Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[Bikeman78]

Er, returning to the thread title, I'm wondering how scared I should be, specifically of travelling on the currently lightly loaded 165/6 turbos from my local station (Radley). Is anything known, or reasonably supposed, about whether the ventilation system either filters out, or recirculates, the virions which may be present in the air?

I wouldn't worry. The GWR 165s don't have air con and it hasn't worked properly on the 166s for 20 years!

 

[takno]

Well I agree it's all about R, and in particular keeping R<1.

But even if below 1, the lower the better.

And yes there are edge cases where 50% mask usage makes the difference between R<1 and R>1. But since R varies across the UK, we never know what R is and only have a rough idea what it has been over the last week or so, I don't see how that helps.

And none of this has anything to do with what you seemed to suggest, which as that as any individual is almost certainly not infected then there isn't much point in them wearing a mask.

In order for there to be edge cases where 50% mask usage made the difference between R<1 and R>1, mask usage would have to be at least somewhat effective. The apparently-esteemed Royal Society published a fresh literature review just this morning which (based on the detail rather than the misleading summary) confirmed that they aren't. The claim that it is people other than the wearer who the mask is failing to protect is really just cheap sopistry.

 

[AdamWW]

Er, returning to the thread title, I'm wondering how scared I should be, specifically of travelling on the currently lightly loaded 165/6 turbos from my local station (Radley). Is anything known, or reasonably supposed, about whether the ventilation system either filters out, or recirculates, the virions which may be present in the air?

At the given infection rates, I don't think anybody should be particularly concerned about using public transport.

I think I worked out that if estimated rates continue as they are, on average someone has a 3% chance of becoming infected over a year. This is based on modelling for the number of infections per day, not on positive tests, so many of those will have it so mildly they will even never know they had it unless they get a test.

This is only true if cases don't start to rise, so (in my view) there is good cause for keeping restrictions at present. But they should be seen for what they are - there to prevent exponential increase from starting up again, not because venturing out of the house is such a dangerous business these days.

As for ventilation - the current consensus seems to be that the main risk is from droplets which travel relatively short distances. There is some evidence that it may be circulated more widely via ventilation systems. My personal view is that if this was a big problem we'd have a lot more evidence of it by now and there wouldn't be much doubt.

I believe National Express have installed UV filtering on the air conditioning system on their coaches, presumaby as a precautionary/reassurance measure. I read an article in Modern Railways a few months ago suggesting that it would be fairly cheap to install on trains (though you'd lose a couple of seats for the kit) and that the author having seen the state of air conditioning ducts on trains, it might not be a bad idea anyway.

 

[LAX54]

Is there any proof masks actually work ? as far as I can see they seem to make little or no difference ! I am sure the good people if Leicester were doing their bit, but seemingly pointless ? we also have to bear inm mind those actually affected by thsi which is less than 2% of the UK Pop, and those that have it seriously, less than 0.5% ! Yet the World, as we have all read what FB / Twitter / 24 hr news spread, has gone into melt down, and looks like spiraling out of control, with millions out of work, thousands if not millions suffering depression, and all that brings

 

[Huntergreed]

Is there any proof masks actually work ? as far as I can see they seem to make little or no difference ! I am sure the good people if Leicester were doing their bit, but seemingly pointless ? we also have to bear inm mind those actually affected by thsi which is less than 2% of the UK Pop, and those that have it seriously, less than 0.5% ! Yet the World, as we have all read what FB / Twitter / 24 hr news spread, has gone into melt down, and looks like spiraling out of control, with millions out of work, thousands if not millions suffering depression, and all that brings

There's very limited weak evidence that they have any effect on transmission in the community, as all tests seem to have been conducted in clinical settings (with clinical masks, not 'face coverings')

In my view that does not justify mandating them in any community setting at all.

 

[LAX54]

There's very limited weak evidence that they have any effect on transmission in the community, as all tests seem to have been conducted in clinical settings (with clinical masks, not 'face coverings')

In my view that does not justify mandating them in any community setting at all.

