Jump to content
 

The non-railway and non-modelling social zone. Please ensure forum rules are adhered to in this area too!

Lockdown #2


spikey
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Legend said:

I've got an interesting one though , living in Renfrewshire I'm about to go into Wee Nippys Tier 4 , but I usually go shopping 15 mins along the road to Tesco in Port Glasgow which is in Inverclyde and in Tier 3. So I believe I will be breaking the law prohibiting travel from 6pm Friday .   Better get the grub in by 5.59 then !

 

From what I understand, we are allowed to leave our Local Council area for shopping if there is no reasonable alternative; But not if we just want to go to a Tesco in another area rather than, say, Waitrose in our own ! 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

This looks like a load of good sense to me

 

Hmm, some of those measures sound a lot like what we've got here in Scotland...

 

Prof Neil Ferguson, whose modelling led to the original lockdown in March, has said reopening pubs and restaurants in the run-up to Christmas would likely lead to rising infection levels.

 

He told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "The big question in practical terms is can we reopen hospitality venues - pubs and restaurants - in the run-up to Christmas and still avoid infection levels increasing?

 

"I suspect we can't, but the decision may be made to do so anyhow on the basis that any increase will be slow and may be able to be counteracted later."

 

So politically it would be easier to plan for the roller coaster ride (which would likely involve a rise in death rates again) in the new year in order to keep people happy over Christmas?  Hmm again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I spotted that, and my amateur gut-feel is that he’s right, in that it’s a choice between:

 

- very constrained Christmas, possibly as dull as “no mixing of households”; and,

 

- a less constrained Christmas resulting in more sick and dead.

 

And that the PM might decide to go for the latter.

 

On the other hand, he might not.

 

My betting would be that the decision will be a half-way thing, perhaps “no more than two households”, or “two days of liberty hall”, on the basis that a really strict option would:

 

a) be deeply resented; and,

 

b) be deeply ignored.

 

Horrible having a pandemic, isn’t it?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The price of turkey could be high this year and not just in £/lb.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54984297 + https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54972671 = SAGE say "356 000 cases requiring admission to hospital and that the peak weeks will begin in early January 2021"

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

From what I understand, we are allowed to leave our Local Council area for shopping if there is no reasonable alternative; But not if we just want to go to a Tesco in another area rather than, say, Waitrose in our own ! 

 

 

Yes makes sense . Its just I view Tescos Port Glasgow as less risky because its a bigger shop , more space and less busy  rather than the local Morrisons which is busier , passing each other up and down the aisles and generally more chaotic .   Its all about managing risk , may have a run to stock up for three weeks ahead of Tier 4. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, I spotted that, and my amateur gut-feel is that he’s right, in that it’s a choice between:

 

- very constrained Christmas, possibly as dull as “no mixing of households”; and,

 

- a less constrained Christmas resulting in more sick and dead.

 

And that the PM might decide to go for the latter.

 

On the other hand, he might not.

 

My betting would be that the decision will be a half-way thing, perhaps “no more than two households”, or “two days of liberty hall”, on the basis that a really strict option would:

 

a) be deeply resented; and,

 

b) be deeply ignored.

 

Horrible having a pandemic, isn’t it?

 

Yes it is an unpleasant situation but we're stuck with it & have to deal with it. Ignoring it for a week will give it something more to feed on.

(I am certainly not accusing you or anyone else on this thread of simply ignoring it, so don't take it the wrong way).

 

Is Christmas really such a big deal?

It was originally about celebrating the passing of the darkest day.

Then religion stole it (when was Christ actually born? I believe October).

Now it has just become a commercially-driven spend-a-thon for a 2 day public holiday.

 

For those who enjoy a family get-together, why not arrange this next summer when the situation should be a lot easier? It was this year & there is good reason to believe next year will be even better.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Is Christmas really such a big deal?

It was originally about celebrating the passing of the darkest day.

Then religion stole it (when was Christ actually born? I believe October).

Now it has just become a commercially-driven spend-a-thon for a 2 day public holiday.

