Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Level 4 Lockdown
Is what’s predicted. I can’t recall what we cld / cldnt do with that. Can anyone remind me?
Answers
the lockdown isn't level 4, its the risk level that is level 4. What we can and cannot do is said to be going to change from the previous full lockdown.
11:45 Tue 22nd Sep 2020
give em hell woof
how long has anyone let covid rip before acting ?
well it will be Ro rates (around 1.5) until so many have been infected that a contact results in a miss and not an infection - and that is 60% of 3m Brits = long way away
the data is out there - currently we are at 6%
//I read you can have sex but it's advisable to wear a mask while doing so.//. - I have a divers rubber suit if er anyone is interested. Decent rates to borrow
how long has anyone let covid rip before acting ?
well it will be Ro rates (around 1.5) until so many have been infected that a contact results in a miss and not an infection - and that is 60% of 3m Brits = long way away
the data is out there - currently we are at 6%
//I read you can have sex but it's advisable to wear a mask while doing so.//. - I have a divers rubber suit if er anyone is interested. Decent rates to borrow
//...they showed what would happen if the current exponential (2 4 8 16 32 64) rates continues.//
//Yes we all know about grains of rice and chessboards...//
Indeed we do and what that has to do with this matter is a little unclear. The grains of rice on a chessboard remain there. The number of people who catch the virus do not - they either die or in the overwhelming proportion of cases, they recover.
The problem is the current rate is not quite so exponential as the grains of rice on a chessboard citation. The scientists said (according to "The Metro") that "that infections could reach 50,000 a day by the middle of next month if they continued to double every 24 hours." They were completely wrong. If infections doubled from yesterday's figure of 4,368 they would reach 69,888 by next Saturday (26th September).
The plain fact is that since the number of infections reached double figures there have been just three days when new infections doubled. These were all either when the infections were very low or when a "correction" had been made. The average rate of daily increase (excluding the days when a decrease was evident) is actually less than 30% and this includes days when adjustments were made and when the figures were very low. Since daily new infections passed the 1,000 mark again (9th August) in the latest surge which has caused such panic, the average daily increase in the number of new infections is under 7%. So why are the scientists painting scenarios which speak of the number of new infections doubling daily? It's obvious that infections will rise alarmingly if that were the case but it isn't happening and it never has.
Why do they spout this drivel?
//Yes we all know about grains of rice and chessboards...//
Indeed we do and what that has to do with this matter is a little unclear. The grains of rice on a chessboard remain there. The number of people who catch the virus do not - they either die or in the overwhelming proportion of cases, they recover.
The problem is the current rate is not quite so exponential as the grains of rice on a chessboard citation. The scientists said (according to "The Metro") that "that infections could reach 50,000 a day by the middle of next month if they continued to double every 24 hours." They were completely wrong. If infections doubled from yesterday's figure of 4,368 they would reach 69,888 by next Saturday (26th September).
The plain fact is that since the number of infections reached double figures there have been just three days when new infections doubled. These were all either when the infections were very low or when a "correction" had been made. The average rate of daily increase (excluding the days when a decrease was evident) is actually less than 30% and this includes days when adjustments were made and when the figures were very low. Since daily new infections passed the 1,000 mark again (9th August) in the latest surge which has caused such panic, the average daily increase in the number of new infections is under 7%. So why are the scientists painting scenarios which speak of the number of new infections doubling daily? It's obvious that infections will rise alarmingly if that were the case but it isn't happening and it never has.
Why do they spout this drivel?
From the BBC News website,
'Speaking at Downing Street alongside chief medical adviser, Prof Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick stressed the figures given were not a prediction, but added: "At the moment we think the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days.
"If, and that's quite a big if, but if that continues unabated, and this grows, doubling every seven days... if that continued you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day.
"Fifty-thousand cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November say, to 200-plus deaths per day.
"The challenge, therefore, is to make sure the doubling time does not stay at seven days.
