Coronavirus

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

A couple of reasons really...

• Modelling shows that London had reached peak before lockdown.
• Areas where the infection has been prevalent for a while infection rates are dropping regardless of the status of lockdown (still in lockdown, reduced lockdown, never had lockdown).
• Stronts posted a study showing the path of Covid-19 almost exactly following that of SARS
• While in lockdown some regions have seen infections grow.

I am not saying it is definitely happening, but just social distancing and lockdown wouldn't explain the numbers.

 

London did not reach its peak before lockdown. Lockdown ensured that cycle had peaked as it was supposed to do. 

 

Well I'm not sure what you mean by you 2nd point. As I've explained, while the R rate is below 1, the infection rate will decrease even if lockdown is slightly relaxed. We are still seeing hotspots where in localised areas where the R rate for that area exceeds 1. They've talked about this on the daily briefings. I'm assuming the success Wales are seeing is because of your tighter lockdown, your R rate is lower than the uk national average. 

 

I'm not interested in SARS, it infected 8000 people globally, there is no comparison and because of the small numbers this virus was controlled with standard contagion management. 

 

I've covered that. There will be hotspots. Most in this country have been caused by care homes. People in care homes still have to mix with the rest of us, buy food etc and will spread the virus. The lack of PPE in care homes for most of this crisis was the cause of that.

 

The virus is decreasing because we're making it decrease. It's completely dependent on the R rate. As we have seen all over the world, without control, especially in urban areas, this can and will grow. 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

London did not reach its peak before lockdown. Lockdown ensured that cycle had peaked as it was supposed to do. 

Based on your opinion, or can you support that?

 

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Well I'm not sure what you mean by you 2nd point. 

What is not to get? Infection rates are falling regardless of action taken in areas where the virus has been kicking about for a period of time. 

 

3 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

As I've explained, while the R rate is below 1,

I really don't need you to explain the R Rate. I'm pretty confident I will have talked about it in this thread before you did.

 

4 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I'm not interested in SARS, it infected 8000 people globally, there is no comparison and because of the small numbers this virus was controlled with standard contagion management. 

Well, you might not be interested, but that really doesn't mean that SARS did not exist. Some scientists and other academics are interested in it. You personal persuasion is of little importance.

 

5 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

The virus is decreasing because we're making it decrease. It's completely dependent on the R rate. As we have seen all over the world, without control, especially in urban areas, this can and will grow. 

Of course it is dependent on the R Rate, but the R Rate is impacted by so many different things. There is no direct correlation between washing your hands and social distancing and the R Rate. There is certainly a relationship, but we are trying to understand what all the other variables are.

[Section_31]

[Bruce Spanner]

39 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I watched bbc question time and realised I've been worrying for nothing, not when we've got talent like this in charge 

 

 

 

 

She’s a car crash of a human.

 

Less ability than the career incompetent Liz Truss.

 

Astounding she was elected, let alone hold a significant role in parliament.

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Based on your opinion, or can you support that?

 

What is not to get? Infection rates are falling regardless of action taken in areas where the virus has been kicking about for a period of time. 

 

I really don't need you to explain the R Rate. I'm pretty confident I will have talked about it in this thread before you did.

 

Well, you might not be interested, but that really doesn't mean that SARS did not exist. Some scientists and other academics are interested in it. You personal persuasion is of little importance.

 

Of course it is dependent on the R Rate, but the R Rate is impacted by so many different things. There is no direct correlation between washing your hands and social distancing and the R Rate. There is certainly a relationship, but we are trying to understand what all the other variables are.

Can I support lockdown lowered the R rate rather than it happening magically? You're completely mad. I can't be bothered with you any more. 

[Megadrive Man]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

She’s a car crash of a human.

 

Less ability than the career incompetent Liz Truss.

 

Astounding she was elected, let alone hold a significant role in parliament.

 

I'm not old enough to have seen many government front benches, but has there ever been one as incompetent and out of its depth as much as this one?

