SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
It's the Mourinho gif for me.To anyone that follows their covid strategy/numbers closer, is this just a reflection of increased contact? I used to work with a Swedish office and they took the whole of August off, coming back to September (like we see in schools here) is it not just a natural situation of that?
UK Figures - 59 deaths, 6,914 new cases.
Other point to note, test turnaround times are slightly improving. Currently at 2.6 days on average now. 1st & 2nd week of September was averaging at 3.3 days.
Other point to note, test turnaround times are slightly improving. Currently at 2.6 days on average now. 1st & 2nd week of September was averaging at 3.3 days.
That’s what I’ve been assuming. Apparently they don’t just take August off, loads of them relocate to very remote holiday homes for the month. Considering their population density is low to begin with that’s the perfect scenario to keep on top of the virus.
To anyone that follows their covid strategy/numbers closer, is this just a reflection of increased contact? I used to work with a Swedish office and they took the whole of August off, coming back to September (like we see in schools here) is it not just a natural situation of that?
Ah but the maps I’m remembering (which I can’t actually fecking show to anyone) had incidence/100k so population independent. Basically higher incidence in North than South.
"Jose, how are the covid numbers in Sweden? "
To anyone that follows their covid strategy/numbers closer, is this just a reflection of increased contact? I used to work with a Swedish office and they took the whole of August off, coming back to September (like we see in schools here) is it not just a natural situation of that?
Not bothered to read any of it yet, but is this because of individual biology or individual routines (i.e. a teacher might be a super-spreader)?
From a statistical point of view this has hopefully always been the baseline assumption. What's more likely - that everyone transmits the virus at the same rate, or that different people transmit it at different rates, with some underlying distribution?
In real-world modelling there's always priors to priors to priors. The vast majority of models underestimate real-world randomness/variance/dependencies, unless the creator has manually accounted for it (educated guesswork). Other examples include the 2008 crash and recent elections.
It may explain some of the 'critical mass' effects we've seen prior to exponential growth / waves, and some of the apparent randomness in the spread when comparing places with similar initial conditions.
Perhaps much of the UK summer was below the critical interaction levels of potential "super-spreaders", rather than the population at large and their average r0.
This over-dispersion is a good and a bad thing. It means there's more chance of controlling transmission, but more severe once it's no longer under control.
"Jose, how are the covid numbers in Sweden? "
this thread isn't for memes, but there's some milage in a 'Jose reaction to covid news' thread.Nobody knows. They’re pretty clear on the scenarios where super-spreader events happen (indoor, poorly ventilated etc) but don’t know if individual biology of index case is also a factor.
"Jose, how are the covid numbers in Sweden? "
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Two different situations. London is full of some of the poorest, cramped areas in the UK which could be argued as one of the big reasons why it spread quickly there at the beginning.
My point about lack of compliance is more of a long-term thing (i.e., the longer it goes on, the less people living in places which are historically badly represented by government, are willing to comply with government advice).
Will also admit that I'm just hypothesizing. Shooting the shit, as the yanks say.
This is really interesting!
Last edited:
honestly so many MP’s are so thick, do they really think in this day and age they won’t get caught out?
https://www.centreforcities.org/data/coronavirus-cases-uk-cities-large-towns/
Slough, Luton and Exeter are the only cities in the south with over 50 cases per 100k while Middlesborough is at nearly 80 cases per 100k. Leicester and Birmingham are the furthest south you get with more than Middlesborough and they've already faced local lockdowns. Add to that Middlesborough's spike is much sharper in the last week than any of the others above 75. Doesn't seem like you need to dig deep to find the truth there. Local councils are making shit decisions because they're in a shit situation.
Is it not as simple as housing is smaller, perhaps with more people packed in, less green areas, less open shopping areas etc?
Also people from those areas are more likely to continue working when sick as they have less disposable income
inexcusable
I wonder if she is on record about Cummings.
Hoist with her own petard.
What an idiotThe traveling back by train after testing positive was hilarious.. how fecking stupid can one be?
Shes not stupid her actions appear quite deliberat. Shes a fecking idiot.
Yeah not exactly sure why say Devon, Cornwall and Essex who at this point have things under decent control should be punished for outbreaks 200/300 miles North, would be utterly ridiculous but will probably happen at some point.No, it's not that strange when you look at the data. Cases are all concentrated in the North.
Same reason my remain voting area are being punished for Cornwall voting leave?
Your point was that quarantine made no difference if the country of origin had similar infection rates to the UK. Your original post is quoted below. I told you how it does make a difference.
You then tried to pretend that you were talking about two towns in the uk that don't have a border and thus quarantine isn't involved. So an irrelevant attempt to move the goalposts.
Now you are back to incorrectly thinking that the comparative infection rate determines if quarantine works. It always works but the infection rate in the source country just varies how many infections quarantine prevents from being imported.
Country A has a 10% infection rate, country B has a 20% infection rate. For the sake of argument lets also say the UK has 1000 people with active infections.
If 10 people from country A arrive without quarantine the UK will now have 1001 active cases and if those 10 were from country B there would now be 1002 active cases. With quarantine there would still only be 1000 active cases. Each new case infects multiple others who in turn infect multiple others. So it can make a huge difference.
Hard borders and quarantine are one of the basic measures that have been shown to work well if done well in many places so it is just silly to think otherwise.
I was not saying anything about what measures should or should not be taken but just pointing out that your post contained an utterly incorrect assertion.
Internal restrictions of movement is another measure that helps. It is just easier to do at international borders or State borders if you have them.
Each measure aims to reduce infection. If you then make big gains or even elimination within a border you can then work on the next area and eventually join the areas up. This is what has happened in Australia. We are close to zero community infection nationwide except for Victoria who are down to about 15 daily cases.
State borders will soon open barring Victoria and soin after a travel bubble with NZ and some Pacific islands are possible. The principle also helps even if such low levels aren't the aim. It seriously helps flatten the curve as does mask wearing, social distancing etc
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Was about to post this myself. Her writing on this pandemic has been incredible and basically spot-on since March.
I've just read it myself just now, brilliant article and she's absolutely brilliant. If I remember correctly she's also one of the first journalist/scholar who underlined the importance of wearing face masks very early on in the pandemic. In any case, her article furthers my point (which was ridiculed at the time and plenty would still find it so) that full lockdowns for the sake of locking down are not the be all and end all, for they must be coupled with clear strategic directions.
This seminar about the US vaccine development effort and some of the reasons the pandemic is so bad in the US has a fantastic section overlaying various maps showing health inequalities, historical pandemics, and covid. The whole talk is excellent and the speaker is really engaging, but the section from 21-35 min on on public health is particularly interesting (and damning).
Interesting and well written.
In effect she is saying many of the factors we though were important e.g. poorly ventilated indooor places where social.distancing is also often problematic, are even more important than we thought. In many places/times of year this would be churches, pubs, meat factories, housing especially in lower socio-economic areas.
I'd be interested to know if there was anything special about individuals identified as super spreaders.
Last edited:
Thanks. I'll try to watch later.
The Doherty Institute and indeed the man himself are awesome.
Interesting article. I'm
The idea that we infect our own household seems obvious. The mechanics of why it doesn't infect everyone in (most) households it enters also intrigues. Though that's perhaps a rather intrusive line of questioning.
On the other hand asking, "where do you think you caught it" might not just offer valuable information for track and trace, it might tell the rest of us something important about behaviours.
Trump and Melania have tested positive, it's breaking news on the BBC.
Ironic or a lie