Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Nod.E
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Fktf
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fktf said:

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).

Children learn about right and wrong through their families. They learn about sharing through their families. They learn about the social standing and observe this modeled through their families. 

 

Teachers lament that hard work done in class is UNDONE through home life. 

 

You may be right that some of the work comes into place in an education setting but to suggest that families being responsible for the cultural placement of their children as being 'far from the truth' is misguided at best. 

 

From my, not insignificant, classroom experience I can tell you that students are a form of mirror to the home life - if the norms of the culture are supported at home they'll track through to the classroom. I have yet to experience an instance of a child coming into the education system without a rudimentary, but more often pronounced, understanding of societal expectations. 

 

You allude to data (though something quite as qualitative and nebulous as cultural capital and expectation doesn't seem to lend itself to conclusive data) and I'd be interested to see it. I'm currently working on a capacity that examines the relationship between attainment and reading. It's the view, shared far and wide, that habits in reading are formed at home and to try and bend or break this is a tough task. In short - the home life dictates the school life of the child. This will track through to things like 'sharing' and 'independence'. 

 

In short, and in long, this idea that somehow the students are missing out on a shared experience of unspoken education is flimsy. They will learn to share. They will learn to be independent. They will learn this outside of education because of the communal nature of human kind. They'll observe and follow what goes on at home. 

 

They WILL miss out on academic development, however, and that isn't to be understated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And went the **** aren't sharing and independence being taught at home. They're not explicit on the curriculum. 

 

Remote learning is the zenith of independence - students having to access learning on their own terms. 

 

Sharing - which seems, again an odd qualifier for school return in a risky arena - doesn't seem like a likely result of classroom based education and 2 meter separation from one another. The sharing of objects and property is explicitly banned in the schools I've been in during covid era. You're MORE likely to share at home right now. 

 

In 'play' you MIGHT have some credence for development being generated but you don't send children back to school in a pandemic just to play. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, foxile5 said:

If children learn all their cultural identity and societal queues at school why aren't we in a homogenous society? 

 

Because its so obviously home taught. 

It's a bit of both. A child learns a hell of a lot through school. And at home. It's not just one or the other. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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 

My daughter cries herself to sleep most nights because she wants to see her friends (she's 6). It's horrible to see, I understand what your saying about online learning but trying to get a child to learn from the internet or online is impossible. 

The best way of getting them in school would be to vaccinate the kids and the teachers (if it is proven this reduces transmission). 

Edited by browniefox
.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Teachers need to be vaccinated prior to schools returning for me - inclusive of all child services related personnel. I'm rather dismayed at the news that U16's can't have a vaccine - that's a real problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, browniefox said:

My daughter cries herself to sleep most nights because she wants to see her friends (she's 6). It's horrible to see, I understand what your saying about online learning but trying to get a child to learn from the internet or online is impossible. 

The best way of getting them in school would be to vaccinate the kids and the teachers (if it is proven this reduces transmission). 

It’s sad that it’s has come to her crying her self to sleep ☹️ I get that they do miss their friends but if they go back to school for a week then have to isolate they are in the same position again which is shite. As for the online learning the kids have their lessons online and the teacher is there to help if needed I get it’s not easy for everyone for it to be this way  but they have done well to keep up the work they are doing and even have class mates they can say a quick hello to. 

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

If you're trying to say that children learn NOTHING about life from being in a classroom with 30 other diverse people, and any lessons to be learned there can be equally well learned at home with two parents and no other children at all, I disagree.  Schools are about more than education; with the best will in the world, a child who is home schooled till age 18 and never sees another child will not be as well rounded as one that goes to school.

 

This isn't saying that teachers must teach how to get along in a crowd.  It's just that you can't learn how to get along in a crowd if there is no crowd - it isn't theoretical knowledge.

I don't think I said 'Nothing' is learnt at all. Infact I didn't. You've incorrectly projected that and followed it up with conjecture and disagreed with your own conjecture. 

 

What I HAVE said is that home and familial modelling leads the way in passing on societal expectations. These might well be compounded at school but school is not the primary driver, at least in terms of 'sharing' and 'independence' which the previous poster I was talking to places such a premium on. Schools aren't providing the function that the poster wants them open to provide. They will play some role but not that significant. 

 

Couched another way - education has only been compulsory for over a century and a bit.  That's millennia of familial modelling that has been the most impactful driver for child development in societal norms. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Md9 said:

It’s sad that it’s has come to her crying her self to sleep ☹️ I get that they do miss their friends but if they go back to school for a week then have to isolate they are in the same position again which is shite. As for the online learning the kids have their lessons online and the teacher is there to help if needed I get it’s not easy for everyone for it to be this way  but they have done well to keep up the work they are doing and even have class mates they can say a quick hello to. 

The school work she gets is all online training, she gets 5 minutes face time in the morning and a story in the afternoon. It's just a horrible situation for all. 

What makes it even worse is my son (aged 4) still gets to go to Nursery as they haven't closed at all. Just makes no sense at all. 

We are all ready to go back to the new normal (as long as that means we can leave the house and see others). 

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...