[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

Ikea UK opens , top left corner of this paper

[arista]

Parliament opens today.


Great Debates today on GMBHD itv


Far better than BBC1

[arista]

[arista]

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by arista

**** me, talk about manipulating figures. One metre is enough because it "cuts the risk by 80%" vs zero social distancing, representing a 2.6% risk against a 1.3% risk with two metre distancing.

Or if you're not trying to bamboozle the innumerate GB public; Cutting the social distancing from 2m to 1m doubles infection risk in the community.

Now, is that an acceptable increase? I don't know enough about the overall rates to say either way - you'd need to know what proportion of infection is occurring in the community. If cutting social distancing from 2m to 1m still results in an overall drop in infection rates (albeit a slower drop) then it might be a fair trade off. But they should at least be honest with the figures, and not play creative stats to make it look like it doesn't make much difference.

[Kizzy]

The*Office for National Statistics*said there have been 286,759 deaths to date in*England*and*Wales*this year - 51,466 more than the five-year average.

Of the deaths registered by 22 May, 43,837 mentioned Covid-19 on the death certificate, which was 15.3% of all deaths.

One faint silver lining was that the weekly number of deaths involving Covid-19 in*England*and*Wales*fell to a seven-week low in the week to 22 May: 2,589 death certificates mentioned Covid-19 in the week, down from 3,810 in the previous seven days.

Nick Stripe, the ONS’s head of health analysis, has posted an interesting thread explaining the*figures.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ps-westminster

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by arista

Wait, people actually needed it pointed out that social distancing means they can't **** strangers?

No wonder the population "density" is so high.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

**** me, talk about manipulating figures. One metre is enough because it "cuts the risk by 80%" vs zero social distancing, representing a 2.6% risk against a 1.3% risk with two metre distancing.

Or if you're not trying to bamboozle the innumerate GB public; Cutting the social distancing from 2m to 1m doubles infection risk in the community.

Now, is that an acceptable increase? I don't know enough about the overall rates to say either way - you'd need to know what proportion of infection is occurring in the community. If cutting social distancing from 2m to 1m still results in an overall drop in infection rates (albeit a slower drop) then it might be a fair trade off. But they should at least be honest with the figures, and not play creative stats to make it look like it doesn't make much difference.

i find it pretty distasteful that the hospitality industry are saying reduce the distance so we can fit more punters in ... **** peoples health. They are suggesting things like wearing a mask ... how does that work in a bar where we eat and drink

If you are in an office all day with a 2 metre gap, you are at greater risk than you would be in the open air. I think I saw somewhere that 1 metres difference it would be about 3 minutes before you might breath in some covid from someone infected ... 2 meters it might be an hour .... what about 3 or 4 hours down the pub at a metre .... the whole bar is going to get infected before the night is out.

I don't want to see bars shutdown, but they need to be realistic about peoples health

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

**** me, talk about manipulating figures. One metre is enough because it "cuts the risk by 80%" vs zero social distancing, representing a 2.6% risk against a 1.3% risk with two metre distancing.

Or if you're not trying to bamboozle the innumerate GB public; Cutting the social distancing from 2m to 1m doubles infection risk in the community.

Now, is that an acceptable increase? I don't know enough about the overall rates to say either way - you'd need to know what proportion of infection is occurring in the community. If cutting social distancing from 2m to 1m still results in an overall drop in infection rates (albeit a slower drop) then it might be a fair trade off. But they should at least be honest with the figures, and not play creative stats to make it look like it doesn't make much difference.

Yes TS
great points

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Wait, people actually needed it pointed out that social distancing means they can't **** strangers?

No wonder the population "density" is so high.

Yes they were debating the Tinder Folk
that want a Sex session

[Liam-]

For any stats geeks out there, I don’t understand them so maybe someone will

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

For any stats geeks out there, I don’t understand them so maybe someone will

I only skimmed the letter but it seems like the testing figures are inflated because they include tests which were sent out whether or not they have results from them all, and also people tested more than once are included in the total figures.

[bitontheslide]

the underlying issue is that testing on its own means nothing unless it has some metrics to base the figures against ... what defines success or failure, it's not some arbitrary finger in the air number

On the test and track, we need again to define milestones and metrics, otherwise how do we know its effective or useful

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I only skimmed the letter but it seems like the testing figures are inflated because they include tests which were sent out whether or not they have results from them all, and also people tested more than once are included in the total figures.

Oh, so nothing we didn’t already know

At least official people are starting to call them out on their bull though

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Oh, so nothing we didn’t already know

At least official people are starting to call them out on their bull though

Yeah, nothing new unless I missed something while skimming

But yeah it needs calling out, I'm sick of the government acting like their half efforts are saving the world.

[Toy Soldier]

IMO the test & trace "service" exists to increase public confidence, and very little else. You can't test and trace 5000+ active cases. The entire concept is insane.

[Oliver_W]

At the moment I can't even track and trace, as my phone's not a smart phone

My old smart phone broke, so I used a £10 one as a placeholder, but the new one takes a different type of SIM so I only use the smartphone for apps at home...

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

IMO the test & trace "service" exists to increase public confidence, and very little else. You can't test and trace 5000+ active cases. The entire concept is insane.

yep, its pointless until we get the number of infected down to under 500