Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What Brits are most looking forward to once the pandemic is ov

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What Brits are most looking forward to once the pandemic is over – YouGov

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,520
    first?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615
    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,308
    FPT @Kinabalu We await the Porton Down results to tell us how quickly the elephant and the gnat would theoretically trade identities but my guess would be 5 or 6 waves of what we've gone through now.
    A vaccination or simple mutation out of the virus will arrive first I think.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615
    Pulpstar said:

    FPT @Kinabalu We await the Porton Down results to tell us how quickly the elephant and the gnat would theoretically trade identities but my guess would be 5 or 6 waves of what we've gone through now.
    A vaccination or simple mutation out of the virus will arrive first I think.

    I very much doubt that it would take 5-6 waves.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097
    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    I'd need a different category - "I was employed and now have for entirely unconnected reasons stopped working". I'm sure quite a few others would be in the same position.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    TimT said:

    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.

    Yes - what is effected is the R number for which the disease declines/expands.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589

    TimT said:

    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.

    Yes - what is effected is the R number for which the disease declines/expands.
    I absolutely hate how difficult it is to apply subscripts in electronic text, and the ambiguity it creates in situations like this.

    R_sub_t is clearly understood, and then R_sub_0 is just the value prior to any policy or behavioural effect changes. R is (slightly sloppy but understandable) shorthand for R_sub_(current t)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,905
    Weird, "getting away from the children" isn't on there.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,308
    edited May 13
    Nigelb said:
    It will make 2008 look tiny in comparison.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230

    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    I'd need a different category - "I was employed and now have for entirely unconnected reasons stopped working". I'm sure quite a few others would be in the same position.
    The number is poorly reported. "Britons" - does that mean everyone? I presume so. So that includes those too young to work, the retired etc?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    rcs1000 said:

    Weird, "getting away from the children" isn't on there.

    "Going to work".
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 5,035
    rcs1000 said:

    Weird, "getting away from the children" isn't on there.

    Yes. Getting away from partner and children.

    A long way away.

    Just for a little bit...
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    Endillion said:

    TimT said:

    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.

    Yes - what is effected is the R number for which the disease declines/expands.
    I absolutely hate how difficult it is to apply subscripts in electronic text, and the ambiguity it creates in situations like this.

    R_sub_t is clearly understood, and then R_sub_0 is just the value prior to any policy or behavioural effect changes. R is (slightly sloppy but understandable) shorthand for R_sub_(current t)
    Agreed but its not impossible:

    R₀
    Rₜ
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669
    edited May 13
    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    Accounting for people of working age who are presently economically inactive or unemployed and looking for work, plus all the pensioners, 40% looks like a reasonable estimate of the total proportion of adults who aren't working.

    I don't think that people always appreciate how vast the dependent population actually is - taking children into account as well, it's actually an outright majority (something like 55%.) It's no wonder that we struggled so badly, even before this disaster, to balance the books.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729

    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    Accounting for people of working age who are presently economically inactive or unemployed and looking for work, plus all the pensioners, 40% looks like a reasonable estimate of the total proportion of adults who aren't working.

    I don't think that people always appreciate how vast the dependent population actually is - taking children into account as well, it's actually an outright majority (something like 55%.) It's no wonder that we struggled so badly, even before this disaster, to balance the books.
    Sorry, I wasn't questioning the figures, though Alastair has spotted a gap. The interesting thing being that they are the way they are.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669

    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    I'd need a different category - "I was employed and now have for entirely unconnected reasons stopped working". I'm sure quite a few others would be in the same position.
    The number is poorly reported. "Britons" - does that mean everyone? I presume so. So that includes those too young to work, the retired etc?
    Presumably it's a survey of a representative sample of all adults.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327
    Interesting point from Ian Dunt

    BoZo and Dom made their reputation by repeating an untrue statement till people were sick of it, and they claimed the opposition repeating their untrue phrase helped them.