Yes, for many people it is, whatever its origins and reasons. Emotional responses might not be "rational" but they're the most fundamentally essential part of quality of life. I'd argue even more so these days, when so much is something done any time of year the occasional special thing is rarer than ever.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think Christmas is a big deal this year simply because we haven't been allowed to see people . I feel especially sorry for kids  where this years going to be different . I think there are a few people who think restrictions will be lifted they can immediately go out and party . Really that would be most unwise , but there seems to be an expectation with some that they have a right to enjoy themselves !

 

For me I will meet up with immediate family . Like myself they are either working from home or retired and keeping themselves to themselves , so in risk management , I think its relatively low risk . We are also not going to be trawling round shops looking for presents (I've told them give me cash for trains ..... aye that'll be right) so further limiting exposure.  The danger is when generations meet up , kids and grandparents , I think these situations are inherently riskier , but can understand why some would want to do so. 

 

If we can drive rates down ahead of Christmas then its got to be good and make it safer to meet up at Christmas than with the current high levels . But the virus is still there and I would expect a surge in January . in fact I wouldn't be surprised at another lockdown .   The thing is with vaccines around the corner, and there's further good news on the Pfizer vaccine today,  do you really want to take that risk now .

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

It was originally about celebrating the passing of the darkest day.

 

For me, in some kind of unspoken way, it still is - the end of the darkening, and the birth of the light.

 

It is important, in the middle of the dreariest time of year, to have a positive focus, around family and future, and to wallow in the glow of false-images of the fires that kept the wolf at bay for our ancestors.

 

And, by gosh don't we need something cheerful to focus on this year, especially the children, for whom school, indeed life in general, has lost a lot of its sparkles and positives due to the need for precautions at every turn.

 

A compromise might be two days of proper Christmas, "paid for" by four super-hard-lockdown Sundays, two in December and two in January - everything shut, only essential services working, although whether that would be sufficient to compensate, I don't know*. Nobody would be compelled to gather for Christmas, because those that did would be putting themselves first in the queue to catch the bug, but equally nobody would be forbidden.

 

*It wouldn't. The SAGE thing that AY linked to says that one day of what I call "liberty hall" costs five days of hard lockdown.

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

Yes, for many people it is, whatever its origins and reasons. Emotional responses might not be "rational" but they're the most fundamentally essential part of quality of life. I'd argue even more so these days, when so much is something done any time of year the occasional special thing is rarer than ever.

 

It seems more important to some than I thought, but I am also less emotionally-driven than most.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christmas will certainly be different this year. We (family) have had a chat about it - consensus is we will just muddle it, do the best we can (to meet up Xmas day). Not many of us, 8 at the most, three families - 5 of us + sister in bubble e + 2 single members. We will see. Were buying bits n bobs now, We've decided no specific Christmas shopping (i.e. trudging round shops). It's ebay / amazon / mail order, and most of that is done already, boxed & wrapped. (Mystery presents that are useful - a pack of Andrex !!!!)

 

If no Turkey then not the end of the world is it  ? - Many alternatives, ham, pork, chicken (tin of Spam !!!!!). 

 

I have / will miss meeting old workmates - we meet twice a year in June & December - alas not this year, eldest is nearly 90 and still likes a pint. Miss my local mates also, we usually meet for a pie & pint once a month or so - managed twice this year. This lockdown is sending us all do-lally !!. Thank heavens for the internet to keep families & friends (sort of) together. 

 

Boris and all these self appointed specialists can ******************. 

 

Hands, Face, Space - I will & do comply with that, AND I will have the vaccine when available.

 

Brit15

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The differences for us..

We've missed,

Weekly Meetings of the below groups for most of the year plus these events.

The sailing club end of summer season dinner, and summer weeks regatta.

The sailing club start of winter season dinner,

We will miss the sailing club, weaving group, art group, works and MRC,  Christmas dinners.

 

Either we would have gone to my parents or her brothers for a week at Christmas. But some years we'd be at home on our own.

We all agreed long ago not to send Christmas presents up and down the UK to each other..just to those of school age.. which for me is one nephew and an older great neice.

