OV9

Broccers wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:57 am The thing is vit d and uv rays kills it so theyll all be fine

You must be going to the same doctor as trump

Broccers wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:57 am The thing is vit d and uv rays kills it so theyll all be fine

That must be why it didn’t spread in places like South Korea and Iran where it was hot and sunny. Oh wait...

The track and trace in SK is brilliant - if you happen to go to a / several gay bar/s and spread the V their app tells everyone you have visited these places, you lose your job, family and friends in one explosion of texts. I do hope the system we end up with is slightly better.

And just in case it wasnt obv the last post was not serious

You talk so much shite, it’s impossible to tell broccers

Massive amounts of UV rays can also kill people so think of it as Darwinism.

Broccers wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:57 am The thing is vit d and uv rays kills it so theyll all be fine

Science bitch!

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 10:07 am

Broccers wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:57 am The thing is vit d and uv rays kills it so theyll all be fine

That must be why it didn’t spread in places like South Korea and Iran where it was hot and sunny. Oh wait...

Just as an fyi and not entering the debate as to how it affect Covid-19, but South Korea is actually quite far north and not a sub-tropical/tropical country like China/HK. Their climate is not dissimilar to the UK but with slightly colder winters and hotter summers.

We looked at going one February and was around -5 deg C so we decided not!

GG. wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 11:45 am
Just as an fyi and not entering the debate as to how it affect Covid-19, but South Korea is actually quite far north and not a sub-tropical/tropical country like China/HK. Their climate is not dissimilar to the UK but with slightly colder winters and hotter summers.

Great swathes of China are further north still than South Korea though.

Mexico and Brazil aren't exactly known for their cold climate and seem to be suffering fairly badly.

Those who seem to think it's just going to go away when it warms up a bit are the ones who still believe the early disinformation proven to have been spread by china and Russia before it broke out badly in the rest of the world

integrale_evo wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:11 pm Mexico and Brazil aren't exactly known for their cold climate and seem to be suffering fairly badly.

Those who seem to think it's just going to go away when it warms up a bit are the ones who still believe the early disinformation proven to have been spread by china and Russia before it broke out badly in the rest of the world

However they are known for large swathes of the population living in squalid and poor conditions.

The numbers do seem to point to it dropping off in infection rate massively even in countries that are not particualarly hot (Denmark and even Swedens infection rate has slowed).

Does anyone actually think it’s weather/climate related?

The only link I’ve seen to weather is with regards to surfaces being infected, e.g. door handles, temperatures above 26c and direct sunlight will kill off the virus quicker than if it were cooler or not in direct sunlight.

Rich B wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:27 pm Does anyone actually think it’s weather/climate related?

Don’t you know if you go out on a cold day with wet hair you’ll definitely catch coronavirus?

ZedLeg wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:27 pm Does anyone actually think it’s weather/climate related?

Don’t you know if you go out on a cold day with wet hair you’ll definitely catch coronavirus?

exactly - everyone loves stating how silly people are for believing these things, but does anyone actually believe them, or is it just Daily Mail style “those silly little people...” type reporting.

Rich B wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:27 pm Does anyone actually think it’s weather/climate related?

There is a suggestion that Vit D deficiency could have some bearing on the severity it hits someone. As Vit D does for one's health generally anyway. However, it has fvck all bearing on whether you catch it.

Orange Cola wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 1:31 pm The only link I’ve seen to weather is with regards to surfaces being infected, e.g. door handles, temperatures above 26c and direct sunlight will kill off the virus quicker than if it were cooler or not in direct sunlight.

This is what I'd seen, but my interpretation was it was slow the spread or make it harder to catch, not stop me from catching it. This is pretty standard for flu and coronavirus' though as they all tend to become less prevalent in the summer.

OK, the packed beaches look bad, but what level of risk are we actually talking about?

