So, coronavirus...
- Insane_Homer
- Posts: 5389
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:14 pm
- Location: Leafy Surrey
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.”
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:09 pm 6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
Maybe people saw the increase in numbers and started isolating and being more careful on their own? Even in the Numpty North.Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pmInsane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:09 pm 6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
Just a natural levelling off?Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pmInsane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:09 pm 6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
I suspect the tier system would have worked they didn't have enough time to find out before they were forced into a bigger decision.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:16 pmJust a natural levelling off?Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pmInsane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:09 pm 6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:15 pmMaybe people saw the increase in numbers and started isolating and being more careful on their own? Even in the Numpty North.Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pmInsane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:09 pm 6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
Or maybe the Gumpertz curve is real
Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.Openside wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:21 pmI suspect the tier system would have worked they didn't have enough time to find out before they were forced into a bigger decision.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:16 pmJust a natural levelling off?Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pm
levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .
Shame the govt were bullied in to this.
Not for usdpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:10 pmThat may be correct but I suspect is very much a local issue and will vary by service area, site, ward, etc. However when I have looked in detail at these sort of issues it is often because the budgets for the management role have been cut and the manager is expected to do the management role as well as being counted in the rota to make the clinical numbers look better i.e. hit the required nurse to bed ratio, and as a result can't do both the management/admin role and the clinical role. There are however individuals who, as in any sector, dodge the hard work and hide in their office - the NHS is no different.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Based on... higher numbers this week than last week?
-
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm
I was wondering that, but wasn't sure it was sensible to ask.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Are any “higher number” now evidence of exponential growth.
Tier 3 was self evident and you can see it in the numbers.
Though it’s a minority (well was) of the country so overall the lowest tiers were rising.
As I say, the govt had all the levers needed with that system, as evidenced by the numbers, and it did not need to become this.
Don't know when you will see it in the figures, but South Oxfordshire has had a bad day. Earlier i said it was just my local Landlord - I'm now aware of upwards of 50 positive tests in the surrounding 10 mile radius just today - an area that less than a week ago had had no positive cases for monthsYmx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:08 pmTier 3 was self evident and you can see it in the numbers.
Though it’s a minority (well was) of the country so overall the lowest tiers were rising.
As I say, the govt had all the levers needed with that system, as evidenced by the numbers, and it did not need to become this.
Moe than double Edinburgh.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
No, it's still growing. Plot a line and you'll see.
As the govt scientists said, the rate was increasing all over the country. Local lockdowns clearly cannot work in that scenario (and local lockdowns also ignore some pretty obvious truths about how people travel).
Per day. Not per week.
Perhaps just, but not the shitshow you described it as. Plus the top one is massively in control.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:47 pmNo, it's still growing. Plot a line and you'll see.
As the govt scientists said, the rate was increasing all over the country. Local lockdowns clearly cannot work in that scenario (and local lockdowns also ignore some pretty obvious truths about how people travel).
I’m pretty sure I’ve already stated these are tier 2, not tier 3.
The tier system provided sufficient controls to manage it.
Having a look at areas mentioned in that BBC link and it looks like you've engaged in some interesting cherry-picking. Oxford, the Staffordshires, Hull, Slough, Luton - T2 areas with rapid growth. The T3 ones are all pretty varied but some of them are not responding well (e.g. Manchester, Leeds, Ashfield, Trafford, Bury etc)Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:13 pmPerhaps just, but not the shitshow you described it as. Plus the top one is massively in control.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:47 pmNo, it's still growing. Plot a line and you'll see.
As the govt scientists said, the rate was increasing all over the country. Local lockdowns clearly cannot work in that scenario (and local lockdowns also ignore some pretty obvious truths about how people travel).
I’m pretty sure I’ve already stated these are tier 2, not tier 3.
The tier system provided sufficient controls to manage it.
Honestly, it's harder for me to go through the list on this link https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-tier- ... ned-715198 and find areas that have responded well than it is to find ones that prove your statement. There's a shitload of places where T2 & T3 restrictions simply have not worked. So "the numbers show it's working" simply is not true in a large number of places.
Perhaps start by looking at the numbers from a week after they went in to tier 3 for a start. Unless they’ve been in tier 3 for 2 weeks, you are not learning much about it. This would whittle the list down to actual relevant data.
Liverpool I believe being the longest. Manchester only went tier 3 Nov 23rd. So 2 weeks, or 1 week to take effect so far.
Manchester not responding well.
2017 subaru wrx sti 0 60
Draw a line, which way in the current gradient.
If this chart gradient was upside down you’d be calling it a shit show. I assume the gaps signify whole weeks.
Liverpool I believe being the longest. Manchester only went tier 3 Nov 23rd. So 2 weeks, or 1 week to take effect so far.
Manchester not responding well.
