FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Was it really the schools then?
Was it really the schools then?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down... "
How many times do you expect students to catch it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up.."
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I seem to remember Boris positively encouraging us all to celebrate the end of what was to become lockdown 1 on 4th or 14th July, then August a huge surge in cases. So mid Jan we'll all be ill!"
Maybe coming out of lockdown and into a tiered system will make a difference then? After lockdown v1 we hurried to get back to some kind of normality with eat out to help out etc; hopefully implementing the tier system with stricter regulations than last time shows that BoJo is finally learning from his mistakes... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds. "
They were talking about the estimates the government were throwing around.
Which as you numbers show were no where near right.
Hence the OPs original post |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up..
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds. "
It's from the ons study where they do random sampling and then project that over the whole country, it's an educated guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You do realise there is 3 sets of numbers to record ?
PHE’s analysis showed that 88% of deaths from covid-19 in England occurred within 28 days of a positive test result, while 96% occurred within 60 days or had covid-19 on the death certificate. As a result, rather than counting anyone who had ever tested positive as a covid associated death, PHE will now use two definitions of death with covid-19 in England.
The first definition is death within 28 days of the first covid positive swab date. The second is death of someone with a laboratory confirmed positive covid-19 test who either died within 60 days of the first swab or, if covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate, died more than 60 days after the first swab. PHE will now publish the 28 day figures daily and the 60 day figures weekly.
Missed deaths
The 28 day limit marks an improvement . . . but does exclude those who die more than a month after testing, even if they have covid on the death certificate. Including deaths up to 60 days, and later covid registered deaths, seems even better, but still excludes people who were not tested.
you will find the reference over at bmj |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up..
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds.
It's from the ons study where they do random sampling and then project that over the whole country, it's an educated guess"
Originally they were quoting around 80% were asymptomatic. Yesterday Whitty quoted 30% asymptomatic, obviously the testing of asymptomatic in Liverpool showed they had overestimated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down... "
As Boris says "we are all in it together " up to our necks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Originally they were quoting around 80% were asymptomatic. Yesterday Whitty quoted 30% asymptomatic, obviously the testing of asymptomatic in Liverpool showed they had overestimated."
The testing is flawed from day one
The legal action issued on 11 November4 comes as The BMJ publishes an evaluation of AbC-19 by Public Health England (PHE), finding that one in five people with positive results on the test could be wrongly told that they had covid-19.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down... As Boris says "we are all in it together " up to our necks "
we are up to our necks. But we definately are not in it altogether. Boris is a grade one idiot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up..
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds.
It's from the ons study where they do random sampling and then project that over the whole country, it's an educated guess
Originally they were quoting around 80% were asymptomatic. Yesterday Whitty quoted 30% asymptomatic, obviously the testing of asymptomatic in Liverpool showed they had overestimated."
Unfortunately we're still learning and we probably will be for a while yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up..
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds.
It's from the ons study where they do random sampling and then project that over the whole country, it's an educated guess
Originally they were quoting around 80% were asymptomatic. Yesterday Whitty quoted 30% asymptomatic, obviously the testing of asymptomatic in Liverpool showed they had overestimated.
Unfortunately we're still learning and we probably will be for a while yet."
Not sure why people can't understand "this is very new". It's barely 12 months since it started in China (and the rest of the world didn't know) and 10-11 months since the UK has been dealing with it in some form. From a science perspective, that's the blink of an eye. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago
The South |
"Well the figures and estimates make me question them all...there estimates of new cases nationally are in the 100,'s of 1000's..considering that its lower now than the peak before the 1st lockdown how many have really had it..we are talking almost 40 weeks of covid and they estimate 300,000+ cases nationwide per week that would mean 12 million to date or 1 in 6 of the population...not the figures there quoting....mind bogging how they try to state this and that but it doesn't add up..
Not sure where you got "hundreds of thousands" from, the highest number of daily cases I've seen has been around 25k. And during the lull inbetween lockdowns we got down to less than 1000 cases per day, sometimes in the low hundreds.
It's from the ons study where they do random sampling and then project that over the whole country, it's an educated guess
Originally they were quoting around 80% were asymptomatic. Yesterday Whitty quoted 30% asymptomatic, obviously the testing of asymptomatic in Liverpool showed they had overestimated.
Unfortunately we're still learning and we probably will be for a while yet.
Not sure why people can't understand "this is very new". It's barely 12 months since it started in China (and the rest of the world didn't know) and 10-11 months since the UK has been dealing with it in some form. From a science perspective, that's the blink of an eye."
This. ^
E |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally taking into account the way kids behave and the way teenagers appear not to give a toss about the rules I’d say schools spread it that’s for sure. We had a buffer down in the south as had more time to get over the first wave before schools returning so there was less to spread. Teachers are dropping like flies so I would say yes if schools had been included in the lockdown we would be in a far better position now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down... "
Not really proved anything here, not only have they closed pubs but there was a national lockdown, work from home, only essential travel, no mixing at all,etc etc. All these thing would have had an impact on cases. I would have thought it would have help reduce number more, but not in all areas obvilously. Hence the stronger tiers. Which has left me wondering why, if a lockdown didn't help those areas what makes the government think strong theirs will? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"According to latest statistics on the gov.uk covid page, cases for today are down to 16k, the R rate is between 0.9 and 1, and the growth rate is between -2% and 0%. This is compared to start of lockdown 2.0 when cases were upwards of 20k and R rate was around 1.1 - 1.3. Death rates are still high but those will be from cases that are a few weeks old.
