Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 203 comments are related to the topic:
8000 new infections
8000 new infections
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 203
|
By:
I think they are
|
|
By:
Well we actually need to know why they've not moved from 4 to 3. It's far from clear, I sense there's some politics in there from the scientists.
|
|
By:
Lefties again eh, Cider
 |
|
By:
Scientists aren't politicians. They advise, the politicians make the decisions, sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.
|
|
By:
Well I don't see why they've not moved from 4 to 3, substantively. Boris seemed to think that was going to happen on Wednesday. Scientists aren't politicians but many of them are very political.
|
|
By:
The irony is that on Thursday all the journos were so preoccupied by Dom they didn't even notice
 |
|
By:
Pretty simple really, the criteria has not been achieved to move from Level 3 to Level 4.
Transmission remains high at approx. 8k new cases per day in the community in England.  |
|
By:
the right hate scientist,s,proff,s expert,s etc because daddy cant palm someone,s had with silver to get them in like the city or spads
 |
|
By:
The scientists don't make decisions, they advise. It's totally up to the government to decide which phase of the process we are at, to move to a lower or back to a higher number. This isn't guesswork, it has to be based on rock solid data.
|
|
By:
that transmission data is out of date, and the trend is substantially down.
|
|
By:
So let's say that it is 6k, that is still high.
Johnson took a gamble at the Liaison Committee, and his gamble didn't work. |
|
By:
transmission is not high or rising exponentially, r was in fact lowered.
|
|
By:
0.7 to 0.9
|
|
By:
That's not high obviously, it means nee cases are exponentially falling.
As I say, it's far from clear. |
|
By:
#new
|
|
By:
unless you no where the 115,000 tests are taking place ,transmission rates,positive results dot mean a lot
|
|
By:
Cider, are you privy to the detailed criteria being applied by SAGE ?
|
|
By:
Spain had 4 deaths yesterday, Germany had 6. We had 215. We still have big problems.
|
|
By:
Epidemic is in general circulation
Seems to me to be exactly where we are at. |
|
By:
Question to Van-Tam yesterday "There are still an estimated 8k new cases per day, who is being infected?"
A. "We'll need to get to the bottom of that." |
|
By:
just contact DC Thompson & ask for a Benao subscription
|
|
By:
350,000 postal test,s still not sorted ,and the new capacity includes 40,000 antibodt tests,what can possibly go wrong,
|
|
By:
people in hospital down,2000 deaths a week always a help,
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Suspect because you would prefer it to be something else or suspect because there are genuine and identifiable flaws in their measurement techniques ?
|
|
By:
We have the second highest deaths toll in the world, we have had the highest in Europe (by the proverbial mile) last day or so.
|
|
By:
I don't know how Spain reports figures but considering their earlier level, it seems unlikely to be accurate. They key point is that death registration figures are lagged and you wouldn't base decisions today based on recent registered death figures.
|
|
By:
Unlikely eh. With what confidence level do you make that statement ?
|
|
By:
I don't mean the figure itself isn't accurate. I have no idea if they require an official test, or how they report figures at the weekend, or how they report community or care home deaths, or comorbidity deaths.
|
|
By:
Germany were averaging 2,000 new cases a day for the last 15 days of April, probably similar prevalence to us now. But they've only averaged under 500 a day for the last 15 days of May despite easing the lockdown. I don't see why we wont follow a similar trend.
|
|
By:
New estimate in.
As of week 30 May 2020. 0.07 new infections per 100 people per week. 39,000 / 7 = 5570 per day. or 1 in 1428 per week Thank you very much. |
|
By:
Good work Cider, i hope you are correct the numbers per day are dropping and really should be a week after OP.
I know you are putting the risk as a chance of a person catching it which isn't wrong and might very likely to be the correct way of doing it. The alternative way is saying 40k new people are catching it this week. Point of the thread is there are still plenty of people catching this and to be careful,the new cases daily updates are only tested cases. |
|
By:
It's not really attributing meaning or drawing conclusions from the data. What's important to remember is the latency of the data. It's not 1 in 1428 now, but a week ago. That means, on a similar path we could be around 1 in 1850 now.
Whatever the politics, all these gatherings for protests are definitely a variable, and anecdotally there's lots of evidence of the measures being circumvented around the country on top of the protest gatherings. It's definitely an unknown now compliance is on the wane. There's a theory that the virility of the virus itself is reducing. The data doesn't support that the hypothesis in incorrect. |
|
By:
3 days after Valance said 8000 suspected cases, your estimate at 5570the daily brifing gave suspected cases at 3900.
Of course it could be but the cynical part of me would be suspicious of admitting a higher estimate to not spook the public on the verge of trying to get people back to work? |
|
By:
1700 confirmed cases off under 100,000 tested yesterday, but they reckon the other 50 million have only 4,000 between them,
 |
|
By:
The estimate on the slides was 39K so 5570 per day. That was ending 30 May so almost a week ago.
People are meant to be coming forward for a test 1st timer. So the question really is how many people either have symptoms and aren't requesting a test, or are asymptomatic. We don't get the data but it would be quite interesting to know how many of the confirmed tests are in the community. |
|
By:
New estimate in.
11 positives out of 19,933. Or 0.055% As of week 7 June 2020. 0.06 new infections per 100 people per week. 33,000 / 7 = 4715 per day. or 1 in 1700 per week. As the proportion of those testing positive in England is decreasing over time, it is likely that the incidence rate is also decreasing. However, because of the low number of new positive cases, we cannot currently measure a statistically significant reduction. |
|
By:
11 positives in 8 households it's really heading towards being negligible. It doesn't fit the narrative craved by many of course, but this is subsiding quickly, in the community at least.
|
|
By:
People like Prof John Edmunds that the OP referenced are absolute frauds.
|