Covid 19 Coronavirus

[DavidS]

My wife and I too have worked for almost 50 years and been judicious in our spending so have saved hard for our retirement.
Like Lancashirelad, I have never looked for benefits (not many available for the self employed) and always paid our dues. Although it will no doubt come back at some point, our overnight losses on our savings and personal pension were eyewatering. We have to live on that for the rest of our lives! I don’t get my state pension until August and my wife had her date increased twice with virtually no warning so still has over three years to go.

I agree that swanning around at the moment is unacceptable but a hard look at the younger element shows an equal or worse disrespect for the current lockdown rules so lay off us. Bikers seem the worst at the moment as there seems to be a disproportionate number out on the roads.

For my first ride since mid Feb, I put on a massive 17 miles today, straight there and back picking up my medication from the docs. That is it.
We have only been out for a walk twice and to the village shop for eggs three times. Thanks to Tesco delivery we have been willing and able to stay at home.

[Flyfifer]

Hot news. A confession from the First Minister , today.

"Nicola Sturgeon stresses that the R numbers for all parts of the UK are only estimates.

“We think our number is somewhere between 0.7 and 1; we can’t rule out it being still closer to 1 than 0.7," says the first minister. "We think, based on estimates, it might be a bit higher than the other individual nations".

I have said from day one that R was a political construct with no data and arithmetical calculation.
At last a politician has said so.
R could well have been 13 but that would have been too scary to tell us.
3 didn't sound too frightening.
I think we should all get to vote on whether it is 0.9 or 0.6 and we can get back out on the bikes.

[daveuprite]

Hot news. A confession from the First Minister , today.

"Nicola Sturgeon stresses that the R numbers for all parts of the UK are only estimates.

“We think our number is somewhere between 0.7 and 1; we can’t rule out it being still closer to 1 than 0.7," says the first minister. "We think, based on estimates, it might be a bit higher than the other individual nations".

I have said from day one that R was a political construct with no data and arithmetical calculation.
At last a politician has said so.
R could well have been 13 but that would have been too scary to tell us.
3 didn't sound too frightening.
I think we should all get to vote on whether it is 0.9 or 0.6 and we can get back out on the bikes.

No, you clearly just don't understand the epidemiological maths. R , in an uncontrolled population, is always an estimate. In a closed population under scrutiny (lab conditions etc) R can be exact. But not in the current circumstances.

However when something is an estimate, that does not mean it is wildly inaccurate or guesswork. Lots of very important decisions, policies, strategies and calculations are based on estimates which are themselves based on sound scientific research, and they are vital to our daily lives. In epidemiology of an uncontrolled sample, in this case 'the entire world human population', the reproduction rate of a communicable disease will fall within a range of likelihood. Much of statistics and modelling uses that well-established technique.

R is not a political construct. The use of R might be, if a politician wants to weaponise it - i.e. use it to defend themselves against an accusation of negligence or to attack another political actor/state - and we are seeing that kind of behaviour a lot right now. But a fact 'X', and how that fact X is deployed, are different things.

[Flyfifer]

In God wee might trust but all others need to bring data.

Testing and Tracing from a statistically significant group of infected people would give a data based R.
Repeating the exercise geographically and then repeating weekly? would give a data based view of R changing over time.

[daveuprite]

Testing and Tracing from a statistically significant group of infected people would give a data based R.
Repeating the exercise geographically and then repeating weekly? would give a data based view of R changing over time.

Of course. How does that relate to your earlier point?

[garyboy]

I started thinking about `R` a few days ago

Basically it is impossible to determine .. let alone accurately.

I started with the view at a single person .. an infected person.

So he (or she or indeterminate etc) infects one other person.
Simple right?
Nope .. do we really think that just that one pass-on is `IT`?
After that one pass he can go on to infect another, maybe a day later, a week later, a month later, or a few seconds later. Noone knows he has it at this stage, remember.
So each person infected can go on to infect say 100 others before the original person dies or whatever .. or even 1000 others.
So that scenario makes no sense of R=1. .. as it cannot be calculated, .. not without constant and accurate 100% testing tracing etc.

So what if 100 infected persons pass on to 100 others?
That's R=1 .. ok .. but do we really think that 100 persons will only infect 100 others? …
remember that we dont know about people that are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, carriers, super-spreaders, travellers from abroad, returners to homes abroad, illegal aliens, carers going to work in care homes knowingly With symptoms but need the money (yes!), criminals, young irreverent yoofs, supermarket workers, caterers, etc etc etc.

No, someone infected could, or could not, infect many more, or none !!!!!

THAT is the true `science` behind the estimates for R.


So how do they calculate R?

This is wot I finks ..

They (the government spin doctors, medical epidemiologists, etc) simply look at the number of reported infected people ..
then divide that by the number of deaths .. in a particular country, at a particular time date. ( or any other suitable convincing criteria)

Simples …

except that it is not.
as reported cases are based on those tested .. and does not include those not tested
and reported deaths are based on only those tested as they are about to die? so to speak.

