The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Comparing comparable nations, no?Pross said:
I thought Germany was the benchmark for all things positive? Why is it suddenly neighbouring countries?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
Germany is more like the U.K. than Sweden?
Scandi nations are more like Sweden etc.0 -
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics0 -
I won’t hold my breathe for the same for the Sunday Times article....Stevo_666 said:
In general there needs to be more rebuttal of negative claims spread around on the internet. I'm proud to say we are doing our part here in Cake Stoprick_chasey said:
So it seemed the thread was pertinent enough for the govt to post its own response.Pross said:
Yes but why are you focussing on that when you appeared to completely ignore when someone posted the story that a brand new product, which will hopefully minimise the need for much more intrusive ventilators, has been approved for use?rick_chasey said:
No the one I posted earlier today.Pross said:
What thread? Is it the one about the new UCL / Mercedes / Airbus product that has been designed and approved for use within weeks and will reduce the need for traditional ventilators? Found that quite positive to be honest.rick_chasey said:That ventilator thread is absolutely damning.
Do you still not understand why people criticise your negativity?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster
0 -
The French boat is an interesting case study yet the UK Govt and most on here still see no need for extensive testing to help stop making sub optimal decisions which will cost or save us billions as we look to move out of lockdowncoopster_the_1st said:
0.00% of the population of the Charles de Gualle aircraft carrier have died in the last month.kingstongraham said:Of the population
So what outside factors explain the difference?
Focusing on death is wrong way to look at this and will mean less optimal decisions being made0 -
The FT are gaining quite a reputation for creating fake news about the actions of this government. The BBC were caught doing the same on Friday.Stevo_666 said:
In general there needs to be more rebuttal of negative claims spread around on the internet. I'm proud to say we are doing our part here in Cake Stoprick_chasey said:
So it seemed the thread was pertinent enough for the govt to post its own response.Pross said:
Yes but why are you focussing on that when you appeared to completely ignore when someone posted the story that a brand new product, which will hopefully minimise the need for much more intrusive ventilators, has been approved for use?rick_chasey said:
No the one I posted earlier today.Pross said:
What thread? Is it the one about the new UCL / Mercedes / Airbus product that has been designed and approved for use within weeks and will reduce the need for traditional ventilators? Found that quite positive to be honest.rick_chasey said:That ventilator thread is absolutely damning.
Do you still not understand why people criticise your negativity?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster0 -
You don't accept that the reason there was not an issue with capacity is because of the lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics0 -
I'm really not sure a GE is a relevant comparison, but someone with a better background in statistics can comment. For a start the sampling in an exit poll is very carefully selected whereas our current testing for C19 is on a 'where necessary' basis and is almost exclusively symptomatic cases.morstar said:
Exit polls in 2015 UK general election were based on 20,000 interviews across 140 polling stations.rjsterry said:
I'd have more confidence in those estimates if they could be shown to match some real world sampling.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-exit-poll-general-election-121122248.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFyJime4aDAu6cqykdGRNmuqmFAtTyf7QtkME63B2fgG1BDOnraFZFRz_m1-FnhU3LJtOG3bVBmHpy2zdPX1mYWFeRT5Wr8SShULvA4HTB0wVvFODPD7671Vs6oc2gifN76vZrLjIUQPAv3xDwPTK1hmGe6QRXvLc7JUro4VKr1U
Given that a UK general election is not binary in terms of seats it is more complex to model than a binary virus. Although the virus can potentially affect the entire population rather than a sub-set.
These have given mixed results in recent years. 2010, 2017 and 2019 very reliable but 2015 not so.
Does give an idea of the order of magnitude of data required. IF, you are simply trying to model and not track and trace. (Which I believe is the UK policy)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
The lockdown was being called for by the media and them alone. Remember the warm weekend(the first warm dry one of the year) before the Monday lockdown announcement. People and business had already taken most of the actions necessary. We only needed to properly shield the vulnerable and elderly, as Sweden have done!kingstongraham said:
You don't accept that the reason there was not an issue with capacity is because of the lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
I don't believe the lockdown was needed at the time for NHS capacity reasons. I'm sure the investigation into this will highlight where the media took over the role of CSO and thus made incorrect decisions.