"That requires speed, it requires action and it requires enough in order to be able to bring that down."'
'Speaking at Downing Street alongside chief medical adviser, Prof Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick stressed the figures given were not a prediction, but added: "At the moment we think the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days.
"If, and that's quite a big if, but if that continues unabated, and this grows, doubling every seven days... if that continued you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day.
"Fifty-thousand cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November say, to 200-plus deaths per day.
"The challenge, therefore, is to make sure the doubling time does not stay at seven days.
"That requires speed, it requires action and it requires enough in order to be able to bring that down."'
“Fifty-thousand cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November say, to 200-plus deaths per day. “
It would also mean 800,000 cases by then. Why did he not say that too?
Is there an epidemiological reason for supposing things would have eased off by then? If so why not say so?
It would also mean 800,000 cases by then. Why did he not say that too?
Is there an epidemiological reason for supposing things would have eased off by then? If so why not say so?
And of course it forgets that the positive count is not accurate. Up to 44% of them may actually be negative. OK, so its probably not the highest figure but there are a good proportion of false positives. So you should not count them in the exponential growth.
The whole thing is scaremongering and easily pulled part. That is why people dont trust them and conspirator theories abound.
The whole thing is scaremongering and easily pulled part. That is why people dont trust them and conspirator theories abound.
//I thought it was a weekly doubling?
Either way, questionable at the least//
I thought so too, ikky. But the Metro definitely said daily.
//Schoolboy error judge. Double every 7 days not every day.//
Not mine. Quote from the Metro. I believe seven days is the number quoted by the scientists, but not reported properly by The Metro.
//Speaking at Downing Street alongside chief medical adviser, Prof Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick stressed the figures given were not a prediction, but added: "At the moment we think the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days.//
I don’t know what leads them to that conclusion. Either that or they learnt different arithmetic to me. Since the new infections rose above 1,000 again only once have new infections doubled in seven days – from August 31st to September 7th. It has taken 16 days for the number on 8th September (2,460) to double to today’s figure of 4,925. Numbers are not doubling roughly every seven days – not even very roughly every seven days. I’m not saying they won’t (please take note Peter Pedant) but they are not at the moment.
The scientists’ predictions (or whatever they call them) are completely outside the realms of any other European country at a similar stage in the pandemic. There is only one reason Mr Johnson put them on the telly last night – to scare the population witless for a second time in six months so that they become pliant enough to accept the latest efforts to control something which cannot be controlled and which will inflict further huge damage to the country.
Either way, questionable at the least//
I thought so too, ikky. But the Metro definitely said daily.
//Schoolboy error judge. Double every 7 days not every day.//
Not mine. Quote from the Metro. I believe seven days is the number quoted by the scientists, but not reported properly by The Metro.
//Speaking at Downing Street alongside chief medical adviser, Prof Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick stressed the figures given were not a prediction, but added: "At the moment we think the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days.//
I don’t know what leads them to that conclusion. Either that or they learnt different arithmetic to me. Since the new infections rose above 1,000 again only once have new infections doubled in seven days – from August 31st to September 7th. It has taken 16 days for the number on 8th September (2,460) to double to today’s figure of 4,925. Numbers are not doubling roughly every seven days – not even very roughly every seven days. I’m not saying they won’t (please take note Peter Pedant) but they are not at the moment.
The scientists’ predictions (or whatever they call them) are completely outside the realms of any other European country at a similar stage in the pandemic. There is only one reason Mr Johnson put them on the telly last night – to scare the population witless for a second time in six months so that they become pliant enough to accept the latest efforts to control something which cannot be controlled and which will inflict further huge damage to the country.
Infections can double as much as they want. Doesn't mean the hospital admissions or deaths/disabilities will build up at the same rate. a) we know more about it now, and of the errors made previously and b) viruses tend to be less damaging as it evolves in order to survive. A lot less knee jerk reaction, imposed by our unconfident control freak government, would be very welcome.
