Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What Brits are most looking forward to once the pandemic is ov
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What Brits are most looking forward to once the pandemic is over – YouGov
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Here's the definition of R0:
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
So the R0 will be affected by behavioural changes, such as social distancing, but not by the level of immunity in the population, as by definition it is how it would spread absent immunity.
So I think Charlie's interpretation is correct. R0 is not affected by the level of immunity in the population, by definition.
A vaccination or simple mutation out of the virus will arrive first I think.
R_sub_t is clearly understood, and then R_sub_0 is just the value prior to any policy or behavioural effect changes. R is (slightly sloppy but understandable) shorthand for R_sub_(current t)
A long way away.
Just for a little bit...
R₀
Rₜ
I don't think that people always appreciate how vast the dependent population actually is - taking children into account as well, it's actually an outright majority (something like 55%.) It's no wonder that we struggled so badly, even before this disaster, to balance the books.
Absolutely destructive.
BoZo and Dom made their reputation by repeating an untrue statement till people were sick of it, and they claimed the opposition repeating their untrue phrase helped them.
BoZo and Dom are now defending their care home crisis by saying you have to read the minutiae of the text, in a certain light, on specific days, under moonlight.
Live by the sword...
Please note that vaccination success varies according to many factors. While the polio vaccine has been incredibly successful in most parts of the world, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, it has not - and not just because of socio-political opposition and warfare impeding actual vaccination efforts. Some kids have been vaccinated upwards of 10 times with no success because of nutritional and other biological factors.
unemployment is 4%
economically inactive is ca. 20 %
that actually almost adds up perfectly!
what I have missed?
A remarkably hassle free, quick and efficient process much appreciated by 2 non-government fans.
Although the money isn't banked yet.
The figures show 3,242 new cases in the last day,
That lowest since March, and obviously when still only doing hospital only testing.
https://twitter.com/MyDoncaster/status/1260510008565006336
I've had the same experience with the Furlough scheme and the Bounce back loans. Top marks the Treasury.
and yet until recently the UK was close to full employment with 70% plus in work....
???
I also believe it likely that the issue is largely internalised within London. I've just had a look out the window at the train station car park, here in a commuter belt town, and it is as deserted as it has been throughout the lockdown. There are currently three cars parked up; the usual number is between zero and five. The commuters are evidently still working from home.
My concern, therefore, is that it is by no means inconceivable that we'll get to a point in three or four weeks' time when this disease is, if not exactly dead as a doornail in most of the country, then only persisting at a low level - but that it's taking off again in London. If that comes to pass then I do hope the Government doesn't panic and try to lock everyone down again, when the problem is only confined to one corner of the country.
Starmer can reply to BoZo's letter repeating the accusation (Vote Leave Stylee)
Until a couple of weeks ago, capacity issues in my Trust for testing were such that we couldn't repeat tests. This means not testing before discharge, nor repeating a negative test when clinical suspicion remained. There was also the problem that results were often taking several days, so delaying discharges.
I suspect that we unintentionally sent positive patients home during the period when testing was restricted.
In some Trusts even known patients were discharged to care homes, assuming they could be barrier nursed.
To some extent this was because a larger peak of admissions expected, hence acute beds needed, and partly the culture of overcrowded wards is to discharge as soon as possible.
Second is care homes.
Social media posts (particularly the ones on Facebook) are totally destroying the reputation of the government.
These users are older people who use Facebook to see pictures of their family, and now their friends are sharing posts that are about the death figures/disaster in care homes.
"This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. Absent such community transmission, it is unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected. This is the latest information, and will be updated immediately as and when the situation evolves."
This would implicitly admit that the current information might not be complete or accurate, but imply that responses are being made in real time to the best available scientific evidence.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1260607313565683714
40% of all adults being either economically inactive, unemployed and looking for work or drawing their pension sounds about right.
I agree that any future tightening will likely have to be, and should only be, where it is necessary.
Not reviewed until the 15th April.
I think the Conservatives will follow something along the following lines in the run up to 2024:
1. To focus on Johnson's supposed merits, even his popularity has waned by 2024.
2. To ignore the opposition leader's (supposed) failings, other than as a by-product of trying to keep Brexit as a defining issue.
3. To focus on the far left's influence instead, claiming that Starmer is merely a puppet of the far left who are still running the show.
