COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[blueparrot]

The sooner we get an idea of infection rates the better but looks like there are big differences across the regions.


“Around 5% of Briton's had been infected with Covid-19 at the start of April, according to a new study from St Andrew's University.

The study also found Scotland had a lower infection rate than England by 3 April.

Infection rates were highest in urban areas, with more than 10% of London's population predicted to have been infected.

Meanwhile some remote and rural areas of the UK had not seen any cases at all.

Professor Hill Kulu said: “The good news is that because the coronavirus is not widely spread, and the number of active cases has declined during the lockdown, its suppression and control is possible with various public health measures before the cure and vaccine become available."

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's not up to individual interpretation when a person is exhibiting covid-19 symptoms as Cummings was, the law as passed in the Coronavirus Act 2020 is quite clear about the police having powers to direct people displaying covid-19 symptoms in public to a place of screening or quarantine, so clearly potentially infected people should be isolating at home and not driving 260 miles.

And it's entirely up to an individual to use their judgement as to whether what they are doing is illegal or not, and indeed whether they want to break the law or not. And it's up to others - the police, the DPP etc - to decide if they have (broken it) and what to do about that, if anything.

In Cummings' case, the conclusion is not to do anything about it. So it's' end of debate really. People have said naughty boy and the events are history and rather boring history at that. Only it isn't because he's a Tory, or at least very much associated with them, so for Labour is a prime target. Frankly it's one enormous great big yawn.

My Mum is 85 and lives alone 200 miles away and as it happens, I have not needed to drive 200 miles to meet her or drop shopping off or whatever. But had the need arisen, I would have done, I would have explained what I was doing to any police who cared to stop me, and would have expected no consequences. And were there any, I would have dealt with them.

 

[Boris Becker’s Backhand]

Just as an FYI Last study I saw mentioned something like R0 of 5.7 without lockdown.

I take your point, even so in a non lockdown world that’s a pretty low risk

Thats nonsense, R1 is a community figure and the rate the virus is being passed in a community. If you have the virus everyone the carrier encounters can get it not just 1 because R is 1. If they encounter 100 people a 100 people could catch it.

As I understand it R is, and I’m quoting the BBC website here, “the number of people that one infected person will pass the virus on to, on average” so yes everyone you encounter could catch it but they don’t hence the statisticians work out an average figure

 

[blueparrot]

I take your point, even so in a non lockdown world that’s a pretty low risk

As I understand it R is, and I’m quoting the BBC website here, “the number of people that one infected person will pass the virus on to, on average” so yes everyone you encounter could catch it but they don’t hence the statisticians work out an average figure

That a statistical average in a community based on social distancing and isolating. Its not based on one individual. One individual behaving badly can infect hundreds, .thousands even. Thats why it needs a lockdown to reduce the R nationaly to under 1.

 

[lancs blue]

And it's entirely up to an individual to use their judgement as to whether what they are doing is illegal or not, and indeed whether they want to break the law or not. And it's up to others - the police, the DPP etc - to decide if they have (broken it) and what to do about that, if anything.

That suggests to me that you view it as more acceptable to think "can I get away with this?" rather than "should I be doing this?".

 

[Boris Becker’s Backhand]

That a statistical average in a community based on social distancing and isolating. Its not based on one individual. One individual behaving badly can infect hundreds, .thousands even. Thats why it needs a lockdown to reduce the R nationaly to under 1.

The average is what matters.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That suggests to me that you view it as more acceptable to think "can I get away with this?" rather than "should I be doing this?".

That's not the meaning I intended.

 

[blueparrot]

The average is what matters.

Not for what you said that one person can only infect one other person it doesn’t, that is just nonsense.The R number is irrelevant to any individuals behaviour, it’s only useful for determining government policy.

 

[Boris Becker’s Backhand]

Not for what you said that one person can only infect one other person it doesn’t, that is just nonsense.The R number is irrelevant to any individuals behaviour, it’s only useful for determining government policy.

But you can’t base policy on what one person may or may not do so we use an average. How’s that nonsense ? It goes without saying that one person could possibly infect hundreds but it also goes without saying that 100 people could infect nobody.

 

[Vic]

Didn’t say A

There is a low risk, you don’t understand risk. If R is 1 for example then with all the people one encounters it is only passed to one other person ie a low risk

It’s an arbitrary figure made up to enable people to still go shopping. Some countries have 1m some 1.5 some 2, the science isn’t exact, 5m won’t be enough if someone shouts coughs or sneezes

I was comparing the risk to wider society of one small family in a car and how that would spread it relative to hordes of people in parks or fools in your face in shops, on buses, tubes etc

You didn’t land a punch. Checking people’s join date is about your level.

You’re clearly quite old, as is Karen, and worried about the virus - it’s normal to see things through the narrow prism of how a situation may affect you but for the purpose of healthy debate it’s important to see the bigger picture too and even though people disagree it’s healthy to respect other opinions without resorting to dipper, rag, wum insults like a bullying idiot in a pub who doesn’t have the intellect to argue his point and lashes out.

If it's not much of a problem to younger people and it's hard to catch it, why would Cummings think they were "about to be incapacitated"?