Possible 2nd lockdown for Leicester?

[don_danbury]

so masks were pointless not too long ago. now they're forcing us to wear them everywhere  

[yorkie1999]

6 hours ago, davieG said:

Leicestershire County CouncilLike Page

2et1S phordndsstSorsefd · 

If you live in Oadby & Wigston, you may have had this text message from your GP today encouraging you to go and get a test for coronavirus - even if you don't have symptoms. If you receive this text, please follow this important advice and book your test here: https://crowd.in/UgLVw8

Brilliant. The  problem with getting tested is  the fact that if you get a positive result, it means you’re off work for a fortnight, at least, on 97 quid a week! If the government promised to pay your wages if you were positive, everyone would go and get tested and would gladly self isolate and this virus would be quickly contained, but they’re not going to do that in a million years, it’s dog eat dog and that’s the harsh reality of it all and it’s a bit like Russian roulette, take your chances and hope everything works out. It’s fine if you’re a millionaire with no bills to pay but for a lot of people it’s make or break, how many people still go to work if they’re ill? It’s brilliant giving Richard Branson 1.2 billion quid, cos he really needs it, but how about putting all the gifts together and instead of saving one company, put the money where it’s really needed, and that’s in the pockets of people who have to isolate, to protect them. So far we’ve thrown nearly 200 billion quid at attempting to keep the country afloat , I’m sure that amount of dosh would look after the people who have the virus, which is what counts, or is it not about getting rid of the virus and more about keeping a few airlines afloat. They keep harping on about the economy,  and I bet the people who get a wage whether they’re at work or not are the ones that are pushing for more testing, they don’t give a fvck cos it’s I’m alright jack pull the ladder up, but the reality is that charity starts at home and basically volunteering to be broke ain’t gonna happen. I bet there’s more people living in fear of starving to death and losing their house than there is of catching the virus.

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, don_danbury said:

so masks were pointless not too long ago. now they're forcing us to wear them everywhere  

Wait till the vaccine emerges and then everyone finds out it only lasts 3 months. That’s gonna be a shitter.

[Guest Fktf]

4 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

You ain't gonna like this answer.

 

Common sense. 

 

You play the government game if you want to though. Fine by me.

 

 

Can't dislike it - there's no substance to it. Common sense based on what? 

[Guest Fktf]

4 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I'm sure that when they announced the localised lockdown they said that the increase in testing was taken into account with the figures 

Of course it is. No idea how people have decided that the stats don't account for it. Cases per 1000, or 100,000 or whatever number they chose, isn't really any different to calculating a percentage. 

 

With these measures, you can't get an increase in the prevalence of the disease simply because you test more people.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Of course it is. No idea how people have decided that the stats don't account for it. Cases per 1000, or 100,000 or whatever number they chose, isn't really any different to calculating a percentage. 

 

With these measures, you can't get an increase in the prevalence of the disease simply because you test more people.

I’m glad someone else seems to get it

 

Theoretically  the more people you test the better the stats become for accuracy as the sample gets larger ....... I think the question is are more positive cases being found because it’s easier to get tested ..... anyone who thinks they might have it has no problem getting tested .... in other parts of the country that may not the case .....in places like oadby and wigston, if they’re encouraging everyone to get tested then the stats should be very accurate per 100k 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’m glad someone else seems to get it

 

Theoretically  the more people you test the better the stats become for accuracy as the sample gets larger ....... I think the question is are more positive cases being found because it’s easier to get tested ..... anyone who thinks they might have it has no problem getting tested .... in other parts of the country that may not the case .....in places like oadby and wigston, if they’re encouraging everyone to get tested then the stats should be very accurate per 100k 

Nail

  I

  I

  I

  V

Head

[Guest Fktf]

26 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’m glad someone else seems to get it

 

Theoretically  the more people you test the better the stats become for accuracy as the sample gets larger ....... I think the question is are more positive cases being found because it’s easier to get tested ..... anyone who thinks they might have it has no problem getting tested .... in other parts of the country that may not the case .....in places like oadby and wigston, if they’re encouraging everyone to get tested then the stats should be very accurate per 100k 

Scientifically it's a nice problem, because this sort of blanket testing works against finding bad news. So if you do end up finding bad news, you know it really is bad news.

 

It'll take me a bit to explain.. 

 

They've identified we seem to have a high prevalence of the disease, but initially this was probably based on a limited amount of testing. As so say, more testing can only give you a more accurate picture of what's going on, so increasing testing is sensible. Let's work out if Leicester really has a problem..

 

Now, if we don't have that much of problem, when we ramp up testing we should see the case rate per 100000 decrease. If it doesn't (or goes up) it's bad news.

