Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

above R

137 replies

randomer · 05/06/2020 21:19

so its above R where I live. In about 7 days or so the shops will open and more people will mix....what am I supposed to do please Boris?

OP posts:
geekaMaxima · 06/06/2020 17:02

I would possibly be willing to summon up my debating skills if posters would like to tell me what they think the government have handled well, what they admire and respect?

🤣 I'll be staying quiet on this point, OP! (As one of many scientists who have signed public letters to the government telling them how to stop fucking up...)

geekaMaxima · 06/06/2020 17:14

@weepingwillow22 It would make sense to rely on up-to-date covid-19 test results if the test itself was reliable AND testing was extensive and uniformly available in all locations AND all test results were localised accurately to small areas. None of those things are true for the UK testing scheme, so unfortunately the models that use test results are based on measurements with a very high degree of error.

The net result is that such models are absolutely NOT more accurate than models based on 3-week-old death data, particularly when supplemented with recent seroprevalence tests of blood donations. At best, they might be equally accurate, but the reverse is much more likely to be true (i.e. the death-based models are more accurate), and the death-based models have been more accurate in predicting things like rises in regional hospital admissions over the last few weeks

In some countries, the test-based models are best. The UK is not one of those countries.

Khione · 06/06/2020 17:19

R is useful in a pandemic and even an epidemic, figures now are too low to even count as an epidemic.

If only one person has the virus and they give it to 2 people who live with them then the R is 2, is anyone else at risk - yes if those 2 people also spend a lot of time is close proximity to many people - as they did before lockdown but is very unlikely now. For R to remain 2 they would both have to infect 2 more people each.

With the low numbers who now have the virus, and with most of them, if not isolating, social distancing from strangers the chances of anyone, who is mostly social distancing and hand washing are negligible.

Everythingsgoingmyway · 06/06/2020 17:26

You don't need to think the government have done a good job to not panic at the R number in certain areas and think it justifies not slowly lifting restrictions.

weepingwillow22 · 06/06/2020 18:19

[quote geekaMaxima]@weepingwillow22 It would make sense to rely on up-to-date covid-19 test results if the test itself was reliable AND testing was extensive and uniformly available in all locations AND all test results were localised accurately to small areas. None of those things are true for the UK testing scheme, so unfortunately the models that use test results are based on measurements with a very high degree of error.

The net result is that such models are absolutely NOT more accurate than models based on 3-week-old death data, particularly when supplemented with recent seroprevalence tests of blood donations. At best, they might be equally accurate, but the reverse is much more likely to be true (i.e. the death-based models are more accurate), and the death-based models have been more accurate in predicting things like rises in regional hospital admissions over the last few weeks

In some countries, the test-based models are best. The UK is not one of those countries.[/quote]
I agree with you about the limitations of the UK testing approach used for the zoe research. However I think the Cambridge modelling also has significant limitations especially when looking at data at the regional level.
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-data-from-the-mrc-biostatistics-unit-at-the-university-of-cambridge-nowcasting-and-forecasting-covid-19/
Prof Matt Keeling, Professor of Populations and Disease, University of Warwick, said:
'So what is generating these differences? The MRC Biostatistics Unit has considered deaths due to coronavirus as their main quantity of interest – in London this is falling far more rapidly than other measures of the outbreak such as hospital admissions.

“What this study highlights is that London is experiencing a subtly different epidemic to other regions of the country, with a more rapid decline and different relationships between ICU occupancy, hospital occupancy and deaths. This is clearly something that needs to be understood in more detail, as it may be important for how different areas of the country exit from lock-down.

“I am extremely worried about the media message that ‘London could be coronavirus free in days’. At the moment there is way too much uncertainty in factors such as asymptomatic transmission or infection in the health-care worker population to make this claim. Londoners have made a brilliant effort in adhering to lock-down advice, and bringing the infection under control. If people think London is coronavirus-free that could be dangerous, and could lead to complacency, undermining all the struggles and sacrifices that everyone has made so far. A relaxation of vigilance could easily see R increase'

randomer · 06/06/2020 18:26

@ Everythingsgoingmyway, who said panic? I felt scared , I feel scared not for myself but for others. The Sudanese community in Salford for example, the Hassidic Jewish community in Salford, the lady I delivered a prescription to today who has nobody. I put on my smiley face and waved and drove off in tears.
That image will never leave me.

OP posts:
randomer · 06/06/2020 18:28

apologies @Everythingsgoingmyway, I misread your post.

What a mess.

OP posts:
Everythingsgoingmyway · 06/06/2020 19:18

Well, yeah, i'm saying don't be scared of the R rate as it may not mean much at all. That's a good thing! 👍

geekaMaxima · 06/06/2020 20:06

weepingwillow22 I don't disagree with anything in that statement. The Cambridge project is still the best model the UK has of covid-19 infections.

Models are supposed to be early warning systems - great big red flags that things may be getting worse, or cautious alerts that things may be easing off. The correct action in both cases is the same: don't do anything in contravention of the predicted trends, wait a short while (1-2 weeks at most) to see if the predicted trend is validated (supported) and if it is then take action in response.

So if infections are predicted to steadily decrease, then don't introduce any tighter lockdown measures. Instead, wait to see if infections really do decrease in real numbers and if they do, consider lifting some lockdown measures. This was the situation in London ~3 weeks ago, which the linked report dates from, and infections did (as modelled) decrease.

Conversely, if infections are predicted to increase, then don't lift lockdown measures. Instead, wait to see if infections really do rise in real numbers and if they do, consider (re-)introducing tighter lockdown measures. This is the situation right now in the NW and the government is falling at the first hurdle, by lifting lockdown measures nationally even though it's not appropriate (indeed, downright dangerous) for the region.

This situation is not being handled well. I heard the mayor of greater Manchester spitting feathers about local people believing the govt message that everything is fine when hospital admissions in the city are actually rising. Yikes.

OP posts:
geekaMaxima · 06/06/2020 20:31

^^ that's a good decision about schools. I wonder what other local measures they'll have to enforce to compensate for the lack of coherent govt support?

randomer · 06/06/2020 21:10

Well food banks are on overdrive.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page