|
By:
dom says the rate is somewhere between 0.5 and 0.9.good to see the have their finger on it
|
|
By:
Plenty of areas with big outbreaks on March 23rd (London boroughs). Plenty of towns elsewhere with comparable populations and almost zero cases
There were NO meaningful tests at that time. We only tested when individuals landed in hospital and people were told to stay home and sit it out. So were there really no "cases" in those regions at that time? Given the fact that people would have travelled freely from known areas of infection, and the fact that the virus spreads so easily. I'd hazard a guess that we'd let things progress sufficiently, for plenty of individuals to be incubating and spreading the virus in some of the areas that seemingly had no cases, with the R rate as it was. |
|
By:
So were there really no "cases" in those regions at that time?
I wouldn't be surprised if there were 10,000 'cases' per local authority area three weeks before the lockdown ! As so many have no symptoms. We may never know. There were NO meaningful tests at that time. We only tested when individuals landed in hospital and people were told to stay home and sit it out. As you say the amount of testing was inadequate, but it likely was fairly uniformly inadequate*. The London areas were way ahead in terms of cases at the time of lockdown, but they were also way ahead in terms of reported deaths, which is an indicator that they did indeed have far more cases at that time, however inept the testing regime was. *Some places have always insisted they had no problem testing big numbers : eg Sheffield and Tayside. However the South Wales Health Boards also claimed this but they now have the highest case numbers and the highest deaths per 100,000 of anywhere in the UK. So I think there has always been a correlation between the offcial number of positive tests and how bad the various places actually have it. |
|
By:
Its going up .....
|