Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,857
Given that the R apparently lies somewhere between 0.5 and 0.9, is it possible that the R is still 1 or even more in certain parts of the country?
R is high in Cornwall
Given that the R apparently lies somewhere between 0.5 and 0.9, is it possible that the R is still 1 or even more in certain parts of the country?
I'm not reading much discussion. It's mostly ranty, emotional meltdowns. It has been for a good few days now. That's before the Sunday announcement. One whiff of a "leak" in the press and it was bog roll panic part deux.It's about the virus and it's affects updated on a day by day basis, at this precise moment, changes have been issued to the lockdown so rightly discussed, it will be some other aspect tomororw and then the day after.
R is high in Cornwall
Erm they didn't do a good job of itAh ah ah ah
![]()
Exactly just like the 120,000 test bollocks today!If only 4% of the population have been infected the death rate must be above 1%
I thought it was ŔRRRRR in CornwallR is high in Cornwall
I see the French have simplified the UK governments slogan by dropping the "Control the Virus" bit, but adopting the rest in its entirity: "Sauvez des vies, restez prudents", which translates as: "Save lives, be careful"
The wall is higher!:))R is high in Cornwall
Yep.what people really want to hear is ‘stay at home forever and we’ll pay you forever’
Several councils threatened to withhold funding to help care homes deal with the coronavirus outbreak if they didn't agree to take in COVID-19 patients, Sky News can reveals,It comes as dozens of care homes fear a government policy allowing the transfer of coronavirus-positive or untested patients is a "major factor" in why COVID-19 deaths are so high.
The policy was changed in the middle of April but some care homes believe the damage had already been done by then
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...they-didnt-take-in-covid-19-patients-11986578
He’s probably right, that would give a mortality rate of about 1.1%One thing Whitty said is that he thinks it could be as low as 4% of the population that has had the virus. That many deaths and that low an amount. If it's that low we just can't rely on herd immunity can we? Death toll would be catastrophic. Not saying we are, more the point we really need some therapeutic to arrive or sumat. Isn't good otherwise.
Makes perfect sense."stay at home if you can, but go to work if you have no alternative". Thank goodness we have a PM who knows we need clarity more than ever.
Sadly like what seems to be 99% of BM threads it's turned into point scoring, arguements & agendas.This thread, needs a new thread.
All discussion on the virus has gone out the window. It's a shame because it was generally well informed and good natured. It obviously had it's difference of opinion and robust views but at least they were worthy of a read.
Now? It's barely worth a look.
Everyone you know must have massive cash savings then. Well done them.No, everyone I know is more concerned about saving lives, rather than money. Each to their own though.
Are the french being as moronically dumb as the noisy minority on here asking what “be careful” means?I see the French have simplified the UK governments slogan by dropping the "Control the Virus" bit, but adopting the rest in its entirity: "Sauvez des vies, restez prudents", which translates as: "Save lives, be careful"