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Can I support lockdown lowered the R rate rather than it happening magically? You're completely mad. I can't be bothered with you any more. 

To be fair there is other wacky shit going on besides lockdowns which seem to be having an impact.

 

The virus never impacted the west coast of the states to the same degree as New York and a study later found it was a different, less deadly strain.

 

There was also a report of the virus mutating to a weaker strain (uni of Arizona I think it was) which is what happened to SARS. Viruses do mutate but they tend to become weaker not stronger. Not saying that will happen but the idea of it fizzling out isn't without precedent.

[Bruce Spanner]

7 minutes ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

I'm not old enough to have seen many government front benches, but has there ever been one as incompetent and out of its depth as much as this one?

No, genuinely.

 

Its not that they are just incompetent, they’re also self serving hypocrites with no moral or ideological anchoring. They’re trapped inside their own echo chamber, of their own creation, where they genuinely believe they’re right and what they’re doing is justified because they feel their office means they are beyond reproach. All of them would go back to the provincial golf course tomorrow if only their ego allowed them to perceive themselves as failures.

 

A bunch of mediocre white men are holding the country to ransom because one of their mates can work a computer and has figured out how to work the rabble with pithy slogans.

 

It’s the lowest bar I’ve ever seen.

[Mudface]

7 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Can I support lockdown lowered the R rate rather than it happening magically? You're completely mad. I can't be bothered with you any more. 

Here you go- https://coronavstats.co.uk/london

 

London clearly peaked in number of infections after the lockdown started. As you say, there's nothing magical going on here, the actions we've taken have reduced the R number and hence squashed the number of infections, simple as that.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

I'm not old enough to have seen many government front benches, but has there ever been one as incompetent and out of its depth as much as this one?

 

Nope, certainly not in my lifetime.

 

But this has been building over quite a few decades now, and when you see what is going on around the World you get the feeling it has been a long term plan now that people/voters can be influenced via social media. They just play the blame game regardless of facts and unfortunately many just read the headlines or look at whatever falsified photos they use to redirect the public's interests whilst they get on with dismantling societies and ensuring the wealthy stay at the top. By the time the idiots realise they are being played it will be too late to do anything about it. 

[Mudface]

10 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

To be fair there is other wacky shit going on besides lockdowns which seem to be having an impact.

 

The virus never impacted the west coast of the states to the same degree as New York and a study later found it was a different, less deadly strain.

 

There was also a report of the virus mutating to a weaker strain (uni of Arizona I think it was) which is what happened to SARS. Viruses do mutate but they tend to become weaker not stronger. Not saying that will happen but the idea of it fizzling out isn't without precedent.

 

I think they become 'weaker' in terms of their mortality rate. The strain that can last longest in its host without killing it will tend to become the dominant one over time, simply because it can potentially affect more people.

[Vincent Vega]

Doesn’t Spy Bee live in Wrexham? According to this data from the ONS your town hasn’t yet reached its peak of the virus, and you’ve been shut down since 23rd March.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8367397/Nearly-20-UK-council-areas-NOT-seen-coronavirus-peaks.html

 

 

[Mudface]

Also, infections in Wales actually went up last week- https://coronavstats.co.uk/wales

 

Compare with Scotland, where the drop has been precipitous, and looks likely to be halved again this week- https://coronavstats.co.uk/scotland

[Barrington Womble]

27 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

To be fair there is other wacky shit going on besides lockdowns which seem to be having an impact.

 

The virus never impacted the west coast of the states to the same degree as New York and a study later found it was a different, less deadly strain.

 

There was also a report of the virus mutating to a weaker strain (uni of Arizona I think it was) which is what happened to SARS. Viruses do mutate but they tend to become weaker not stronger. Not saying that will happen but the idea of it fizzling out isn't without precedent.

