Coronavirus testing.

[IT Minion]

The recovered or dead don't (re)infect anyone.

And so they aren't still counted. So in my example you had 200 people to start with, 220 new people are infected and the initial 200 either died or got better.

Ok, please explain.

You were wrong in every single way possible.

You either have 320 people infected by 200, which gives you an R of over 1.5, or you've included the initial batch which means you haven't waited a full cycle.

You've also assumed that the testing has magically gotten much better at finding the infected people. From starting with 50% detection and going to either 100% or around 70%. All told, just wrong.

Also - how an R number can be determined when it is not known how many have the virus.

Now that's a good question. There are tests done each week, similar to how you do polls for elections of people. Those are used to estimate the number of cases in the UK. Note that these are separate to the normal testing stream. When you have an idea how many people are infected each week you can work out what the R value is, roughly.

 

[Brigadier]

Just watching Rennes vs Monaco on bt sport.

They have a crowd spectating.

And , they look a lot more closely - spaced than I would have expected.

 

[EFLImpudence]

And so they aren't still counted. So in my example you had 200 people to start with, 220 new people are infected and the initial 200 either died or got better.
You were wrong in every single way possible.
You either have 320 people infected by 200, which gives you an R of over 1.5, or you've included the initial batch which means you haven't waited a full cycle.
You've also assumed that the testing has magically gotten much better at finding the infected people. From starting with 50% detection and going to either 100% or around 70%. All told, just wrong.

Ok. So it is safe to assume that I don't understand what the R figure means, except...

Now that's a good question. There are tests done each week, similar to how you do polls for elections of people. Those are used to estimate the number of cases in the UK. Note that these are separate to the normal testing stream. When you have an idea how many people are infected each week you can work out what the R value is, roughly.

...that it is a meaningless figure worked out retrospectively from what they already know and can vary every time more infected people are discovered - therefore pointless.

E.g. the R figure is, at the moment, 1.1; if next time's number of infected people is more or less than that, the R figure will then be higher or lower.

 

[IT Minion]

Ok. So it is safe to assume that I don't understand what the R figure means, except...


...that it is a meaningless figure worked out retrospectively from what they already know and can vary every time more infected people are discovered - therefore pointless.

E.g. the R figure is, at the moment, 1.1; if next time's number of infected people is more or less than that, the R figure will then be higher or lower.

Well, it's good you're starting to get it now.

 

[dontbelieveawordofit]

Just watching Rennes vs Monaco on bt sport.

They have a crowd spectating.

And , they look a lot more closely - spaced spaced than I would have expected.

and toulon on tv. 2000 spectators. most not 2 metres.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, it's good you're starting to get it now.

Yes I've got it now.

There's a {insert random number}percent chance of catching covid unless you do.

 

[IT Minion]

Yes I've got it now.

There's a {insert random number}percent chance of catching covid unless you do.

...And you're missing it again.

The R value is the rate of reproduction of the virus at the current time. It's not a assessment of how infectious in an absolute sense the virus is (the R0 attempts to quantify that, but it's even harder to nail down).

It is not a 'how likely you are to catch it' number, not even close. If you had an R value of 2 (fairly high) but there was 10 cases in the country then it's very unlikely you'll get it. With an R value of 0.5 but half the country infected at the time you're almost certainly going to catch it.

May I suggest you just give up?

MOD: May I suggest you moderate your tone to a respected member of the forum please.

 

[fillyboy]

...And you're missing it again.

The R value is the rate of reproduction of the virus at the current time. It's not a assessment of how infectious in an absolute sense the virus is (the R0 attempts to quantify that, but it's even harder to nail down).

It is not a 'how likely you are to catch it' number, not even close. If you had an R value of 2 (fairly high) but there was 10 cases in the country then it's very unlikely you'll get it. With an R value of 0.5 but half the country infected at the time you're almost certainly going to catch it.

May I suggest you just give up?

MOD: May I suggest you moderate your tone to a respected member of the forum please.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The R value is the rate of reproduction of the virus at the current time. It's not a assessment of how infectious in an absolute sense the virus is (the R0 attempts to quantify that, but it's even harder to nail down).

So, what is the point of it then if it is 'at the current time' but might not be tomorrow?

It is not a 'how likely you are to catch it' number, not even close. If you had an R value of 2 (fairly high) but there was 10 cases in the country then it's very unlikely you'll get it. With an R value of 0.5 but half the country infected at the time you're almost certainly going to catch it.

So, why bother with it, then?

May I suggest you just give up?

I think I shall have to unless someone good at explaining turns up.

MOD: May I suggest you moderate your tone to a respected member of the forum please.

D'oh missed whatever it was but thank you.

 

[IT Minion]

So, what is the point of it then if it is 'at the current time' but might not be tomorrow?

So, why bother with it, then?

1. It tells you how things are going, is Covid-19 spreading more or less. That in itself is interesting.
2. It doesn't change for no reason, whilst the past is not a guarantee of the future it lets you guess where it is going in the future.

It is not magic. If you are only interested in a number that tells you what your chances of catching Covid-19 are tomorrow then it is not for you.

A simple number to say if things are getting better or worse sounds useful to me.

 

[Brigadier]

A simple number to say if things are getting better or worse sounds useful to me.

However, it is based on enough presumptions, and on such specific circumstances, situations, and settings, it has little use (other than to guide / excuse decision makers).

 

[IT Minion]

However, it is based on enough presumptions, and on such specific circumstances, situations, and settings, it has little use (other than to guide / excuse decision makers).

It's an average, trying to over use it, or use it inappropriately, would be a mistake.

I thought everyone had gotten a grip on what it is and isn't by now. I over estimate people.

 

[Brigadier]

I thought everyone had gotten a grip on what it is and isn't by now. I

Oh, I know what it is : I just happen to be of the opinion that it is of minimal utility.

 

[BlackCat3]

... do this for food poisoning and notifiable diseases. I have an idea it is a public health responsibility of local authorities, though budgets and headcount were reduced during Austerity. I understand this is because the nation doesn't want good public services.

https://www.ippr.org/blog/public-health-cuts#anounce-of-prevention-is-worth-a-pound-of-cure

Partly right. Local authority public health work closely with the Environmental Health Officers and PHE on notifiable disease outbreaks and food poisoning etc. How this works exactly in practice also depends on whether you are a single or two tier authority. But local authority public health (NOT to be confused with PHE) have the overall responsibility for the health of the local population.

You are also right that budgets generally have been massively cut for councils and yet the bottomless hole that is the NHS is continually bailed out.

Its arbitrary.

PHE redefined the deaths in early August (around 12th) and then was announced it would be abolished around the 18th of August.

How convenient.

PHE have worked flat out during this whole thing and they have been sh!t on from a really great height by the Gov and used as a scapegoat for the mistakes. Appalling in so many ways.

They just can’t win.
If they lockdown care homes, relatives are in the news moaning it’s not fair.
If they don’t lock them down the same relatives complain that they are not being protected,
When they quarantined other countries, people were moaning. If they didn’t, people moaned that they should have done it sooner.
This is an unprecedented year. Brexit & virus etc.
They are actually trying there best. It’s pointless moaning after an event & saying they should have done things differently.

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[Ryler]

In the 3 months after lock down 20 million people flooded through britain's airports.
Thats the scamdemic.