There are 10 of us on shift here, (40+ all told) we have had masks for sometime now, although no one has worn any to date, yet since Feb/March, not one member of staff have has the virus, a couple went off, 'thinking' they had it, but turns out they did not, 2m cannot be maintained, neither can 1m sometimes, so we have had mixing, obviously family mixing, and like 99% of the population. no virus.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Just saw somebody cycling in the pitch black with no lights on the wrong side of the road while texting on his mobile phone and not wearing a helmet. However I was glad to see that he was wearing a face mask as that shows he understands danger and is willing to take precautions...

split sides

 

[AdamWW]

There are 10 of us on shift here, (40+ all told) we have had masks for sometime now, although no one has worn any to date, yet since Feb/March, not one member of staff have has the virus, a couple went off, 'thinking' they had it, but turns out they did not, 2m cannot be maintained, neither can 1m sometimes, so we have had mixing, obviously family mixing, and like 99% of the population. no virus.

But that's not the point, is it?

The best estimate is that a very small fraction population currently have it.

But - unless we've somehow built up considerable immunity in the population despite the lockdown, then without precautions those people will be the start of an exponential increase and soon it's running rife again.

And in that case the only way to prevent that happening is for enough people to do the right thing, even though the chance of any individual actually needing to do so is very small.

The point (or at least in my view it should be) of all the "Covid-secure" stuff is not to protect individual staff members/customers, it's part of the national effort to keep the lid on coronavirus.

Now, if you'd said that someone you worked with had had it, and yet not passed it on to anyone else, that would be much more interesting.

 

[LAX54]

But that's not the point, is it?

The best estimate is that a very small fraction population currently have it.

But - unless we've somehow built up considerable immunity in the population despite the lockdown, then without precautions those people will be the start of an exponential increase and soon it's running rife again.

And in that case the only way to prevent that happening is for enough people to do the right thing, even though the chance of any individual actually needing to do so is very small.

The point (or at least in my view it should be) of all the "Covid-secure" stuff is not to protect individual staff members/customers, it's part of the national effort to keep the lid on coronavirus.

Now, if you'd said that someone you worked with had had it, and yet not passed it on to anyone else, that would be much more interesting.

Carry on the way we are, then you cannot build up immunity, as everyone is locked away. stuck behind pointless masks etc. you can indeed keep the lid on as long as you want, if you are prepared for the consequences that follow, which as many have said are far more worrying than the virus itself, as you say it is only a very few that have it, have ever had it, and those that have, a minority have sadly passed away, had this been a very bad bout of influenza, we would have carried on as normal FB / Twitter would not have spread panic around the world, the figures would have been hight, but just a statistic, as in other bad years, which have been in the 20K's and 30K's and no one took any notice, except those involved of course. you have to have contact to get immunity

 

[AdamWW]

Carry on the way we are, then you cannot build up immunity, as everyone is locked away. stuck behind pointless masks etc. you can indeed keep the lid on as long as you want, if you are prepared for the consequences that follow, which as many have said are far more worrying than the virus itself, as you say it is only a very few that have it, have ever had it, and those that have, a minority have sadly passed away, had this been a very bad bout of influenza, we would have carried on as normal FB / Twitter would not have spread panic around the world, the figures would have been hight, but just a statistic, as in other bad years, which have been in the 20K's and 30K's and no one took any notice, except those involved of course. you have to have contact to get immunity

So basically, starting with Wuhan, government reactions and scientific advice have been an over-reaction driven by social media hysteria because this disease was seen as scary, and if we'd just let it rip in the UK a few tens of thousands would have died and then we'd have got enough immunity and it would have gone away?

We are living in different worlds, I think.

And I didn't say it's only a few that have had it. It's only a few that have it now, thanks almost certainly to the lockdown.

 

[LAX54]

So basically, starting with Wuhan, government reactions and scientific advice have been an over-reaction driven by social media hysteria because this disease was seen as scary, and if we'd just let it rip in the UK a few tens of thousands would have died and then we'd have got enough immunity and it would have gone away?

We are living in different worlds, I think.

And I didn't say it's only a few that have had it. It's only a few that have it now, thanks almost certainly to the lockdown.

I think with many the opinion is a resounding 'yes' as to over reaction, you only have to look at posts on here and of course FB and Twitter

 

[AdamWW]

I'm not saying people aren't over-reacting.

But I don't think that the actions governments (including China) took were largely based on media hysteria either.

Imposing a lockdown cannot be an easy decision to make and is not one done lightly.

Much as people might want to believe that it's just like flu and the only difference is how we've reacted, it just isn't true.

 

[Enthusiast]

And in that case the only way to prevent that happening is for enough people to do the right thing, even though the chance of any individual actually needing to do so is very small.

