Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[maomao]

I think loads of people not understanding what exponential means (me included) has not helped.

An exponent is the little number that is written to the right and slightly above a number to express 2 squared 2 cubed, 2 to the power of four etc. When something rises exponentially it means that it's the exponent increasing not the base number. So instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. you get 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.

 

[frogwoman]

Furlough scheme will surely just need to be extended indefinitely. Difficult to see any other alternative if you're shutting down large parts of the economy, or encouraging people to avoid economic activity.

The government were determined to improve the economic numbers as soon as possible once things began to wear off initially, but it's pretty clear now that the economy bouncing back probably isn't compatible with curbing the spread of the virus, because our economic model depends fundamentally on people doing things which involve them mixing in social settings etc.

Furlough scheme will surely just need to be extended indefinitely. Difficult to see any other alternative if you're shutting down large parts of the economy, or encouraging people to avoid economic activity.

The government were determined to improve the economic numbers as soon as possible once things began to wear off initially, but it's pretty clear now that the economy bouncing back probably isn't compatible with curbing the spread of the virus, because our economic model depends fundamentally on people doing things which involve them mixing in social settings etc.

Unfortunately my job ultimately depends on people doing that

 

[bimble]

An exponent is the little number that is written to the right and slightly above a number to express 2 squared 2 cubed, 2 to the power of four etc. When something rises exponentially it means that it's the exponent increasing not the base number. So instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. you get 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.

I do get it ! In the abstract totally understand. But its hard to intuitively grasp what that looks like, how utterly different from incremental growth it is.
just watched Whitty, didn’t realise he was trying to impress on people exactly this, that we’re in exponential growth again now even if the numbers look small today, and thats that’s what the problem is.

 

[two sheds]

I do get it ! In the abstract totally understand. But its hard to intuitively grasp what that looks like, how utterly different from incremental growth it is.

Yes sorry I was thinking that you did understand when I did my piece too worth saying in case it helps other people though (including me )

 

[Wilf]

ThERE iS No pLAce FOr sCIenCE aNd REaSon In tHIs DEbaTE

Facts, the enemy of shouty caps reason!

 

[elbows]

If I had demanded on August 26th that those who spout utter nonsense go and tell their shit theories to everyone who had been admitted to hospital in the UK with Covid-19 in the last 7 days, this would have required them to talk offensive bollocks to 316 people.

If I made the same demand based on the number of UK Covid-19 hospitalisations in the 7 days to September 19th, they would have needed to speak to 1310 people.

 

[andysays]

On July 1st, the day the pubs reopened there were 90 deaths in England. Today there are 9 and people want to close them again. Science and reason has no place in this debate it seems.

so you'd like to wait a few weeks* until there are 90 deaths per day until anything changes?

*because if numbers continue to rise the way they're apparently doing atm, a few weeks is all it will take

 

[Ax^]

the R naught for Covid 19 can confuse many people

as its not even R 1 the median is r 5.7

meaning 1 sick individual can possible infect 5.7 people

 

[Mr Retro]

I dont think much of your ideas about science and reason.

Where were you when they fucked up last time by leaving the lockdown till much later than it should have been?

Are you aware that when they had to throw their original shit plan away around March 16th there had only been 81 deaths recorded for the UK in total? Because it wasnt about how many deaths there had been, it was about the trajectory and how many deaths were coming,

A week later when they finally announced a more comprehensive lockdown, the total was up to 508. A few weeks later, when daily deaths peaked, the total was 9608.

And these are only hospital death figures.

Lesson number 1, which most people grasped successfully, is that you cannot wait till the deaths reach a staggering level before acting.

I don't believe that lockdown made much difference. The virus was there and in the population. Imperial College modelling for Sweden said with no lockdown they could have 100,000 deaths. With a very hard lockdown I think it was 25,000. What actually happened was no lockdown and there were 7,000 deaths. We are going through typical curve for a pandemic. What we are seeing now is a typical uptick as we come into winter months again. It is what happens with previous flu outbreaks like the hard one in year 2000 and it's what we are seeing now.

If lockdowns were effective why didn't we see spikes after VE Day/when people flocked to beaches/anti-racist protests/when the pubs and restaurants re-opened?

