Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm looking at the data you've posted, if we ignore the over '80s for a sec then at the extreme right of that graph, to my eyesight, the darkest blue to almost purple lines represent the 10 to 19 age groups

If you download the data from the link, you can see that the school age people have a rate which is lower than other age groups

Broadly (looking at the last 7 days of data)
 

Quote

 

10-14 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 205 to 296 per 100K

15-19 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 220 to 317 per 100K

20-24 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 188 to 285 per 100K

25-29 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 198 to 305 per 100K

30-34 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 208 to 314 per 100K

35-39 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 215 to 318 per 100K

40-44 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 233 to 338 per 100K

45-49 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 203 to 296 per 100K

50-54 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 177 to 260 per 100K

55-60 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 156 to 225 per 100K

60-64 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 131 to 182 per 100K

65-69 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 88 to 188 per 100K

70-74 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 73 to 98 per 100K

75-79 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 95 to 119 per 100K

80-84 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 133 to 167 per 100K

85-90 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 213 to 269 per 100K

90+ year olds climbed their rolling rate from 355 to 427 per 100K

Which indicates that the last week of data shows the 35-49 age group to be the current "leaders" in cases, along with the 90+ - so again, the data suggests that "Schools is where it's currently spreading" isn't really supported by the data - I mean obviously it's spreading amongst all age groups, nationally, but schools isn't the prime driver of that spread. Nor have they been (according to the data) for any time during the pandemic.

But like I said before, it may be that kids are mostly / more asymptomatic or more very mild cases  - and so are spreading it, but no-one knows because Test and Trace isn't running properly. You could look at the 35-49 age group and say "well they're the most likely to be parents of school age kids, maybe they're all catching/caught it from their kids, but there's no evidence available - they could be the ones most likely to be mixing socially...any theory you like, really.

 

[mjmooney]

I think there is still the problem that lots of people are currently not directly affected by the virus, and are therefore complacent. Back in March, TV news had regular sobering film clips of overcrowded ICUs and tearful, frazzled medics. And crying relatives of deceased victims. All quite sensationalist, perhaps, but quite effective. That all seems to have stopped. What we get instead are figures, bar charts and finger wagging. If you know no-one who's had it, it's easy to shrug it off and concentrate on the perceived unfairness and inconvenience of the tier system. I'd like to see local news bulletins (and social media) giving us a daily update of what's going on in our local hospitals. It's no good saying "The NHS is struggling to cope" - show us. Personally, I know it's grim as my neighbours are hospital doctors, but for many people, it's just some stats on the TV. And the talk of the vaccine seems to suggest it's all over bar the shouting. In fact, things are just as bad now as they were in the spring - maybe worse - but back then there was a palpable sense of dread. That seems to have disappeared. Maybe folks need to be scared again to get them to do the right thing(s). 

[Genie]

My lad had a game yesterday morning. It was at one of these places with about a dozen pitches.

In previous weeks it was scheduled such that games were staggered throughout the day to reduce amount of people on site. The pitches were cleared well before the next teams used them. Spectators was strictly limited to 1 parent. Open age games were not allowed any spectators. Also, both goals and the corner flags had to be disinfected before the game, at HT and at full time. The balls also.

Yesterday was back to the old days. The place was rammed. They have a huge car park that was packed. People everywhere, no limits. We had to arrive at 11:30 for 12:00 kick off. The pitch was still hosting the previous game at 11:45, so 4 sets of players, 4 sets of parents, and friends, and kids, and coaches, and dogs all clustered around the pitch during the overlap. Madness.

 

 

In better news the boy scored his 19th and 20th goals of the season  

Edited December 20, 2020 by Genie

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

You have also fallen into the trap of letting the people off the hook. 

No, I haven't.

You've erred by inferring that not having the public taking as much blame [as Johnson et al.] means 'letting the people off the hook'.

[Davkaus]

I think it's going to be a real struggle to go back to normal once things become safe again, just after a year+ of adapting. I'm not enjoying this, there's loads of things I miss, but as much as I want to get back to gigs or to VP, the thought of pushing my way through a crowd, shoulder to shoulder with strangers makes me feel a bit uneasy now. 

[Genie]

Rules are getting stretched all over the place. I just noticed SAF is in the stand watching the United game today. 

[snowychap]

39 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think it's going to be a real struggle to go back to normal once things become safe again, just after a year+ of adapting. I'm not enjoying this, there's loads of things I miss, but as much as I want to get back to gigs or to VP, the thought of pushing my way through a crowd, shoulder to shoulder with strangers makes me feel a bit uneasy now. 

I think that's a really important point to make.

I also agree that there will be plenty of people for whom it will be a struggle much as though they might want to get back to how it used to be.

[snowychap]

@choffer

 

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

If you download the data from the link, you can see that the school age people have a rate which is lower than other age groups

Broadly (looking at the last 7 days of data)
 

Which indicates that the last week of data shows the 35-49 age group to be the current "leaders" in cases, along with the 90+ - so again, the data suggests that "Schools is where it's currently spreading" isn't really supported by the data - I mean obviously it's spreading amongst all age groups, nationally, but schools isn't the prime driver of that spread. Nor have they been (according to the data) for any time during the pandemic.

But like I said before, it may be that kids are mostly / more asymptomatic or more very mild cases  - and so are spreading it, but no-one knows because Test and Trace isn't running properly. You could look at the 35-49 age group and say "well they're the most likely to be parents of school age kids, maybe they're all catching/caught it from their kids, but there's no evidence available - they could be the ones most likely to be mixing socially...any theory you like, really.