    BoZo and Dom are now defending their care home crisis by saying you have to read the minutiae of the text, in a certain light, on specific days, under moonlight.

    Live by the sword...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    Has anybody told people that a lot of these activities aren't going to be possible for a significant time after lockdown & even then not going to be back to normal until a vaccine has been found i.e. going to the boozer where it must be no more than 25% full, you must only go with a couple of people and remain seated in your little area, isnt what most people go to the pub for.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615

    TimT said:

    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.

    Yes - what is effected is the R number for which the disease declines/expands.
    Which is why the R number is used to calculate the percentage of the population that needs to be successfully vaccinated (or otherwise acquired immunity) to stamp out a disease.

    Please note that vaccination success varies according to many factors. While the polio vaccine has been incredibly successful in most parts of the world, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, it has not - and not just because of socio-political opposition and warfare impeding actual vaccination efforts. Some kids have been vaccinated upwards of 10 times with no success because of nutritional and other biological factors.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    tlg86 said:

    The ratio of workers:non-workers is, err, interesting.

    65+ is approx 16 % of the population
    unemployment is 4%
    economically inactive is ca. 20 %

    that actually almost adds up perfectly!

    what I have missed?

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,759
    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,778
    Off topic. My partner has received confirmation of the self employed grant. And of the amount to be awarded. It appears to be correct.
    A remarkably hassle free, quick and efficient process much appreciated by 2 non-government fans.
    Although the money isn't banked yet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    A small positive...

    The figures show 3,242 new cases in the last day,

    That lowest since March, and obviously when still only doing hospital only testing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    dixiedean said:

    Off topic. My partner has received confirmation of the self employed grant. And of the amount to be awarded. It appears to be correct.
    A remarkably hassle free, quick and efficient process much appreciated by 2 non-government fans.
    Although the money isn't banked yet.

    The financial side of things seems to have been handled quite well e.g. no website crashes even after massive demand for the various schemes.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969
    dixiedean said:

    Off topic. My partner has received confirmation of the self employed grant. And of the amount to be awarded. It appears to be correct.
    A remarkably hassle free, quick and efficient process much appreciated by 2 non-government fans.
    Although the money isn't banked yet.

    Good to hear to be honest
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    Is this why the CPS were so crap at getting convictions on the paedo cases?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    Is this why the CPS were so crap at getting convictions on the paedo cases?
    That was because they were busy chasing squirrels.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,836
    dixiedean said:

    Off topic. My partner has received confirmation of the self employed grant. And of the amount to be awarded. It appears to be correct.
    A remarkably hassle free, quick and efficient process much appreciated by 2 non-government fans.
    Although the money isn't banked yet.

    Good to hear.
    I've had the same experience with the Furlough scheme and the Bounce back loans. Top marks the Treasury.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    In the end, who cares. This is like Muscovites arguing about the lack of border guards, 3 days after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa

    Step away from PB for a couple of hours, and you see the immensity of this catastrophe. The unheralded economic pain coming our way, the unexampled impoverishment of human prospects.

    *thinks*

    Actually, I CAN see why you're arguing about this stuff.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    I guess regardless of how descends into claim and counter claim, for Starmer it is job done. Bad headlines for the government, Boris bashed at PMQs. Bit like the dodgy Delboy dossier, by the time anybody actually checked these people were full of shit and neither PPE suppliers nor contacted the government properly, it had highlighted issues with PPE and story moved on.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    Argh
    It is. I'm looking forward to their explanation of the plot of Inception.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,145
    40% in the survey were not employed before Corona

    and yet until recently the UK was close to full employment with 70% plus in work....


    ???
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,342
    Quite. Almost as destructive as that Andrew Neil empty chair video... :smile:
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669
    edited May 13
    I've been watching the clucking about public transport on the news - which is, of course, all about London, London, London, London and London. I suspect that this is partly down the the usual media fixation on London, but also because it is going to struggle a lot more with restrictions to public transport than everywhere else.

