Brexit, for once some facts.

[Wicky]

This should be fun and keep Bernard occupied for a while - where to begin...

Veteran Conservative MP gets new role... scrutinising Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Sir Bernard Jenkin will lead the committee which scrutinises the work of his own Government and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

www.gazette-news.co.uk

VETERAN MP Sir Bernard Jenkin has been appointed as the chairman of a committee which will scrutinise the work of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Mr Johnson gave Harwich and North Essex MP Sir Bernard, 61, the additional responsibility for scrutiny by making him the chairman of the Liaison Committee.

The group, comprised of the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and 32 select committees, is in place to effectively question the Prime Minister’s actions.

In his new role, Sir Bernard will lead a team expected to quiz the Prime Minister on a variety of issues.

The appointment of the Vote Leave advocate was met with a mixed response, and some MPs, including 16 Conservatives, even attempted to prevent it.

But Sir Bernard has assured his constituents, fellow politicians, and the country, that he will remain impartial and act independently, despite his Tory party affiliation and his support of Leave colleague Mr Johnson.

 

[oyster]

But Sir Bernard has assured his constituents, fellow politicians, and the country, that he will remain impartial and act independently, despite his Tory party affiliation and his support of Leave colleague Mr Johnson.

Even with the best of intentions, this would be extremely hard to achieve. (I honestly have doubts I could behave that impartially in anything like a parallel situation.)

Some might suggest that we see how it goes. We should give the benefit of the doubt.

Others might point out that by the time we have incontrovertible proof that it isn't working out as claimed, it will be too late. And any lesser proof, or suspicions, will be dismissed as "party political", or just rumours, or being unfair, or ...

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

Coronavirus Testing. If a person has a throat and nasal swab during the same test, the government are counting that as two tests. 100000 / day? I don’t think so.

 

[oyster]

Coronavirus Testing. If a person has a throat and nasal swab during the same test, the government are counting that as two tests. 100000 / day? I don’t think so.

I can only see the first little bit:

Tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double-counted, officials admit

Two samples taken from the same patient are being recorded as two separate tests in the Government's official figures

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/

Is that a step forward from counting theoretical tests? The ones where they claim capacity but have not done them.

 

[flecc]

Don't want to pour scorn on the back slapping re London deaths but come on, it had the highest rate in the country because it didn't lock down soon enough or quick enough. My home town pop: 238,000 fatalities = about 90,
London pop: almost 10mil, fatalities = 6000 my mask not only stays on, I've just got two more !

It didn't lock down because it isn't possible to lock down properly in London's environment. Which has turned out to be an advantage in getting the problem over quickly.

You're still dealing with your problem in the large area of your spaced out Southampton-Portsmouth complex where social distancing is much easier to achieve.

In this context it's more accurate to look at Primary Urban Areas where London's population is 13,709,000 and Southampton-Portsmouth population is 1,547,000. The map below of our Primary Urban Areas shows the sheer scale of London's true urban size:

.

 

[Danidl]

I understand it was only a small trial, the main large scale one due about now.

17% against 5% sounds about right though, given London's conditions and population mix in contrast to the rest of the country.
.

I have been looking for data on this and it might seem that the Daily Mail had the most information .. basically 35 positive results from a sample size of 1500. Not what I would have considered a very conclusive result. Statistics was not my strongest discipline, but I had a smattering...

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

I’ve just seen the eye watering sums borrowed by the government last month. Shocking.

Let’s get the beaches cleared, the National Parks emptied and everyone back to work with 5p on income tax for all of us currently furloughed. People aren’t doing the furlough job they were paid to do. Let’s get them back working and repaying the money we (me included) have been paid.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

I have been looking for data on this and it might seem that the Daily Mail had the most information .. basically 35 positive results from a sample size of 1500. Not what I would have considered a very conclusive result. Statistics was not my strongest discipline, but I had a smattering...

Well something is happening in London. Their infection / death rate is comparatively good, even better when you consider how people live and work in London.

 

[flecc]

Well something is happening in London. Their infection / death rate is comparatively good, even better when you consider how people live and work in London.

Indeed. As I've posted, the government's preferred choice was spreading the impact over time by effective social distancing to assist the NHS in coping.

To a considerable extent we couldn't do that well in London, so we took an early hit, getting the worst over with quickly. As it happened the NHS here coped with so much spare capacity that they had to appeal for set back patients to return for treatment.

So not planned, our London circumstances just turned out to be a favourable option. I doubt that would have been the best option elsewhere since most others could socially distance effectively enough.
.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

As it happened the NHS here coped with so much spare capacity that they had to appeal for set back partients to return for treatment..

Not just in London, but I think that happened because hospitals turfed out the elderly, the sick and the dying to go and die elsewhere. That freed up a lot of capacity.

 

[Nev]

Do you all think we could lower the 2m distancing rule? The WHO, Hong Kong, Singapore, France and China all say 1m is enough. Australia, Germany and the Netherlands recommend 1.5m and South Korea has 1.4m.

