Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I’m not questioning your calculations Aggy but if they are correct how do they how explain the remarks below from the French National Public Health Agency? When Public Health England see figures and remarks like that coming from across the channel it has to be taken seriously.

In its report for 20-26 July, Santé Publique France said the number of positive tests for coronavirus in France, including overseas departments, had risen for the third week in a row and the increase was “significant”. Just under 458,000 patients were tested and 6,407 found to be positive for the virus, an increase of 44% on the number of positive tests the previous week.

Of those tested, just under 440,000 were resident in mainland France, known as l’Hexagone, and 5,592 tested positive, an increase of 54% on the number of positive tests the previous week. In short, the number of tests carried out increased by 27%, while the number of positive results increased by 54%.

“In week 30 the increase in new positive cases is much higher than the increase in the number of tests carried out,” it declared.

 

What in that suggests my figures are wrong? I’ve used seven day rolling averages a month and a half apart. You’ve used two weeks back to back which is neither at the start or end of the period my figures are based on.

Using the stats from the charts I linked to yesterday for the 7 day average between 19th and 26, in France, I come to a 26.25 per cent increase in tests and a 49 per cent increase in positive tests. So pretty much as those figures in your article, possibly some difference as a result of the mainland vs off shore this, as I’ve no idea which is used in the stats I’m referring to. 

Figures end 31 July so I can’t do the following week for comparison. Week 19-26 does look like it might not be just an increase in tests. But could also be because there was a large outbreak in a certain location with a large number of tests carried out, for instance. I’d take the trend over a mont rather than week to week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ricardo said:

In that case the bigger will be the blow up when it comes. The virus doesn't give a fcuk whether you ignore it or not and being young it might not kill you but the enduring problems it leaves can change your life forever.

I guess there will always be fools who think it will never be them.

Are they fools though? Look at the stats Ricardo. There has been something like 400 working aged people died in seven months. If you’re under 45 or whatever the stat was, you’re more likely to die in a car crash.

My point here is simple. If the government has clear evidence and logic that it’s not just based on increased infections alone, then show it. 
 

If increasing restrictions is based purely on number of infections, then you give people the opportunity to think “well, hospital admissions aren’t going up, nor are deaths, I’ve seen no evidence that there is any increased risk to anyone, it’s all down to test increasing, so why should I risk my livelihood by getting tested”. 

If there is logic which shows it isn’t just down to the numbers of tests increasing, then show it, and it then takes that “option” away for most people.

 

Edit: that should have said in para 2 “not just based on increased infections alone” - updated.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Aggy said:

What in that suggests my figures are wrong? I’ve used seven day rolling averages a month and a half apart. You’ve used two weeks back to back which is neither at the start or end of the period my figures are based on.

Using the stats from the charts I linked to yesterday for the 7 day average between 19th and 26, in France, I come to a 26.25 per cent increase in tests and a 49 per cent increase in positive tests. So pretty much as those figures in your article, possibly some difference as a result of the mainland vs off shore this, as I’ve no idea which is used in the stats I’m referring to. 

Figures end 31 July so I can’t do the following week for comparison. Week 19-26 does look like it might not be just an increase in tests. But could also be because there was a large outbreak in a certain location with a large number of tests carried out, for instance. I’d take the trend over a mont rather than week to week.

The long term trends are important but with a weekly jump as seen the shift is regarded as significant. The rate of spread of infection can be so fast it would be foolish not to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion now on Newsnight on your exact point @Aggy and talk of the degree of false positives (maybe very small particles in people not showing any symptoms nor infectious) and the dangers of making public policy based on these. 4.6m of us in the north currently affected of course 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The long term trends are important but with a weekly jump as seen the shift is regarded as significant. The rate of spread of infection can be so fast it would be foolish not to react.

You’re right if the numbers week on week show a massive increase then yes action is needed. But whilst a weekly increase of 150 per cent looks bad when you look at the percentage increase, it’s an increase of 800 cases in the whole of France, population 67 million. That means an extra 0.0012 per cent of the population was infected across the whole week. Any reaction needs to be sensible, proportionate and viewed in the context of the numbers still having gone down from a month before.

An increase of 150 per cent over a whole month would be more concerning (although still hardly panic stations when we’re talking about 800 extra cases a week) because it’s showing a continued steady increase.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Interesting discussion now on Newsnight on your exact point @Aggy and talk of the degree of false positives (maybe very small particles in people not showing any symptoms nor infectious) and the dangers of making public policy based on these. 4.6m of us in the north currently affected of course 

I shall give it a watch tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Are they fools though? Look at the stats

My point here is if the government has clear evidence and logic that it’s not just based on increased infections alone, then show it

If there is logic which shows it isn’t just down to the numbers of tests increasing, then show it, and it then takes that “option” away for most people.

I suspect that there is a bit more to it than locking down on the basis of the raw numbers alone. 

Be interesting to see the rationale behind the two local lockdowns in full but in both cases a hypothesis could be made out that it is not the rate of spread that was the critical factor but the likelihood of spread to vulnerable members of extended family groups.