We now have this problem and this will take many months, if not years to correct
0 -
So no lockdown, but everyone behaving pretty much exactly as they have been doing because of the lockdown.0
-
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//0 -
Now some questions for you:kingstongraham said:
You don't accept that the reason there was not an issue with capacity is because of the lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
How many elderly people are going to die in isolation over the next 12-24 months who will have not seen their families since the lockdown?
How long will it take for the mental health of those families to recover from knowing their elderly parent died in isolation and them not having seen them for so long?
How many elderly people will die from the isolation itself? Seeing their younger family members is what keeps them alive
0 -
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks.0 -
How would you prevent those harms when shielding the elderly?coopster_the_1st said:
Now some questions for you:kingstongraham said:
You don't accept that the reason there was not an issue with capacity is because of the lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
How many elderly people are going to die in isolation over the next 12-24 months who will have not seen their families since the lockdown?
How long will it take for the mental health of those families to recover from knowing their elderly parent died in isolation and them not having seen them for so long?
How many elderly people will die from the isolation itself? Seeing their younger family members is what keeps them alive
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
This has been commented on a couple of times upthread, although I've not seen that interview. The message appears to be quietly optimistic, but don't count your chickens before they hatch and don't expect a quick result.rick_chasey said:
What is your take on it Rick?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I've said repeatedly, I don't know the correct number of tests and am open minded whereas others are simply plucking big numbers out of thin air and claiming with absolute certainty that their number are better than the governments.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure a GE is a relevant comparison, but someone with a better background in statistics can comment. For a start the sampling in an exit poll is very carefully selected whereas our current testing for C19 is on a 'where necessary' basis and is almost exclusively symptomatic cases.morstar said:
Exit polls in 2015 UK general election were based on 20,000 interviews across 140 polling stations.rjsterry said:
I'd have more confidence in those estimates if they could be shown to match some real world sampling.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-exit-poll-general-election-121122248.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFyJime4aDAu6cqykdGRNmuqmFAtTyf7QtkME63B2fgG1BDOnraFZFRz_m1-FnhU3LJtOG3bVBmHpy2zdPX1mYWFeRT5Wr8SShULvA4HTB0wVvFODPD7671Vs6oc2gifN76vZrLjIUQPAv3xDwPTK1hmGe6QRXvLc7JUro4VKr1U
Given that a UK general election is not binary in terms of seats it is more complex to model than a binary virus. Although the virus can potentially affect the entire population rather than a sub-set.
These have given mixed results in recent years. 2010, 2017 and 2019 very reliable but 2015 not so.
Does give an idea of the order of magnitude of data required. IF, you are simply trying to model and not track and trace. (Which I believe is the UK policy)
All I have tried to do is think of an example of extrapolating data across a whole population. It turns out is a similar size sample set to our daily testing. At least I've made an effort to gain an informed understanding of the magnitude of numbers.
On what do you base the comment that our testing is "almost exclusively on symptomatic cases"? I thought the drive through centres were for health workers for a start. Beyond that, I have no idea but have not automatically assumed it is wrong. I have rather assumed that there is some sort of control group design to the testing seeing as the science office is front and centre of policy. I stand to be corrected.0 -
Answer to all: I don't know.coopster_the_1st said:
Now some questions for you:kingstongraham said:
You don't accept that the reason there was not an issue with capacity is because of the lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
How many elderly people are going to die in isolation over the next 12-24 months who will have not seen their families since the lockdown?
How long will it take for the mental health of those families to recover from knowing their elderly parent died in isolation and them not having seen them for so long?
How many elderly people will die from the isolation itself? Seeing their younger family members is what keeps them alive0 -
Social distancing is fine where there is the space. It's not compatible with using public transport, though. Or in London, even walking to work or cycle commuting.coopster_the_1st said:
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Fark me there’s a lot of cyclists about. Never seen anything like it outside of a mass participation event.
