Independent Leyton Orient Forum

It is a certainty.......as certain that day follows night, that the number of infections, and deaths will go up and up from now, especially in London.
No wonder the other three countries in the UK have not followed Johnson folly .....3242 more people infected in the last 24 hours.
I hope the history books of 50 yrs time show Johnson as an incompetent, and the government he leads as clueless.

Out of interest does anybody know whether the infection rate over the past two weeks has fallen?

I'm guessing that we probably won't see any effect from today's changes to what society can do for another week or so.

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:13 pm Out of interest does anybody know whether the infection rate over the past two weeks has fallen?

I'm guessing that we probably won't see any effect from today's changes to what society can do for another week or so.

It's certainly started to fall over the last week but it's difficult to tell the real impact because testing numbers have gone in fits and starts the real measure would be to post a % of cases testing positive and then number of tests is less relevant.

I will try and find the graphs with number of new cases and post it.

I've seen a chart that lists the R value as 0.84 and at/around that level since 2 April. It's in a LinkedIn post by a data analyst though so no idea how to get that on here

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:29 pm It is a certainty.......as certain that day follows night, that the number of infections, and deaths will go up and up from now, especially in London.
No wonder the other three countries in the UK have not followed Johnson folly .....3242 more people infected in the last 24 hours.
I hope the history books of 50 yrs time show Johnson as an incompetent, and the government he leads as clueless.

That figure is on a downward trend though.

There are Figures/Graphs for England here:-

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

As always there is a lag in the numbers being updated but the trend is obvious.

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:12 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:11 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:34 am I hope that all the people I've seen in the news today; crowds using London Transport WITHOUT even basic masks; clap twice as hard tomorrow night for the lives of NHS and Transport Workers whose lives they are risking.

Complete and utter selfish, idiotic arseholes!

Excellent. Blaming the working classes for the next spike. Just what Cummings and Johnson want.

The fact is though that these arseholes will indeed be as equally to blame for any spike.

Whether they are working class or not, doesn't even come into it.

Why are they arseholes? Communication of it as a policy has been terrible and it's been emphasised again and again since this crisis started that the benefits are marginal at best. Hardly gonna be 'equally' to blame compared to this trainwreck of a government.

Looks like a reliable antibody test has been found.

That'll be the next thing people are screeching about when the entire world is trying to buy it

Will be exclusive.

ONS survey data reports that 0.27% of respondents have been infected with Covid-19. That's a miniscule percentage which, based on a rounded population of 68million, extrapolates to 204k people in Great Britain. I've calculated that based on 0.3% and caveat this by highlighting that I'm aware that the confidence range will likely be a bit more than +/- 0.03 and the sample size is still very very low.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52662066

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 5:42 pm ONS survey data reports that 0.27% of respondents have been infected with Covid-19. That's a miniscule percentage which, based on a rounded population of 68million, extrapolates to 204k people in Great Britain. I've calculated that based on 0.3% and caveat this by highlighting that I'm aware that the confidence range will likely be a bit more than +/- 0.03 and the sample size is still very very low.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52662066

I thought the same when I first read it, because it would also mean a very large death rate.

But I think it is a survey of the number of people estimated to HAVE it over a period of 2 weeks up to the point of end of survey 10th May, rather than HAVE HAD it.

faldO wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 5:58 pm

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 5:42 pm ONS survey data reports that 0.27% of respondents have been infected with Covid-19. That's a miniscule percentage which, based on a rounded population of 68million, extrapolates to 204k people in Great Britain. I've calculated that based on 0.3% and caveat this by highlighting that I'm aware that the confidence range will likely be a bit more than +/- 0.03 and the sample size is still very very low.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52662066

I thought the same when I first read it, because it would also mean a very large death rate.

But I think it is a survey of the number of people estimated to HAVE it over a period of 2 weeks up to the point of end of survey 10th May, rather than HAVE HAD it.

Yep, that's right - it's the two weeks to 10 May. But if the death rate is truly around the 1% mark of those infected then that means approx 2k deaths in the past two weeks. Need to cross reference that.

Sample size is tiny though in the grand scheme and not sure of how it has been sampled (presumably nat rep, but how nat rep can you really be at 11k for something this serious). Think we'd need 68k minimum sample and ideally around 350k before we can look at infection proportion. Also cannot work out the confidence range as I can't see any way of working out the standard deviation without the ONS making this data available.

The private firm contracted to run the government’s stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) was beset by “chaos” at its warehouse that may have resulted in delays in deploying vital supplies to healthcare workers:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-movianto

This Tory Govt. once again, have blood on their hands.

