|
Post by bodger on May 12, 2020 7:08:09 GMT
I have no idea what you posted yesterday or where you posted it - believe it or not I, try my very best to avoid anything you contribute.
............. but it is somewhat heartening to find that you share (I assume) the opinion of myself and Sir Speigelhalter.
I find it heartening that, while thousands of UK citizens have for decades closely followed the fortunes of the denizens of Albert Square, you have, on the other hand, clearly and most assiduously followed the career of the honoured Mr Spiegelhalter. Well done you, and congratulations on choosing this moment to bring enlightenment to us all here on Thunderboat. WTF ??
stony ground comes to mind.
twat!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 12, 2020 7:26:47 GMT
Boris said the R is currently between .5 and .9. Might sound like a tiny difference, only .4, but it's actually a difference of either 45% or 80%, depending on which way you look at it. In other words they have no idea what the R is, but as the number of infections seems to be coming down, the R is likely below 1. All this means that the R is meaningless. Rate of infection goes up? bad. Rate of infection goes down? good. Simples. actually it's more that they are pretty sure what it is, in certain limited areas (hospitals for example or in certain areas ) but applying it as an exact number to cover the whole country is a) very difficult and b) fairly meaningless. Also the restrictions were all (in every country you can compare with) applied so fast, even if sequentially, that the effects of each individual action cannot be separated from the overall figures (hence the problems of deciding which restrictions should be lifted first as you don't know which contributed most to the overall reduction, although you can guess) It is all calculated guesswork. Nobody knows (or can know) what was the best way to deal with this virus. Any body of any political persuasion who claims they do know is a F******g liar and is purely trying to stir shit for political gain. It is simply not possible to know until you have all the data ..... and that is only available afterwards
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 12, 2020 7:31:17 GMT
Incidentally if you are really interested you should have been watching the Parliamentary Science and Technology all party committee on BBC2 in the afternoons. Very informative with the government advisers being questioned by MP's. The explanations of how things are worked out has been very illuminating over the last few sessions
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 12, 2020 7:38:31 GMT
R0.5 means if 2 people have it for 3 weeks each it takes 42 man days (1,008 man hours) effort to infect 1 other person between them. Ergo Coronavirus is not very infectious or perhaps the many people infected don't show symptoms so it's not particularly dangerous. Or there's another way of looking at it that's currently eluding me. Anyway, it's a piss poor meaningless number that should not be the lynch pin of strategy. Yours, Mr A Verage-Dimwit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
R number
May 12, 2020 7:55:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 7:55:31 GMT
Boris said the R is currently between .5 and .9. Might sound like a tiny difference, only .4, but it's actually a difference of either 45% or 80%, depending on which way you look at it. In other words they have no idea what the R is, but as the number of infections seems to be coming down, the R is likely below 1. All this means that the R is meaningless. Rate of infection goes up? bad. Rate of infection goes down? good. Simples. actually it's more that they are pretty sure what it is, in certain limited areas (hospitals for example or in certain areas ) but applying it as an exact number to cover the whole country is a) very difficult and b) fairly meaningless. Also the restrictions were all (in every country you can compare with) applied so fast, even if sequentially, that the effects of each individual action cannot be separated from the overall figures (hence the problems of deciding which restrictions should be lifted first as you don't know which contributed most to the overall reduction, although you can guess) It is all calculated guesswork. Nobody knows (or can know) what was the best way to deal with this virus. Any body of any political persuasion who claims they do know is a F******g liar and is purely trying to stir shit for political gain. It is simply not possible to know until you have all the data ..... and that is only available afterwards Without being able to carry out an anti-body test throughout the pandemic I doubt they'll ever find the rate people became immune during the last few months. Hopefully now a reliable anti-body test is available we might eventually get to find out the percentage who caught it and built up immunity overall. As for the success level of the lockdown, it's difficult to work out without being able to compare with a similar country who didn't lock down. It's the first time it's ever been tried and is mainly built on theory. It's certainly succeeded in reducing the burden on the NHS for a while, maybe more effective than they thought. If this virus caused more alarm with those in power than any before, it would have taken a brave PM to not bother with a lock down. Then again, in Sweden they did pretty much that, although it's argued that most of the Swedish took the advice to stay at home anyway. Even if it turned out that this virus wasn't as lethal as first thought, at least the public have a system they can work with when the next biological threat comes along. I just hope this system won't be abused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