The modeling has been completely wrong so far. And we can demonstrate it to be wrong by looking at Sweden. I don't believe it at all any more.

I was scared shitless at the start of this and I welcomed the lockdown. I followed/will follow new guidelines to the letter because I believe in society and I might be wrong. But if you look at reality and the actual data, it is my opinion there has been and is a massive overreaction to this virus.

 

[killer b]

the R naught for Covid 19 can confuse many people

as its not even R 1 the median r 5.7

I'll admit, I'm confused.

 

[Ax^]

watch contagion

its explained quite well

or

0, pronounced “R naught,” is a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection is transmitted to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated.

For example, if a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people. That replication will continue if no one has been vaccinated against the disease or is already immune to it in their community.

 

[frogwoman]

But Sweden - ah yes, the same Sweden where everyone has been told to work from home for the foreseeable future

 

[cupid_stunt]

It's confirmed there's an emergency COBRA meeting tomorrow, before new restrictions are announced.

Boris Johnson will chair an emergency COBRA meeting on Tuesday ahead of a statement on the next steps in tackling the coronavirus pandemic.

It comes on a day when the prime minister will also chair cabinet - and it is expected he will announce new measures designed to curb the number of COVID-19 infections.

Ahead of this, Mr Johnson on Monday discussed the coronavirus response during calls with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford, Northern Ireland's First Minister Arlene Foster, and Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neill.

"During these calls, the prime minister made clear that the rising infection rates are a cause for great concern, which he is taking very seriously," a Downing Street spokesperson said.

"He reiterated his unwavering commitment to working with the devolved administrations as we continue to tackle the virus.

"They all agreed to act with a united approach, as much as possible, in the days and weeks ahead."

Coronavirus: PM to chair emergency COBRA meeting tomorrow ahead of statement on pandemic

Boris Johnson is expected to announce new measures designed to curb the number of COVID-19 infections.

news.sky.com

 

[frogwoman]

Sweden have got stricter restrictions than we had during the summer BTW. It's just that their restrictions have been designed to be maintained long term. High Schools and universities were online during the peak of the pandemic btw and many businesses close down over the summer anyway

 

[frogwoman]

The imperial college predicted 66,000 deaths by August btw and including excess deaths that's pretty much what we had.

 

[Teaboy]

I don't believe that lockdown made much difference. The virus was there and in the population. Imperial College modelling for Sweden said with no lockdown they could have 100,000 deaths. With a very hard lockdown I think it was 25,000. What actually happened was no lockdown and there were 7,000 deaths. We are going through typical curve for a pandemic. What we are seeing now is a typical uptick as we come into winter months again. It is what happens with previous flu outbreaks like the hard one in year 2000 and it's what we are seeing now.

If lockdowns were effective why didn't we see spikes after VE Day/when people flocked to beaches/anti-racist protests/when the pubs and restaurants re-opened?

The modeling has been completely wrong so far. And we can demonstrate it to be wrong by looking at Sweden. I don't believe it at all any more.

I was scared shitless at the start of this and I welcomed the lockdown. I followed/will follow new guidelines to the letter because I believe in society and I might be wrong. But if you look at reality and the actual data, it is my opinion there has been and is a massive overreaction to this virus.

Sweden didn't do nothing, there were lots of measures in place. There were a few small outbreaks after VE day but nothing much most likely because the celebrations (or whatever they were) took place mainly outside as did the protests. Risk of transmission when outdoors is significantly lower. The bars and restaurants were reopened with lots of measures in place.

Everyone is sick of the virus but just wanting it to go away isn't going to cut it. I don't doubt your sincerity on the subject but I do doubt your knowledge. As someone who got it wrong first time around I would advise you to do more reading on it.

 

[bimble]

I don't believe that lockdown made much difference. The virus was there and in the population. Imperial College modelling for Sweden said with no lockdown they could have 100,000 deaths. With a very hard lockdown I think it was 25,000. What actually happened was no lockdown and there were 7,000 deaths. We are going through typical curve for a pandemic. What we are seeing now is a typical uptick as we come into winter months again. It is what happens with previous flu outbreaks like the hard one in year 2000 and it's what we are seeing now.

