Will those blaming schools for the rise in cases admit they were wrong?

[notevenat20]

R is now around 0.71 and the case numbers are dropping rapidly (hooray!). It seems obvious this huge improvement has been caused by the lockdown. But schools were open the whole time. It's also therefore clear that schools cannot have been the main cause of the second wave.

But things can change so quickly. Anglesey has had low rates for the past couple of weeks. Today a secondary school (on of the largest in Wales) and two primaries closed due to outbreaks. No room for complacency.

Sorry if this is a stupid question (not my field) but how can R be 1 if daily infections are clearly going down? I thought 1 meant the rate stayed constant.

Sorry that was to the people pointing out that the government figures say it's between 0.9 and 1.

Well, we've got 5 Year groups now at home from our local secondary school, so I'm pretty sure schools are not a great place to be.

But OP has form as an UsforThem apologist.

@Baaaahhhhh

In one of our schools 40 staff were off isolating!!

That's shocking.... but, not confirmed cases I assume. So are these teachers all isolating because they have been in contact with one another? As far as I understand it, if you have a case in your class, the teacher doesn't automatically go into isolation?

Most are isolating due to contact and a few have the virus. They closed the school for 2 weeks and opened again now. Not sure what their current situation is regarding staff at the moment, but I know they have a year 10 class isolating for 14 days at the moment.

Sorry that was to the people pointing out that the government figures say it's between 0.9 and 1.

Yes it can't be between 0.9 and 1. That is just an average of when it was going up before lockdown and now that it is coming down after lockdown. The current best estimate is 0.71 afaik.

@Nancydowns

Hmmmm, I'm not sure the lock downs had much effect at all. I think the virus was slowing anyway. I think it does its own thing and nothing much we're doing is effecting it.

I don't believe schools are a big contributor. But we're told social settings aren't either - so where is the major spread? Is it more likely there's a mild spread over all aspects of life, rather than one big contributor.

I tend to agree

I don't believe schools are a big contributor. But we're told social settings aren't either - so where is the major spread? Is it more likely there's a mild spread over all aspects of life, rather than one big contributor.

We are told it spreads most if you are indoors and there is little ventilation. So basically having speople round to your house and chatting to them for hours is a disaster. Restaurants and pubs are close behind. Going for a walk outdoors with a friend is probably low risk.

Another thing is just that some people infect a lot of people while most of those infected infect very few. The variation in the number of people a disease is passed on to by each person who has it is called k – ‘the dispersion parameter’. The current estimate seems to be that 80% of new cases of coronavirus might come from about 10% of people who have it.

We are told it spreads most if you are indoors and there is little ventilation.

So like schools then ?

@Baaaahhhhh

We've also only had three student cases. No teachers. Small numbers isolated. One in year 9 early Sept, one just before half term in year 11, and a recent one in year 8. No further spread to any other children or teachers, so assume these were all brought into school from home.

Is your school very small, @Baaaahhhhh, or are you not a teensy bit suspicious that only 3 confirmed cases since September either means that teachers and children at your school live in a miraculous bubble where cases are higher in the rest of the community than the school itself; or there is likely more covid currently circulating around the school than you think?

So basically this is a big ole "I told you so" post?

What about "There won't be a second wave" or "Sweden has no restrictions and they're doing so well"?

It's become about being right for some people but they only see what they want to see.

"So basically this is a big ole "I told you so" post?"

Well, that might only be the case if the OP hadn't based her entire thread on a misinterpretation of the stats.

What about "There won't be a second wave" or "Sweden has no restrictions and they're doing so well"?

The first group should apologise. For the second I am still not sure what the right conclusion is.

Well, that might only be the case if the OP hadn't based her entire thread on a misinterpretation of the stats.

Which stat is misinterpreted? I feel pretty confident about the small number of claims I have made. I feel I have explained where the 0.9 to 1.1 number comes from and also shown why it can't possibly be the current R rate.

@notevenat20

The r rate is between 0.9 and 1. So the op is making stuff up and should probably be back at school to learn basic mathematics

That's an odd thing to say. I am quoting the REACT-1 round 7 interim report. I even provided a graph of the data for you to see it with your own eyes.

Can anyone explain why the op is incorrect with figures?

React study sounds current?

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

bathsh3ba

How do you know? The schools don’t tell parents anything unless it affects their year groups. And the kids don’t know.

I work in a school and live in the same community. Local people are aghast when l tell them the school has had 15 cases. They all think it’s 2 or 3

That isnt true in the school where dh works or my 4 school kids schools. Everyone is told if there is a case. In dh school if its staff their dept, or year.

The only thing we dont get is the class or names. Nothing is being hidden in the five schools we have first hand experience in.

Can anyone explain why the op is incorrect with figures?

React study sounds current?

The government figure is at it stands correct as from 27th November
The OP’s estimate is for a short period two weeks before.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure the lock downs had much effect at all. I think the virus was slowing anyway. I think it does its own thing and nothing much we're doing is effecting it.

The available evidence is against this. Lockdowns do work to reduce transmission, and those countries without lockdowns tend to have much wider waves than those with lockdowns.

Even where countries have not officially locked down, people will have reduced their contacts once the virus is too widespread to be igored.

This is really not a matter where the opinion of the average person on the street matters just as much as of epidemiologists and virologists.

However, lockdowns are blunt tools and for several reasons shouldn't be used too much or for too long.
The problem is that many governments have waited too long to impose them, so they are needed for longer. :(

@ChloeDecker

Can anyone explain why the op is incorrect with figures?

React study sounds current?

The government figure is at it stands correct as from 27th November
The OP’s estimate is for a short period two weeks before.

Did the government figure reflect lower R in that period?

Or do they not release that frequently - what length of time do they use?

The react study information published today estimated r of 0.88

www.imperial.ac.uk/news/209713/coronavirus-prevalence-fallen-nationally-with-below/

@notevenat20

R is now around 0.71 and the case numbers are dropping rapidly (hooray!). It seems obvious this huge improvement has been caused by the lockdown. But schools were open the whole time. It's also therefore clear that schools cannot have been the main cause of the second wave.

Possibly that's true.

But I'd like to know why the case numbers in school children dropped even more over half term and rose again as soon as schools opened?

Cases are dropping though aren’t they - 30% down overall

The react study information published today estimated r of 0.88

That's not quite right. You need to read the Results section of the report www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/institute-of-global-health-innovation/imperial_react1_r7_interim.pdf . It says:

"Using only data from the most recent period, we estimate
an R number of 0.71 (0.54, 0.90). "

The 0.88 figure includes a period before the lockdown started to take effect.

Cases are dropping though aren’t they - 30% down overall

30% per week! That's where the estimate for R of 0.71 comes from.

The government figure is at it stands correct as from 27th November The OP’s estimate is for a short period two weeks before.

This is the wrong way round. My figure, which is in fact Imperial's figure, is for a short period since the lockdown took effect up to the present day. So it is more recent than the higher figure.