Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[doulikefish]

6 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Seems Sky jumped the gun. It’s 0.7-1.0 according to the official numbers.

 

Dont matter i mentioned earlier on in the thread nothing will stop bo and co opening up 

[Granny Danger]

Just now, virginton said:

More of a general point as this has been going on across multiple threads now but the R rate doesn't immediately track policies from a few days ago, what with the incubation period and time needed to test and confirm diagnosis. There is absolutely no point then in doing a running commentary on daily R numbers like it's the scores coming in on Soccer Saturday: particularly when the current margin of error makes it pretty much meaningless anyway. 

I’m not suggesting the increase in the R number is as a result of a policy just introduced a couple of days ago; it couldn’t possibly be.  I am suggesting that introducing such a change in the same week the number appears to be going up suggests the changes may have been premature.

It’s also quite bad optics, but that should only be an issue for the Tory spin doctors.

[sparky88]

I'd quite happily self isolate with Nikki Kanani.

[bendan]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’ve asked the question on here very recently about just how much care home infections are skewing the R number.  The couple of posters who replied, and who offered quite detailed workings, showed that it had quite a small impact.

 

Would the impact not depend on what proportion of total cases are occurring in care homes? 

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, bendan said:

Would the impact not depend on what proportion of total cases are occurring in care homes? 

Yes.

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, virginton said:

There is absolutely no point then in doing a running commentary on daily R numbers like it's the scores coming in on Soccer Saturday

Hearing reports the R has gone above 1, what can you tell us Kammy?

Has it? I don't know Jeff

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Would it be possible, if they wanted to mantain the two metres rule to maybe send the kids back to school only a couple of days a week? Have half of  them in Mon/Wed and the other half in Tue/thurs. Still wearing masks, basically a phased return. 

In some subjects it is is almost impossible to do even this - we worked out that in an IT suite the maximum number of pupils you could seat was 7 - given that classes will have up to 20 - that's only just over a third of a practical class. In HE it's even worse - just 4 in kitchens for practical HE lessons.

 

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m not suggesting the increase in the R number is as a result of a policy just introduced a couple of days ago; it couldn’t possibly be.  I am suggesting that introducing such a change in the same week the number appears to be going up suggests the changes may have been premature.

If the numbers are based on infection data from two weeks ago then opening things up at the beginning of this week is not relevant to it. The number could be projected to have fallen substantially in the period between those two points in time.

The main takeaway however is that the R number is so completely fuzzy right now that it will be roped out to support every possible argument by both the government as well as its critics.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by vikingTON

[bendan]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

No she needs to keep the lock down going for as long as possible. If you keep it going for longer less cases means you might actually see less time spent in the first stage of a lock down being eased. Id rather spend 4 more weeks as is and get to the second stage of lock down a bit quicker than fannying about with what England have.

I'll be astounded if this helps us leap past England, or leap anywhere. We're just being uber cautious, which is not the worst thing in the world when we appear to have not much of a clue what's going on, but a lot of people's livelihoods are at stake.

[bendan]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Yes.

Do we know what that proprtion is in England?

[Granny Danger]

Just now, bendan said:

Do we know what that proprtion is in England?

It’s in the briefings.  If you look back a few pages you should see the discussion/analysis.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

 

 

They should be obliged to do under law, in the same way that HSE can hold them responsible for unsafe working practices. Of all the adjustments that business and society have been making recently it's hardly a major one at all; even your classic, moustache-twirling villain employers like Amazon have already allowed the same categories to go on the long term sick during lockdown. It does no sensible organisation any good to try and f**k over its permanent workforce right now. 

 

99.9% of all businesses though are SMEs - around 5.9 million businesses employing 16.6 million people - it's those businesses that may be more likely to flout the law than the Amazons.

 

[Turkmenbashi]

I don't get the obsession with the utterly vague R number especially when there isn't full testing in the UK. Over here in Belgium everything is based on number of new hospitalisations which seems a much more obvious way of basing things on.

[ayrmad]

39 minutes ago, NorthernLights said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194

This article says care homes are behind the current rise.

I've been reading articles about how the number of new care homes with outbreaks in England has plunged, how can England be doing so well in care homes whilst it's there that's driving increases, counterintuitive to me. 

Just don't understand how 0.66% of the population can have that much impact on the overall number. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by ayrmad

[D.A.F.C]

3 minutes ago, Turkmenbashi said:

I don't get the obsession with the utterly vague R number especially when there isn't full testing in the UK. Over here in Belgium everything is based on number of new hospitalisations which seems a much more obvious way of basing things on.

Wouldn’t be like the Tories to offer vague advice when money and the economy is involved?

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

99.9% of all businesses though are SMEs - around 5.9 million businesses employing 16.6 million people - it's those businesses that may be more likely to flaut the law than the Amazons.

 

@MixuFixit will enjoy this hybrid

[DeeTillEhDeh]

[mention=75884]MixuFixit[/mention] will enjoy this hybrid

My fat fingers on a my mobile!!

[D.A.F.C]

11 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

99.9% of all businesses though are SMEs - around 5.9 million businesses employing 16.6 million people - it's those businesses that may be more likely to flaut the law than the Amazons.

 

I really can’t explain the stance from mine.

First of all, told we are essential.

Then told to stay home.

Then small amount of staff go back after a week. Rest are furloughed.

After ten weeks or so I’m phoned and told that myself and a few others are being asked to come back because orders have came in for something that only myself and a few others can do. Now there was already orders for these items because we were working on them. These items are also the most expensive and profitable for the company. When I asked that no advice from the Scottish government has changed I’m told that we were essential all along. So if we were essential that why did we close down for a week to begin with?

Few minutes ago I get the generic weekly email from HR telling me that they are following current advice.

 

I’m being bullshitted?!

[ayrmad]

5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

@MixuFixit will enjoy this hybrid

I'm expecting Gazza to be along shortly now that KFC have reopened. 

[superbigal]

The Donald is on cnn live.

Warp Factor

Brilliant stuff.

 

The background noise is unreal

Truckers protesting