Coronavirus - Part Two.

[alchresearch 208]

So Andy Burnham wants people to get compensation from Scotland because of the travel ban.

 

How about Greater Manchester compensating the rest of the UK because of all the grotty little towns in it where the Delta variant surged and delayed lockdown ending?

 

Andy Burnham demands ‘compensation’ from Nicola Sturgeon over travel ban

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-burnham-north-west-compensation-nicola-sturgeon-travel-ban-b1869262.html

[melthebell 862]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

As I was waking along Great George St in London on Saturday, came across the Freedom/AntiVax people were marching/protesting.

Two police officers. Two police cars. Less than a hundred protestors having to walk on the footway.

 

Lost cause. 

 

It was NEVER a "proper" cause.

2 hours ago, butlers said:

Just remembered my favourite ,covid " sceptics" FACT.

Not sure if it was this thread or a related one but the poster said Neil Fergusson ,one of the govs. advisors, said back in 2001 that "foot and. mouth would kill 150,000" people and he should not to be trusted.

 

Problem with this is ,he did not say it and more importantly foot and mouth is barely transmissible to humans and a non fatal disease 

 

But thats what they do, take something very simple, embellish it, magnify it and post it on the net, its the gullible simpletons that want to believe it so do, no fact checking involved at all.

 

its like the old adage of 2+2=6, very simple but if they want it to be it will (honest)

[HeHasRisen 3,367]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

So Andy Burnham wants people to get compensation from Scotland because of the travel ban.

 

 

...which in reality is absolutely unenforceable.

[butlers 259]

Proper social distancing.

 

Trump proposed sending Americans with Covid to Guantánamo, book claims

https://flip.it/ZwhLZ2

[hackey lad 3,928]

9 hours ago, top4718 said:

It’s time to butt out of the thread as it’s abundantly clear the Gov/media have achieved their goal and the scaremongering has worked, we now have a section of society that can’t see past the end of their nose and have been manipulated into thinking a virus that is highly unlikely to cause harm to anyone but the most vulnerable is the only health matter that should concern them whilst other ailments go through the roof, just proves what a selfish nation we’ve become. One latter story on the thread has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

 

I’ll bookmark the thread and have a read back in a few years when the hysteria has died down it’ll be hilarious.

 

Adios.

Praise the Lord.

[apelike 10]

12 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Praise the Lord.

I can now get back to posting here again as all that ping pong was a little too much for me.... 

Edited June 21, 2021 by apelike

[Guest makapaka]

predictions on date of next lockdown then?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-boris-johnson-says-its-looking-good-for-19-july-but-wont-rule-out-further-lockdowns-in-the-winter-12337719

 

ive previously said end of august in time for school returns after summer ?

 

anyone else?

[Carbuncle 0]

21 hours ago, Longcol said:

22 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Nahhh, that is just a random bit of nonsense. If you think there is no asymptomatic transmission how do you have a pandemic? ... other things being the same.

People with symptoms going to work because they can't afford not to - or just ignoring guidance?

I don't think so.

 

Here is a crude model that roughly resembles SARS-CoV-2 infection:
(1) R0 = 3 and time between generations = 1 week;
(2) Spread is exclusively by respiratory droplets, ie lets say no fomite or aerosol transmission;
(3) Infected people are infectious for 4 days (although symptoms last longer);
(4) Infected people who get symptoms are infectious for 2 days before symptoms show and 2 days after symptoms show. 30% of people who are infected never show symptoms.

 

Notice that R0 is very scary in terms of the growth of an unchecked epidemic but at a personal level it means very few contacts between the infectious and uninfected lead to transmission because in 4 days we each have lots of contacts yet on average we would infect only three of them if infectious. Also other than in a care environment it is actually quite easy to stop transmission if you're motivated ... just physically distance rigourously.

