Coronavirus Thread

[Heathrow fox]

15 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

There's talk in papers of continuing restrictions on those who don't.  Holidays for example.  Govt have played this down but I wouldn't believe a word of it.

Isn’t it down to the country that one may want to visit to set the rules on who can and can’t enter?

[Leicester_Loyal]

508,208 doses announced today.

 

505,362 first doses.

2846 second doses.

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

 

15m doses in total has now been achieved, a day early. Fair play and a huge thank you to everyone involved.

[StanSP]

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

508,208 doses announced today.

 

505,362 first doses.

2846 second doses.

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

 

15m doses in total has now been achieved, a day early. Fair play and a huge thank you to everyone involved.

It sensational. Thank you to NHS.

[Nod.E]

Schools; High infection, low benefit.

 

First thing to open up.

 

Why?

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

Schools; High infection, low benefit.

 

First thing to open up.

 

Why?

[Nod.E]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Relatively speaking. 

 

Workarounds with curtailing of long holidays and replanning exam seasons can help.

[bovril]

28 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Schools; High infection, low benefit.

 

heavy lolz 

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

well it can’t have been or as has been stated above, cases would have been increasing whilst it was above 1 

Exactly.  Someone who says that the R rate was above 1 all through January is clearly not someone to take seriously when they predict its future.  If a weather forecaster told you that next week would be hot and sunny just as the last fortnight has been, you wouldn't pay them much notice.

[Guest Fktf]

25 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Exactly.  Someone who says that the R rate was above 1 all through January is clearly not someone to take seriously when they predict its future.  If a weather forecaster told you that next week would be hot and sunny just as the last fortnight has been, you wouldn't pay them much notice.

They estimate r from data gathered in tracking studies that have enrolled hundreds of thousands of people, who are supposed to represent all age groups and geographic locations. It's as close to a real time measure as we can get, but obviously cannot be 100% accurate. The only way to get a properly accurate figure would be to test the entire nation.

[dsr-burnley]

2 minutes ago, Fktf said:

They estimate r from data gathered in tracking studies that have enrolled hundreds of thousands of people, who are supposed to represent all age groups and geographic locations. It's as close to a real time measure as we can get, but obviously cannot be 100% accurate. The only way to get a properly accurate figure would be to test the entire nation.

Actual measured number of cases in January suggests that cases are dropping rapidly.  61,269 per day at the beginning of the month, 15,431 per day at the end of the month. These figures are backed up by the hospitalisations data and death rates which are falling (with the expected time lag) at the same rates.

 

R number would have us believe that cases have been rising throughout January.  This is absurd.  I don't care how difficult it is to calculate, if it is as wildly wrong as that then it's useless as a predictor.

[Guest Fktf]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Actual measured number of cases in January suggests that cases are dropping rapidly.  61,269 per day at the beginning of the month, 15,431 per day at the end of the month. These figures are backed up by the hospitalisations data and death rates which are falling (with the expected time lag) at the same rates.

 

R number would have us believe that cases have been rising throughout January.  This is absurd.  I don't care how difficult it is to calculate, if it is as wildly wrong as that then it's useless as a predictor.

It's dead easy to calculate, just hard to get accurate raw data to feed into the calculations. 

 

The react study estimated r just above 1 in the middle of jan, and just below 1 in the last week if jan, so I'm not sure its wildly wrong. Can agree with the sentiment, though - estimated r has to be close to the eventual observed r to be useful. 

[Nod.E]

36 minutes ago, Fktf said:

It's dead easy to calculate, just hard to get accurate raw data to feed into the calculations. 

 

The react study estimated r just above 1 in the middle of jan, and just below 1 in the last week if jan, so I'm not sure its wildly wrong. Can agree with the sentiment, though - estimated r has to be close to the eventual observed r to be useful. 

But what's the point using a figure that needs good raw data (r) as our guiding light when all we're hoping to do is get it to closely resemble 'real numbers', i.e. cases and hospitalisations. 