If you do go down the route of full publication though its easy for someone to excuse themselves from measures on the basis that they don't live with granny or whatever it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I suspect that there is a bit more to it than locking down on the basis of the raw numbers alone. 

Be interesting to see the rationale behind the two local lockdowns in full but in both cases a hypothesis could be made out that it is not the rate of spread that was the critical factor but the likelihood of spread to vulnerable members of extended family groups.

If you do go down the route of full publication though its easy for someone to excuse themselves from measures on the basis that they don't live with granny or whatever it is.

Probably so, but all we’ve had by way of explanation so far is some mumbled explanation from Burnham that infections are rising in the NW. In the worst hit boroughs, people then point to hospital numbers and deaths as an excuse not to bother. In the lesser hit districts, people point to the fact that , for instance, half the country has higher cases than Rossendale, but Rossendale has tighter restrictions whilst the rest of the country doesn’t.

Added to that, frankly, if the government makes a decision which limits people’s ability to go about their daily lives and see family etc., then it should be fully explained regardless of what they think the consequences of explaining it might be. Pretty sure they’ll have to fully explain it in parliament at some point as I think these emergency regs will eventually need parliamentary approval later?

(And we’ve still not heard why it took them over 28 hours to come up with the decision and still managed to mess up the announcement with four vague tweets and a tv interview the following day in which the Secretary of State got it wrong  - “PR” issue rather than substantive issue perhaps, but I’m sure millions of people who now can’t see their families wouldn’t mind knowing what processes the government went through in that 28 hour plus period). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't invite other family members to your house, even if they are wearing a mask - but you can join those same members in a restaurant without wearing a mask..... to stuff yourselves as part of the governments campaign to get the nation fitter.

Ride a bycycle without a silly 'crash' helmet and you are the devil - but zip about the roads and pavements on an electric scooter, without any safety headwear, and nothing is said, especially by the police.

Wearing a mask in a shop is mandatory...... unless you don't want to, and nothing will be said or done. And yesterday Sainsburys was very busy with no restrictions on the doors as to numbers, or distancing

A funeral is service is restricted to a few, and they must wear masks. The wake in the pub afterwards is unlimited in numbers , time and proximity.... and no masks.

And this w/e will see what notice the public is taking of Fatboy's bleats (advice)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Probably so, but all we’ve had by way of explanation so far is some mumbled explanation from Burnham that infections are rising in the NW. In the worst hit boroughs, people then point to hospital numbers and deaths as an excuse not to bother. In the lesser hit districts, people point to the fact that , for instance, half the country has higher cases than Rossendale, but Rossendale has tighter restrictions whilst the rest of the country doesn’t.

Added to that, frankly, if the government makes a decision which limits people’s ability to go about their daily lives and see family etc., then it should be fully explained regardless of what they think the consequences of explaining it might be. Pretty sure they’ll have to fully explain it in parliament at some point as I think these emergency regs will eventually need parliamentary approval later?

I think that this is fair enough.   They should be able to justify their actions retrospectively if time or circumstance do not permit soing so at the time.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that this is fair enough.   They should be able to justify their actions retrospectively if time or circumstance do not permit soing so at the time.

It's hard to imagine what reality there would be for anyone to believe that guff

and it is did not

you need a grammar checker, as well as the spell checker you now use, hand crank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill said:

You can't invite other family members to your house, even if they are wearing a mask - but you can join those same members in a restaurant without wearing a mask..... to stuff yourselves as part of the governments campaign to get the nation fitter.

Ride a bycycle without a silly 'crash' helmet and you are the devil - but zip about the roads and pavements on an electric scooter, without any safety headwear, and nothing is said, especially by the police.

Wearing a mask in a shop is mandatory...... unless you don't want to, and nothing will be said or done. And yesterday Sainsburys was very busy with no restrictions on the doors as to numbers, or distancing

A funeral is service is restricted to a few, and they must wear masks. The wake in the pub afterwards is unlimited in numbers , time and proximity.... and no masks.

And this w/e will see what notice the public is taking of Fatboy's bleats (advice)

In fairness, in the NW you can’t meet a family member inside a restaurant or pub  - but you’re fine to meet them in a beer garden just outside the same pub without a mask. Just make sure you don’t both go inside to the loo at the same time though as you’ll then be breaking the law. Only one law though, because it’s fine to go into a pub loo without a mask, despite presumably not eating or drinking in there. 

Of course it’s also fine for you to sit in a Manchester-based restaurant two socially-distanced tables apart from a stranger. But you’d probably be breaking the law if that stranger was your mum instead (unless you could prove it was just a coincidence your mum was there and you hadn’t arranged it).

All very simple really!

Although, has anyone seen the regulations governing this yet? Last I saw on Monday the government admitted they hadn’t been implemented yet. So I think most of the above is currently incorrect anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-waste-150m-buying-unusable-masks-from-banker-5v8390xtp

Government giving £225m of tax payers money to a £100 company, owned by an advisor to Conservative MP Liz Truss, for PPE that cannot be used, without due procurement process. I'm trying to think of a word.... Oh yeah, corruption.