 

But we are in no hurry to go anywhere unless we get vaccinated..

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It seems more important to some than I thought, but I am also less emotionally-driven than most.

 

Everyone's ultimately emotionally driven. When you dig down to it why else do anything? Why do anything if it doesn't contribute towards making you happier, or avoid things if they have the opposite effect? (or at least stop them sliding in the other direction). What else does actually getting anything out of life really mean? The only real difference is that different people respond to different things.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Legend said:

 

Yes makes sense . Its just I view Tescos Port Glasgow as less risky because its a bigger shop , more space and less busy  rather than the local Morrisons which is busier , passing each other up and down the aisles and generally more chaotic .   Its all about managing risk , may have a run to stock up for three weeks ahead of Tier 4. 

 

If you want to minimise the risk, why not simply shop online?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great deal of scaremongering about this virus in the mainstream media particularly about death rates. It didnt help that prior to this lockdown Prof Witty'sfigures were wrong. Mps including Theresa May quite rightly brought this to the publics attention im not anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. There was a guy on talk radio the other day called Dr Yeadon a former adviser to Pfizer who was saying a lot of these tests are giving the wrong result.

Whos opinion of the data do you actually believe .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AY Mod said:

The price of turkey could be high this year and not just in £/lb.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54984297 + https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54972671 = SAGE say "356 000 cases requiring admission to hospital and that the peak weeks will begin in early January 2021"

Christmas is always a time of heavy death toll more than people realise. My dad is a Church of England vicar his busiest times for funerals are 2 weeks before xmas and 2to 3 week after new year in a "normal year" 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
52 minutes ago, simontaylor484 said:

There was a guy on talk radio the other day called Dr Yeadon a former adviser to Pfizer

 

He left Pfizer in 2011, he has promoted the idea that the pandemic is over so I wouldn't take much from what he has to say.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

DR Yeadon seems to be very hot on his maths.  2000 positive cases from 120.000 tested is according to him 0.4% and should be around 5-10 times higher according to the authorities numbers.  

 

Well I have news for him 2000 in 120000 cases IS 5 times higher than 0.4%.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Seems like the speculation earlier in this thread about misplaced pointers for where the COVID cases were actually located was correct - there was apparently somewhat of a data SNAFU. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54976372

 

Edited by john new
My poor typing and as usual noticed after posting!
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simontaylor484 said:

Whos opinion of the data do you actually believe .

 

There is plenty enough data in the public domain that it is possible to form a valid opinion on your own, without the "help" of any media at all, if you have the time to delve into it.

 

In the UK, deaths are very well recorded, and simple summaries of death rates from Covid-19, split by age are available. In summary: for people age 75+ who catch the bug, the death rate is about 1:8; for people aged 65-74 about 1:50; for people aged 45-64 about 1:300; and, for people younger than that lower rates (from figures published by MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, October 12 2020).

 

If you delve, you can find figures for the false positive (indicating that a person has the virus when they don't) and false negative (indicating that a person is free of virus when in fact they aren't) rates for the tests in use too. They err on the side of false positives, thankfully, although not greatly.

 

What Prof Whitty got himself wrong-footed over wasn't presentation of data; it was presentation of a series of several different projections of possible future fatalities, some (all?) of which were based on out of date assumptions or data.

 

Projections are bound to be subject to debate, and bound to be different when made by different groups of specialists, which is why his one slide showed several different projections forom several different groups of scientists, because they are based on data about what has already happened, together with knowledge and reasoned assumptions about what will happen next. For example, a weather forecast, is a  projection of the weather in future, based on a set of data about recent past weather, and knowledge of the likely (not certain, because nobody can be) progression of the weather from that point onwards.