R number
May 12, 2020 8:11:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 8:11:09 GMT
Incidentally if you are really interested you should have been watching the Parliamentary Science and Technology all party committee on BBC2 in the afternoons. Very informative with the government advisers being questioned by MP's. The explanations of how things are worked out has been very illuminating over the last few sessions Did they mention how they calculate the R number?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2020 8:11:16 GMT
R0.5 means if 2 people have it for 3 weeks each it takes 42 man days (1,008 man hours) effort to infect 1 other person between them. Ergo Coronavirus is not very infectious or perhaps the many people infected don't show symptoms so it's not particularly dangerous. Or there's another way of looking at it that's currently eluding me. Anyway, it's a piss poor meaningless number that should not be the lynch pin of strategy. Yours, Mr A Verage-Dimwit. Or 84 woman days (2,016 woman hours) effort to infect 1 other person unless that person happens to be a man, or a BAME person, or a security guard of either gender or any ethnicity in which case, it gets a bit more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 12, 2020 8:55:00 GMT
R0.5 means if 2 people have it for 3 weeks each it takes 42 man days (1,008 man hours) effort to infect 1 other person between them. Ergo Coronavirus is not very infectious or perhaps the many people infected don't show symptoms so it's not particularly dangerous. Or there's another way of looking at it that's currently eluding me. Anyway, it's a piss poor meaningless number that should not be the lynch pin of strategy. Yours, Mr A Verage-Dimwit. Or 84 woman days (2,016 woman hours) effort to infect 1 other person unless that person happens to be a man, or a BAME person, or a security guard of either gender or any ethnicity in which case, it gets a bit more complicated. you missed out on pre-existing conditions caused by bad diet, overcrowded housing, poor hygiene standards, high occupancy housing, whether in Labour controlled or Conservative controlled council areas, and if Lorry drivers. or clowns
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 12, 2020 8:57:38 GMT
comes back to the original comment from months ago ..... depends on the population density and the density of the population
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 12, 2020 9:11:27 GMT
comes back to the original comment from months ago ..... depends on the population density and the density of the population It really does too. That nationwide average is madness itself. All those city people think it's not so bad as it is (for their location) and all us country folk think it's worse. I'm staying in, the info thus far is unreliable but I have hopes that it will become more location friendly.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on May 12, 2020 12:51:08 GMT
Incidentally if you are really interested you should have been watching the Parliamentary Science and Technology all party committee on BBC2 in the afternoons. Very informative with the government advisers being questioned by MP's. The explanations of how things are worked out has been very illuminating over the last few sessions Did they mention how they calculate the R number? I guess they can only calculate it backwards from the rate of change of the number of new infections - trouble is we don't really know the rate of infection, but if the trend is downwards then it is logical to say something vague like 'between 0.5 and 0.9'.
actually it doesn't matter much as long as it is below 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 13:17:55 GMT
Did they mention how they calculate the R number? I guess they can only calculate it backwards from the rate of change of the number of new infections -
They can also make the number go upwards by increasing the number of tests.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on May 12, 2020 14:02:18 GMT
I guess they can only calculate it backwards from the rate of change of the number of new infections -
They can also make the number go upwards by increasing the number of tests. exactly
they have several statistics to look at, including the number of hospital admissions - that's why it is difficult to establish any more than a trend.
at least if the number of tests increases then the calculated R number will be pessimistic, so it should not give false confidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
R number
May 12, 2020 14:30:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 14:30:37 GMT
I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago that if magnetic resonance scans were taken from everybody for no particular reason, people would be shocked to see how many small cancer tumours they had inside them. So it does seem quite likely that with more tests there will be more 'cases'. ...and that NHS link I've put on here twice shows how stress/fear increases your chance of dying (heart attack/stroke). It also reduces your immunity levels (which is not a good thing at the moment!).
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2020 9:47:15 GMT
I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago that if magnetic resonance scans were taken from everybody for no particular reason, people would be shocked to see how many small cancer tumours they had inside them. So it does seem quite likely that with more tests there will be more 'cases'. Noreen went for an mri scan for Narcolepsy, they found an aneurysm, since treated with £5k of platinum coils. She's worth such a lot to me.
|
|