OV9

Broccers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:14 pm

Rich B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:12 pm

Broccers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:10 pm Anyone seen the latest made up what could happen scareograph? What a joke. I reckon its making way for some other redic announcement from the government this afternoon.

i think you've missed off the link.

For the technically inept;

Simon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:41 pm Always look at deaths from cases figures 2 to 4 week prior due to the lag...

Gwaredd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:48 pm Still a lot of stupids out there, but by and large, people are being sensible (by keeping distanced and wearing masks), so I think that's helping to keep the viral load down which may go some way to explain the high amount of cases yet low death toll. Just a reasoned thought.

Rich B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:40 pm

Simon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:41 pm Always look at deaths from cases figures 2 to 4 week prior due to the lag...

2 weeks ago there were 2619 new cases from 169,930 tests carried out. Which is about the same percentage as today's figures - 1.5% tested are positive.

Back in April tests were 23% positive.

We're simply testing way more and finding the non-serious cases, which is a good thing.

Nefarious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:45 am I'm shocked, but not surprised at how successful the campaign of "blame each other" has been. From the immediate post-lockdown beach shots, to the current focus on "raves" and mask non-compliance, there has been a sustained effort to get everyone to lay the blame squarely at the door of another group in society - irresponsible "young people", mask refusers, muslims ( ).
Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask where required - but primarily to make others feel comfortable. The evidence says that the actual effectiveness of masks is marginal at best. And marginal is better than nothing. But non-wearers are not making the difference between spike and no spike.
Likewise, clearly parties are happening, but many (at least of the well publicised ones) are outdoors, and the overall numbers of people congregating are minuscule compared with, say, a single morning on the London tube.

Yes, the rise in cases is ultimately down to people's behaviour, but it's absolutely not a case of 98% "doing it properly" and 2% bad people spoiling it for everyone else. It is just an inevitable consequence of *everyone* increasing their average number of interactions. And to a large extent, that comes down to policy - opening public transport, allowing certain mass gatherings (horse racing???), insisting it's a "moral duty" to get back to work.

Very simply, there is a trade off between infection rates and economic recovery. And the point of that trade off is set by policy. And whatever point is chosen, there will always be people to criticise and argue that the point should have been set further towards either extreme. But don't let's fall for the rhetoric that exonerates policy-makers from responsibility, and demonises other people for their biological existence.

Nefarious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:45 am I'm shocked, but not surprised at how successful the campaign of "blame each other" has been. From the immediate post-lockdown beach shots, to the current focus on "raves" and mask non-compliance, there has been a sustained effort to get everyone to lay the blame squarely at the door of another group in society - irresponsible "young people", mask refusers, muslims ( ).
Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask where required - but primarily to make others feel comfortable. The evidence says that the actual effectiveness of masks is marginal at best. And marginal is better than nothing. But non-wearers are not making the difference between spike and no spike.
Likewise, clearly parties are happening, but many (at least of the well publicised ones) are outdoors, and the overall numbers of people congregating are minuscule compared with, say, a single morning on the London tube.

Yes, the rise in cases is ultimately down to people's behaviour, but it's absolutely not a case of 98% "doing it properly" and 2% bad people spoiling it for everyone else. It is just an inevitable consequence of *everyone* increasing their average number of interactions. And to a large extent, that comes down to policy - opening public transport, allowing certain mass gatherings (horse racing???), insisting it's a "moral duty" to get back to work.

Very simply, there is a trade off between infection rates and economic recovery. And the point of that trade off is set by policy. And whatever point is chosen, there will always be people to criticise and argue that the point should have been set further towards either extreme. But don't let's fall for the rhetoric that exonerates policy-makers from responsibility, and demonises other people for their biological existence.

GG. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:33 am Assuming that 1 in 100 is correct and working from Rich's numbers, that would put false positives at around 53.39% of all positive cases.

As I said above, I would think that any extrapolation of a trend based on that overall percentage of false positives requires very careful adjustment. If the figures are just reported with no adjustment and those giving us the figures KNOW half of all those cases are imaginary, that is a very serious misrepresentation.

Mito Man wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:47 am Good to know coronavirus only infects people after 10pm.

integrale_evo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:15 am

Mito Man wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:47 am Good to know coronavirus only infects people after 10pm.

The longer people drink the more lairy they get and more likely they are to ignore any guidance.

Hardly rocket science is it. Seems a reasonable measure to do something without completely destroying the industry with a total shutdown again?