Alas "doing the right thing" has involved crippling large parts of the economy, some possibly irrevocably. Continuing to "do the right thing" will cripple much of what is left. "Social Distancing" will make large numbers of establishments completely unviable. There are already tales of places not re-opening under the current "guidance" because they cannot break even, let alone make a profit. Buses are running round with a limit of 25% of their capacity. Fine at the moment. Not so fine when people go back to work (if they have a job to go to) and the schools resume (if they ever do). The fallout is already beginning to take shape and it's not pretty. The two strategies (lockdown/no lockdown) will probably see a similar number of deaths (when non-Covid avoidable deaths are incorporated). But lockdown has produced economic, social and health damage many times the level that no lockdown would have.

So basically, starting with Wuhan, government reactions and scientific advice have been an over-reaction driven by social media hysteria because this disease was seen as scary, and if we'd just let it rip in the UK a few tens of thousands would have died and then we'd have got enough immunity and it would have gone away?

You are correct (though I'm not sure social media was entirely to blame) except that the virus would not have gone away. I've previously mentioned the 1968 Hong Kong 'Flu outbreak. It killed far more people worldwide than Covid-19 and a similar number to Covid in the UK. I don't think it even got much of a mention in Parliament IIRC. That virus is still around, present in many of the "ordinary" 'flu strains we have today.

We are living in different worlds, I think.

I think we are. Mine is a world where I don't expect to live forever, I don't expect the government to be able to protect me from all known diseases and I don't expect them to close the economy for three months in an attempt to do so. Mine is also a world where I know that bad stuff happens but where I am not going to remain in some sort of "survival limbo" for the rest of my life. I'm certainly not adapting readily to any sort of "new normal".

 

[AdamWW]

Alas "doing the right thing" has involved crippling large parts of the economy, some possibly irrevocably. Continuing to "do the right thing" will cripple much of what is left. "Social Distancing" will make large numbers of establishments completely unviable. There are already tales of places not re-opening under the current "guidance" because they cannot break even, let alone make a profit. Buses are running round with a limit of 25% of their capacity. Fine at the moment. Not so fine when people go back to work (if they have a job to go to) and the schools resume (if they ever do). The fallout is already beginning to take shape and it's not pretty. The two strategies (lockdown/no lockdown) will probably see a similar number of deaths (when non-Covid avoidable deaths are incorporated). But lockdown has produced economic, social and health damage many times the level that no lockdown would have.

You are correct (though I'm not sure social media was entirely to blame) except that the virus would not have gone away. I've previously mentioned the 1968 Hong Kong 'Flu outbreak. It killed far more people worldwide than Covid-19 and a similar number to Covid in the UK. I don't think it even got much of a mention in Parliament IIRC. That virus is still around, present in many of the "ordinary" 'flu strains we have today.


I think we are. Mine is a world where I don't expect to live forever, I don't expect the government to be able to protect me from all known diseases and I don't expect them to close the economy for three months in an attempt to do so. Mine is also a world where I know that bad stuff happens but where I am not going to remain in some sort of "survival limbo" for the rest of my life. I'm certainly not adapting readily to any sort of "new normal".

We have other differences in viewpoint.

For example I don't want to draw conclusions by comparing the number killed overall by Hong Kong flu worldwide with those killed so far in a pandemic that almost certainly has a long way to run.

The CDC seems to estimate that Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000 in th US. For Covid-19 they say 131,065 so far - and that's with various approaches to lockdown across the US. A quick look also doesn't suggest people with long term conditions from contracting Hong Kong Flu - this seems to be quite likely with Covid-19 and is what has been seen for similar coronaviruses. So concentrating just on deaths may not be right.

I'd be curious as to your logic for "The two strategies (lockdown/no lockdown) will probably see a similar number of deaths" - not that we'd ever know, of course. Some people seem to be making the assumption that deaths caused by unavailability of the NHS for non-Covid cases are a peculiar feature of the lockdown, but I can't see that the NHS would have been in a good position to do much else if it had to deal with the sort of loading it would have got without a lockdown.

I also think you're overestimating the difference between the lockdown/no lockdown scenario, because people would have taken things into their own hands to a large extent and it's likely we'd have seen many restaurants, cinemas, pubs etc. closing down because not enough people were preapared to visit them. (Even if down to media hysteria not rational decisions, the end result is the same).

The counter-example of course is Sweden - perhaps different because they took what action they did at a much earlier level (infection-wise) than the UK.

