Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

There is cold hard logic to social distancing. Get the R value under 1 and the virus decreases. It will take time, nothing more than waiting it out and slowly strangling this **** of a virus.

I wonder - as a non specialist - if there's an R value that triggers the easing up of the various measure?

 

[Triggaaar]

Someone used the term "green shoots" yesterday, think we need to retrain from that kind of language

Part of the problem appears to be that people now have access to data that they don't understand and/or just don't understand data. Predictions based on single points are just guesses but people turn them into trends and it gets spread all over social media. Appreciate that people want to be optimistic but it doesn't really help.

The term 'green shoots' came from the government in their press conference yesterday. You'd hope they understood the data.

 

[Triggaaar]

Why don’t you?

The purpose of the report which I've criticised was to provide an estimate for the number of people in the UK who had been infected with the coronavirus. It was clearly wildly inaccurate and not fit for purpose. But presumably you want to say that actually the purpose was something else altogether?

I’ve used statistical modelling both in my work and also for my masters but I doubt that cuts any ice with you.

You're not the only one with qualifications and a job. Maybe you can explain what you think the purpose of the report was.

 

[Bakero]

The weird thing about the Oxford modelling was that it got leaked to the press at such an early stage.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

The purpose of the report which I've criticised was to provide an estimate for the number of people in the UK who had been infected with the coronavirus. It was clearly wildly inaccurate and not fit for purpose. But presumably you want to say that actually the purpose was something else altogether?

You're not the only one with qualifications and a job. Maybe you can explain what you think the purpose of the report was.

Purpose? I’ve know. Can I discount it as being crap no. Why? Because I have absolutely no idea where the dataset came from. For the same reasons I can’t discount the 1% view
Personally I think the contagion rate is well above 1% but under 50% but thats just my opinion. I have no data to back it up so it’s pretty much worthless. In this case you are very much in the right to say my view is wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

The weird thing about the Oxford modelling was that it got leaked to the press at such an early stage.

nothing wierd, it was published.

 

[Poojah]

There is cold hard logic to social distancing. Get the R value under 1 and the virus decreases. It will take time, nothing more than waiting it out and slowly strangling this **** of a virus.

People need to hold their nerve over the next few weeks; there’s likely to be a bigger delay in the effects of the lockdown becoming apparent in the numbers. First, you’ve got all of the people who were infected but asymptomatic as the lockdown was put into place, the people they infected in the days leading up to the lockdown and then, in all likelihood, anyone in their household.

It will take time for those people to show symptoms, require hospitalisation in some cases and for a small percentage, pass away. I saw a suggestion from the Imperial College guys that the peak was expected to hit around 5th April, and of course they are far better qualified than I am to make that call, but logically another two to three weeks seems more plausible to me.

 

[Mellotron]

People need to hold there nerve over the next few weeks; there’s likely to be a bigger delay in the effects of the lockdown becoming apparent in the numbers. First, you’ve got all of the people who were infected but asymptomatic as the lockdown was put into place, the people they infected in the days leading up to the lockdown and then, in all likelihood, anyone in their household.

It will take time for those people to show symptoms, require hospitalisation in some cases and for a small percentage, pass away. I saw a suggestion from the Imperial College guys that the peak was expected to hit around 5th April, and of course they are far better qualified than I am to make that call, but logically another two to three weeks seems more plausible to me.

Agreed, my unqualified view is also that it’ll be more like mid-April.

 

[Bakero]

nothing wierd, it was published.

But not peer reviewed. It seemed the press had it before the rest of the scientific community.

 

[The Wizard]

It depends what is defined as peak, based on other countries the peak could be in the next week or so, if you look at how the deaths have escalated last couple of days you would unfortunately expect us to hit 700/800 per day, unfortunately as well the peak could be a ‘stable’ peak similar to Spain/Italy where the deaths have been consistently in the same numerical region for a week or so. Here’s hoping we are at our death peak now but I can’t see that realistically.

I can’t imagine how bad this could have got had we gone down the herd immunity route.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Thought today's press briefing was pretty uninspiring. The format (no supplementary questions) doesn't really work in terms of drilling down into key matters. Answers are not always fully aligned to the questions (that's the kindest way I can describe it).

 

[dangull]

727 in Italy today. Awful figure, but finally going in the right direction.

 

[Triggaaar]

Purpose? I’ve know.

Not sure what you're trying to say there.

Can I discount it as being crap no. Why? Because I have absolutely no idea where the dataset came from. For the same reasons I can’t discount the 1% view

Well I don't share your view. It would obviously be extremely useful for the UK to know how many people have already been infected. Consequently, researchers are trying to estimate that number using data modelling. The purpose is clearly to give as accurate an estimate as possible. A group did this, and there results were clearly extremely inaccurate.

Personally I think the contagion rate is well above 1% but under 50% but thats just my opinion. I have no data to back it up so it’s pretty much worthless.

But that's not true, we do have data to back up our opinions. We have the data released by each country on a daily bases, and that was enough to know that as of a week ago, there was no way that half of the UK had already been infected.

You disagree. I'm ok with that.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Not sure what you're trying to say there.
Well I don't share your view. It would obviously be extremely useful for the UK to know how many people have already been infected. Consequently, researchers are trying to estimate that number using data modelling. The purpose is clearly to give as accurate an estimate as possible. A group did this, and there results were clearly extremely inaccurate.

But that's not true, we do have data to back up our opinions. We have the data released by each country on a daily bases, and that was enough to know that as of a week ago, there was no way that half of the UK had already been infected.

You disagree. I'm ok with that.

Typo should have been I don’t know.

Obviously not explaining myself very well. We do need the antibody test without it We can’t get a view of the a symptomatic cases which I think is key.

No problem disagreeing I just believe you are being too high handed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SK1NT]

Well this has aged well. Hopefully still with us [MENTION=663]portlock seagull[/MENTION]

I like this one

Do you honestly think it is going to go pandemic?

 

[Beach Hut]

Thought today's press briefing was pretty uninspiring. The format (no supplementary questions) doesn't really work in terms of drilling down into key matters. Answers are not always fully aligned to the questions (that's the kindest way I can describe it).

Is it me or are these getting shorter by the day ?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Is it me or are these getting shorter by the day ?

There is less to talk about ironically, even though things are now in a pretty bad way in terms of mortalities. When the chancellor is announcing huge measures or the PM issuing instructions regarding lockdown, naturally there is a lot more to get across.

 

[SK1NT]

It’s a horrible death toll, but people must not think the lockdown isn’t working or going to work because of this, seen all the usual twitter idiots and scaremongering people proclaiming this shows the lockdown isn’t working. It will work, it seems many don’t understand the time lag at play.

It's all that's on the news, it's in every paper, all news website and yet some twits still don't get the lag... i'm dumbfounded... this is really annoying. I found that the most stupid in society are usually the ones with the biggest mouths.

 

[SK1NT]

I saw a suggestion from the Imperial College guys that the peak was expected to hit around 5th April, and of course they are far better qualified than I am to make that call, but logically another two to three weeks seems more plausible to me.

4th/5th April sounds about right for the peak doesn't it? 14 days to develop and after that sunny weekend just before lockdown... Unless we calculate 14 days to develop and then the next few days for the virus to take hold and be at it's worse... In which case 11th/12th sounds like another potential peak.

 

[Medwayseagull]

It's all that's on the news, it's in every paper, all news website and yet some twits still don't get the lag... i'm dumbfounded... this is really annoying. I found that the most stupid in society are usually the ones with the biggest mouths.

Has Katie Hopkins opened her mouth again ?