Drain the swamp.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that this is fair enough.   They should be able to justify their actions retrospectively if time or circumstance do not permit soing so at the time.

 

Yep there does need to be justification when people are having their liberty denied. 

For what its worth just completed a four hour T and T shift and not given a single case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

For what its worth just completed a four hour T and T shift and not given a single case!

That could be either good or bad. Hopefully you've not been given any as they had all been

6 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Yep there does need to be justification when people are having their liberty denied. 

 Seems like we are all agreed for once! I see Bill posted, he'll probably have argued that no justification is required just for the fight I suppose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Aggy said:

Are they fools though? Look at the stats Ricardo. There has been something like 400 working aged people died in seven months. If you’re under 45 or whatever the stat was, you’re more likely to die in a car crash.

My point here is simple. If the government has clear evidence and logic that it’s not just based on increased infections alone, then show it. 
 

If increasing restrictions is based purely on number of infections, then you give people the opportunity to think “well, hospital admissions aren’t going up, nor are deaths, I’ve seen no evidence that there is any increased risk to anyone, it’s all down to test increasing, so why should I risk my livelihood by getting tested”. 

If there is logic which shows it isn’t just down to the numbers of tests increasing, then show it, and it then takes that “option” away for most people.

 

Edit: that should have said in para 2 “not just based on increased infections alone” - updated.

So 40 and under don't die. Does that stop them carrying and infecting others.

Until the whole population realises it is involved in this then the stupid and the selfish will continue to risk others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-waste-150m-buying-unusable-masks-from-banker-5v8390xtp

Government giving £225m of tax payers money to a £100 company, owned by an advisor to Conservative MP Liz Truss, for PPE that cannot be used, without due procurement process. I'm trying to think of a word.... Oh yeah, corruption.

Drain the swamp.

 

Heard Jolyon Maughan on radio discussing this subject and it stinks to high heaven. There are plenty of other cases like this and I am not sure what ideology lies behind this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Yep there does need to be justification when people are having their liberty denied. 

For what its worth just completed a four hour T and T shift and not given a single case!

Some bloke coughed while I was at Overstrand on Monday, perhaps you could chase him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Some bloke coughed while I was at Overstrand on Monday, perhaps you could chase him up.

Did he have a bike ?

Share this post


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

Heard Jolyon Maughan on radio discussing this subject and it stinks to high heaven. There are plenty of other cases like this and I am not sure what ideology lies behind this. 

I've just read his thread on this-apparently he has sued the Government for this contract and ones for Pestfix and Clandeboye-all 3 were to provide PPE for the NHS, none of the PPE has been used by the NHS. Not sure whether these all involved Government advisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I've just read his thread on this-apparently he has sued the Government for this contract and ones for Pestfix and Clandeboye-all 3 were to provide PPE for the NHS, none of the PPE has been used by the NHS. Not sure whether these all involved Government advisers.

In slightly more normal times, this contract would be a major scandal. Quite an incredible series of issues and actions. If you were a minister (and a cabinet one at that), wouldn't you strongly push against your advisor taking on such a contract?.... indeed wouldn't you declare an interest from the outset? And the company had no track record in producing of procuring PPE? And it was  worth £252m? It wasn't exactly 'de minimis'.  And there was no tender? Incredible in so many respects and presumably all just signed off under the cover of the pandemic and emergency provisions? This is what it looks like from the outside. Maybe we will get a full explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I've just read his thread on this-apparently he has sued the Government for this contract and ones for Pestfix and Clandeboye-all 3 were to provide PPE for the NHS, none of the PPE has been used by the NHS. Not sure whether these all involved Government advisers.

One was a Northern Irish sweet producer I think. Don't make much sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 announced today but as can be seen most are fill ins from previous days.

 

 

image

 

Cases up to 950 yesterday but 175k tests completed so still just around the half percent mark. See full data.

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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill said:

It's hard to imagine what reality there would be for anyone to believe that guff

and it is did not

you need a grammar checker, as well as the spell checker you now use, hand crank

why do you think I was writing in the past tense? I had thought I was writing in the future conditional.   Can you tell me where I have gone wrong please ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Herman said:

One was a Northern Irish sweet producer I think. Don't make much sense. 

a smell of humbug there, methinks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it is clearly obvious now that CV-19 is on its way back to a neighbourhood near you. Local and then national lockdowns probably inevitable - we've opened up too much already.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellow Fever said:

I think it is clearly obvious now that CV-19 is on its way back to a neighbourhood near you. Local and them national lockdowns probably inevitable - we've opened up too much already.

Absolutely agree, I fear North Norfolk is going to see a rise in infections over the next two or three weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Herman said:

One was a Northern Irish sweet producer I think. Don't make much sense. 

O'Polo? Limerick Allsorts?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...