    I also believe it likely that the issue is largely internalised within London. I've just had a look out the window at the train station car park, here in a commuter belt town, and it is as deserted as it has been throughout the lockdown. There are currently three cars parked up; the usual number is between zero and five. The commuters are evidently still working from home.

    My concern, therefore, is that it is by no means inconceivable that we'll get to a point in three or four weeks' time when this disease is, if not exactly dead as a doornail in most of the country, then only persisting at a low level - but that it's taking off again in London. If that comes to pass then I do hope the Government doesn't panic and try to lock everyone down again, when the problem is only confined to one corner of the country.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331
    OMG

    Ecuador-like scenes in Mexico (which I pointed to a few days ago, as a potential nightmare)

    It is now a nightmare

    "There is currently a three-day backlog for cremation at every public crematorium in the city and crematorium workers in recent days have indicated that more burials will have to take place because burning capacity is overwhelmed.

    "Black smoke billows out over cemeteries as the ovens are cremating on an industrial level in the city but the bodies don't stop coming.

    In fact, the ovens simply cannot cope and there are regular reports of breakdowns only adding to the backlog."

    "The upward curve of death looks set to rocket, the health service can't cope and social distancing, let alone lockdown, is largely being ignored in Mexico City.

    Short of a vaccine or a miracle, the effect on this society and this city could be utterly catastrophic"

    https://news.sky.com/story/mexico-city-underreporting-covid-19-deaths-sky-news-analysis-finds-11987235
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327

    I guess regardless of how descends into claim and counter claim, for Starmer it is job done.

    And BoZo has given him an opportunity to do it again

    Starmer can reply to BoZo's letter repeating the accusation (Vote Leave Stylee)
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589
    I wonder how long he spent practising writing Keir so it looked as much like Keith as possible.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656
    FPT
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The fact that NHS hospitals discharged elderly patients diagnosed with coronavirus and sent them back into care homes is an appalling scandal. As Dominic Lawson wrote in the Sunday Times, it shames the nation. Heads must roll.

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/

    Were they diagnosed with COVID-19 or suspected and not tested?
    Manslaughter by negligence or by design ?

    I'm going for negligence.
    Manslaughter "by design" sounds akin to murder.
    Hospitals here have never done exit tests iirc
    Why would they do them on people going back to care homes; get a positive result and still send them back ?!
    It's highly unlikely. They simply never tested on exit.
    I believe @Foxy posted a while back that his trust did; not sure when they started doing that though.
    The amended guidance does now require testing, I think.
    What was the date of that advice? If it occurred when there was established community spread...

    Until a couple of weeks ago, capacity issues in my Trust for testing were such that we couldn't repeat tests. This means not testing before discharge, nor repeating a negative test when clinical suspicion remained. There was also the problem that results were often taking several days, so delaying discharges.

    I suspect that we unintentionally sent positive patients home during the period when testing was restricted.

    In some Trusts even known patients were discharged to care homes, assuming they could be barrier nursed.

    To some extent this was because a larger peak of admissions expected, hence acute beds needed, and partly the culture of overcrowded wards is to discharge as soon as possible.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    eadric said:

    OMG

    Ecuador-like scenes in Mexico (which I pointed to a few days ago, as a potential nightmare)

    It is now a nightmare

    "There is currently a three-day backlog for cremation at every public crematorium in the city and crematorium workers in recent days have indicated that more burials will have to take place because burning capacity is overwhelmed.

    "Black smoke billows out over cemeteries as the ovens are cremating on an industrial level in the city but the bodies don't stop coming.

    In fact, the ovens simply cannot cope and there are regular reports of breakdowns only adding to the backlog."

    "The upward curve of death looks set to rocket, the health service can't cope and social distancing, let alone lockdown, is largely being ignored in Mexico City.