 

Here are two measures you can put in place:
(A) If you have symptoms then you should strongly self-isolate as soon as possible after symptoms start, so certainly within 1/2 day.
(B) When you can you should 'behave as though infected' so unless its unreasonable you should be physically distancing, etc.

 

(A) alone will fail to bring the reproduction number below 1 because asymptomatic transmission accounts for most infection. Therefore (B) although it is a really hard grind is necessary. On the other hand if we drop (4) in favour of a situation where there is no asymptomatic infection then (A) is more than sufficient.

 

Hmmmm ... that is quite a long explanation for me falling off my perch laughing at the obviously wrong-headed idea there was no asymptomatic transmission.

[butlers 259]

Feels like an Open University lecture, got me beat.

This little number I came across earlier from the CDC , of 1.1 million people using a monitoring  AP, once vaccinated only about 2,500 became reinfected and of those about 400 were hospitalized.

 Once this vaccine push is done ,I think that's it for wide restrictions

Track and trace can  work as the background level of infection will be low enough to be manageable.

I was wrong other day it was ba Sky interview not the Telegraph with a Prof saying that July 5th was an achieveable target for relaxing current restrictions 

 

 

 

 

 

[Longcol 592]

41 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I don't think so.

 

Here is a crude model that roughly resembles SARS-CoV-2 infection:
(1) R0 = 3 and time between generations = 1 week;
(2) Spread is exclusively by respiratory droplets, ie lets say no fomite or aerosol transmission;
(3) Infected people are infectious for 4 days (although symptoms last longer);
(4) Infected people who get symptoms are infectious for 2 days before symptoms show and 2 days after symptoms show. 30% of people who are infected never show symptoms.

 

Notice that R0 is very scary in terms of the growth of an unchecked epidemic but at a personal level it means very few contacts between the infectious and uninfected lead to transmission because in 4 days we each have lots of contacts yet on average we would infect only three of them if infectious. Also other than in a care environment it is actually quite easy to stop transmission if you're motivated ... just physically distance rigourously.

 

Here are two measures you can put in place:
(A) If you have symptoms then you should strongly self-isolate as soon as possible after symptoms start, so certainly within 1/2 day.
(B) When you can you should 'behave as though infected' so unless its unreasonable you should be physically distancing, etc.

 

(A) alone will fail to bring the reproduction number below 1 because asymptomatic transmission accounts for most infection. Therefore (B) although it is a really hard grind is necessary. On the other hand if we drop (4) in favour of a situation where there is no asymptomatic infection then (A) is more than sufficient.

 

Hmmmm ... that is quite a long explanation for me falling off my perch laughing at the obviously wrong-headed idea there was no asymptomatic transmission.

I'm quite comfortable that asymptomatic transmission is a factor in the spread of Covid - just wondering how often measures A & B don't happen ie people with symptoms, albeit mild enough for them to continue working, don't self isolate or behave as infected.

 

Does asymptomatic transmission account for most infection btw? This suggests a current (well March 21) best estimate of 30% .

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Longcol

[butlers 259]

Think I saw figure of 25% of transmission was by asymptomatic  carriers.

That was an american study.

 

[Carbuncle 0]

4 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I'm quite comfortable that asymptomatic transmission is a factor in the spread of Covid - just wondering how often measures A & B don't happen ie people with symptoms, albeit mild enough for them to continue working, don't self isolate or behave as infected.

I think people are pretty good about these things though obviously some people absolutely 'have to' work (there were care workers in the first wave who made the news doing this) and there are people who have to violate self-isolation to collect food for example.

 

7 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Does asymptomatic transmission account for most infection btw?

I would say "obviously" though gathering direct evidence is probably very difficult.

 

9 minutes ago, Longcol said:

This suggests a current (well March 21) best estimate of 30% .

I think you may have missed a link here.

3 minutes ago, butlers said:

Think I saw figure of 25% of transmission was by asymptomatic  carriers.

That was an american study.

 

Hold on I am treating pre-symptomatic individuals as capable of asymptomatic transmission.