 

Newspapers, and the less rigorous TV and radio channels, do indeed pick and mix figures to make headlines, and some commentators present refined garbage because they clearly don't understand how to read the numbers, but it is possible to get to the basic figures for yourself more easily now than has ever been possible in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, simontaylor484 said:

There is a great deal of scaremongering about this virus in the mainstream media particularly about death rates. It didnt help that prior to this lockdown Prof Witty'sfigures were wrong. Mps including Theresa May quite rightly brought this to the publics attention im not anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. There was a guy on talk radio the other day called Dr Yeadon a former adviser to Pfizer who was saying a lot of these tests are giving the wrong result.

I have no truck with "it's a fake", antivaxxers, or similar. But a point which might be lost is that ALL tests will report both a number of false positives, and a number of false negatives. In ideal times, everybody who got a test on suspicion of being infected would be given two (perhaps different!) tests and told to isolate until a double-negative result. But obviously with a still-new infection these are not ideal times

 

For stopping the spread, false negatives are worse. For personal impact, false positives. But these are not normal times and on the back of Dido's Test and Don't Follow-up I'm not sure what the best approach is.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zarniwhoop said:

I have no truck with "it's a fake", antivaxxers, or similar. But a point which might be lost is that ALL tests will report both a number of false positives, and a number of false negatives. In ideal times, everybody who got a test on suspicion of being infected would be given two (perhaps different!) tests and told to isolate until a double-negative result. But obviously with a still-new infection these are not ideal times

 

For stopping the spread, false negatives are worse. For personal impact, false positives. But these are not normal times and on the back of Dido's Test and Don't Follow-up I'm not sure what the best approach is.

 

 

Quite so. Compensating for false positives is well understood; repeat the test. The second round will contain the same percentage of false positives, but the distribution will either be random (as was the first distribution) or focussed around testers (in the case of false positives arising from errors in technique). Anyone getting two positives from two different testers, is overwhelmingly likely to be a genuine positive. 

 

False negatives are harder to deal with. They can only really be identified by subsequently developing symptoms and even then, there is the issue that the subject could have been negative at the time of test, and subsequently infected. The only safe approach is mass testing with mass sample storage, and that was never going to happen; the only viable approach is to assume that all negatives are genuine, because the overwhelming statistical probability is that any given negative result is genuine. This should be accompanied by focussed testing around detected positives, with much more rigorous procedures. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

There is plenty enough data in the public domain that it is possible to form a valid opinion on your own, without the "help" of any media at all, if you have the time to delve into it.

 

In the UK, deaths are very well recorded, and simple summaries of death rates from Covid-19, split by age are available. In summary: for people age 75+ who catch the bug, the death rate is about 1:8; for people aged 65-74 about 1:50; for people aged 45-64 about 1:300; and, for people younger than that lower rates (from figures published by MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, October 12 2020).

 

If you delve, you can find figures for the false positive (indicating that a person has the virus when they don't) and false negative (indicating that a person is free of virus when in fact they aren't) rates for the tests in use too. They err on the side of false positives, thankfully, although not greatly.

 

What Prof Whitty got himself wrong-footed over wasn't presentation of data; it was presentation of a series of several different projections of possible future fatalities, some (all?) of which were based on out of date assumptions or data.

 

Projections are bound to be subject to debate, and bound to be different when made by different groups of specialists, which is why his one slide showed several different projections forom several different groups of scientists, because they are based on data about what has already happened, together with knowledge and reasoned assumptions about what will happen next. For example, a weather forecast, is a  projection of the weather in future, based on a set of data about recent past weather, and knowledge of the likely (not certain, because nobody can be) progression of the weather from that point onwards.

 

Newspapers, and the less rigorous TV and radio channels, do indeed pick and mix figures to make headlines, and some commentators present refined garbage because they clearly don't understand how to read the numbers, but it is possible to get to the basic figures for yourself more easily now than has ever been possible in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have missed an important point, which is that a high proportion of reported deaths only list the infection as an associated condition in patients who were already in poor physical condition. There appears to be little attempt to differentiate between symptomatic, and asymptomatic infection, and to identify cases in which the infection played no significant role in the outcome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

There is plenty enough data in the public domain that it is possible to form a valid opinion on your own, without the "help" of any media at all, if you have the time to delve into it.