 

Just use case numbers and hospitalisations for decision making. Am I missing something?

Edited 14 February 2021 by Nod.E

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

But what's the point using a figure that needs good raw data (r) as our guiding light when all we're hoping to do is get it to closely resemble 'real numbers', i.e. cases and hospitalisations. 

 

Just use case numbers and hospitalisations for decision making. Am I missing something?

It’s not the only thing they use, but it’s an easy reference for the general public to understand the situation at hand, even if it’s slightly misinterpreted.

[Robo61]

34 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Actual measured number of cases in January suggests that cases are dropping rapidly.  61,269 per day at the beginning of the month, 15,431 per day at the end of the month. These figures are backed up by the hospitalisations data and death rates which are falling (with the expected time lag) at the same rates.

 

R number would have us believe that cases have been rising throughout January.  This is absurd.  I don't care how difficult it is to calculate, if it is as wildly wrong as that then it's useless as a predictor.

Sage reports the R number weekly,  on the 15 Jan its estimate was 1.2-1.4,  by the following week it had come down to between 0.8 and 1.0.  The range the following weeks were 0.7-1.1.0, 0 0.7-1.0  & finally 0.7 - 0.9.  The ranges reflect the highest and lowest regions.  So its simple not true that the R number was above 1 for the whole of Jan.    There remains more people in our hospitals than at the peak of the first wave,  unless case  numbers fall significantly any rise in the R number as a result of unlocking runs the significant risk that more of us land up needing the NHS and we'll be quickly in the 3rd wave.    The successful roll out of vaccines should help,  but if the Governmemt go too early no one,  least of all business, will thank them if a fourth lockdown is required.

[Dunge]

Regarding the rollout, it really has been a great benefit having the NHS at this time, and an organisation that’s in charge of base healthcare for the whole country. Having a nation-wide entity already in place has doubtless made it so much easier to keep track of where the vaccines are needed and who has had them. It’s been an exceptional effort by all involved, including the volunteers and trainees. Not one bit of organisation has been missed.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

But what's the point using a figure that needs good raw data (r) as our guiding light when all we're hoping to do is get it to closely resemble 'real numbers', i.e. cases and hospitalisations. 

 

Just use case numbers and hospitalisations for decision making. Am I missing something?

The reason is the three to four week lag between catching the virus and needing to go to hospital for treatment. By just watching hospital admissions, by the time you notice there's a problem, there's already a shitstorm coming in the next month.

 

Edit: it works the other way around too. For instance, in the first half of jan hospitalizations would have been steadily increasing, to the point that the trend looked worrying.  But these hospitalizations were cases where the virus was caught in December, and having an estimate of r in January meant that we could see case increases were stable/shrinking, and so there wasnt any need for even tighter measures.

Edited 14 February 2021 by Fktf

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

There remains more people in our hospitals than at the peak of the first wave,  unless case  numbers fall significantly any rise in the R number as a result of unlocking runs the significant risk that more of us land up needing the NHS and we'll be quickly in the 3rd wave. 

Get ready for that, I reckon. 

 

This bloody minded resolve to have all school kids back on a fixed date to show strength will inevitably lead to that. So too will this idea that if we simply set a date for all shops to be open then the virus won't have a leg to stand on. 

 

 

 

[Md9]

If they are opening schools may as well just leave it to after the Easter holidays while they are already closed. Kids are doing online work so not massively missing out on to much at the minute. Or at least let you have the choice to remote learn your children if it’s possible 

[Leicester_Loyal]

3 minutes ago, Md9 said:

If they are opening schools may as well just leave it to after the Easter holidays while they are already closed. Kids are doing online work so not massively missing out on to much at the minute. Or at least let you have the choice to remote learn your children if it’s possible 

I disagree personally. Doesn't the Easter holiday run until 19th April? That's another month without any social interaction and almost a whole year of disruption for children. It's mad to think some kids who started school in September have hardly been and have already missed 6 months of learning, not just basic skills, but life lessons (like sharing with other kids, learning to be more independent etc.)

