It's the rate of infection when that number drops below 1 it means the total currently infected is dropping hope the attached helps explain it.This might be a dumb question to ask but can anyone tell me what R0 means? I have seen a lot here and in some other forums but no idea how it works.
so some media trying to put negative slants on things quell surprise.The telegraph article and another I read suggests there are antibodies - just very few if them.
This crisis has confirmed that our structure of national government is not fit for purpose. Whitehall is essentially set up the same way it was in the 1950s and is incapable of making rapid decisions. Our political system is even slower. The most nimble countries seem to have had the best success with this virus. Everything in the UK seems to be top-down which is a very old-fashioned way of managing any organisation.When an article like this is published, I do wonder what the NHS, PHE and DHSC centralised procurement organisation(s) are doing during this crisis?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ns-pieces-ppe-shipped-britain-europe-despite/
Agility seems to be an anathema to them.
(Political discission probably in the political thread.)
It COULD mean that that during a second wave, say in 6 months time, those with very few antibodies COULD become ill again and become part of a 2nd wave of infection. This would blow any idea of herd Immunity out of the window till a vaccine is available.so some media trying to put negative slants on things quell surprise.
This is an important point. For me although every death us tragic, there is a big difference between unavoidable deaths and needless ones. We have to accept that once the virus got into this country and started to spread across the nation, that many people would unfortunately die. Terrible though that is, it was unavoidable (without having a total lock down from January, which was never a realistic option).That's the difficult question but I don't think we can think about returning to normal until we've built up the infrastructure/supplies to deal with any second wave.
Unless we've got the testing capacity to do 100,000+ daily tests (maybe even more than that) plus enough medical supplies/PPE/facemasks to protect workers and patients for the next surge in cases then I don't think there should be a relaxation of the restrictions.
Two weeks ago I posted that I had driven a train into Central London that would normally carry a thousand commuters but only had fifty-three on it when it arrived at 07:33.
This morning I drove the same train and it only had fifty-five. So no real change there, thankfully.
I know you said could, but the high likelihood is that herd immunity (without a vaccine) is a complete fantasy in any case.It COULD mean that that during a second wave, say in 6 months time, those with very few antibodies COULD become ill again and become part of a 2nd wave of infection. This would blow any idea of herd Immunity out of the window till a vaccine is available.
It's what sensationalist journalism does for you.so some media trying to put negative slants on things quell surprise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52363378
‘Masks for public could put NHS supplies at risk’
Pretty much what’s been said on here about why wearing a mask won’t be advised for the public.
The telegraph article and another I read suggests there are antibodies - just very few if them.
Quite.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52363378
‘Masks for public could put NHS supplies at risk’
Pretty much what’s been said on here about why wearing a mask won’t be advised for the public.
It's back to the old adage about there being no correlation between intelligence and common sense.the who have said there is no CURRENT evidence that wearing a mask helps with this disease , but I have lost a little faith in them.
It seems common sense that it would help but the best argument I heard for why wearing one doesn’t help is that if you do wear a mask it does mean that you will touch your face a lot more often as you adjust and mess about with your mask.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around people’s thought process when saying masks are no good or worse still, they could cause more problems.It's back to the old adage about their being no correlation between intelligence and common sense.
These supposedly intelligent people at the WHO are idiots.
1. The main benefit of the public wearing masks, is to stop infectious people from spreading it, not explicitly to protect uninfected people (although that is the consequence of course)
2. It is a ludicrous suggestion that despite potential misuse of a mask by an untrained public, that they could be at *more* risk than were they not wearing one in the first place. So what if they fiddle with the mask with infected hands. Is this "best practice"? No. But at least they are not touching their eyes, nose or mouth.
3. It is a ludicrous suggestion (that I just heard on the TV) that simply wearing a mask will mean people abandoning hand washing and other precautions.
4. Look at the infection rate and deaths in countries where mask-wearing in public is the norm Vs where it is not. QE fucking D.
It's a straightforward task from plasma injections from survivors too - without the wait for a vaccine.I know you said could, but the high likelihood is that herd immunity (without a vaccine) is a complete fantasy in any case.
Estimates vary of course but most research shows only a very small percentage of people have been infected so whether or not a proportion of what is already a small percentage, have acquired immunity or not, is somewhat moot. The likelihood is it will make bugger all difference.