If lockdowns were effective why didn't we see spikes after VE Day/when people flocked to beaches/anti-racist protests/when the pubs and restaurants re-opened?

The modeling has been completely wrong so far. And we can demonstrate it to be wrong by looking at Sweden. I don't believe it at all any more.

I was scared shitless at the start of this and I welcomed the lockdown. I followed/will follow new guidelines to the letter because I believe in society and I might be wrong. But if you look at reality and the actual data, it is my opinion there has been and is a massive overreaction to this virus.

I’m glad you posted this. Sometimes I feel this way too , that the world has overreacted, that the costs of lockdowns outweigh its benefits especially on a global scale.
But how can you think lockdowns don’t work , why did the graph go down again the way it did there’s no other explanation for that surely?

 

[Supine]

I don't believe that lockdown made much difference. The virus was there and in the population. Imperial College modelling for Sweden said with no lockdown they could have 100,000 deaths. With a very hard lockdown I think it was 25,000. What actually happened was no lockdown and there were 7,000 deaths. We are going through typical curve for a pandemic. What we are seeing now is a typical uptick as we come into winter months again. It is what happens with previous flu outbreaks like the hard one in year 2000 and it's what we are seeing now.

If lockdowns were effective why didn't we see spikes after VE Day/when people flocked to beaches/anti-racist protests/when the pubs and restaurants re-opened?

The modeling has been completely wrong so far. And we can demonstrate it to be wrong by looking at Sweden. I don't believe it at all any more.

I was scared shitless at the start of this and I welcomed the lockdown. I followed/will follow new guidelines to the letter because I believe in society and I might be wrong. But if you look at reality and the actual data, it is my opinion there has been and is a massive overreaction to this virus.

On the off chance that you are wrong (and you are very very wrong) it's probably a good idea that lockdowns happen when needed.

 

[cupid_stunt]

...Sweden...

You are seriously bringing-up Sweden?

International comparisons can be difficult, but I tend to agree that Sweden's success, or not, could be better judged by comparing them to their neighbours.

Deaths per million population -

Sweden - 578
Denmark - 109
Finland - 61
Norway - 49

 

[Mr Retro]

On the off chance that you are wrong (and you are very very wrong) it's probably a good idea that lockdowns happen when needed.

Explain Sweden and the lack of spikes during the summer?

Happy to be wrong but I don’t understand why people cling to ideas that are not backed by fact

 

[Mr Retro]

You are seriously bringing-up Sweden?

Why are you comparing them to their neighbours?

 

[two sheds]

as its not even R 1 the median is r 5.7

meaning 1 sick individual can possible infect 5.7 people

The R0 I understood - it's this bit that confuses me

 

[sheothebudworths]

Why are you comparing them to their neighbours?

I just...

 

[frogwoman]

Similar population density etc.

 

[killer b]

back up your ideas with facts. no, not those facts.

 

[maomao]

Explain Sweden and the lack of spikes during the summer?

Happy to be wrong but I don’t understand why people cling to ideas that are not backed by fact

So if you're saying it's seasonal why are you against a lockdown now? Surely now would be the best time. Or are you claiming that it will spread regardless of lockdown?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Why are you comparing them to their neighbours?

Because the comparison is more logical than comparing them with very different countries, such as the UK, France, Spain, etc.,, for loads of reasons, not least population density, levels of international & internal travel, etc., etc.

 

[Supine]

Explain Sweden and the lack of spikes during the summer?

Happy to be wrong but I don’t understand why people cling to ideas that are not backed by fact

You are going against the general consensus here so it's on you to provide the facts to enlighten us.

 

[Mr Retro]

So if you're saying it's seasonal why are you against a lockdown now? Surely now would be the best time. Or are you claiming that it will spread regardless of lockdown?

Because if you compare the graphs to other epidemics the uptick will be quite small and it would be an overreaction to lockdown again.

 

[bimble]

Because if you compare the graphs to other epidemics the uptick will be quite small and it would be an overreaction to lockdown again.

What is it we are disagreeing about do you think it’s not true that the numbers are doubling every week?