Viruses do mutate, you're right, but this one is going because of the social measures we've implemented. The numbers back that up. Does anyone really think if there was any credible evidence of covid19 just fizzling out our government wouldn't be following the science, releasing lockdown completely and getting the economy going? All of the statistics are pointing to the social measures implemented have had the desired effect, not some magic wand solution. 

[Mudface]

This is an interesting graph, further showing the effect a lockdown has. Sweden hasn't really had a lockdown and you can see the daily cases haven't really gone down. Norway and Denmark have, you can see the effect of it very clearly. 

 

From https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

 

[Spy Bee]

46 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Here you go- https://coronavstats.co.uk/london

 

London clearly peaked in number of infections after the lockdown started. As you say, there's nothing magical going on here, the actions we've taken have reduced the R number and hence squashed the number of infections, simple as that.

Death peaked after lockdown, but the date indicates that infections peaked before.

 

New cases on London yesterday - 0

New cases in the South East yesterday - 0

New cases in the South West yesterday - 0

 

Can that all be lockdown related, when you have seen the public transport coming into and out of London?

[Spy Bee]

12 minutes ago, Mudface said:

This is an interesting graph, further showing the effect a lockdown has. Sweden hasn't really had a lockdown and you can see the daily cases haven't really gone down. Norway and Denmark have, you can see the effect of it very clearly. 

 

From https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

 

Nobody disputes that there is a relationship between lockdown and infections, but there are other factors too.

[Mudface]

8 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Death peaked after lockdown, but the date indicates that infections peaked before.

 

New cases on London yesterday - 0

New cases in the South East yesterday - 0

New cases in the South West yesterday - 0

 

Can that all be lockdown related, when you have seen the public transport coming into and out of London?

 

No, they didn't- lockdown was 23rd of March-

 

 

No idea where you got those '0' figures from-

 

 

10 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Nobody disputes that there is a relationship between lockdown and infections, but there are other factors too.

 

Of course, but by far the biggest one is stopping people infecting each other.

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

No idea where you got those '0' figures from-

 

 

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

 

Download CSV: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/downloads/csv/coronavirus-cases_latest.csv

 

 

 

 

[Spy Bee]

7 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

No, they didn't- lockdown was 23rd of March-

 

 

 

But this is based on testing and variations in volumes of testing. Deaths are very specific and the date the deaths peaked, suggested that (actual) infections were at their peak before lockdown.

[TheHowieLama]

Half the people in Wrexham who got the virus died??

 

 

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Half the people in Wrexham who got the virus died??

What?

[YorkshireRed]

1 hour ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

I'm not old enough to have seen many government front benches, but has there ever been one as incompetent and out of its depth as much as this one?

I’m old enough to remember Thatcher and although the various governments she presided over would certainly give this one a run for their money in terms of pure evilness, for outstanding levels of incompetence Boris and his crew win hands down. 

[TheHowieLama]

14 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

What?

 

 

540 cases - 252 deaths, that is an impressive mortality rate.

[Mudface]

19 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

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

 

Download CSV: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/downloads/csv/coronavirus-cases_latest.csv

 

 

 

 

No idea what that is, but there were 1887 new cases yesterday, and the regional breakdown is in the table I posted above.

 

19 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

But this is based on testing and variations in volumes of testing. Deaths are very specific and the date the deaths peaked, suggested that (actual) infections were at their peak before lockdown.

 

Ah, I see what you were getting at. Thing is, not everyone is going to take the same amount of time to die, so it seem very dodgy to definitively say there was a peak before the lockdown. Who's to say the peak wouldn't have been even higher without the lockdown? Looking at the chart here- https://coronavstats.co.uk - there looks to be a sustained peak from about the 8th of April up to the 25th, with the absolute highest number of deaths recorded on the 21st. I don't think that supports what you're suggesting.

 

There's also this, from a widely used app (2 million, I think was reported) where people recorded whether they had CV-19 symptoms- https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time

 

 

No need for reliance on testing, the peak is quite clearly about a week after lockdown started, which fits quite nicely into the asymptomatic period.