Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

He did say stuff like we should be getting back to normal, but I can't be bothered to recheck.

Maybe you ought to take it up with This Morning?

View attachment 505527

Thats a shit summary they have done there but it goes right along with the tabloidy slant that Eamon and Ruth were driving at throughout the interview.

I have completely rewatched the interview. Basically the Prof says here is the new normal, it involves diligent social distancing and hand washing. He advocates appropriate escalation of measures when a community experiences an increase in cases and basically isolating yourself if you have symptoms.

ETA I wasn't going to comment on it but I find it gnawing at me. Eamons big twist being the possibility a faecal route of infection. Seriously?
 
Last edited:
It's the R number PLUS the speed of transmission that's needed.

For Aids, one person may infect another three people, but that might be over a 10 year timescale.

So R3 over a long period of years.

Whereas R1.1 with a super-fast rate of transmission would be far more contagious than Aids' R3.

For context, I'm just making a point regarding a possible reason why Prof Heneghan dismissed the R number as something useful.

I understand what you are trying to get at but its apples and oranges I think. The two viruses, HIV and the COVID19 virus (it has a proper name which eludes me at the moment) are very different beasts with different routes of transmission, modes of action and lethalities.

I imagine the 3.4 value for HIV comes from either Africa (unprotected heterosexual sex) or the "initial" first world outbreak in North America (primarilly homosexual sex but also heterosexual sex). Alternatively it might relate to transmission by unsterilised drug paraphenalia. Any of these cases is different to infection by airborne virion carrying particles or virion contaminated surfaces.
 
Airlines in Canada are cancelling hundreds of flights as demand for air travel has failed to materialise. The airlines had hoped that people would start travelling by air again for business and leisure once restrictions were lifted, but potential customers aren't biting. As a result airlines are cutting the number of flights in order to consolidate travellers on fewer planes in order to cut costs.

Canadian airlines cancelling flights again as hoped-for bounceback in demand fizzles
Air Canada and WestJet have cancelled at least 439 flights so far this month, according to figures from flight data firm Cirium.

The cancellations come after airlines banked on a return of business travel and a continued uptick in leisure trips in the fall, said John Gradek, who heads McGill University's Global Aviation Leadership program.

"They've decided since about the end of July to let loose on scheduled services and increasing the number of routes, at the same time hoping that the government will loosen up some of its restrictions. And that's not been the case," he said.

Now, airlines are cancelling the half-booked flights and consolidating passengers on remaining ones to cut costs.

"There has not been a take-up by the Canadian travelling public of those seats that are being offered by the carriers, so they're cutting back those services significantly ... and it's being done piecemeal rather than being done wholesale," Gradek said.
 
US president Trump is going about saying that Canada wants to re-open the border, and that it will be happening soon.

Trump says Canada wants to reopen the border. But do we, really?

This comes as news to Canada, who have just announced the border will remain closed for at least another month (the closure is renewed monthly), and that it won't be opening any time in the near future. Polls show that 90% of the Canadian public want the border to remain closed.

Opinion in Canada is that the border will remain closed for the foreseeable future, quite likely until some time next year.
 
Well not quite.
Going back a week:
13, 16, 17, 17, 16, 4. ONS doesn't have the official figure for yesterday yet, however not quite the end of days put forward due to the number of positive tests.

21 July seems to be the last time we had 20 a day so factor in the 3 week lag which will give you the 30 June when we had around 620 positive cases.

ONS also has 167 positive cases up this morning as the last data (17th) which is quite a lot less than 4000 isn't it?
 
I don't suppose there's an equivalent of an NCO who can slap the 'Officer' and try to explain that you don't make the map (model) fit the ground (data), you make the ground fit the map?

I appreciate that there are many on here who will have heard this but have instead preferred to go their own way and wander around lost in the dark and failed to achieve anything.

As Boris says we're in the second wave and doomed, look at all the dead people.
We're due to become a hotzone shortly and we had to climb of mountains of the dead when we just went out for a meal.
Well no we didn't obviously and no one seems to be overly bothered anymore.
Seems to be more a case of Government panic, try to panic the populous and a lot of 'That's nice dear, is it that bad tut tut, never mind. You have your lock down, good for you. Right have they gone? So as I was saying....'