The far left could certainly help the Conservatives with the latter if they show they can still carry the key votes on the NEC as happened in 1983.
Doesn't actually affect me as I'm still working.
(To be fair, the Labour spokesman who sent out the quote to journalist as PMQs was happening sent out the section 1 version, not the section 7 version. But Starmer was quoted from the section 7 version.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/may/13/uk-coronavirus-live-millions-health-conditions-return-to-work-pmqs-covid-19-latest-news-updates?page=with:block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea#block-5ebc17948f08a55ecde594ea
R0 = the theoretical spread assuming no behavioural changes and no immunity. This is the "pure" number. It's a constant unless the virus mutates.
R = the actual spread in the community given the behavioural changes and level of immunity which exists.
It is "R" that is constantly being quoted as the measure of interest. It must be below 1 for the virus not to spread.
And this is always the case. For example, it is NOT true to say that as immunity rises so does the R level at which the virus will not spread.
This is not true because R is calculated as the spread in practice - i.e. taking into account behavioural changes AND immunity.
If it's above 1, the virus is spreading, otherwise it's not. Or more accurately, if the virus is spreading, R is above 1, otherwise it isn't.
Pls see @FF43 post on PT for source material.
https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/1260612509754691587?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1260594852049420288?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1260596662914908161?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1260597168647426056?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1260601336699240448?s=20
The 'not spreading' threshold for "R" (as it is defined) is in all circumstances 1.
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
"The 2020 election, Kreiss predicted, will be “a big test of whether empirical reality will outweigh motivated partisan reasoning.” "
"If the test Kreiss anticipates does determine who our next president is, and if the digital world becomes a key battleground, as it certainly will, Democrats believe Joe Biden and his campaign need to be better prepared."
“Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opinion/trump-digital-campaign.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
That was over a week after the end of the containment phase was over, and Test and Trace stopped, because we already had established community transmission.
Just listened to PMQs on catch up. Brutal, I see why Johnson ducks scrutiny when he can. He has 4 long years of this to get through before the next election.
Even with an R less than 1, the disease is spreading, but in a way that will burn itself out. Their can be quite a few new infections along the way.
One extra complication not facterd in is how the weather/change in seasons might effect R.
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly"
Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March.
Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/13/keir-starmer-took-boris-johnson-apart-like-duplo-train-set/
" The latest figures, began Sir Keir today, showed that at least 40 per cent of deaths from the virus had come in care homes. Yet according to the Government’s advice in March, it was “very unlikely” that people in care homes would become infected. Mr Johnson protested. “No, Mr Speaker,” be blurted, “it wasn’t true that the advice said that!” But it was. Sir Keir was quoting the advice word for word, from a sheet in paper in front of him.
Next he asked about the vast number of unexplained deaths in care homes. In April, there had been 26,000 care home deaths. The previous April, there had been only 8,000. Yet of these additional 18,000 deaths, only 8,000 had been officially attributed to the virus. Could Mr Johnson give the Government’s view as to the possible cause of those 10,000 “unexplained” deaths? Mr Johnson could not. In fact, it wasn’t obvious he’d understood the question. His reply was a cascade of helpless waffle. “Appalling disease… tragedy taking place… critical to our ability to move forward as a nation…”
On to the death toll overall. The Government, noted Sir Keir, had stopped producing the daily chart which plotted death tolls in various countries, including Britain. Why? “He seeks to make comparisons with other countries,” snorted Mr Johnson, “which I am advised are premature.” Sir Keir looked puzzled. The Government had been publishing these “comparisons with other countries” for seven weeks. “It’s pretty obvious,” he said, “that when we didn’t have the highest number of deaths in Europe, the graphs were used for comparison purposes. But as soon as we did have the highest number, they were dropped.”
It was tough to watch. Mr Johnson’s supporters might well say: who cares about PMQs? The Prime Minister has far more important things on his plate. He’s trying to tackle a pandemic, for pity’s sake. Which is true. The trouble is, all of Sir Keir’s questions were about the Prime Minister’s handling of that pandemic. About his Government’s advice, its actions, its figures, its findings."
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
Little comfort (!) to me if I get it knowing that R = 0.3 and it's on its way out.
This is a nice representation:
https://twitter.com/Egbert_PengWu/status/1260570614789812234
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
This article explains well: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30154-7/pdf
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1260623072559849474?s=20