    Short of a vaccine or a miracle, the effect on this society and this city could be utterly catastrophic"

    https://news.sky.com/story/mexico-city-underreporting-covid-19-deaths-sky-news-analysis-finds-11987235

    Brazil and Mexico going full herd immunity....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 81,957

    I guess regardless of how descends into claim and counter claim, for Starmer it is job done. Bad headlines for the government, Boris bashed at PMQs. Bit like the dodgy Delboy dossier, by the time anybody actually checked these people were full of shit and neither PPE suppliers nor contacted the government properly, it had highlighted issues with PPE and story moved on.

    I am told that more than one pollster that asks the question 'What (Covid-19) news item have you noticed the most in the past week?' the runaway winner is that the UK has the second highest deaths in the world in totality.

    Second is care homes.

    Social media posts (particularly the ones on Facebook) are totally destroying the reputation of the government.

    These users are older people who use Facebook to see pictures of their family, and now their friends are sharing posts that are about the death figures/disaster in care homes.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    As a civil servant, I would have been comfortable with the advice as written, but perhaps wishing in retrospect that I'd been even more meticulous in my wording. Perhaps something along the lines of:

    "This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. Absent such community transmission, it is unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information, and will be updated immediately as and when the situation evolves."

    This would implicitly admit that the current information might not be complete or accurate, but imply that responses are being made in real time to the best available scientific evidence.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    Good idea. Keep this in the news by pushing back like that. PR masterclass.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331
    edited May 13

    eadric said:

    OMG

    Ecuador-like scenes in Mexico (which I pointed to a few days ago, as a potential nightmare)

    It is now a nightmare

    "There is currently a three-day backlog for cremation at every public crematorium in the city and crematorium workers in recent days have indicated that more burials will have to take place because burning capacity is overwhelmed.

    "Black smoke billows out over cemeteries as the ovens are cremating on an industrial level in the city but the bodies don't stop coming.

    In fact, the ovens simply cannot cope and there are regular reports of breakdowns only adding to the backlog."

    "The upward curve of death looks set to rocket, the health service can't cope and social distancing, let alone lockdown, is largely being ignored in Mexico City.

    Short of a vaccine or a miracle, the effect on this society and this city could be utterly catastrophic"

    https://news.sky.com/story/mexico-city-underreporting-covid-19-deaths-sky-news-analysis-finds-11987235

    Brazil and Mexico going full herd immunity....
    I fear the covid crisis is actually taking a turn for the WORSE. That is to say, as it now spreads into the Third World (look at India, slowly but surely picking up) we could see the Rona's ultimate ferocity, and we might see the really apocalyptic numbers come true
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327
    Will Starmer draft a response in time for the evening news bulletins?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 81,957
    Looks like I will not be using my Cineworld card anytime soon.

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669

    40% in the survey were not employed before Corona

    and yet until recently the UK was close to full employment with 70% plus in work....


    ???

    It's presumably a survey of all adults so includes pensioners.

    40% of all adults being either economically inactive, unemployed and looking for work or drawing their pension sounds about right.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,836

    I've been watching the clucking about public transport on the news - which is, of course, all about London, London, London, London and London. I suspect that this is partly down the the usual media fixation on London, but also because it is going to struggle a lot more with restrictions to public transport than everywhere else.

    I also believe it likely that the issue is largely internalised within London. I've just had a look out the window at the train station car park, here in a commuter belt town, and it is as deserted as it has been throughout the lockdown. There are currently three cars parked up; the usual number is between zero and five. The commuters are evidently still working from home.

    My concern, therefore, is that it is by no means inconceivable that we'll get to a point in three or four weeks' time when this disease is, if not exactly dead as a doornail in most of the country, then only persisting at a low level - but that it's taking off again in London. If that comes to pass then I do hope the Government doesn't panic and try to lock everyone down again, when the problem is only confined to one corner of the country.

    Spoke to a couple of London pals today, and they confirmed its pretty busy in the city. Down here in metropolitan Dorset, its not.