 

In the UK, deaths are very well recorded, and simple summaries of death rates from Covid-19, split by age are available. In summary: for people age 75+ who catch the bug, the death rate is about 1:8; for people aged 65-74 about 1:50; for people aged 45-64 about 1:300; and, for people younger than that lower rates (from figures published by MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, October 12 2020).

 

If you delve, you can find figures for the false positive (indicating that a person has the virus when they don't) and false negative (indicating that a person is free of virus when in fact they aren't) rates for the tests in use too. They err on the side of false positives, thankfully, although not greatly.

 

What Prof Whitty got himself wrong-footed over wasn't presentation of data; it was presentation of a series of several different projections of possible future fatalities, some (all?) of which were based on out of date assumptions or data.

 

Projections are bound to be subject to debate, and bound to be different when made by different groups of specialists, which is why his one slide showed several different projections forom several different groups of scientists, because they are based on data about what has already happened, together with knowledge and reasoned assumptions about what will happen next. For example, a weather forecast, is a  projection of the weather in future, based on a set of data about recent past weather, and knowledge of the likely (not certain, because nobody can be) progression of the weather from that point onwards.

 

Newspapers, and the less rigorous TV and radio channels, do indeed pick and mix figures to make headlines, and some commentators present refined garbage because they clearly don't understand how to read the numbers, but it is possible to get to the basic figures for yourself more easily now than has ever been possible in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather forecast are actually usually very accurate, where they are so described. This is because good forecasting is worth a lot of money to interested groups like farmers, shipping companies and airlines, so they are prepared to pay for it and to acknowledge its limitations. 

 

Popular forecasting, the sort of thing you get at the end of the news, is still better than most people credit. This is because they can afford to be wrong in detail, it doesn’t really mater provided the general content is correct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

You have missed an important point, which is that a high proportion of reported deaths only list the infection as an associated condition in patients who were already in poor physical condition. There appears to be little attempt to differentiate between symptomatic, and asymptomatic infection, and to identify cases in which the infection played no significant role in the outcome. 

 

The key point here, and it is exactly the same with flu, is that people don't die from the virus itself.  They die from complications caused by the virus.  The primary cause of death is therefore likely to be recorded as pneumonia or heart failure or...... and at best Covid recorded as a secondary reason.

 

The official numbers therefore attribute death to Covid if the person dies within 28 days of a positive test.  This has its drawbacks.  If a person gets run over 3 weeks after a positive test, they get counted as a Covid death - which perhaps it could be given that one of the long Covid symptoms is brain fog and confusion.  [ See how complicated it gets.]  And as I understand it, a person testing positive, being put on a ventilator and dying 5 weeks later does not count.

 

So a better bet could be excess deaths.  You ignore the individual cases completely.  You take the average number of deaths over the last 5 years and compare the number of deaths this year and the excess is attributed primarily to Covid.  Some adjustments can be made for some other excess deaths but it is a statisticians blunt instrument that has nevertheless given a fairly good picture.  This gives about 10.000 extra deaths compared with the official numbers.  It does however have a drawback in that while it may be that the number of deaths so far might be relatively accurate, it will now run into the problem that because of social distancing, deaths from flu are likely to be very much reduced.  [Australian experience showed the number of winter flu deaths was very small indeed.]  So you would need to adjust the average number of deaths to take out the flu deaths which in itself is a bit tricky since the excess deaths method has been the most reliable method of estimating flu deaths!

 

The third method is to record Covid deaths based on what is written on the death certificate as secondary causes or comments.  This gives perhaps yet another 5000 deaths.  It does however rely on the diligence of the doctor filling out the death certificate to record Covid - perhaps difficult if the practitioner is under extreme pressure - or indeed to link Covid to the death if they are not familiar with the victim.  

 

So it is very difficult to identify the exact number of deaths due to Covid.  What we can say however is that a lot of people have died and the number is currently going up rather sharply.

 

I think you can see however that the sort of analysis that you would like to see if pretty difficult to do.  I am sure there are a lot of professionals who would equally like to see that sort of analysis.  

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...