SCUM!

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:51 pm The private firm contracted to run the government’s stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) was beset by “chaos” at its warehouse that may have resulted in delays in deploying vital supplies to healthcare workers:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-movianto

This Tory Govt. once again, have blood on their hands.

SCUM!

You are quite correct.

No-one has really explained what the point of 100,000 tests a day actually is. I mean, what does it show, or prove? It can only show if you currently have the virus. So what? You could catch it by the time you’ve got home from the testing station. Are we supposed to tested every day?

And the antibody test - it can show that you’ve had the virus, but it doesn’t mean that you now have immunity to it from a repeat infection, because we don’t yet know if that’s how it the virus works. Again, what’s the point?

The only thing that’s going to be effective is a vaccine, and we’ll be waiting at least a year for that. The next 12 months minimum will be a repeat cycle of restrictions, lifting and reimposing them again. Once people get complacent again the infections and deaths will rise again and the lockdown, such as the half-arsed efforts we’ve had here so far, will be put in place again. We can expect this til at least this time next year. Fun times ahead.

The main point seems to be that we can then isolate people who test positive and prevent further spread.

If we can get the numbers of infected down enough and keep it there, itll be easier to trace and eliminate. We should have done this from the start of course.

Just read that the R rate in London is the lowest in the country at 0.4

Stowaway wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:01 pm
The only thing that’s going to be effective is a vaccine, and we’ll be waiting at least a year for that.

I've also read that a vaccine will be available in September and that a vaccine might never be available. Truth is, nobody knows yet (a) whether one will ever be developed, and (b) how long it might take to be generally available.

The vaccine developed in Oxford is reported to be going well, in that it seems safe (about 1000 people on the trial) but for those on the trial it's proving hard to catch covid-19 so they're not sure whether it works. It's raising the interesting ethical question of whether people on the trial should be deliberately infected.

faldO wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:21 pm

Stowaway wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:01 pm
The only thing that’s going to be effective is a vaccine, and we’ll be waiting at least a year for that.

I've also read that a vaccine will be available in September and that a vaccine might never be available. Truth is, nobody knows yet (a) whether one will ever be developed, and (b) how long it might take to be generally available.

The vaccine developed in Oxford is reported to be going well, in that it seems safe (about 1000 people on the trial) but for those on the trial it's proving hard to catch covid-19 so they're not sure whether it works. It's raising the interesting ethical question of whether people on the trial should be deliberately infected.

I’ve also heard that a vaccine shouldn’t be that hard to come up with, because the virus is fairly defined in its make-up and not especially complex. But vaccines can still take years to develop, with testing being the longest part, and there’s going to be pressure to maybe rush the testing through to get it out there, and that’s never a good way to do it. My ex was the ward manager at the hospital where the Parexel drug trial volunteers ended up (Google it) and that wasn’t fun at all.

Stowaway wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:17 am

faldO wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:21 pm

Stowaway wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:01 pm
The only thing that’s going to be effective is a vaccine, and we’ll be waiting at least a year for that.

I've also read that a vaccine will be available in September and that a vaccine might never be available. Truth is, nobody knows yet (a) whether one will ever be developed, and (b) how long it might take to be generally available.

The vaccine developed in Oxford is reported to be going well, in that it seems safe (about 1000 people on the trial) but for those on the trial it's proving hard to catch covid-19 so they're not sure whether it works. It's raising the interesting ethical question of whether people on the trial should be deliberately infected.

I’ve also heard that a vaccine shouldn’t be that hard to come up with, because the virus is fairly defined in its make-up and not especially complex. But vaccines can still take years to develop, with testing being the longest part, and there’s going to be pressure to maybe rush the testing through to get it out there, and that’s never a good way to do it. My ex was the ward manager at the hospital where the Parexel drug trial volunteers ended up (Google it) and that wasn’t fun at all.

I tried to sign up forsome testing at the glaxo hospital in Rickmansworth a few years ago.
Got knocked back for it though.

At the time it was 2/3rds more on top of my wage & was properly gutted .

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:19 pm Just read that the R rate in London is the lowest in the country at 0.4

To back this up (via the Beeb)...



Fewer than 24 people are catching coronavirus each day in London, modelling suggests, with forecasts predicting the virus could be wiped out in the capital within a fortnight, according to the Daily Telegraph. Analysis by Cambridge University estimates the R reproduction rate of the virus to have fallen to 0.4 in London, with the number of new cases halving every 3.5 days.

Torygraph fake news

HeyO wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:42 am Torygraph fake news

Csmbridge University fake news too?