2017 subaru wrx sti 0 60
Draw a line, which way in the current gradient.
If this chart gradient was upside down you’d be calling it a shit show. I assume the gaps signify whole weeks.
Sorry, that's your defence of you claiming it's "plummeting in tier 3"?
The whole point is that a) there's lots of T2 and T3 places where the tier system is not working (or working well enough) and b) it's rising all over the country making the concept of local lockdowns totally redundant.
The whole point is that a) there's lots of T2 and T3 places where the tier system is not working (or working well enough) and b) it's rising all over the country making the concept of local lockdowns totally redundant.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:33 am Sorry, that's your defence of you claiming it's "plummeting in tier 3"?
The whole point is that a) there's lots of T2 and T3 places where the tier system is not working (or working well enough) and b) it's rising all over the country making the concept of local lockdowns totally redundant.
Where have tier 3 restrictions been in place long enough to make any difference?
No, it’s about showing how you were wrong in your assertion on exponential growth here.
For those tier 1/2 still not slowing, tier 3 would have been the next step of control. So within control of the system.
Which bunch of tier 3 areas has it not stopped exponential growth a week after introduction?
For those tier 1/2 still not slowing, tier 3 would have been the next step of control. So within control of the system.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:57 am No, it’s about showing how you were wrong in your assertion on exponential growth here.
Which bunch of tier 3 areas has it not stopped exponential growth a week after introduction?
For those tier 1/2 still not slowing, tier 3 would have been the next step of control. So within control of the system.
Well if you change the meaning of “exponential “ to mean “any” growth. The growth has stopped before the restrictions could take any affect.
Tier 3 timeline
But on Friday 16 October, the status of Lancashire also changed to the highest tier, with Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire upgraded the following week.
Warrington then moved into tier three on 27 October, and it was announced Nottingham and areas of Nottinghamshire would follow on Friday 30 October with West Yorkshire joining the following week.
So only Liverpool (plummeting) has any arguably statistically significant data on tier 3. Manchester next (downward gradient). Anazingly given the adherence to rules in there.
Others only been there for days once first week passes at most.
But clearly its not able to stop exponential growth - a shitshow, if you will.
But on Friday 16 October, the status of Lancashire also changed to the highest tier, with Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire upgraded the following week.
Warrington then moved into tier three on 27 October, and it was announced Nottingham and areas of Nottinghamshire would follow on Friday 30 October with West Yorkshire joining the following week.
So only Liverpool (plummeting) has any arguably statistically significant data on tier 3. Manchester next (downward gradient). Anazingly given the adherence to rules in there.
Others only been there for days once first week passes at most.
But clearly its not able to stop exponential growth - a shitshow, if you will.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:18 pm Tier 3 timeline
But on Friday 16 October, the status of Lancashire also changed to the highest tier, with Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire upgraded the following week.
Warrington then moved into tier three on 27 October, and it was announced Nottingham and areas of Nottinghamshire would follow on Friday 30 October with West Yorkshire joining the following week.
So only Liverpool (plummeting) has any arguably statistically significant data on tier 3. Manchester next (downward gradient). Anazingly given the adherence to rules in there.
Others only been there for days once first week passes at most.
But clearly its not able to stop exponential growth - a shitshow, if you will.
The Gumpertz curve might just do its thing regardless.
Manchester has been in T3 for weeks and the graph you showed is not a positive one - it's dropping very slowly. Then look at Rochdale, at Bolton, at Stockport, at Bury. Same with the south Yorkshire places like Sheffield and Doncaster. That's the highest level and it's been that way for weeks, and we're seeing a slight drop in cases (not plummeting). Meanwhile, the rates go up in the rest of the country - meaning the tier system is rendered meaningless. It's simply not feasible to run the tier system in every part of the UK; it made some sense as an idea when starting from low amounts of the virus, so we could play whack-a-mole with outbreaks, but not where basically everywhere is increasing.Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:18 pm Tier 3 timeline
But on Friday 16 October, the status of Lancashire also changed to the highest tier, with Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire upgraded the following week.
Warrington then moved into tier three on 27 October, and it was announced Nottingham and areas of Nottinghamshire would follow on Friday 30 October with West Yorkshire joining the following week.
So only Liverpool (plummeting) has any arguably statistically significant data on tier 3. Manchester next (downward gradient). Anazingly given the adherence to rules in there.
Others only been there for days once first week passes at most.
But clearly its not able to stop exponential growth - a shitshow, if you will.
-
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:49 pm
Manchester has been in T3 for weeks and the graph you showed is not a positive one - it's dropping very slowly
Manchester went into tier 3 on the 23rd of October , two week (S) ago yesterday. The narrative is nonsense.
Also if any growth is being described as exponential we should describe the falls the same.
Last edited by Bimbowomxn on Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.