.

[AllGoneTitsSchlupp]

9 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Bubbles, tiers, social distancing, lockdowns I can't keep up 

all of these terms are towards the top of my list of phrases i never want to hear again after the last 12 months

 

along with "unprecedented times" ugh

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

It's an illustration.  Specifically, to extend the illustration, in the first scenario they may already be bubbling with Johnny's mother's mother, and in the second, maybe the son;'s visits are important too,.

What, a good illustration of how they could all actually be within the rules? 

 

I have no doubt that the son's visits are important too, that's why I said if their nightly visits to each other were 'more important'

 

[FoxesDeb]

52 minutes ago, Izzy said:

That's an amazing deal and I'm obviously getting screwed paying £40 a month from EE for 200GB. As soon as I go over that allowance it's another £30 for an extra 100GB so it works out expensive ON TOP of £30 a month for our standard broadband. You're right that it does rely on the phone signal and sometimes when the weather is crap the signal drops out so it's not very reliable.

 

All in all it's a pain in the ass. When we move house next, having Fibre broadband available will be our number 1 necessity I reckon. 

Just checked and it is £28 a month, but £14 for the first 6 months, or at least it was when we took it out. Is it worth checking to see if the Vodafone (or anyone else's) signal is any better in your area? Do different phone providers have better/worse signals than each other in the same areas these days?  

[Matt]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well. from my experience over the last couple of days, i'd say there's an awful lot of people going for tests that don't actually require them! 

This is another thing idiots need to stop doing.

 

[kyleolly]

38 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

all of these terms are towards the top of my list of phrases i never want to hear again after the last 12 months

 

along with "unprecedented times" ugh

And “The new normal” 

[dsr-burnley]

41 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

What, a good illustration of how they could all actually be within the rules? 

 

I have no doubt that the son's visits are important too, that's why I said if their nightly visits to each other were 'more important'

 

It's an illustration of how some people breaking rules are doing far less virus-spreading than some other people who are following the rules.  I think sometimes there is a temptation to criticise people for breaking the rules while forgetting what those rules are there for.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's an illustration of how some people breaking rules are doing far less virus-spreading than some other people who are following the rules.  I think sometimes there is a temptation to criticise people for breaking the rules while forgetting what those rules are there for.

But as has been pointed out, nobody in your scenarios need to actually break the rules do they? I'm really not trying to be awkward, but the rules are there for a good reason, as you know, and they are not going to be seen as fair by all. Much of this whole situation isn't fair, take the hospitality industry. It's not fair for them that they will presumably be worse off than many other industries, but unfortunately that is the situation we are presented with, and we can do no more than get on with it, and try to make the best of what we have.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

all of these terms are towards the top of my list of phrases i never want to hear again after the last 12 months

 

along with "unprecedented times" ugh

 

"Unprecedented" times is bullshit by this point. It's very much precedented!

[bovril]

Also "jab" is being slightly overused. 

[Pliskin]

How do you get daily figures of 60,000 positive tests..... I’m not the sort to believe in alien invasions, but I do find that hard to believe....

[FoxesDeb]

I can't look at Boris Johnson now without thinking about him brushing his hair with a balloon, thanks @Miquel The Work Geordie 

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

As far as the data goes, they've completely disregarded the actual data for "cases" and have used estimated figures which are less dramatic in terms of a rise in slide 2.

 

Rather than address the issue of the dramatic increase occurring everywhere and at precisely the same time, they've skirted around it and made out it isn't as bad as it is.  Data manipulation clearly in evidence here.

 

Unbelievable.

Edited 5 January 2021 by Legend_in_blue

[kingfox]

This graph perfectly proved how incompetent they’ve been

 

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

But as has been pointed out, nobody in your scenarios need to actually break the rules do they? I'm really not trying to be awkward, but the rules are there for a good reason, as you know, and they are not going to be seen as fair by all. Much of this whole situation isn't fair, take the hospitality industry. It's not fair for them that they will presumably be worse off than many other industries, but unfortunately that is the situation we are presented with, and we can do no more than get on with it, and try to make the best of what we have.

Then I didn't paint the scenarios painted clearly enough.  The point is that Jimmy with an extended family can see people from four households including at least 8 parents, stepparents, and uncles and aunts, from all round the country, legally,  If Johnny who has only three relatives, all living within 50 yards, sees them all, then he is breaking the rules; but it doesn't mean that Johnny is spreading the virus more than Jimmy.

[Legend_in_blue]

2 minutes ago, kingfox said:

This graph perfectly proved how incompetent they’ve been

 

So incompetent they've actually stated estimates, when they know the actual figures which look worse and unnatural!  They assume people won't notice.

Edited 5 January 2021 by Legend_in_blue

[CosbehFox]

4 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

How do you get daily figures of 60,000 positive tests..... I’m not the sort to believe in alien invasions, but I do find that hard to believe....

It's 60,000 positive results - they can be across a range of dates when the test took place. 

 

To give an idea 466k tests were taken yesterday. 

 

Worrying the hospitalisation figures haven't been updated for a week - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

What a dick asking about next winters possible restrictions 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, kingfox said:

This graph perfectly proved how incompetent they’ve been

 

 

2 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

So incompetent they've actually stated estimates, when they know the actual figures which look worse!  Utterly clueless.

That graph is from the ONS and not govt. it is arrived at by using many thousands of ‘volunteer families’ out there who are tested every week and the results are then extrapolated to give national estimates. Thus far this has proved more accurate than the actual govt data which cannot account for people who don’t get tested or are asymptomatic.

 

 

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Matt]

Whitty: "People need to take this stay at home message seriously"........

 

Boris: "Go to work if you can't work from home".......

 

 

Edited 5 January 2021 by Matt

[Legend_in_blue]

Can somebody please ask a relevant and really testing question?  These journalists spend all day following this to prepare and then ask such nonsensical questions.

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Worrying the hospitalisation figures haven't been updated for a week - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#

And vaccinations numbers still stuck on 27th Dec... 

[Pliskin]

It’s like watching an episode of Sesame Street, three of the strangest looking men...

[Stivo]

18 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

So incompetent they've actually stated estimates, when they know the actual figures which look worse and unnatural!  They assume people won't notice.

You are misunderstanding (at least I think you are)

There are people with covid19 and people detected by PCR tests which is lower than the former as only people with symptoms will go to be tested ( and not all of those).  As you have correctly said there are occasions in which extra testing or people becoming more worried may lead to more people being tested.

 

The main point of PCR testing  is meant to be to prevent spreading by tracing the contacts of people who test positive.

 

You can crudely  double the PCR positive rate as an approximation but the ONS also do statistical surveys of a fixed group of I think 10k people who they test regularly to see how many currently have covid19.  
 

With suitable statistical adjustments this allows them to estimate more accurately how many people currently have it in the population as a whole.  This is normal statistical sampling it isn’t something underhand. 
 

The most important thing remains hospital admissions, PCR positive tests and the ONS stats are leading indicators with the latter being more accurate.

edit I see @st albans fox beat me to it.

Edited 5 January 2021 by Stivo