Yes, everyone dies eventually.
What choice do we have, lock down forever? Even with measures taken people are dying from it. Not much of a life for anyone at this rate. People really should be given the choice, if they want to self isolate up to them but stop imposing it on everybody. Even though we can go out life is still too restricted.
I think that the sacrifice should be less than the return. In this case, it clearly is not.
And please keep it that way or we'll end up with a 'world beating' track and trace for Flu, seperate issolation rules for Flu and quarantine from countries with large numbers of Flu infections.
I'm sure when Covid deaths hit zero, we'll find flu reclassified as "possibly Covid" just so we can keep project fear running at full throttle.
Hard decisions need to be made at national and international level to mitigate and manage the effects.
And the raves, the football celebrations etc etc. As alluded to, deaths from covid are now around or less than those for normal flu, and probably a lot less than those deaths caused by alcohol or tobacco. The only thing that worries me is the severe cases of covid (that don't cause death) are still very, very painful and will take up hospital beds, and id something I'm sure we all wish to avoid, so maybe there is a case for some social distancing/masks unti a vaccine is developed. But if there isn't a vaccine, then at some stage we have to return to "normal" and hope if we contract covid it's not severe.
To be honest the Media probably love reporting R as most people don't realise that at low levels of infection it's next to useless and secondly probably don't understand exponential increase or decay so Media can have a field day reporting all this, which in essence is reporting the truth, but is lies, damn lies and statistics in another way.
It's not useful with small numbers as a small change will give a large or small R value, as was seen in Germany recently. Afraid it is useless with the numbers we have, as I've pointed out before small numbers and random events lead to poor statistics.
Yes it does, it's maths I'm afraid. Any random event needs sufficient numbers to make it more accurate. If you have 500 cases that increased by 100 R becomes 1.2, if you have 50000 cases increase by 1000 R is 1.02, which is the better outcome? Obviously the first one but small starting point skews R to make it look worse. I do maths as part of my job, I'm not trying to sound big and clever, can you please just accept the point and it is correct?
Guessing here but assume they take figures over the week and compare to previous week. R is the factor by which it's increased so if 1000 has gone to 1100 it's gone up 1.1 times so R = 1.1, alternatively could be factor by which it's dropped.
Eight segments, so maybe 12.5% confidence at best!
Eight segments, so maybe 12.5% confidence at best!
Then if you do maths you'll understand why small numbers are unreliable in random events - this is a fact, how many examples do you want, could do something as simple as probability when rolling a dice or radioactive decay? You'll also understand in random events that some could well be similar, considering the numbers have varied little recently then we'd expect R to be close to 1 but as soon as it changes a little is could go up or down quite a bit. I really don't know what more you want, if you understand maths, which you must do then thought you'd get it without an example?
Just going to put my tuppence worth in here...
I didn't say bogus I said meaningless i.e. unreliable.
