pity the poor policy maker....

B

basilrobbie

Guest
I was saying elsewhere that one of the difficulties in understanding the current situation was that you could find a scientific opinion that appeared to back up almost anything.

This is a case in point. The BBC are running a story suggesting that the R rate is getting back up dangerously close to 1. This article says something very different (and quite startling, as far as London in concerned). I doubt that they can both be right, and wouldn't blame the Government for being cautious.



news.sky.com

Coronavirus could be 'wiped out in London in weeks' - but what's the picture in the rest of England?

The R value in England is 0.75, firmly under 1.0 - which the prime minister named as a requirement for the easing of lockdown.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly it has to be qualified that this is a small sample but obviously this shows the importance of the R rate in controlling the virus.
I think the government should have perhaps looked at 0.5 as a figure to go with for the goal. Although it may not have been possible?
The disparity between 0.5 & 1 in infection numbers is huge. If we could keep it at 0.5 or under UK wide that would imo be a massive leap towards stamping this out..
 
The BBC are reporting that the R value is dropping in London but is still too high in the NW and NE; so that will skew the National figures.

But yes there’s an absence of reliable stats for all sorts of reasons. It was described early on as “trying to fight a fire blindfolded”. Which was why WHO said from the off we needed to “test, test, test”.

But I agree it’s difficult to come up with a convincing policy when you have huge gaps in your understanding of what you are fighting and where.
 
deary said:
Exactly it has to be qualified that this is a small sample but obviously this shows the importance of the R rate in controlling the virus.
I think the government should have perhaps looked at 0.5 as a figure to go with for the goal. Although it may not have been possible?
The disparity between 0.5 & 1 in infection numbers is huge. If we could keep it at 0.5 or under UK wide that would imo be a massive leap towards stamping this out..
Click to expand...
You can only keep it below a certain level (0.5 or whatever) when you can accurately measure and assess where you are. I think the op is saying we can’t.
 
Interesting that the claims of much wider spread infection are back on the cards again...

"It comes as a new study suggests more than 25% of the UK is likely to have had coronavirus already."

It's like scientific ping pong at the minute.... I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Interesting that the claims of much wider spread infection are back on the cards again...

"It comes as a new study suggests more than 25% of the UK is likely to have had coronavirus already."

It's like scientific ping pong at the minute.... I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
Click to expand...
You’ll have DSOL along soon rubbishing your information and statistics as it did when I quoted similar numbers.
 
cruzzer said:
You’ll have DSOL along soon rubbishing your information and statistics as it did when I quoted similar numbers.
Click to expand...
It would actually be a very positive thing if 25% of the public have already had the virus, but I'm not sure this is supported by antibody testing that has been carried out in France and Spain, which suggests maybe 5-10% might be more realistic for the UK.
 
Unless everyone in the population gets the antibody test then anything is just speculation and guesswork. Including what DSOL spouts and the crap I’ve been regurgitating.
 
The Government will use its key advisors. It will be in order that SAGE discusses various conflicting studied and reports but their advice must be unanimous.
 
It all depends on which of the numbers suits them at this moment in time. If the Rate of Infection is falling they use that, it the Number of Cases is falling but infection rate is climbing, then cases. If they move the goalposts any more then a home penalty at Bloomfield Road will be taken at the San Siro!
 
There’s so much conflicting Maths out there it can do your head in.
The regime seemed quite relaxed about the R figure going up on tonight’s briefing though and if it is two weeks out of date maybe they know the next 13 R figures will be lower?
Who knows, I’m chilled cos it’s Friday and I’m back on the ale🍺.
 
glasshalffull said:
There’s so much conflicting Maths out there it can do your head in.
The regime seemed quite relaxed about the R figure going up on tonight’s briefing though and if it is two weeks out of date maybe they know the next 13 R figures will be lower?
Who knows, I’m chilled cos it’s Friday and I’m back on the ale🍺.
Click to expand...
The R factor by region is interesting. Dropping in London and worst in the NW and Y&H.
Maybe that's why they're relaxed about it.
 
It seems that this 'R' being reported is actually what it was around three weeks ago and so the figure is likely to lower presently.
 
One for the experts on here, I know the reproductive value the R figure is a measure of how transmissible the virus is and the corresponding number of people who become infected after contracting the virus from just ONE person with the disease, but how does the R figure become known, how is it calculated.
 
Whitstabletangerine said:
One for the experts on here, I know the reproductive value the R figure is a measure of how transmissible the virus is and the corresponding number of people who become infected after contracting the virus from just ONE person with the disease, but how does the R figure become known, how is it calculated.
Click to expand...

What you do is take a lot of expensive data engineers, give them loads of data and they then guess what the figure is using different made up models based on something that happened previously but is not this - inevitably it will always be lagging behind reality and always wrong.

...and I am not joking!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top