Quantcast
Coronavirus - Page 687 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Bjornebye

Coronavirus

Recommended Posts

Amazing how all those who voted for Brexit and banging on about none elected ministers are backing that cunt Cummings, the fucking irony eh. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Why do you think it's burning out? It's nonsense. While the R rate is below 1, the infection numbers will fall and fall till it's gone, a continuous R rate below 1 will eliminate a virus. We've achieved this so far by mostly staying at home and that's now coming to an end. As soon as we're all in contact again, the R rate will go up and if we can't keep it below 1, infections will go up. The test and trace the UK government have put in place in England is below the standard they themselves said was required to keep the R rate down. In Wales your lockdown has continued longer than ours, so it's to be expected your infection rates are pushing the virus out of the community. Bad luck for you, you live next to England where we're not trying to eliminate the virus.

 

It's not burning out, infection rates are down as controls to push the R rate under 1 have achieved their goal. Because we were so fucked, we've had to use a sledgehammer solution, but it's worked. We're now attempting at relaxing those controls with questionable solutions to replace them. Everything that's happened to this point is entirely predictable. It's not burn out, just contagion control. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

image.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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-

 

image.png

 

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

 

image.png

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

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

 

image.png

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×