 

This is particularly the case when you start testing people with no symptoms. If there's not a problem, testing people with no symptoms should return a load of negative results, and the case rate decreases. If the case rate doesn't decrease when you blanket test people with no symptoms, it means you've got a bunch of people who have the virus without knowing it - the exact group that spread it so easily.

[PAULCFC]

2 hours ago, orangecity23 said:

I can't think of anyone I'd trust less to do a full analysis of a set of numbers than Peter Soulsby. The sharp analytical mind that thought placing concrete blocks 10 ft apart on New Walk would deter cyclists, who pedal a vehicle approximately 1 foot wide.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-mayor-peter-soulsby-explains-2948619

 

He's claims that better stats would enable him to target prevention efforts better, but has he actually made any efforts to prevent the virus spreading? He seems to be devoting all his energy to setting up pop up cycle lanes, completing the worlds slowest window repair job at his girlfriend's house and doing an endless barage of public interviews claiming we don't have a problem in Leicester, lockdown's all politically motivated, and spreading the message that we shouldn't follow any of the rules, because **** it, the stats are rubbish and the rules are too confusing anyway, so why not just do whatever you feel like hey?

ok,so we are in the middle of a pandemic,which  Leicester is more or less in the centre of in the uk......and our estemed leader buys 5400 quid of concrete blocks!Which as far as i can see do nothing.

Edited 14 July 2020 by PAULCFC

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Fktf said:

Of course it is. No idea how people have decided that the stats don't account for it. Cases per 1000, or 100,000 or whatever number they chose, isn't really any different to calculating a percentage. 

 

With these measures, you can't get an increase in the prevalence of the disease simply because you test more people.

Well it does make a difference in perception because the bigger the base number the more you amplify the amount of people who you think have  got it, and if you carry on going you end up with more people that have the virus than actually live in an area. Why don’t they work it out as a simple percentage as in .13 people per 100 (which is the actual figure) instead of 130 per 100000, is it because people will look at .13% and think “we’ll that’s not many” 

 

[Guest Fktf]

37 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well it does make a difference in perception because the bigger the base number the more you amplify the amount of people who you think have  got it, and if you carry on going you end up with more people that have the virus than actually live in an area. Why don’t they work it out as a simple percentage as in .13 people per 100 (which is the actual figure) instead of 130 per 100000, is it because people will look at .13% and think “we’ll that’s not many” 

 

I too suspect this is the reason for doing per 100000. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, Fktf said:

Of course it is. No idea how people have decided that the stats don't account for it. Cases per 1000, or 100,000 or whatever number they chose, isn't really any different to calculating a percentage. 

 

With these measures, you can't get an increase in the prevalence of the disease simply because you test more people.

 

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I’m glad someone else seems to get it

 

Theoretically  the more people you test the better the stats become for accuracy as the sample gets larger ....... I think the question is are more positive cases being found because it’s easier to get tested ..... anyone who thinks they might have it has no problem getting tested .... in other parts of the country that may not the case .....in places like oadby and wigston, if they’re encouraging everyone to get tested then the stats should be very accurate per 100k 

If other cities were able to get tests without any symptoms in outbreak areas, would there cases per 100k be as high as ours?

 

Leicester is still miles ahead, but I imagine there's loads of different factors (including ease of testing) that are all playing a part.

 

Also, a lot of the children carrying the disease are asymptomatic, this may play a part in the figures too, if they're being tested I.E. Without symptoms elsewhere they wouldn't be tested, but here they would.

[Stadt]

Basically every case in Leicester is being detected so the figure will be the true figure. It’s a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy that “look there’s still so many cases in Leicester!” because the number of tests is so high - if other cities had the same amount of testing a more accurate picture would come out and the situation would look worse.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Fktf said:

Can't dislike it - there's no substance to it. Common sense based on what? 

Studies at the "University of Life", obvs.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

Basically every case in Leicester is being detected so the figure will be the true figure. It’s a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy that “look there’s still so many cases in Leicester!” because the number of tests is so high - if other cities had the same amount of testing a more accurate picture would come out and the situation would look worse.

If I’ve understood @Fktf properly, the results are per 100k people tested, not per 100k population of the city. In this case the more you test the more you are testing people with no real symptoms that are therefore less likely to be positive. If you still have a high “hit” rate despite diluting the sample with those less likely to have the infection, then you know you have a genuine problem.

Edited 15 July 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[CosbehFox]

10 hours ago, orangecity23 said:

I can't think of anyone I'd trust less to do a full analysis of a set of numbers than Peter Soulsby. The sharp analytical mind that thought placing concrete blocks 10 ft apart on New Walk would deter cyclists, who pedal a vehicle approximately 1 foot wide.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-mayor-peter-soulsby-explains-2948619

 

He's claims that better stats would enable him to target prevention efforts better, but has he actually made any efforts to prevent the virus spreading? He seems to be devoting all his energy to setting up pop up cycle lanes, completing the worlds slowest window repair job at his girlfriend's house and doing an endless barage of public interviews claiming we don't have a problem in Leicester, lockdown's all politically motivated, and spreading the message that we shouldn't follow any of the rules, because **** it, the stats are rubbish and the rules are too confusing anyway, so why not just do whatever you feel like hey?