No matter what the distance is I doubt I will be sitting in a cafe for a long time, but I am sure many cafes would not be viable with a 2m rule but might be with 1.5 or 1m rule, any thoughts?

Distancing advice in England could change to allow closer contact

Precautionary 2 metre guidance out of step with advice of other countries, which typically recommend 1 metre

www.theguardian.com

 

[flecc]

Not just in London, but I think that happened because hospitals turfed out the elderly, the sick and the dying to go and die elsewhere. That freed up a lot of capacity.

Which was sensible in the circumstances, no point in hogging a bed when someone isn't going to get better.
.

 

[flecc]

Do you all think we could lower the 2m distancing rule? The WHO, Hong Kong, Singapore, France and China all say 1m is enough. Australia, Germany and the Netherlands recommend 1.5m and South Korea has 1.4m.

No matter what the distance is I doubt I will be sitting in a cafe for a long time, but I am sure many cafes would not be viable with a 2m rule but might be with 1.5 or 1m rule, any thoughts?

Distancing advice in England could change to allow closer contact

Precautionary 2 metre guidance out of step with advice of other countries, which typically recommend 1 metre

www.theguardian.com

There is no shorter safe distance since even two metres is far from safe in the worst circumstances. MIT measured particles from coughs at 6 metres so concluded 8 metres was the safe distance.

And at any distance there's a world of difference between two people back to back and two facing each other.

And a big difference between two people on different levels such as one a few steps up a staircase facing another at a lower level in line with their nostril exhalations

And of course in different durations of exposure when face to face.

So it's far more about physical circumstances than distance alone.
.

 

[Danidl]

Do you all think we could lower the 2m distancing rule? The WHO, Hong Kong, Singapore, France and China all say 1m is enough. Australia, Germany and the Netherlands recommend 1.5m and South Korea has 1.4m.

No matter what the distance is I doubt I will be sitting in a cafe for a long time, but I am sure many cafes would not be viable with a 2m rule but might be with 1.5 or 1m rule, any thoughts?

Distancing advice in England could change to allow closer contact

Precautionary 2 metre guidance out of step with advice of other countries, which typically recommend 1 metre

www.theguardian.com

I have written on this topic before. Picking up the virus is a probability function. Duration and distance matter. Sitting 1 metre away from a person in an open air cafe is likely safer than in the still air of an indoors venue. There are suggestions that tiny droplets containing viable viruses can linger in the air adjacent to the emitter for 8 minutes , they can be carried by air currents . Rooms with lower ceilings have less volume ..and likely less air currents so close proximity is more dangerous.
The currently selected standard for infection is 15 minutes, unprotected face ,within a metre, exceeding that makes infection highly probable, and is deemed a close contact.
The volume of air enclosed within 1.5 metres is 3 times that of 1 metre , so the infection risk is 1/3 for the same exposure. ,The extra 50 cm reduces the risk to 1/8 ,

However standing 2 metres from an opera singer belting out a song at full volume , might not be as riskfree as their voice projection is accompanied by droplets also projected.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

Which was sensible in the circumstances, no point in hogging a bed when someone isn't going to get better.
.

True, but those that I mentioned in the “sick” category, cancer patients for example, might have benefited / survived if their treatment wasn’t curtailed by the rush to free up beds. I doubt we will ever be able to count how many we’ve done via this mode.

 

[Woosh]

To a considerable extent we couldn't do that well in London, so we took an early hit, getting the worst over with quickly.

the worst is still to come this winter. Only 17% of Londoners are thought to have been infected.
I wonder if I should go see my children in London this weekend before my grand daughter goes back to nursery school. The risk is at lowest point since March.

 

[flecc]

True, but those that I mentioned in the “sick” category, cancer patients for example, might have benefited / survived if their treatment wasn’t curtailed by the rush to free up beds. I doubt we will ever be able to count how many we’ve done via this mode.

I doubt it was too serious though, since the affected period was quite short. The freeing up beds didn't start until well after the lockdown start and ended a little while ago with the appeal to return for treatment.

Maybe four weeks max, and that's not a long time in cancer treatment routines which can spread over a few months.
.

 

[sjpt]

Do you all think we could lower the 2m distancing rule?

Surely with Brexit we will have to start using imperial measures. 6 ft will totally confuse the virus, plus we'll be world leaders with the first to introduce a distancing requirement of 6.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

The extra wide podium is being lifted into position inside Downing Street. This must mean the Fat Arse Patel is topping the bill on The Coronavirus Show this evening.

 

[flecc]

the worst is still to come this winter. Only 17% of Londoners are thought to have been infected.

If it does return then. That 17% is from a very small sampling, it could be much higher and indeed in London's circumstances perhaps likely to be. And we can't know if there will be any natural regression due to other circumstances, many previous viral infections have disappeared by themselves after appearing serious at first.

I wonder if I should go see my children in London this weekend before my grand daughter goes back to nursery school. The risk is at lowest point since March.

I'd say back your own judgement while you have the opportunity.
.