pandarilla Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Also you can get semi decent ones off etsy. They just need to be a cloth covering iirc, doesn't need to be medical grade or anything I thought scarfs would be more sensible. Anything that covers the noise and mouth will help reduce any droplets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, bendan said: LSHTM define R0 as: "The basic reproduction number, or R0, is the average number of secondary infections arising from a typical single infection in a completely susceptible population" https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/reproduction-number-covid-19-could-be-below-one-uk-lockdown You're defining it as something else. Clearly, if 7 out of 10 are currently infected it would be too late for TTI, but those 7 cases could only infect a total of 3 between them, so R0 would be falling rapidly towards zero. The Scottish government estimate each current infection is leading to between 0.7 and 1.0 new infections ('hovering around 1), down from about 3 before lockdown (when the WHO said test and trace). If we can identify currently infected people (by more testing) and trace their contacts (much easier in our current lockdown than otherwise) we can better isolate those people and reduce the reproduction number. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-will-it-be-over-an-introduction-to-viral-reproduction-numbers-r0-and-re/ Based on that definition: The denser the population, the more people are susceptible, and the more infective the virus, the larger R0 will be for a given virus; the faster the rate of removal of infected individuals, by recovery or death, the smaller R0 will be That suggests that the removal rate of infected individuals matters. So as number of vectors in the population decrease, so should the R0 value. However I will concede that my interpretation is closer to Re: Re is affected by the number of people with the infection and the number of susceptibles with whom infected people are in contact. People’s behaviour (e.g. social distancing) can also affect Re. The number of susceptibles falls as people die or become immunized by exposure. The sooner people recover or die, the smaller the value of Re will be at any given time It also says however, that: Unfortunately, the symbol R0 is often used in publications when Re is meant. This can be confusing So either way I would contend that the R value being quoted will drop further with the removal rate of vectors via recovery or death. Which goes back to the original point: TTI is effective only when the R value, effective R value if you like, is small enough to allow for efficient tracking and isolation given finite, practical resources. There is certainly an argument that ScotGov should have built up capacity through January and February and that it should not have given up on TTI when it did. The best argument in hindsight was nothing to do with TTI at all: a short, sharp severe lockdown before a single death occured like New Zealand wouldve been better. Nevertheless TTI will be useful now, only once the wave has broken and the lockdown has done its work. In that case I am comfortable with the timelines set out thus far. There is little point doing it before June. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ayrmad said: How many weeks was that 50000 spread over? How many excess deaths would have happened in week 20 or so with no lockdown, a lot more than the worst week in any of those flu outbreaks you mention by a long chalk. December to March, like every other year. There is no evidence that implementing the lockdown here, when they did, had any real effect on limiting deaths (Just as there isn't any to say that it didn't tbf). Flattening a curve might make the peak smaller, but doesn't automatically make the area under it any less. It is perfectly acceptable to say that the loss of life is tragic, and that the lockdown was (and is) ineffective. Edited May 12, 2020 by Todd_is_God -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: December to March, like every other year. There is no evidence that implementing the lockdown here, when they did, had any real effect on limiting deaths (Just as there isn't any to say that it didn't tbf). Flattening a curve might make the peak smaller, but doesn't automatically make the area under it any less. It is perfectly acceptable to say that the loss of life is tragic, and that the lockdown was (and is) ineffective. Are you seriously suggesting that if we had not gone into lockdown then excess deaths would be the same as they are now? 12 minutes ago, ayrmad said: How many weeks was that 50000 spread over? How many excess deaths would have happened in week 20 or so with no lockdown, a lot more than the worst week in any of those flu outbreaks you mention by a long chalk. I know next to nowt about all this but I know you're starting to look stupid. Starting to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 17 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Well no, it's impossible to hide excess deaths as all deaths are recorded. 50,000 excess deaths in the UK is broadly similar to the 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales alone from the last 'bad flu' outbreak in 2016/17 which, despite us having effective flu vaccines already developed, and concentrating it's deaths on an extremely similar demographic as Covid-19, raised not a peep, nevermind a several months long shutdown of the economy and severe restrictions on what people can and cannot do. How many NHS staff died during the 'bad flu' outbreak? Hope you have these figures. If not shut the f**k up. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Just now, Honest_Man#1 said: Are you seriously suggesting that if we had not gone into lockdown then excess deaths would be the same as they are now? Yes -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, SlipperyP said: How many NHS staff died during the 'bad flu' outbreak? Hope you have these figures. If not shut the f**k up. Do you? I don't know why that's specifically important. The failure of the government to ensure NHS staff are supplied with adequate PPE is not reason alone for a lockdown 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Yes There's one massive difference which I think you're overlooking - if you've got the flu, you don't go round and hug your granny. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Just now, EvilScotsman said: There's one massive difference which I think you're overlooking - if you've got the flu, you don't go round and hug your granny. If i had covid-19 i wouldn't go and hug her either... Up to 75% of flu cases are asymptomatic, btw, before you talk about not knowing you have it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Flu is nowhere near as contagious as this is. This has spread about while there is a lockdown on. That we're even still talking about this in May is utterly bizarre 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Well no, it's impossible to hide excess deaths as all deaths are recorded. 50,000 excess deaths in the UK is broadly similar to the 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales alone from the last 'bad flu' outbreak in 2016/17 which, despite us having effective flu vaccines already developed, and concentrating it's deaths on an extremely similar demographic as Covid-19, raised not a peep, nevermind a several months long shutdown of the economy and severe restrictions on what people can and cannot do.Weekly all cause mortality stats. Yup, looks just like 2016-17 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Even trump isn't comparing it to flu anymore 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, madwullie said: This has spread about while there is a lockdown on. At least you agree it's ineffective 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven W Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Few Covid-19 thoughts 1 - Does furlough through to the end October suggest that the government think this will all be over by then? 2 - Seems to me the teachers union are enjoying being off just now. Doesn't seem to be any appetite for going back from them and offering no solutions on how to overcome this. 3 - Now that Northern Ireland has given out a rough path out of lockdown, leaves just Wales and Scotland. I wonder if we (if tomorrow's weekly death stats drop again) might get one before too long (end of the week maybe?) 4 - Am I right in thinking Sunak hasn't given any details on furlough for August onwards, so we're all left to speculate how it'll work from then on? -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 At least you agree it's ineffectiveThat's not what he meant and you know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwideJr Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, madwullie said: Flu is nowhere near as contagious as this is. This has spread about while there is a lockdown on. That we're even still talking about this in May is utterly bizarre To be fair 'we're' not really talking about this in May. One poster who has clearly been set on the conclusion of 'there was no need for a lockdown' since about March is talking about it. Its been very obvious from their posts over this whole period that they were going to come to the same conclusion regardless of what actually happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Steven W said: Seems to me the teachers union are enjoying being off just now. Doesn't seem to be any appetite for going back from them and offering no solutions on how to overcome this. I have a friend who is a teacher. He's fairly confident the union won't allow a return in Scotland before the end of the summer holidays, as well as demanding extra pay if teachers are asked to come in to schools over the holidays 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 There’s zero point in schools going back now. How it’s even being discussed is beyond me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven W Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Just now, Todd_is_God said: I have a friend who is a teacher. He's fairly confident the union won't allow a return in Scotland before the end of the summer holidays, as well as demanding extra pay if teachers are asked to come in to schools over the holidays Good grief. Now is surely not the time to be demanding extra pay. I thought we were all in this together? (Does this hint at there's a train of thought that the schools might possibly return early?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gaz Posted May 12, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Steven W said: 2 - Seems to me the teachers union are enjoying being off just now. Doesn't seem to be any appetite for going back from them and offering no solutions on how to overcome this. I'm the EIS rep at my school, so have a bit of knowledge on this. Two things: 1) No, we're not. I myself am having to juggle the equivalent of working a full-time job, under circumstances quite different and quite more difficult than what I've been trained for, whilst caring for my own three children. I don't know any teachers who are enjoying being off. I would far rather be back at school, as would my colleagues both in school and within my union. 2) That's just not true. There is plenty appetite for going back. What there isn't appetite for is going back under a 'business as usual' model. Just this morning we canvassed all staff to ask for their opinions on how going back could be best managed and what precautions could be taken. Please don't fall for the spin that teachers are enjoying being at home right now. We're not. We're trained to teach kids, and that's what we want to be doing. 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.