    I agree that any future tightening will likely have to be, and should only be, where it is necessary.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331
    If Mexico is only reporting a fifth of its real deaths, then 1500 a day are dying there now. Grim.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    edited May 13
    Foxy said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The fact that NHS hospitals discharged elderly patients diagnosed with coronavirus and sent them back into care homes is an appalling scandal. As Dominic Lawson wrote in the Sunday Times, it shames the nation. Heads must roll.

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/

    Were they diagnosed with COVID-19 or suspected and not tested?
    Manslaughter by negligence or by design ?

    I'm going for negligence.
    Manslaughter "by design" sounds akin to murder.
    Hospitals here have never done exit tests iirc
    Why would they do them on people going back to care homes; get a positive result and still send them back ?!
    It's highly unlikely. They simply never tested on exit.
    I believe @Foxy posted a while back that his trust did; not sure when they started doing that though.
    The amended guidance does now require testing, I think.
    What was the date of that advice? If it occurred when there was established community spread...

    Until a couple of weeks ago, capacity issues in my Trust for testing were such that we couldn't repeat tests. This means not testing before discharge, nor repeating a negative test when clinical suspicion remained. There was also the problem that results were often taking several days, so delaying discharges.

    I suspect that we unintentionally sent positive patients home during the period when testing was restricted.

    In some Trusts even known patients were discharged to care homes, assuming they could be barrier nursed.

    To some extent this was because a larger peak of admissions expected, hence acute beds needed, and partly the culture of overcrowded wards is to discharge as soon as possible.

    The advice COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements was published on the 19th March.
    Not reviewed until the 15th April.

  • TimTTimT Posts: 615
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The fact that NHS hospitals discharged elderly patients diagnosed with coronavirus and sent them back into care homes is an appalling scandal. As Dominic Lawson wrote in the Sunday Times, it shames the nation. Heads must roll.

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/

    Were they diagnosed with COVID-19 or suspected and not tested?
    Manslaughter by negligence or by design ?

    I'm going for negligence.
    Manslaughter "by design" sounds akin to murder.
    Hospitals here have never done exit tests iirc
    Why would they do them on people going back to care homes; get a positive result and still send them back ?!
    It's highly unlikely. They simply never tested on exit.
    I believe @Foxy posted a while back that his trust did; not sure when they started doing that though.
    The amended guidance does now require testing, I think.
    What was the date of that advice? If it occurred when there was established community spread...

    Until a couple of weeks ago, capacity issues in my Trust for testing were such that we couldn't repeat tests. This means not testing before discharge, nor repeating a negative test when clinical suspicion remained. There was also the problem that results were often taking several days, so delaying discharges.

    I suspect that we unintentionally sent positive patients home during the period when testing was restricted.

    In some Trusts even known patients were discharged to care homes, assuming they could be barrier nursed.

    To some extent this was because a larger peak of admissions expected, hence acute beds needed, and partly the culture of overcrowded wards is to discharge as soon as possible.

    The advice COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements was published on the 19th March.
    Not reviewed until the 15th April.
    That is an awfully long time between updates, given what evolved during that period.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,864
    Having come late to the last thread, I'll offer my 2p worth.

    I think the Conservatives will follow something along the following lines in the run up to 2024:
    1. To focus on Johnson's supposed merits, even his popularity has waned by 2024.
    2. To ignore the opposition leader's (supposed) failings, other than as a by-product of trying to keep Brexit as a defining issue.
    3. To focus on the far left's influence instead, claiming that Starmer is merely a puppet of the far left who are still running the show.

    The far left could certainly help the Conservatives with the latter if they show they can still carry the key votes on the NEC as happened in 1983.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669
    Mortimer said:

    I've been watching the clucking about public transport on the news - which is, of course, all about London, London, London, London and London. I suspect that this is partly down the the usual media fixation on London, but also because it is going to struggle a lot more with restrictions to public transport than everywhere else.