Why have you picked on a completely unrelated news story which is 12 months old?

[Paninistickers]

8 hours ago, Fktf said:

Can't dislike it - there's no substance to it. Common sense based on what? 

Of course common sense has substance. 

 

People shouldn't need a blow by blow generalised guide of how to live life.

 

Don't live in spinney hills, north evington or rushey mead. Keep a low profile and yourself to yourself. Be a handwash freak.  Recognise Glenfield hospital hasn't seen any kind of spike whatsoever ...plus take in that the government have been quite clear they recommend all but essential travel. But they won't enforce the recommendation (I live close to a.major trunk road into the city, and see the cars pouring into Leicester each morning from outside the zone. The authorities don't give two hoots) 

 

As I said. You wait for your government approved guidance of how to wipe your arse if you wish. All's good if you like it

 

 

 

 

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Of course common sense has substance. 

 

People shouldn't need a blow by blow generalised guide of how to live life.

 

Don't live in spinney hills, north evington or rushey mead. Keep a low profile and yourself to yourself. Be a handwash freak.  Recognise Glenfield hospital hasn't seen any kind of spike whatsoever ...plus take in that the government have been quite clear they recommend all but essential travel. But they won't enforce the recommendation (I live close to a.major trunk road into the city, and see the cars pouring into Leicester each morning from outside the zone. The authorities don't give two hoots) 

 

As I said. You wait for your government approved guidance of how to wipe your arse if you wish. All's good if you like it

 

 

 

 

Mate - we're getting crossed wires here. 'Common sense' as a statement had no substance, because I can't tell from that what your basing your opinion on. It seems from this post it is to do with the localised hot spots in the city - which you say you are not close to. If you bothered to have a conversation, rather than two word statements followed by some sort of dig, we'd have probably already have come to some sort of consensus about a city wide shutdown being a bit extreme in the case of Leicester.    

[Guest Fktf]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

If I’ve understood @Fktf properly, the results are per 100k people tested, not per 100k population of the city. In this case the more you test the more you are testing people with no real symptoms that are therefore less likely to be positive. If you still have a high “hit” rate despite diluting the sample with those less likely to have the infection, then you know you have a genuine problem.

Nicely put.

 

This reminds me of my PhD years. My supervisor could always write in one or two sentences what took me a paragraph to explain. It seems this extends to football forums also!

[WigstonWanderer]

39 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Nicely put.

 

This reminds me of my PhD years. My supervisor could always write in one or two sentences what took me a paragraph to explain. It seems this extends to football forums also!

Unfortunately went fishing during my PhD years. Needless to say, no submission 

[orangecity23]

2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Why have you picked on a completely unrelated news story which is 12 months old?

Because it neatly illustrates the general level of competence we are dealing with. Thinking that idea would work is indicative that soulsby shouldn't be trusted to run a bath, let alone a city.

 

His handling of the lockdown has been reckless, and his sole focus seems to be getting his face on television as much as possible, and trying to get some positive pr for himself, as opposed to trying to get the message out that people need to follow the rules, or we will all be stuck in lockdown longer and more people will get ill.

[Innovindil]

Furloughed again. **** this stupid ****ing lockdown.

 

[reynard]

6 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Of course common sense has substance. 

 

People shouldn't need a blow by blow generalised guide of how to live life.

 

Don't live in spinney hills, north evington or rushey mead. Keep a low profile and yourself to yourself. Be a handwash freak.  Recognise Glenfield hospital hasn't seen any kind of spike whatsoever ...plus take in that the government have been quite clear they recommend all but essential travel. But they won't enforce the recommendation (I live close to a.major trunk road into the city, and see the cars pouring into Leicester each morning from outside the zone. The authorities don't give two hoots) 

 

As I said. You wait for your government approved guidance of how to wipe your arse if you wish. All's good if you like it

 

 

 

 

Is this the official Government advice, the law, a recommendation or common sense?

[FoxesDeb]

I've received a letter from my daughter's school today regarding her return in September. If things don't change there is no way she's going back. 

[Legend_in_blue]

I'm not understanding the latest govt logic behind when and when not a mask is appropriate.

 

From a not wearing a mask perspective, how is sitting in an office all day less of a risk than spending an hour in a shop?  Likewise, for example come September, how is it less of a risk being in a room full of pupils compared to spending time in shops?

 

They just make it up as they go along.