I'm getting the idea things are subtly transitioning to saving reputations, now the numbers are getting more scrutiny in context.
 

JCC

War Hero
Good explanation of False Positive Rate in Lockdown Sceptics this morning.

"...To illustrate this, let's suppose that 11 in 10,000 people in the UK have the virus, which is what the latest ONS infection survey estimates. So according to the Health Secretary's understanding, if the PCR test has an FPR of 0.8% and you test 10,000 people and 91 test positive, that means that 0.8% x 91 are false positives, i.e. less than one person in the 10,000 is a false positive; one out of the 91 who tested positive.

But in fact the numerator is all the people you've tested – that's who the FPR applies to – not just those who've tested positive. So the number of false positives is 0.8% x 10,000, i.e. 80 people.

To be clear, 80 of the 91, not one out of the 91, are recorded as positive WHEN THEY ARE NOT. Which leaves exactly 11 ‘true’ positives. Just one in 9 of those getting a positive result actually carry the virus! In other words, because the Health Secretary appears not to understand what an FPR is, he's over-estimating the number of true positives by ~700%."

I suspect that a lot of us are confused over this.
 

JCC

War Hero
He is hedging his bets . On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with statements about hygiene etc.

He appears to reject the concept of R rate. It does concern me that he does not cover the idea of lag and log phase in his pronouncements.

Someone said that it is not exponential. It isn't at the moment because we are in a lag phase. The purpose of localised lockdowns is to make sure we do not go into the exponential phase, ie the log phase AGAIN.

It is probably endemic by now. Hence the time needed to get a vaccine so that we can treat it as a normal endemic syndrome.

I also think Hancock said that he didn't want a lockdown. A full lockdown will be gained when those people who have no self discipline cause a spread and exponential growth.

I want to see his evidenced statements to include a refutation of why we will not revert to log growth with only basic hygiene methods and so on as he has stated.

If he can show that, I will give him some credence. A telly interview really does not cut it. He is just kiting opinions.
May be of interest:

 
Talking heads on the BBC news. "The government is failing in testing!"

1b.jpg


 
May be of interest:

It is . Thank you.

At the moment, I think we should try to avoid mass lock down but maintain the ability to lock down locally.

The question of herd immunity and what is more or less adaptive T cell response is subject to further research, ideally longitudinal investigations ( if possible at present). I initially said a herd level of 40-60%. It would be interesting if this proves to be lower.

Please let's be careful.
 

Chalkythedog

Old-Salt
When this nonsense got going, we were told it was necessary to 'protect the NHS.' It was certainly a good opportunity for NHS managers to clear the decks and empty their wards of those tiresome 'patients' who were duly dispatched to care homes where they duly obliged by dying. You won't find many bed blockers in NHS wards today. In fact you won't find any patients at all. Hospitals are empty. East European contract nurses are going home, probably never to return. Which rather begs the question, 'why has the economy been trashed to keep the hospitals empty?'
 
When this nonsense got going, we were told it was necessary to 'protect the NHS.' It was certainly a good opportunity for NHS managers to clear the decks and empty their wards of those tiresome 'patients' who were duly dispatched to care homes where they duly obliged by dying. You won't find many bed blockers in NHS wards today. In fact you won't find any patients at all. Hospitals are empty. East European contract nurses are going home, probably never to return. Which rather begs the question, 'why has the economy been trashed to keep the hospitals empty?'
It does mean when I ask for my elective surgery in a few months I might get a spot on the surgical list. Or they might **** me off at the high port as they need to keep the bed free for non-existent COVID cases. Eeeny meeny miney mo.
 
Perhaps deaths from summer flu will start to tail off by sometime in October?
The ONS data is interesting as they publish reported deaths broken down by cause of death in quite precise detail - Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

After the massive April spike COVID deaths have dropped below those cause by cancer and heart disease. The interesting thing is that reported suicides and accidental deaths have decreased by a large proportion (353 in March compared to 18 in June) but that may be waiting for coroners reports and will rise over time as the stats are updated. There's also a small but consistent decrease in cancer and heart disease deaths which would be explained by COVID finishing those people off a few months before they would have normally died.

1600553251288.png
 

Latest Threads

Top