 

The sooner they are back the better, I'd say 8th March is about right, it's over 3 weeks away and we now have 15m people vaccinated so they'll all have immunity developed by then. I think schools will be the only major change in March, we won't have any retail or anything open up until April onwards, so it shouldn't cause cases to rise that much, only a decent amount.

[Guest Fktf]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I disagree personally. Doesn't the Easter holiday run until 19th April? That's another month without any social interaction and almost a whole year of disruption for children. It's mad to think some kids who started school in September have hardly been and have already missed 6 months of learning, not just basic skills, but life lessons (like sharing with other kids, learning to be more independent etc.)

 

The sooner they are back the better, I'd say 8th March is about right, it's over 3 weeks away and we now have 15m people vaccinated so they'll all have immunity developed by then. I think schools will be the only major change in March, we won't have any retail or anything open up until April onwards, so it shouldn't cause cases to rise that much, only a decent amount.

This is often overlooked. It's a vital part of kids development.

[Md9]

14 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I disagree personally. Doesn't the Easter holiday run until 19th April? That's another month without any social interaction and almost a whole year of disruption for children. It's mad to think some kids who started school in September have hardly been and have already missed 6 months of learning, not just basic skills, but life lessons (like sharing with other kids, learning to be more independent etc.)

 

The sooner they are back the better, I'd say 8th March is about right, it's over 3 weeks away and we now have 15m people vaccinated so they'll all have immunity developed by then. I think schools will be the only major change in March, we won't have any retail or anything open up until April onwards, so it shouldn't cause cases to rise that much, only a decent amount.

I guess some kids may find it hard if they had only just started but would be more of a pain if it opens for 3 weeks then for some reason has to close again. I think I am just being paranoid about them going back. Have 3 in the school in different years and was lucky last time round tht none of their bubbles shut but can’t be that lucky again I am sure. 

[foxile5]

31 minutes ago, Fktf said:

This is often overlooked. It's a vital part of kids development.

It's also not the domain of the schools to teach. 

 

That's a parental responsibly. If a child isn't sharing do you think the schools intervene in any meaningful fashion? It's sent home for the parents to teach.

 

I'm a staunch advocate of education but that isn't the role of the educator. Its overlooked because the cultural expectancies of the nation is passed down through socialisation at home. 

[dsr-burnley]

48 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

It's also not the domain of the schools to teach. 

 

That's a parental responsibly. If a child isn't sharing do you think the schools intervene in any meaningful fashion? It's sent home for the parents to teach.

 

I'm a staunch advocate of education but that isn't the role of the educator. Its overlooked because the cultural expectancies of the nation is passed down through socialisation at home. 

I don't think Leicester-Loyal actually said it was the teacher's responsibility to teach how to share, just that it was one of life's lessons that you learn at school.  You can't teach children how to share with a classful of children at home.  In fact for the past year it has been more or less illegal to teach children to share with anyone but their siblings.

[foxile5]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

In fact for the past year it has been more or less illegal to teach children to share with anyone but their siblings.

That doesn't just magically change with the buildings open. The government are advocating for 2 meter distance in schools between students so this mythical environment is sharing is out. 

 

It's a dangerous move opening schools with 16k cases a day still going on. And all the 'won't somebody think of the poor children' only goes so far if you don't want the virus to run rampant. 

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

It's also not the domain of the schools to teach. 

 

That's a parental responsibly. If a child isn't sharing do you think the schools intervene in any meaningful fashion? It's sent home for the parents to teach.

 

I'm a staunch advocate of education but that isn't the role of the educator. Its overlooked because the cultural expectancies of the nation is passed down through socialisation at home. 

This couldn't be further from what we understand about child development, apart from the fact that the school or teacher isn't responsible.

 

A child's social interactions with their peers are fundamental in learning cultural/societal norms - at least in western countries (I don't know the data for other cultures).