    I also believe it likely that the issue is largely internalised within London. I've just had a look out the window at the train station car park, here in a commuter belt town, and it is as deserted as it has been throughout the lockdown. There are currently three cars parked up; the usual number is between zero and five. The commuters are evidently still working from home.

    My concern, therefore, is that it is by no means inconceivable that we'll get to a point in three or four weeks' time when this disease is, if not exactly dead as a doornail in most of the country, then only persisting at a low level - but that it's taking off again in London. If that comes to pass then I do hope the Government doesn't panic and try to lock everyone down again, when the problem is only confined to one corner of the country.

    Spoke to a couple of London pals today, and they confirmed its pretty busy in the city. Down here in metropolitan Dorset, its not.

    I agree that any future tightening will likely have to be, and should only be, where it is necessary.
    Likewise here, even though up in North Herts we're a lot closer to London. Definitely noticed an uptick in road traffic from the Bank Holiday onwards, but relative to before the crisis it is still very quiet.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Scott_xP said:
    The infantilisation of the Prime Minister continues. I used to post that Jeremy Corbyn's office might as well have been staffed entirely by Conservative sleeper agents. It is beginning to look like the reverse might be the case too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091
    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,424
    On the self-employment thingummyjig, I got a letter about that today.

    Doesn't actually affect me as I'm still working.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327
    MaxPB said:

    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,166
    Labour spokesman mucked up SKS "gotcha"

    (To be fair, the Labour spokesman who sent out the quote to journalist as PMQs was happening sent out the section 1 version, not the section 7 version. But Starmer was quoted from the section 7 version.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/may/13/uk-coronavirus-live-millions-health-conditions-return-to-work-pmqs-covid-19-latest-news-updates?page=with:block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea#block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    MaxPB said:

    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.

    You may be right. It will be interesting to know if Number 10 had half an eye on news timings when releasing its reply.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,385
    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,778

    On the self-employment thingummyjig, I got a letter about that today.

    Doesn't actually affect me as I'm still working.

    You don't have to be "not working" to apply. Merely "adversely affected."
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766

    Labour spokesman mucked up SKS "gotcha"

    (To be fair, the Labour spokesman who sent out the quote to journalist as PMQs was happening sent out the section 1 version, not the section 7 version. But Starmer was quoted from the section 7 version.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/may/13/uk-coronavirus-live-millions-health-conditions-return-to-work-pmqs-covid-19-latest-news-updates?page=with:block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea#block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea

    professionals
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    edited May 13
    MaxPB said:

    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.

    Forensic (noun) - smart arse selective pinhead dancing for narrow political advantage. Smacks of untrustworthiness (see Brexit blocking).
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,611

    On the self-employment thingummyjig, I got a letter about that today.

    Doesn't actually affect me as I'm still working.

    It`s not like the employed scheme. You can still be working and be entitled to claim. You just have to be affected by the virus to any extent.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,836
    edited May 13
    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    Erm, it is still spreading if the R is 0.1, given the number of cases in the community. I think you meant to say 'not spreading exponentially' unless the R is above 1....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,385

    TimT said:

    FPT

    Here's the definition of R0:

    "R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."

    So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.

    So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.

    Yes - what is effected is the R number for which the disease declines/expands.
    I no longer think this is right. Please see my summary post on here and that of @FF43 on PT.

    The 'not spreading' threshold for "R" (as it is defined) is in all circumstances 1.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,611
    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?

    R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,845
    I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    edited May 13
    Bleak reading if you can't face four more years of Trump.


    "The 2020 election, Kreiss predicted, will be “a big test of whether empirical reality will outweigh motivated partisan reasoning.” "

    "If the test Kreiss anticipates does determine who our next president is, and if the digital world becomes a key battleground, as it certainly will, Democrats believe Joe Biden and his campaign need to be better prepared."

