Coronavirus

[Guest]

By special request

 

[Boby Brno]

22 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Well pubs shut at 10

But now a percentage of folk queue en masse outside offies, and go home for house parties

So nowts changed really

The numbers have just slowed down, but the percentage doing the same thing means we'll get there in the end

Other than a 10pm curfew what action has been taken?

No one knows how many people are queuing for booze. A couple of photos on Twitter isn’t a scientific assessment. 

[Escobarp]

3 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Chew Moor?

Sorry @DazBob was right

 

2 turned into 7.  It’s not big and it’s not clever. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Escobarp

[Zico]

7 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

No one knows how many people are queuing for booze. A couple of photos on Twitter isn’t a scientific assessment. 

All anecdotal

But it's generally seen across the country as happening based on the news report from fallowfield last night, particularly in student areas, and was suggested as a reason behind student spikes

If we only dealt in proven facts this thread would be 5 pages long, and boring

In any case, current measures aren't working for anyone

Edited October 7, 2020 by ZicoKelly

[Boby Brno]

5 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

All anecdotal

But it's generally seen across the country as happening based on the news report from fallowfield last night

 

Facts are dismissed, well for all sorts of reasons but a few photos on Twitter are taken as fact. That’s the brave new world we live in.

[Spider]

We should have a referendum 

The country is definitely divided enough now.

It would make brexit look like the Bake Off

1) Full lockdown for 3 weeks

2) Its a fucking cold, get back to work cunts

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

In any case, current measures aren't working for anyone

Peely said earlier that they are

[Zico]

3 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Peely said earlier that they are

Well, ok, but manc uni is seeing a surge and all the local bars are losing business

If no further action is taken I'll assume all is ok

[Zico]

6 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

Facts are dismissed, well for all sorts of reasons but a few photos on Twitter are taken as fact. That’s the brave new world we live in.

Well, I've seen pics with my own eyes and heard similar accounts reported in interviews on the news

I'll assume they aren't the only isolated instances of this happening around the country

"En masse" may not be the right term, but all the evidence so far points to a relatively unacceptable percentage of folk not giving a fuck

Feel free to post anything that suggests otherwise

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Well, ok, but manc uni is seeing a surge and all the local bars are losing business

If no further action is taken I'll assume all is ok

Students aren't dying from it.

300 peple under 60 have died from it.

 

[Zico]

Just now, boltondiver said:

Students aren't dying from it.

300 peple under 60 have died from it.

 

Theres a surge in infections though

That's the opposite of what we want

And with the right course of action from everyone it could be prevented

It's not only students who live in student areas

A surge infections puts everyone at risk

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ZicoKelly said:

Theres a surge in infections though

That's the opposite of what we want

And with the right course of action from everyone it could be prevented

It's not only students who live in student areas

A surge infections puts everyone at risk

Let's assume that is correct.

And that is the mainstream view.

The significant lockdown from March brought the numbers down (aided by the season?)

The current partial local lockdowns aren't bringing the numbers down.

By that logic, we have to significantly close down again.

But, can we really afford that, from social, wider health and economic perspectives?

And, then, back to my point, the really active young people should get it, along with keeping away from the vulnerable.

 

[gonzo]

No data

[peelyfeet]

Appologies if this kettles your head - if you want a summary - it looks like the increase in infections is still growing every day, but it's slowing down  ( slowing a lot in NW as a whole area), so if the data is accurate we  will probably see deaths rise on average every day over the coming few weeks, but the rate of increase will probably slow in about 2 weeks. What happens after that depends on the weather, and whatever other restrictions the govmt decide to enforce in other areas.

Monitoring trends in CASES and INFECTIONS and ESTIMATED CASES is only useful because it allows us to predict how many people will get symptoms, then hospitalisations and then deaths, which is what we really care about. 

Whitty and Valance said:

49k PHE CASES by mid October, if the numbers doubled every 7 days from mid september

Which would lead to around 200 deaths per day by roughly mid November

They also quoted numbers from the ONS infection survey to be showing around 6000 INFECTIONS per day in mid Sept, and 3000 cases per day from the PHE reports in a similar time frame. 

So the real prediction that we want to avoid is 200 deaths per day by Mid November, and the best measurement we have of this is the ONS report, but by the time we get it, it's already old, so PHE is better for up to date tracking.  

but there is a way to predict the ONS infection figures, by using ZOE estimated cases.

ONS and ZOE don't measure in the same way as each other or PHE, which is a twat.

The latest ONS report retrospectivley measured that 116.6k people had active covid between 18th and 24th Sept.

On 21st Sept, the median day of week 18th - 24th , ZOE said 121k had covid symptoms on that day - pretty close to the ONS report, and we got the info that day.