So lockdown seems to be working then. Half term ended a few weeks ago so correct me if I'm wrong but we would have seen an increase in cases by now if they were caused by kids going back after half term. I seem to remember people claiming that pubs weren't to blame, and yet closing them has brought cases down...
Not really proved anything here, not only have they closed pubs but there was a national lockdown, work from home, only essential travel, no mixing at all,etc etc. All these thing would have had an impact on cases. I would have thought it would have help reduce number more, but not in all areas obvilously. Hence the stronger tiers. Which has left me wondering why, if a lockdown didn't help those areas what makes the government think strong theirs will? "
I do think schools are a major factor in the spread, not the only one of course. Using % positive tests as a measure you can compare the effect of different types of lockdowns in the different countries of the uk. They all seem to have worked even the previous tier sysyem in England to some extent. The most effective was the welsh fire break which included the schools being shut for longer over half term. Of course it was only a short lockdown and cases rebounded pretty much straight away but that is a different. matter |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its not the schools themselves, its the social mixing, which can be said for any indoor and outdoor area, we just cannot seem to be able to social distance properly. Indoors there are coronavirus rules in place and officials come out to make sure that the premises is adhering to it or a fine will be issued and If you are unhappy with the way your place of work is operating you can report it.
Inside houses its a free for all with no regulation apart from the neighbours and it will keep spreading freely for as long as we let it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Its not the schools themselves, its the social mixing, which can be said for any indoor and outdoor area, we just cannot seem to be able to social distance properly. Indoors there are coronavirus rules in place and officials come out to make sure that the premises is adhering to it or a fine will be issued and If you are unhappy with the way your place of work is operating you can report it.
Inside houses its a free for all with no regulation apart from the neighbours and it will keep spreading freely for as long as we let it."
I've been out to London/Shoreditch area a few times between lockdowns and there has literally been NO social distancing in most of the bars. The tables weren't even placed far enough apart to allow for it and there were always huge crowds outside (some of the ones we walked past were absolutely heaving inside too). I've been out to a few chain restaurants as well where the rules are pretty well maintained in terms of controlling the flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc but how are you meant to keep distanced from your mates when you're sitting at the same table? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its not the schools themselves, its the social mixing, which can be said for any indoor and outdoor area, we just cannot seem to be able to social distance properly. Indoors there are coronavirus rules in place and officials come out to make sure that the premises is adhering to it or a fine will be issued and If you are unhappy with the way your place of work is operating you can report it.
Inside houses its a free for all with no regulation apart from the neighbours and it will keep spreading freely for as long as we let it.
I've been out to London/Shoreditch area a few times between lockdowns and there has literally been NO social distancing in most of the bars. The tables weren't even placed far enough apart to allow for it and there were always huge crowds outside (some of the ones we walked past were absolutely heaving inside too). I've been out to a few chain restaurants as well where the rules are pretty well maintained in terms of controlling the flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc but how are you meant to keep distanced from your mates when you're sitting at the same table? "
You cannot in a nutshell.
I visited a pub restaurant but they grouped sittings together in the same section, yes the tables were apart but people were facing me from different directions and It was a step too far, pizza hut however had everyone in rows and it felt a lot more controlled, the best I've seen so far is a cafe who have clear plastic screened the individual booths from each other, the front is open for table service 
I tend to look in the window now and make my decision from there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its not the schools themselves, its the social mixing, which can be said for any indoor and outdoor area, we just cannot seem to be able to social distance properly. Indoors there are coronavirus rules in place and officials come out to make sure that the premises is adhering to it or a fine will be issued and If you are unhappy with the way your place of work is operating you can report it.
Inside houses its a free for all with no regulation apart from the neighbours and it will keep spreading freely for as long as we let it.
I've been out to London/Shoreditch area a few times between lockdowns and there has literally been NO social distancing in most of the bars. The tables weren't even placed far enough apart to allow for it and there were always huge crowds outside (some of the ones we walked past were absolutely heaving inside too). I've been out to a few chain restaurants as well where the rules are pretty well maintained in terms of controlling the flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc but how are you meant to keep distanced from your mates when you're sitting at the same table? "
Yet 'they' still insist London has a relatively low rate, to keep it in tier two 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Schools in this area (Kent) seem to react quick if there’s a case by sending home the whole year however by the time the case is confirmed by a test the individual can well have had contact with tens or hundreds depending on the size of the school.
Once these kids go home its (virus) transferred to parents who then pass it on via work, socialising and shopping, etc.
Socialising is probably the biggest cause of the spread.
Whitstable (Kent town) has been at bursting point most weekends around the Harbour, at times it looks shoulder to shoulder.
It’s looking like a nice(ish) day today (Saturday 28th) and i can guarantee the area will be heaving, not with locals (apart from those who work in the area) but DFL’s, second home owners and other outsiders who seem to think its okay to potentially infect the local population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Either
Lockdown is working, we will keep locking down
Or
Lockdown isn’t working, we must lockdown more
From the start, the R number has had such big error bars (eg 0.7-1.0) as to be near useless from a policy angle.
It’s clear that infections are very localised, and have been from the start. (I’m not questioning the severity - when it spreads, it’s a bad illness). To try to explain transmission with a national R number has always been a fools errand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
