My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To want to tear my hair out when people talk about the ‘R number’ increasing - IT DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS!

154 replies

GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:09

I am SO sick of everyone having a hot take on this virus - from friends and colleagues, and especially the media. Article after article about how the R value is increasing, nearly over 1, etc etc, and how this means we are heading for a second wave/disaster/the sky falling in. No, it is more complex and nuanced than that, and in fact it’s harder and harder to have a low R as the virus gets less prevalent. It is also hugely skewed by local outbreaks - such as in care homes and hospitals.

These two articles are quite helpful in understanding it:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52944037
unherd.com/2020/05/what-the-headline-covid-figures-dont-tell-you/

I wish everyone would just STOP using R to pretend to know what they’re talking about. We’re not all statisticians or virologists, for good reason.

OP posts:
Report

Am I being unreasonable?

497 votes. Final results.

POLL
You are being unreasonable
65%
You are NOT being unreasonable
35%
BuzzShitbagBobbly · 13/06/2020 11:10

You're sick of all hot takes, except your hot take, you mean?

GrinGrinGrin

Report
Smelborp · 13/06/2020 11:11

Exactly BuzzShitbagBobbly.

Report
GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:12

@BuzzShitbagBobbly I’m not pretending to know what’s going to happen, or spouting an unfounded opinion. I’m asking people to read and understand what’s actually happening!

OP posts:
Report
KrisAkabusi · 13/06/2020 11:12

Actually, I'm a scientist and it does mean what I think it means.

Report
ambereeree · 13/06/2020 11:13

Since covid 19 we're all doctors and scientists. We are now all experts on diseases and viruses...and I include myself.

Report
GreyishDays · 13/06/2020 11:14

So what part of people’s understanding of it don’t you agree with?

Report
OwlinaTree · 13/06/2020 11:15

Isn't the r number to do with the number of people you infect? So if it's below 1 you are on average infecting less people so the rate goes down? If it's above 1 then the number of people infected is getting higher?

I wouldn't expect any one factor on it's own to be the deciding factor in decision making.

People can only comment on the things they know about though to be fair. We as a general public are only being told certain information, people are allowed to speculate based on this. I'm not offended by people expressing their opinions.

Report
GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:16

@GreyishDays the belief that an increasing R rate automatically means epidemic-level infections. It gets less useful as a predictor of infection rates as numbers fall - as they are doing.

OP posts:
Report
GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:17

@OwlinaTree read the articles I linked - it’s more nuanced than this, and they explain it really well.

OP posts:
Report
Smelborp · 13/06/2020 11:17

I’m a scientist. I do know what the R number is. Everyone I’ve spoken to also understands it correctly. What are the misunderstandings you’re experiencing?

Report
GreyishDays · 13/06/2020 11:17

Does anyone say that? I’ve only seen comments on lower being better, which is correct.

Report
Sandybval · 13/06/2020 11:18

So you've read a few articles and are more of an expert than other people who annoy you because they have just read a few articles. Cool.

Report
OwlinaTree · 13/06/2020 11:19

But what I've said is the basic idea? And it needs to be taken with other factors?

Report
PanamaPattie · 13/06/2020 11:19

Calm.

Report
GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:19

@Sandybval no, I have a good understanding of it due to my job, but I felt those two articles explained it clearly and succinctly.

OP posts:
Report
GinFling · 13/06/2020 11:21

@OwlinaTree sure, and that explanation holds until numbers start to fall - as they are doing. And then the R is a less reliable or useful reflection of infection rates.

OP posts:
Report
PatriciaHolm · 13/06/2020 11:22

Realistically, you are railing against the govt and press coverage of it as if it's the only thing that matters. Nowhere, for example, that I've seen in the mainstream press as explained that the figures used are actually from multiple different sources, using multiple methodologies, and it's just one data point amongst many that needs to be taken into account. It's covered on the Govt stats pages, but I don't think they have ever discussed in in the briefings.

If the nuance isn't discussed by govt and the press keep screaming that "the R MIGHT be above 1!!!" You can't really blame most people for taking that at face value.

It does present an issue for govt going forward though as much less emphasis will be put on it (they said this week they are going to stop publishing regional R and look at rates of growth and level of infection instead). Cue lots of angst from the press about why it's being hidden, why are we reopening when R is still near 1 and the government are hiding it.

Report
Beatingthisthing · 13/06/2020 11:22

Agreed. The R number is meaningless unless you look at the prevalence of infections also.

Area A) baseline of 2 infections with 2 new infections - R rate of 1

Area B) baseline of 500 infections with 250 new infections - R rate of 0.5.

Area B obviously has the larger number of infections and larger potential risk to the community than area A but a lower R number.

Plus, the R number is being given for huge areas and is not necessarily reflective of community transmission or risk for most of that population. The R number for the SW being massively skewed by a singular outbreak within Weston General Hospital for instance.

Report
Editress37 · 13/06/2020 11:24

What is a hot take?

Report
Boireannachlaidir · 13/06/2020 11:24

Oh the irony!

Thank goodness you came along to put us all straight Wink

Report
OwlinaTree · 13/06/2020 11:25

I've read that article, it does explain how stats can be deceiving. Hence the need to consider other info when decision making.

Report
BikeRunSki · 13/06/2020 11:27

Since covid 19 we're all doctors and scientists. We are now all experts on diseases and viruses...and I include myself.

Makes a change, over the winter we were all hydrologists and flood management experts.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

DrManhattan · 13/06/2020 11:28
Biscuit
Report
SecretSpAD · 13/06/2020 11:30

I am a doctor - a public health in fact and I'm fed up with shouting at the TV when they talk about the R value being 1 with such horror.....but not mentioning the prevalence!

Report
Thelnebriati · 13/06/2020 11:35

If the R rate goes up then the number of people infected goes up exponentially. At point X services become overwhelmed.

If I've misunderstood, can someone explain how.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.