Sharing the roads with boy racers mind.
Safe to say that leisure users have taken over the roads.0 -
I think with a bit of route planning, cycle commuting should be a manageable risk. (I'd like to think that as I likely will be avoiding public transport where possible for a while and either cycling or driving to the office when we do go back).rjsterry said:
Social distancing is fine where there is the space. It's not compatible with using public transport, though. Or in London, even walking to work or cycle commuting.coopster_the_1st said:
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
ASDA cancelling clothes orders.
Fair or not? Guess it depends on contracts. Understandable they don’t need the goods if they are not selling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52343623
Conversely though, a customer whose project I have worked on recently sells fake tan. They have seen a continued uplift in sales. They themselves are surprised.0 -
Due to limited capacity, people are only tested if they fall ill with similar symptoms - i.e. suspected cases - and either in the case of health workers, need to know whether they can get back to work, or for the general public need to be hospitalised in isolation. They aren't representative samples from which you can determine the spread of the disease. I've seen absolutely nothing on general wider sampling of the population as a whole to determine prevalence and given the flack the government is taking for testing capacity, I'm assuming that if there was some they'd be shouting about it. From what I have seen there have only been relatively small studies of discreet outbreaks - I think there was a German town and I think one of the cruise ships - which presumably have been used for the modelling. That modelling needs to be validated against real observations.morstar said:
As I've said repeatedly, I don't know the correct number of tests and am open minded whereas others are simply plucking big numbers out of thin air and claiming with absolute certainty that their number are better than the governments.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure a GE is a relevant comparison, but someone with a better background in statistics can comment. For a start the sampling in an exit poll is very carefully selected whereas our current testing for C19 is on a 'where necessary' basis and is almost exclusively symptomatic cases.morstar said:
Exit polls in 2015 UK general election were based on 20,000 interviews across 140 polling stations.rjsterry said:
I'd have more confidence in those estimates if they could be shown to match some real world sampling.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-exit-poll-general-election-121122248.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFyJime4aDAu6cqykdGRNmuqmFAtTyf7QtkME63B2fgG1BDOnraFZFRz_m1-FnhU3LJtOG3bVBmHpy2zdPX1mYWFeRT5Wr8SShULvA4HTB0wVvFODPD7671Vs6oc2gifN76vZrLjIUQPAv3xDwPTK1hmGe6QRXvLc7JUro4VKr1U
Given that a UK general election is not binary in terms of seats it is more complex to model than a binary virus. Although the virus can potentially affect the entire population rather than a sub-set.
These have given mixed results in recent years. 2010, 2017 and 2019 very reliable but 2015 not so.
Does give an idea of the order of magnitude of data required. IF, you are simply trying to model and not track and trace. (Which I believe is the UK policy)
All I have tried to do is think of an example of extrapolating data across a whole population. It turns out is a similar size sample set to our daily testing. At least I've made an effort to gain an informed understanding of the magnitude of numbers.
On what do you base the comment that our testing is "almost exclusively on symptomatic cases"? I thought the drive through centres were for health workers for a start. Beyond that, I have no idea but have not automatically assumed it is wrong. I have rather assumed that there is some sort of control group design to the testing seeing as the science office is front and centre of policy. I stand to be corrected.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
morstar said:
Fark me there’s a lot of cyclists about. Never seen anything like it outside of a mass participation event.
Sharing the roads with boy racers mind.
Safe to say that leisure users have taken over the roads.
Grateful to be able to get straight to rural Devon, though even there I've noticed more leisure walkers and cyclists than normal... which means I might see up to six or so cyclists in 20 miles on a sunny day like today...0 -
Nice, I am lucky to live in great cycling country but we’re surrounded by towns so in good weather I’d always expect to see at least 20 cyclists in an hour. I’d reckon about 100+ an hour today and only one group of about 4 mtb’ers.briantrumpet said:morstar said:Fark me there’s a lot of cyclists about. Never seen anything like it outside of a mass participation event.