So basically, the goverments can make up any number that suits the current propaganda they wish to convey in order to control the activities of the population …. disguised as `science`


This is not a bad thing .. as the consultant epidemiologists, government leaders, professors etc etc etc .. can give us an informed guess at where we are at and also give us some hope as to the ending of these restrictions

[daveuprite]

I started thinking about `R` a few days ago

Basically it is impossible to determine .. let alone accurately.

I started with the view at a single person .. an infected person.

So he (or she or indeterminate etc) infects one other person.
Simple right?
Nope .. do we really think that just that one pass-on is `IT`?
After that one pass he can go on to infect another, maybe a day later, a week later, a month later, or a few seconds later. Noone knows he has it at this stage, remember.
So each person infected can go on to infect say 100 others before the original person dies or whatever .. or even 1000 others.
So that scenario makes no sense of R=1. .. as it cannot be calculated, .. not without constant and accurate 100% testing tracing etc.

So what if 100 infected persons pass on to 100 others?
That's R=1 .. ok .. but do we really think that 100 persons will only infect 100 others? …
remember that we dont know about people that are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, carriers, super-spreaders, travellers from abroad, returners to homes abroad, illegal aliens, carers going to work in care homes knowingly With symptoms but need the money (yes!), criminals, young irreverent yoofs, supermarket workers, caterers, etc etc etc.

No, someone infected could, or could not, infect many more, or none !!!!!

THAT is the true `science` behind the estimates for R.


So how do they calculate R?

This is wot I finks ..

They (the government spin doctors, medical epidemiologists, etc) simply look at the number of reported infected people ..
then divide that by the number of deaths .. in a particular country, at a particular time date.

Simples …

except that it is not.
as reported cases are based on those tested .. and does not include those not tested
and reported deaths are based on only those tested as they are about to die? so to speak.

So basically, the goverments can make up any number that suits the current propaganda they wish to convey in order to control the activities of the population …. disguised as `science`

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Gary. For your own sake, do some research before you opine out loud. It's all out there. Just use the same keyboard you used to post on here. But it will take you much longer, and you need to adopt a start-point that experts are called that because they know a lot more about their subject than you do. Your vague Trumpian 'wondering out loud' ('who knew?' etc) does not make you right - it just exposes how little you have investigated.

Most of us have a few specialist subjects that we feel qualified to talk about with some authority, and thousands of subjects that we know very little about but hopefully we are willing to learn. And others that we are not really that interested in. What we shouldn't do is underestimate our own ignorance. It's a valuable measurement of how much more we have yet to understand.

[Flyfifer]

I think Garyboy made some of my point.
Fact Vs Political Fiction.
R = 33 and 200,099 dead would be a really scary message Anybody watching War of the Worlds (again).
So R =3 and now we fink (guess/want to imply) it's 0.98765 without any actual data

Behavioural Science needs hooks.
The current hook is behave and a mythical 1.111 will become 0.??

Reality , it's easy to shut down but a complete bstard to find the politics to open up ( and get re-elected ,/ continue to be paid / appear to be all knowing*).

[garyboy]

Hi Flyfifer .. yes it was your comments that I agreed with and thought I would support with a few thoughts that I had recently ..
and also to possibly counteract some of Dave's somewhat scathing and disrespectful remarks on this thread, concerning people's thinking ability. .. Also I waz bored and fancied sharing some ideas.

Hi Dave .. in answer to your reply to my ideas .. I thought I would like to use the word `empirical` .. As you suggested, I did some research and found what I was looking for to describe perhaps your thought processes as opposed to mine.

there are 2 types of science
empirical and rational

empirical is about experiences connected to the real world .. test results, evidence, etc
Rational refers to statements coming from ideas.
.............. rational science is about ideas.

the latter is my way of interaction with our world .. and also people like einstein, who believed that imagination is greater than any maths or scientific knowledge, based on his experience of genius maths.

your way seems to me to be based on empirical interaction .. the need for proof and evidence and research into what professionals have expounded (love that word).

you are very adept at this and have the qualifications to prove that .. and can spin an excellent argument, and lay out an impressive catalogue for perusal.

but you fail to see the value in other peoples thought processes and ideas, when they can not be backed up by `evidence`.

so tell me .. where is your evidence that i am wrong in my explanation of the R value?
and if there is any part of my ideas that you cannot follow or cannot believe ,, please tell me so i can explain it to you.
.. and where is your expert's evidence of the explanation of the R value??? and what is it based on?


in actual fact (so to speak) it does not matter if I and flyfifer are completely wrong .. the idea is to put out to the world (ABR anyway) an alternative way of looking at a problem, that may actually be correct, or at least be examined for future answers.

[garyboy]

Dave, .. on the subject of `Trump` .. who you constantly vilify and demean .. perhaps not without some justification .. could you at least try to understand the power of the man, and his appeal to the American masses. ??

very much like Hitler and Churchill, [perhaps somewhat relevant today] .. they had a base intuitive appeal into the souls of the masses .. simple powerful speech that hit a powerful emotional chord.

this was deliberate of course, and well studied and carefully orchestrated and practised .. .. and Boris is trying to do the same with us in the UK.

These are not stupid people (hard to believe sometimes of course) .. but they have a value that you need to study, as to why they are so successful ……………….. again,.. rationale against facts …. ideas against evidence !!!