Like you, I don't expect the government to close the economy to protect me from all known diseases or expect that it's practical or sensible to continue the current measures indefinitely. Where we disagree I think is whether the lockdown was an irrational measure driven by modern sensibilities and hysteria, or a genuine attempt based on scientific advice to do the least worst thing. To some extent, time will tell. If there is no vaccine or treatment, and track and trace can't be made to work, then it will rather have been in vain.

This is an interesting discussion though.

 

[MikeWM]

The CDC seems to estimate that Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000 in th US. For Covid-19 they say 131,065 so far - and that's with various approaches to lockdown across the US. A quick look also doesn't suggest people with long term conditions from contracting Hong Kong Flu - this seems to be quite likely with Covid-19 and is what has been seen for similar coronaviruses. So concentrating just on deaths may not be right.

Don't know why the US got away with that particular one better than the UK. The UK estimate is 80,000 (equal to 100,000 today after population growth). Also, all flus can and do result in long term conditions and complications in serious cases (eg. see the mention of lung scarring in the article below).

Here's a good article (from the New York Post, of all places! Don't think I've ever recommended anything from the NYP before) about the impact, or lack thereof, of HK flu in the USA.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/

Nathaniel Moir, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, said there were few precautions taken during the H3N2 pandemic other than washing hands and staying home when sick.

“It was like the pandemic hadn’t even happened if you look for it in history books,” he said. “I am still shocked at how differently people addressed — or maybe even ignored it — in 1968 compared to 2020.”

The virus rarely made front-page news. A 1968 story in the Associated Press warned that deaths caused by the Hong Kong flu “more than doubled across the nation in the third week of December.” But the story was buried on Page 24. The New York Post didn’t publish any stories about the pandemic in 1968, and in 1969, coverage was mostly minor, like reports of newly married couples delaying honeymoons because of the virus and the Yonkers police force calling in sick with the Hong Kong flu during wage negotiations.

I think the people of the 1960s were rather better at this than the current generation

 

[AdamWW]

Don't know why the US got away with that particular one better than the UK. The UK estimate is 80,000 (equal to 100,000 today after population growth). Also, all flus can and do result in long term conditions and complications in serious cases (eg. see the mention of lung scarring in the article below).

Here's a good article (from the New York Post, of all places! Don't think I've ever recommended anything from the NYP before) about the impact, or lack thereof, of HK flu in the USA.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/


I think the people of the 1960s were rather better at this than the current generation

Hmmm. Rather odd - they say it's too soon to make the comparison, then do make the comparison anyway and they say H3N2 (Hong Kong Flu) is deadlier than COVID-19 (by comparing numbers of deaths so far - they're not taking about fatality rates), then they say COVID-19 will likely kill more people even with global shutdown.

Anyway I don't buy the idea they seem to be suggesting that that lockdown is just some modern whim and being tried out as some grand social experiment.

We saw the lockdown in Wuhan and the reaction in the West was generally that it couldn't happen here no matter how bad things were - we don't do things like that.

Then Italy saw their health system start to collapse and ran out of options.

In the UK the government wasn't planning on following suit - supported by scientific advice that a lockdown just postpones the inevitable, doesn't avoid it. Then the numbers from Italy suggested that if we didn't take action our health system would collapse too.

Now maybe the UK would have been pushed into lockdown anyway by public pressure. After all, the best numbers we had at the time were suggesting a plausible worst case of half a million dead. And that's not the result of some complex discredited model, it's just the very simple calculation based on the best values at the time of R (which tells you what infection level is needed for herd immunity) and the death rate. (And not even allowing for the death rate going up if the health system isn't coping).

Could the government have pursued a policy like that? Admittedly they didn't actually annouce the numbers, but the sums were extremely easy to do.

If we're looking for a difference between 1968 and now, it's perhaps the access we all have to information. The government could have announced their "herd immunity" strategy and we wouldn't all be able to look up the death rate and R value in Italy. Between them the politicians and media got to set the agenda. Have people changed so much that in 1968 if the government seemed to be embarking on a plan that could see half a million of the UK population dead the population would have been quite sanguine about the idea? My guess would be no.

I don't see any evidence in the article to suggest that the Hong Kong flu overwhelmed hospitals - we don't know that would have happened here without a lockdown but it is very likely. Maybe in 1968 that wouldn't be seen as important news but it certainly would now.

