| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
June 2nd 20, 11:37 PM
posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
|
|||
|
|||
New boarding on London's buses
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. |
|
#32
June 3rd 20, 12:08 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500 Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: wrote: Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious or deadly as they would have us believe. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to have failed exactly? Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's 'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate, presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our death rate be eight times what it is with lockdown? Clearly the unaccounted variable in this is how much infection was already in the country (from Italian skiing trips?) before lockdown. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
|
#34
June 3rd 20, 07:40 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
|
#35
June 3rd 20, 08:44 AM
posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple? Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are. At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places. |
|
#36
June 3rd 20, 09:17 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100
wrote: On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote: Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of their employees. I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of "experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see statistics. OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be? I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation. |
|
#37
June 3rd 20, 09:23 AM
posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 22:37:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. The R number is a method of blinding the plebs with science. It sounds complex and technical therefor it must be true. Shame it bears little resemblence to actual reality. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Exactly. Its time to start treating people as adults once more. The longer they continue to treat us as children the less respect they'll command. Its pretty obvious given whats happening on beaches that a large proportion of the public no longer give a stuff about anything the government says and thats not a good situation for a government to be in. But with the continuation of 2m distancing and Priti Useless Patel pushing her 14 day quarantine I fear they're just not listening. |
|
#38
June 3rd 20, 09:24 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500 Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: wrote: Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious or deadly as they would have us believe. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to have failed exactly? Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's 'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate, presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws. greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just because they all speak dialects of the same language? |
|
#39
June 3rd 20, 09:25 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? |
|
#40
June 3rd 20, 09:38 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Front-boarding only for BBs | London Transport | |||
| Arn't all new buses in London supposed to be hybrids? | London Transport | |||
| Please stand behind the line as the train approaches and let passengers off before boarding | London Transport | |||
| Changeless bus passenger denied boarding | London Transport | |||
| Bendy buses - speed of boarding | London Transport | |||
![Recliner[_4_] is offline](https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