This is a bit controversial, but let's do some fag-packet numbers.
Let's start with trying to estimate the number of asymptomatic cases out in the wild.
Two weeks ago, there were 4,000 new cases reported in the UK. Yesterday, there were just over 2,000. Extrapolate over the next 14 days on a linear basis and you hit zero. Therefore on average you get 1000 new cases per day over the next 14 days. That suggests there are currently 14,000 infections yet to be diagnosed over the next two weeks. But testing is still a bit sporadic, so lets pull a figure out of thin air and say that the actual number is double that - let's call it 30k.
Based on the infection distribution to date, let's say approximately a third of those infections are in care homes/hospitals (so those people aren't out and about wandering the streets). Let's also say that another third are contracting the virus from family members who have already been diagnosed (i.e. are already self-isolating). That leaves approximately 10,000 people wandering around being potentially infectious.

Let's make the wildly incorrect assumption that cases are uniformly distributed throughout the UK. There is a population of 67 million, so on that basis there is a probability of 1/6,700 that any given person is infected. That suggests that if you were to go to that beach and french kiss 100 people (assuming 100% transmission from tongue-on-tongue contact), the chances of catching it would be 0.15%.

But let's not be silly, even the most promiscuous of us isn't going to snog 100 people, so lets look at a more realistic transmission rate. We know that uncontained, the R value for Coronavirus is 2.6. That is, if everyone goes about their normal, pre-lockdown lives, each infected person passed it onto 2.6 people on average. Again, a bit of a stretch, but let's say that *only* asymptomatic people pass on the virus (i.e. that everyone perfectly isolates once they develop symptoms), and there is *only* person to person transmission (i.e no infected surfaces/doorhandles/spoons etc). How many interactions does an average person have each day and what counts as an interaction? I'm going out on a limb and saying that passing within 2 metres of somebody is too strict a definition, so let's say how many people are you within one metre of for more than a moment (i.e. not counting people you pass in the street). At a guess, and taking into account all the work-from-home hermits/anti-social retirees as well as the office workers using the tube and visiting the pub, I'm going to go with the number 50. 50 potentially infectious interactions per day. Over 2 weeks, that's a total of 700. But the R number is only 2.6, so the vast majority of interactions do not result in successful transmission. Indeed, it suggests that an average interaction with an infected person only has a 0.37% chance of successful transmission. (I actually think this is a massive overestimation, as the chances of transmission increase exponentially with closeness of contact).

So back to the beach. Let's say we're not exchanging body fluids with people, but merely passing by 100 people at a distance of between 1 and 2 metres. That would suggest the chances of transmission would be 0.15% x 0.37% = 0.0005%. Roughly one in 200,000.

I'm going to go even further out on a limb and say that even the most careless/thoughtless people aren't passing within 2 metres of 100 people, and that the actual number of potentially dangerous interactions, even on a beach this crowded is more like 10. Which drags the chances of an individual catching the infection from a trip to the beach down to one in 2,000,000.

Of course, we're not really worried about the chances of *one* person getting infected, we're worried about *anybody* getting infected, so let's say there are 200 family/household groups on the beach, each having 10 potentially dangerous interactions through the course of the day. That still leaves the chances of any infection happening to anyone at one in 10,000. For context, that's roughly the same as the chance of dying in a car accident in the UK in 2.5 years of driving.

I'm not saying that less contact isn't better than more contact at this time, or that people openly flouting lockdown aren't being selfish, but let's get a sense of perspective on the degree of risk before being too apocalyptic about it.

OK, but those small number of people that do manage to catch it at the beach each pass it on to 2.4 people, who each pass it on to 2.4 people etc.

So yes, as an individual event, the risk is currently low (because the lockdown has reduced the R number), but the risk becomes compounded over time.

It would be exactly on brand for this country to get two steps away from an all clear but fuck it because people can’t see beyond the end of their nose

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to provide a bit of context for those seeing busy beach photos and thinking "that's definitely the second wave right there".

As an aside, the London data seems to suggest that the rate of transmission was *massively* reduced by pre-lockdown measures (hand washing, reduced skin-to-skin contact, pubs closing, etc) and the *marginal* effect of lockdown was relatively small. The average R number of 2.6 was based on totally unrestricted social interaction, not interaction with even basic measures to reduce both transmission rate, or the average number of interactions.