    “Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opinion/trump-digital-campaign.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The fact that NHS hospitals discharged elderly patients diagnosed with coronavirus and sent them back into care homes is an appalling scandal. As Dominic Lawson wrote in the Sunday Times, it shames the nation. Heads must roll.

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/

    Were they diagnosed with COVID-19 or suspected and not tested?
    Manslaughter by negligence or by design ?

    I'm going for negligence.
    Manslaughter "by design" sounds akin to murder.
    Hospitals here have never done exit tests iirc
    Why would they do them on people going back to care homes; get a positive result and still send them back ?!
    It's highly unlikely. They simply never tested on exit.
    I believe @Foxy posted a while back that his trust did; not sure when they started doing that though.
    The amended guidance does now require testing, I think.
    What was the date of that advice? If it occurred when there was established community spread...

    Until a couple of weeks ago, capacity issues in my Trust for testing were such that we couldn't repeat tests. This means not testing before discharge, nor repeating a negative test when clinical suspicion remained. There was also the problem that results were often taking several days, so delaying discharges.

    I suspect that we unintentionally sent positive patients home during the period when testing was restricted.

    In some Trusts even known patients were discharged to care homes, assuming they could be barrier nursed.

    To some extent this was because a larger peak of admissions expected, hence acute beds needed, and partly the culture of overcrowded wards is to discharge as soon as possible.

    The advice COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements was published on the 19th March.
    Not reviewed until the 15th April.

    Damning.

    That was over a week after the end of the containment phase was over, and Test and Trace stopped, because we already had established community transmission.

    Just listened to PMQs on catch up. Brutal, I see why Johnson ducks scrutiny when he can. He has 4 long years of this to get through before the next election.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 27,694
    Do you think it is helpful to draw incorrect conclusions based on faulty data?
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331

    I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.

    The first sunny holiday, the first cold beer in the pub, the first tasty restaurant dinner, the first night at the theatre, the first crowded gallery opening with flowing free wine....

    they will all be AMAZING. We will appreciate everything so much more. Yay.

    The trouble is we might have to wait a long long time
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656
    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    Not quite right in the final para.

    Even with an R less than 1, the disease is spreading, but in a way that will burn itself out. Their can be quite a few new infections along the way.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331
    Charles said:

    Do you think it is helpful to draw incorrect conclusions based on faulty data?
    The problem is HMG were happy to make these comparisons, on the same data, when it flattered their performance vis a vis other countries
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,217
    rcs1000 said:

    Weird, "getting away from the children" isn't on there.

    For me, lockdown has had that beneficial effect...
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    Thanks for that summary,

    One extra complication not facterd in is how the weather/change in seasons might effect R.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,611
    edited May 13
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    Not quite right in the final para.

    Even with an R less than 1, the disease is spreading, but in a way that will burn itself out. Their can be quite a few new infections along the way.
    Decreasing in prevalence?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 5,529
    Why is it necessary for the media to inform us there's going to be a significant recession? It's like someone telling you things are going to get wet just before a tsunami hits the beach.
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331

    Bleak reading if you can't face four more years of Trump.


    "The 2020 election, Kreiss predicted, will be “a big test of whether empirical reality will outweigh motivated partisan reasoning.” "

    "If the test Kreiss anticipates does determine who our next president is, and if the digital world becomes a key battleground, as it certainly will, Democrats believe Joe Biden and his campaign need to be better prepared."

    “Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opinion/trump-digital-campaign.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Who would want to chat with weird, demented Uncle Joe?

    Doesn't mean people won't vote for him
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,105

    I didn't draft that letter for him, honest.
    I genuinely don't get Boris's defence on this.

    The guidance says "this will be updated shortly"
    Until it's updated, it remains valid.

    It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.

    Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March.
    Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.

    It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.

    If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,864
    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.