 

[MikeWM]

Hmmm. Rather odd - they say it's too soon to make the comparison, then do make the comparison anyway and they say H3N2 (Hong Kong Flu) is deadlier than COVID-19 (by comparing numbers of deaths so far - they're not taking about fatality rates), then they say COVID-19 will likely kill more people even with global shutdown.

Well, it is the New York Post! I was more interested in the interviews (which are most of the article) than the quasi-opinion parts.

I didn't realise they had a (potential) outbreak on Apollo 8, for example!

Anyway I don't buy the idea they seem to be suggesting that that lockdown is just some modern whim and being tried out as some grand social experiment.

Well, it hasn't happened before, anywhere, in modern times, and then suddenly most of the countries of the world have done it, simultaneously. There has to be some reason for that - and it can't be the virus itself, as there's nothing particularly unusual about it that hasn't happened a number of times already in the last 100 years. I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions as to what is happening here.

If we're looking for a difference between 1968 and now, it's perhaps the access we all have to information. The government could have announced their "herd immunity" strategy and we wouldn't all be able to look up the death rate and R value in Italy. Between them the politicians and media got to set the agenda. Have people changed so much that in 1968 if the government seemed to be embarking on a plan that could see half a million of the UK population dead the population would have been quite sanguine about the idea? My guess would be no.

Again, they managed to do so in Sweden. There were many people predicting doom and a similar proportion of the population dead there too.

In any event, the people of 1968 didn't seem to think it was the job of government to protect them from a virus, and I believe they were entirely right then (and entirely wrong now). This is a public health issue, not a political issue. Per one interviewee in that NYP article : “That generation approached viruses with calm, rationality and intelligence,” he said. “We left disease mitigation to medical professionals, individuals and families, rather than politics, politicians and government.”

I don't see any evidence in the article to suggest that the Hong Kong flu overwhelmed hospitals - we don't know that would have happened here without a lockdown but it is very likely. Maybe in 1968 that wouldn't be seen as important news but it certainly would now.

I'm being a bit of a broken record, but Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals. We built the Nightingale hospitals for exactly this purpose, one of the few things this government has done right. If the extra capacity was needed, it was there in time to be used.

 

[AdamWW]

Well, it is the New York Post! I was more interested in the interviews (which are most of the article) than the quasi-opinion parts.

I didn't realise they had a (potential) outbreak on Apollo 8, for example!

Well, it hasn't happened before, anywhere, in modern times, and then suddenly most of the countries of the world have done it, simultaneously. There has to be some reason for that - and it can't be the virus itself, as there's nothing particularly unusual about it that hasn't happened a number of times already in the last 100 years. I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions as to what is happening here.

Yes very interesting for Apollo 8. Having seen how many people got close to the recent astronauts heading up to the ISS, I'd say there was a fair chance they could have caught it - with potentially very bad consequences.

Anyway my conclusion is that it is the virus itself, and it has a very dangerous combination of a relatively high fatality rate and high ability for asymptomatic individuals to spread it. The evidence that it's just "a bad flu" generally seems to come from comparing fatality rates with lockdown for Covid-19 against those without lockdown for other viruses, i.e. a false comparison. I think there is something particularly unusual about it.

We didn't lockdown for SARS, MERS or Swine Flu. Nor did China. They did for this, and the reaction in the West at first certainly wasn't "Oh we'd better do the same if it comes our way". Quite the reverse.

And the Chinese government is driven by very different considerations to western governments. We've seen lockdowns across different cultures too. What is in common in all these cases? The virus itself.

I'm being a bit of a broken record, but Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals. We built the Nightingale hospitals for exactly this purpose, one of the few things this government has done right. If the extra capacity was needed, it was there in time to be used.

Yes you're quite right about Sweden. But it's not a direct comparison for many reasons. (They probably have better hospital provision for a start).

I'll do my broken record bit now. We now have a far less harsh set of restrictions than when the lockdown started, and we still seem to be just about keeping R at 1. That says to me that unless herd immunity is now playing a big role, if we'd started early enough, we could have done this all along. It doesn't mean though that if we hadn't taken much more drastic action to pull R right down when we did have a lockdown, we wouldn't have had a lot more deaths.

Now maybe it spreads even more than people think and we have a much higher immunity level. Good news in a way, but perhaps yes the lockdown was too severe.

But this is all with hindsight - you can only make decisions based on what you know.

And as for the Nightingales...maybe...the hospitals were (and are) there but it was never clear to me how they would get proper staffing for them. I hope we don't find out. It worked in China by pulling large numbers of staff from other parts of the country, so far as I know. So perhaps we could now fire up one Nightingale to deal with a local outbreak. But all of them at once?