Sharing the roads with boy racers mind.
Safe to say that leisure users have taken over the roads.
Grateful to be able to get straight to rural Devon, though even there I've noticed more leisure walkers and cyclists than normal... which means I might see up to six or so cyclists in 20 miles on a sunny day like today...
0 -
In normal circumstances and a spreading out of the rush hour, maybe. If everyone switches to their bikes as happens when there is a tube strike, then the Cycle Superhighways will be nose to tail in Zone 1.Stevo_666 said:
I think with a bit of route planning, cycle commuting should be a manageable risk. (I'd like to think that as I likely will be avoiding public transport where possible for a while and either cycling or driving to the office when we do go back).rjsterry said:
Social distancing is fine where there is the space. It's not compatible with using public transport, though. Or in London, even walking to work or cycle commuting.coopster_the_1st said:
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks.
And that's just the cyclists, who are still a minority.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Just did my first proper run since lockdown. It was ridiculous, there must have been ten times the amount of people I would normally see whilst running that route. Most were walking, most completely oblivious to the world outside their own little bubble. If they want to walk 2 abreast on a path that can just about accommodate 3 people no virus is going to stop them and if 90% of people are on the right hand side of the path why follow the crowd, be individual and walk on the right instead.morstar said:Fark me there’s a lot of cyclists about. Never seen anything like it outside of a mass participation event.
Sharing the roads with boy racers mind.
Safe to say that leisure users have taken over the roads.
I might have to stick to just running around the streets or up into the country lanes to take my chances with the cars until this is over and they are back to spending their free time in front of Netflix with a giant pizza.0 -
rjsterry said:
In normal circumstances and a spreading out of the rush hour, maybe. If everyone switches to their bikes as happens when there is a tube strike, then the Cycle Superhighways will be nose to tail in Zone 1.Stevo_666 said:
I think with a bit of route planning, cycle commuting should be a manageable risk. (I'd like to think that as I likely will be avoiding public transport where possible for a while and either cycling or driving to the office when we do go back).rjsterry said:
Social distancing is fine where there is the space. It's not compatible with using public transport, though. Or in London, even walking to work or cycle commuting.coopster_the_1st said:
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks.
And that's just the cyclists, who are still a minority.
Perhaps they all ought to commute by Zwift...0 -
My route crosses over one of the superhighways near The Elephant but otherwise don't use them at all. If there was a problem somewhere, I'd divert.rjsterry said:
In normal circumstances and a spreading out of the rush hour, maybe. If everyone switches to their bikes as happens when there is a tube strike, then the Cycle Superhighways will be nose to tail in Zone 1.Stevo_666 said:
I think with a bit of route planning, cycle commuting should be a manageable risk. (I'd like to think that as I likely will be avoiding public transport where possible for a while and either cycling or driving to the office when we do go back).rjsterry said:
Social distancing is fine where there is the space. It's not compatible with using public transport, though. Or in London, even walking to work or cycle commuting.coopster_the_1st said:
We had already started social distancing(2m apart) before the lockdown. It should have been this message that was pushed rather than lockdown.focuszing723 said:
No question Sweden will be interesting example to follow. I wonder if their population are taking social distancing and other precautions into their own hands though.coopster_the_1st said:
The numbers dead would be higher. However the number of infections and recovered would also be higher. The more people recovered means a slower transition rate and less risk of a second or future peaks.kingstongraham said:
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
The NHS, even in London has plenty of capacity, with from what I have read the 9th April is where it peaked.
Sweden are going to be out the other side of this months before the UK however the end death rate will only be different because of demographics
Maybe that could have been the UK's approach if we were more preemptive with face masks. //Hindsight > Hindsight > Hindsight//
Many people don't understand this disease to be trusted with facemasks. How many people do you see driving solo in their car wearing a facemask? How many times do you see one person wearing a facemask in a family group that are outside walking?
Why would we risk allowing facemasks to be hoarded and thus risking depriving the health and care sectors of facemasks.
And that's just the cyclists, who are still a minority."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