 

Could it be that the 35-49 age group are the most likely to have kids at school plus will be going to work so have double the chance of catching it/developing more obvious symptoms?  Logically to me it seems schools will be the biggest breeding grounds for the virus.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I think it's going to be a real struggle to go back to normal once things become safe again, just after a year+ of adapting. I'm not enjoying this, there's loads of things I miss, but as much as I want to get back to gigs or to VP, the thought of pushing my way through a crowd, shoulder to shoulder with strangers makes me feel a bit uneasy now. 

Valid point. Its going to effect t people mentally for a while. But i do think at one point people will be enoughs enough. Whats the point of living if i cant go villa park or give my gran a hug?

 

[Davkaus]

28 minutes ago, snowychap said:

@choffer

 

One person's anecdote, but I suspect we'll be reading a lot more like this over the next couple of days

 

 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

One person's anecdote, but I suspect we'll be reading a lot more like this over the next couple of days

 

 

Yep, I know it's the case, as @blandy posted earlier, that there will be some good and some bad police enforcing the regulations but some of it should be quite simple and the claimed response in the OP of that thread - 'I don't really care what a website says, we've been instructed to lot let people travel' (I assume that was meant to be not rather than lot) - would suggest a problem more than one individual's poor enforcement.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Whats the point of living if i cant go villa park

There have been plenty of seasons where I'd have questioned such reasoning, Dem!

[chrisp65]

I wrote myself a letter on headed paper giving myself permission to travel.

Sadly, I was never challenged so didn’t get a chance to try it out.

 

[Demitri_C]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There have been plenty of seasons where I'd have questioned such reasoning, Dem!

Well the liverpool game wouldnt but the Leeds  yuck

[blandy]

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

Could it be that the 35-49 age group are the most likely to have kids at school plus will be going to work so have double the chance of catching it/developing more obvious symptoms?  Logically to me it seems schools will be the biggest breeding grounds for the virus.

Yes, it could. Like I said "there's no evidence available...any theory you like, really" - Yes your theory is plausible. What's needed is data to confirm or refute it - same as with all the notions and ideas.

The reason, apart from the glaringly obvious one of better information leading to better diagnosis and then better actions - is that you could come up with a whole bunch of other, equally "logical" theories based around the same data set.

Just for example taking the subset from 10 - 49 years old

Quote

10-14 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 205 to 296 per 100K

45-49 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 203 to 296 per 100K

And comparing it to this one for older, but working age people

Quote

50-54 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 177 to 260 per 100K 

60-64 year olds climbed their rolling rate from 131 to 182 per 100K

We know that people over 50 are more likely to suffer more severely from the fungus, if they catch it - are they therefore taking more precautions at work and when shopping and travelling and so on? so is it a case that people are just protecting themselves (and others) better because they are more at risk and more likely to adhere to all the advice and regulations? - I mean that's "logical" too, isn't it? that the virus is pretty much everywhere, but some people take more care than others? I'm not saying that's my view - just that it's a plausible theory.

Ultimately until or unless we can understand where and who from people (individuals) are catching the fungus, we can't fully understand where the risks are greater, where to lockdown, where to ease up and all the rest.

If you (anyone) isolates as much as possible, masks up, maintains distancing then they are better protected. People mixing in close proximity, whether in schools, Uni halls of residence, workplaces, shops and hairdressers, or anywhere else are more likely to spread it or catch it. Schools is one of those, but obviously homes are another. "Logically" you could postulate that kids are catching it at home from their parents in the age group you mention - no one can prove that it's the other way round, and that's a (one) missing thing - the whole tracing thing - the "world beating" system we were promised, but which we have since found out to be ineffective and underwhelming.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Rules are getting stretched all over the place. I just noticed SAF is in the stand watching the United game today. 

The first thing people do is look at any new rules and see what they can "get away with" or ways around them.   You see/hear people talking about if on what's app (and I assume social media, I don't do it). 

My wife sees this a lot with her job too.  Constant questions "Well can I do this?" No.  "Well what about if I do this?“ No. 

It's like it's more important to consider what you can get away with doing rather than understanding what your not supposed to do. 

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Yep, I know it's the case, as @blandy posted earlier, that there will be some good and some bad police enforcing the regulations but some of it should be quite simple and the claimed response in the OP of that thread - 'I don't really care what a website says, we've been instructed to [not] let people travel' ... - would suggest a problem more than one individual's poor enforcement.

Yeah. The "bad" doesn't just show itself at the foot-plod end of the chain - a numpty behind a desk issuing instructions/orders to the plods to not let people travel will likely cause greater problems - we saw that with some Chief Constable in the summer and telling people they couldn't do things they absolutely could.

[KenjiOgiwara]

I don't know any of your rules, but I imagine SAF is pretty safe going there and vice versa. He probably takes a helicopter, has a private entrance more or less and will probably only see a handful of people in his way in or out. I imagine almost everyone associated with that match in some form is a bigger risk to recieve and spread the virus relative to him. 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

My wife sees this a lot with her job too.  Constant questions "Well can I do this?" No.  "Well what about if I do this?“ No. 

The other explanation for that is ever changing, or over complex rules  - people genuinely not knowing what is and isn't permitted. So they ask their friends or colleagues.

There's never going to be absolute clarity, but the frequent U-turns, the contradictory advice and so on have led to mass confusion.