Active discussions

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

Talk
Covid

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

Original poster

Latest Imperial study indicates R dropping substantially in England

28 replies

starfro · 01/10/2020 08:15

They roughly estimate it is down from 1.7 in late August to 1.1 in late September.

Cases are high at 1 per 200 people.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54366478

OP posts:
DdraigGoch · 01/10/2020 08:23

Still above 1 though. Presumably the study was before all of the illegal house parties at universities.

Catyness · 01/10/2020 08:26

I read that this morning and came on here to see what everyone thinks. In particular 1 case per 200 people - it seems so high to me. Presumably in the worst hit areas much higher than this even.

MadameBlobby · 01/10/2020 08:27

1 in 200 is a huge number! That’s scary .

NandosPeriometer · 01/10/2020 08:34

Was EOTHO and summer holidays abroad the reason for the high R?

Considering how cases differ so much across the country I'm not sure that a National R is an appropriate measure because it's presumably much higher in lockdown areas ?

Redolent · 01/10/2020 08:37

Over the summer it was so much comfortable going out knowing the the rate was in 1 in 1700 people (and 1 in 2000, in some weeks).

The study says that in young people now, it’s estimated at 1 in 100.

feelingverylazytoday · 01/10/2020 08:38

R dropping is good news and indicates the new restrictions are working.

Original poster
starfro · 01/10/2020 08:42

@feelingverylazytoday

R dropping is good news and indicates the new restrictions are working.
Not necessarily just restrictions.

It could also be local immunity slowing infections. Think about an isolated university campus where they all get it, and all recover quickly. Initially R is very high, then plateaus before dropping.

OP posts:
Worriedmum999 · 01/10/2020 08:49

1 in 200 is so scary! That means that currently 330,000 people currently have it. If even 0.5% of those die that’s over 1500 deaths within the next month. I was petrified sending my children to school this morning and am thinking about taking them out for the next few weeks as it seems like now is the peak time to catch it.

frozendaisy · 01/10/2020 08:51

Great R rate dropping but sort of indicates the closer we are to normal life the higher the rate.

Presume restrictions for a while yet.

TheBeatGoesOn · 01/10/2020 08:55

This is good. Hopefully back to normal sooner than we all think.

MaxNormal · 01/10/2020 09:03

If even 0.5% of those die that’s over 1500 deaths within the next month

There are around 40 000 deaths every month, 1500 from a nasty virus doesn't actually sound that bad in context.

everythingthelighttouches · 01/10/2020 09:09

That is great news. I think it does show just how difficult it is to measure and how unstable R0 is when you’re looking at relatively small numbers in a pandemic.

This is information I’d be pleased to see regularly in the news and would look for a trend.

I honestly doubt it is any reflection of the rule of 6 and other measures though, it is probably still the variability you’d expect to see within the mouse of the data.

Does anyone know what R rate the React study came up with in the previous weeks??

Namechanger20183110 · 01/10/2020 09:09

@Worriedmum999

1 in 200 is so scary! That means that currently 330,000 people currently have it. If even 0.5% of those die that’s over 1500 deaths within the next month. I was petrified sending my children to school this morning and am thinking about taking them out for the next few weeks as it seems like now is the peak time to catch it.
But the infections are largely in young people, so this wouldn't translate to 1500 deaths. It just wouldn't. I have seen your posts for a while and I think for the sake of your mental health, you need to take your kids out. This feeling of being petrified every morning is going to be weakening your immune system.
everythingthelighttouches · 01/10/2020 09:09

Mouse = noise !!!

Worriedmum999 · 01/10/2020 09:11

Surely though if the R rate is 1.1 then that’s over 1500 deaths a day

Namechanger20183110 · 01/10/2020 09:15

@Worriedmum999

Surely though if the R rate is 1.1 then that’s over 1500 deaths a day
We didn't have 1500 deaths a day when the R rate at the peak was between 3 & 4. And that was with a much higher number of infections
everythingthelighttouches · 01/10/2020 09:16

No worriedmum.

330,000 TOTAL have it right now.
At an average death rate of ~0.4% then, yes 1500 of those people will die, but not per day

sirfredfredgeorge · 01/10/2020 09:20

Surely though if the R rate is 1.1 then that’s over 1500 deaths a day

R says nothing about how quickly someone infects someone, the R0 of HIV is something over 5 in lots of places (depends on typical number of partners and stuff), but it doesn't double very quickly despite it. Growth rate does matter as well as R.

Original poster
starfro · 01/10/2020 09:21

Just so we don't confuse terms:

R is the reproduction rate.
R0 is the reproduction rate for a population with zero measures, and zero immunity.
Reff is R0 after measures like handwashing/social distancing/lockdown etc
R = Reff * X, where X is the fraction of the population that is susceptible to the virus.

So the reason R is lower can be either a change in Reff or X, or both.

In reality because populations aren't uniform and homogenous, you get clusters of infection/recovery, hence X can vary wildly in different populations. In University campuses for example, X is likely to be quite low now.

OP posts:
Worriedmum999 · 01/10/2020 09:24

Ok that’s made me feel a bit better. That was my bad maths there Confused

lljkk · 01/10/2020 09:35

1/200 seems tiny, 0.5%. I don't get close to more than 4 people each day, and most of them in my house.

ZoeApp reckons 1.5 cases/1000 persons in my area.

everythingthelighttouches · 01/10/2020 09:38

Thanks starfro you’re right and it’s important, I slipped up there.

notevenat20 · 01/10/2020 09:46

I am not sure this drop in R is real sadly. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54366478 has been updated to reflect this doubt.

However, Prof Oliver Johnson, from the University of Bristol, said the conclusion that cases were slowing down was "wrong and dangerous".

Sockwomble · 01/10/2020 10:18

"Presumably the study was before all of the illegal house parties at universities."

It was last week. Saturday to Saturday. I did my test last Wednesday.

CoffeeandCroissant · 01/10/2020 11:47

Prevalence was highest in those aged 18-24 at 0.96%. In those aged 65 and above, prevalence increased 7-fold from 0.04% to 0.29% compared to the last report.

Prevalence increased in all parts of the country, with the North West remaining the highest at 0.86%. Cases also increased substantially in London, rising 5-fold from 0.10% to 0.49%. Similar to the previous report, Black and Asian people were found to be twice as likely to be infected compared to white people.

The reproduction (R) number decreased from 1.7 to 1.1 but with a wide possible range for the recent value of 0.7 to 1.5. This suggests that the rate of new infections has decreased, but an R above 1 would mean cases will continue to rise if current trends continue.
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/205473/latest-react-findings-show-high-number/

As mentioned by other posters above, R is a rough estimate with the wide confidence interval reflecting the uncertainty.

In the BBC article Prof Oliver Johnson says he thinks the previous React estimate of 1.7 was too high and this one too low:

And he doubts both the old and the new estimates of the R value.

He said: "I suspect they were both wrong, and it was actually more like R=1.4 each time."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54366478

mobile.twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1311541905952370688