    If "backfire" means Sir Keir being compared to Johnson in write-ups such as this in the Daily Telegraph (of all places!), he'll be very happy indeed:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/13/keir-starmer-took-boris-johnson-apart-like-duplo-train-set/

    " The latest figures, began Sir Keir today, showed that at least 40 per cent of deaths from the virus had come in care homes. Yet according to the Government’s advice in March, it was “very unlikely” that people in care homes would become infected. Mr Johnson protested. “No, Mr Speaker,” be blurted, “it wasn’t true that the advice said that!” But it was. Sir Keir was quoting the advice word for word, from a sheet in paper in front of him.

    Next he asked about the vast number of unexplained deaths in care homes. In April, there had been 26,000 care home deaths. The previous April, there had been only 8,000. Yet of these additional 18,000 deaths, only 8,000 had been officially attributed to the virus. Could Mr Johnson give the Government’s view as to the possible cause of those 10,000 “unexplained” deaths? Mr Johnson could not. In fact, it wasn’t obvious he’d understood the question. His reply was a cascade of helpless waffle. “Appalling disease… tragedy taking place… critical to our ability to move forward as a nation…”

    On to the death toll overall. The Government, noted Sir Keir, had stopped producing the daily chart which plotted death tolls in various countries, including Britain. Why? “He seeks to make comparisons with other countries,” snorted Mr Johnson, “which I am advised are premature.” Sir Keir looked puzzled. The Government had been publishing these “comparisons with other countries” for seven weeks. “It’s pretty obvious,” he said, “that when we didn’t have the highest number of deaths in Europe, the graphs were used for comparison purposes. But as soon as we did have the highest number, they were dropped.”

    It was tough to watch. Mr Johnson’s supporters might well say: who cares about PMQs? The Prime Minister has far more important things on his plate. He’s trying to tackle a pandemic, for pity’s sake. Which is true. The trouble is, all of Sir Keir’s questions were about the Prime Minister’s handling of that pandemic. About his Government’s advice, its actions, its figures, its findings."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,385
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?

    R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
    Right.

    R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.

    R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.

    Below 1, virus in decline.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    Andy_JS said:

    Why is it necessary for the media to inform us there's going to be a significant recession? It's like someone telling you things are going to get wet just before a tsunami hits the beach.

    And yet Sunak couldn't help himself. Was it really necessary for him to explain the technical definition of a recession?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 28,118

    rcs1000 said:

    Weird, "getting away from the children" isn't on there.

    For me, lockdown has had that beneficial effect...
    No need to rub it in. Particularly not after @DecrepiterJohnL thought I was you earlier...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,385
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Very useful exchange on PT about "R". Feel moved to summarize -

    R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.

    R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.

    It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.

    And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.

    This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.

    If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.

    Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.

    Not quite right in the final para.

    Even with an R less than 1, the disease is spreading, but in a way that will burn itself out. Their can be quite a few new infections along the way.
    Yes thanks. NET spreading is what I should have said.

    Little comfort (!) to me if I get it knowing that R = 0.3 and it's on its way out.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 13
    MaxPB said:

    I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.

    Oh don't be silly, the public LOVE nit-picking lawyers getting a win on a technicality
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,766
    eadric said:


    I fear the covid crisis is actually taking a turn for the WORSE. That is to say, as it now spreads into the Third World (look at India, slowly but surely picking up) we could see the Rona's ultimate ferocity, and we might see the really apocalyptic numbers come true

    Yep, that's been the disease progress at every stage. We saw China then Iran, and thought "holyshit". Then Europe was way worse than that. Now the Americas will be way worse than us. And yeah, India ......... how do they even begin to stop it there? That's mission impossible stuff.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    Andy_JS said:

    Why is it necessary for the media to inform us there's going to be a significant recession? It's like someone telling you things are going to get wet just before a tsunami hits the beach.

    It's actually the chancellor informing us that that's going to be the case. The media are hardly going to ignore that.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,766

    A small positive...

    The figures show 3,242 new cases in the last day,

    That lowest since March, and obviously when still only doing hospital only testing.


    This is a nice representation:



Sign In or Register to comment.