Fascinating discussion this, anyway.

 

[sheff1]

I seem to remember that in the run up to enforcing masks on public transport, much of the government's messaging was that masks were there to "reassure" passengers that public transport was safe.

Yet, linking back to the title of this thread, I think it has had the opposite effect on many people who are now scared to use public transport as they see that you have to wear a mask which must surely mean it is a dangerous environment where you are very likely to catch the virus - masks have long been seen as 'protective gear' and they 'know' you only need to wear protective gear if what you are about to do or encounter is (potentially) dangerous.

 

[yorkie]

we still seem to be just about keeping R at 1.

If the R value is as high as 1, how come cases have fallen so much?

That says to me that unless herd immunity is now playing a big role

This is actually a possibility in some places, particularly London.

if we'd started early enough, we could have done this all along.

I agree totally!

Now maybe it spreads even more than people think and we have a much higher immunity level. Good news in a way..

Those people who claimed the entire population had zero immunity were very much mistaken, based on the evidence that is now coming to light.

Fascinating discussion this, anyway.

Very true!

 

[AdamWW]

If the R value is as high as 1, how come cases have fallen so much?

Because R was much lower during the full lockdown, but has now risen as things have been relaxed?

At any rate that would seems to explain it without having to invoke a significant level of increased immunity.

If cases are falling and R values around 1 are being quoted, then something is amiss, because R must be being calculated from the case numbers.

The graphs I've seen do seem to suggest that cases are no longer dropping off that much.

The good news is that so far the relaxations don't seem to be pushing R above 1. What will happen they do is an interesting question.

The advantage I suppose of still having a fair number of cases a day is that increases in R will become apparent relatively quickly.

 

[yorkie]

Because R was much lower during the full lockdown, but has now risen as things have been relaxed?

If the R value is 1, how does that explain the article linked to by @Yew in the Good News Stories thread?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/covid-19-good-news-stories.204651/page-2#post-4661217

 

[AdamWW]

If the R value is 1, how does that explain the article linked to by @Yew in the Good News Stories thread?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/covid-19-good-news-stories.204651/page-2#post-4661217

I think the explanation is that these values have large uncertainties in them as they are based on extrapolating small numbers of positive tests, and journalists are quoting changes that aren't actually significant as if they are.

At the end the article says: "...the ONS said the figures suggest the "incidence of new infections appears to have decreased since mid-May and has now levelled off". " (my bold).

In other words, R was below 1 and is now around 1.

 

[Richard Scott]

The R value is getting pointless now with such low rates of infection. It's bound to fluctuate and tend towards 1 as numbers get smaller. Basic maths really.

 

[AdamWW]

The R value is getting pointless now with such low rates of infection. It's bound to fluctuate and tend towards 1 as numbers get smaller. Basic maths really.

OK fine but if the numbers are too small to know what R is, that also means they are too small to have a good handle on whether overall infections are falling, rising, or staying the same.

I don't follow your logic that it will tend towards 1 though. Won't it just fluctuate wildly?

 

[yorkie]

Yes it's down to media reporting and yes when you have very low numbers, and you are also only testing a proportion of the population with a large margin of error, it's going to fluctuate and be difficult to measure.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes it's down to media reporting and yes when you have very low numbers, and you are also only testing a proportion of the population with a large margin of error, it's going to fluctuate and be difficult to measure.

Incidentally, and anecdotally, someone I know who is on the Oxford study said he was told that each person tested counts as two tests because they swap the nose and throat (even though it uses one swab...)

 

[43066]

Agreed. However, an estimated 78,000 people die from smoking in the UK each year. If the government wants to save lives and cut down the workload for the NHS then banning smoking immediately would be an obvious thing to do. It beats me why anyone does it any more. It was well known in the 1980s how harmful it was.

The government doesn’t ban smoking because cigarettes are a healthy source of tax revenue!

 

[PHILIPE]

"When the second wave comes". This is a message you hear time and time again from Politicians, Healthcare Professionals and Armchair commentators.

 

[bramling]

"When the second wave comes". This is a message you hear time and time again from Politicians, Healthcare Professionals and Armchair commentators.

In the latter case normally accompanied with “straight back to full lockdown”. I provoked a bit of a storm on my local Facebook page with the mere suggestion that a second lockdown is unviable.