Most deaths take about 3 weeks to happen from infection, and a few days more to show in the PHE report, which is full of dealys and problems,  so predicting deaths from cases accurately is very difficult, but you can get a gist of the growth in real cases and take an educated guess.

So the best you can do to predict future deaths is to look at Zoe's case growth figures and extrapolate.

Zoe has shown those with covid symptoms has grown from 29K - to 280k in the last month, a tenfold increase - and so you would expect deaths to grow tenfold over a similar period, with a 3 week lag.

3 weeks ago Zoe said 72k had symptoms and yesterday the 7 day rolling figure was 53 - 0.073%

today zoe said that 280k had symptoms, so using the same %,  204 could die per day  in 3 - 4 weeks, which is a bit earlier than Whitty and Valance predicted, but in the same ballpark. If cases continue to slow, this will push the 200 figure out later, and if they start to drop it might not reach 200.

The good news is that Zoe thinks the growth in cases has been slowing - its gone from 230k -280k in a week, so 50k more

the week before it was 147k - 230k, so 83k in a week - the week before that 75K, 

You'd expect next weeks growth to be lower still - still getting bigger but more slowly - and if new restrictions kick in, in a few weeks, you'd hope cases would start to drop a few weeks after. 

The bad new is the  weather will get worse and it will have some effect - people stay indoors more and windows get shut when its raining and cold.

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by peelyfeet

[leigh white]

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

No data

That's what Deanna Troi said when he grabbed her tits in Star Trek.

[Zico]

8 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Let's assume that is correct.

And that is the mainstream view.

The significant lockdown from March brought the numbers down (aided by the season?)

The current partial local lockdowns aren't bringing the numbers down.

By that logic, we have to significantly close down again.

But, can we really afford that, from social, wider health and economic perspectives?

And, then, back to my point, the really active young people should get it, along with keeping away from the vulnerable.

 

Or we need to ensure a more strict adherence to the current rules

It was never strict in the first place

Chuck in covid fatigue and folk are starting not to care as much under these looser rules

Which ties into your point, it makes protecting the vunerable more difficult 

Vunerrable doesn't just mean old and it doesn't just mean dying from it

[Rudy]

Who’s Zoe?

She fit?

HBAHT?

[mickbrown]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Rate here was going up before schools went back. I think if we look at the actual numbers of school kids that have had it, its not that high. Surprised me actually, I thought more cases would occur.

Asymptomatic spreaders?

Wasn't there a ridiculously high percentage of that 700 odd positive students in Newcastle that were asymptomatic?

[gonzo]

Re local lockdowns....

[peelyfeet]

7 minutes ago, Rudy said:

Who’s Zoe?

She fit?

HBAHT?

she measures her tits by taking the avearge length of shadow cast over her fruit bowl on wednesdays at 3pm, in autumn.

het tits are 2 tangerines  and half a bananna wide, and they look like puppies noses. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by peelyfeet

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Asymptomatic spreaders?

Wasn't there a ridiculously high percentage of that 700 odd positive students in Newcastle that were asymptomatic?

Students aren't adhering to the same sort of rules that a school has. Asymptomatic people- we dont really know how many there are, though current research might help in that regard.

Big test will come when the schools have the heating on and the temperature has buggered the thermometers. 

[peelyfeet]

Just now, gonzo said:

Re local lockdowns....

Its a bit bollocks that cos some have gone up then down - it takes a few weeks longer to see the effect of restrictions because most infections happen in the home - so if everybody stayed in their house for 2 weeks from today - infections would still go up because all the newly infectious people would pass it around their homes for a few weeks - then it would go down - so you wouldn't measure the effect of them from the day of the restriction - you'd start to measure a few weeks after, then take it from there. Very hard to get accurate

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Or we need to ensure a more strict adherence to the current rules

It was never strict in the first place

Chuck in covid fatigue and folk are starting not to care as much under these looser rules

Which ties into your point, it makes protecting the vunerable more difficult 

Vunerrable doesn't just mean old and it doesn't just mean dying from it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-54442386?__twitter_impression=true

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-54442386?__twitter_impression=true

This 100%. Get on with life. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

24 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Let's assume that is correct.

And that is the mainstream view.

The significant lockdown from March brought the numbers down (aided by the season?)

The current partial local lockdowns aren't bringing the numbers down.

By that logic, we have to significantly close down again.

But, can we really afford that, from social, wider health and economic perspectives?

And, then, back to my point, the really active young people should get it, along with keeping away from the vulnerable.

 

Can we afford not to?

At what point does the effect of lots of sick people not being in work affect the economy anyway?

Costs to the nhs for treatments of covid patients.

Long term costs through long covid.

Deaths from other diseases as wards are increasingly turned over to covid patients again.

Must be a tipping point where the benefits of staying open are outweighed by the costs.

Good luck to them identifying where that is.