• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

milo said:
The earliest known case in the UK is in February in Edinburgh. Five people contracted it at a Nike conference. I haven't seen any evidence that it was here earlier and I think that it is reasonable to assume that it would have spread very quickly with no measures in place.
Click to expand...
The first French case was mid-late Dec 19 at the latest.

So if that model of the number of people infected is accurate (if it's the one using the cruise ship as its basis then it's almost certainly not), it's not very contagious at all.
 
scaramanga said:
The first French case was mid-late Dec 19 at the latest.

So if that model of the number of people infected is accurate (if it's the one using the cruise ship as its basis then it's almost certainly not), it's not very contagious at all.
Click to expand...

New modelling suggests it was in the UK earlier as well.

Considering it was pretty much life as normal till the lock down that’s 6/7 weeks (from memory) and only 2 million caught it when pubs / clubs/ football / Cheltenham was open
 
Ok I'm going to maybe ask a question that makes me look stupid...

How can we tell what the R number is with the limited number of tests that we are running now? And the limitations of who those tests are being restricted to?
 
milo said:
The earliest known case in the UK is in February in Edinburgh. Five people contracted it at a Nike conference. I haven't seen any evidence that it was here earlier and I think that it is reasonable to assume that it would have spread very quickly with no measures in place.
Click to expand...
I dont know if you mean official (first case) but read the below and it's likely these folk had it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52589449
 
scaramanga said:
The first French case was mid-late Dec 19 at the latest.

So if that model of the number of people infected is accurate (if it's the one using the cruise ship as its basis then it's almost certainly not), it's not very contagious at all.
Click to expand...

The French case was one case and an old sample was tested supposedly. It may well be true but one test from one old sample doesn't prove it was here earlier. It just gives us a possibility of it. I don't think we can use that for modelling purposes
 
DTA said:
Ok I'm going to maybe ask a question that makes me look stupid...

How can we tell what the R number is with the limited number of tests that we are running now? And the limitations of who those tests are being restricted to?
Click to expand...
images
 
DTA said:
Ok I'm going to maybe ask a question that makes me look stupid...

How can we tell what the R number is with the limited number of tests that we are running now? And the limitations of who those tests are being restricted to?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t trust the tests, their a shambles
Getting people tested for the sake of it doesn’t give them an accurate R number does it and using random sampling with the current testing set up is IMO still poor
 
galeforce said:
Anecdotal, but my wife was very ill with cough/fever/headache/loss of smell in January, she's convinced she had it.
Click to expand...
I had pneumonia that came out of nowhere and it lasted for a long wile even with 3 lots of anti bototics which did nothing... my GP thinks I had it then too and that was January
 
LutonSpurs said:
The French case was one case and an old sample was tested supposedly. It may well be true but one test from one old sample doesn't prove it was here earlier. It just gives us a possibility of it. I don't think we can use that for modelling purposes
Click to expand...
It has to be an old sample - that's the only way to prove the date.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I wouldn’t trust the tests, their a shambles
Getting people tested for the sake of it doesn’t give them an accurate R number does it and using random sampling with the current testing set up is IMO still poor
Click to expand...

Ok.... so again how do we arrive at the assumtion that the R number is under 1?
 
scaramanga said:
The first French case was mid-late Dec 19 at the latest.

So if that model of the number of people infected is accurate (if it's the one using the cruise ship as its basis then it's almost certainly not), it's not very contagious at all.
Click to expand...

Today's quote of the day.

Did you ever work for Saddam as his Minster for Propaganda back during the first invasion of Iraq?
 
DTA said:
Ok.... so again how do we arrive at the assumtion that the R number is under 1?
Click to expand...
I think the French and Spanish have been using an antibody test. And I read the reason they've done a mass test, is to test the test.

We have been using a PCR test over a shortish period with 5k odd families who have repeatedly taken the test to see if they currently have it. This is the first big (ish) data collection that can be factored in to the R figure as previously various smaller and sometimes unreliable data, plus observational data would be thrown into the modelling pot to spew out something that was far from reliable.
 
awesome dawson said:
Today's quote of the day.

Did you ever work for Saddam as his Minster for Propaganda back during the first invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...
No, I just don't work myself up into a panic over every little thing.

How do you explain such a low death rate over 6 months (probably more) if it's both highly contagious and highly lethal?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back