NPR

6/11/20 - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Deaths: +355 (274 last week)
Cases: 23,287

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 .

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 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 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 .

Just a natural levelling off?

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:16 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 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 .

Just a natural levelling off?

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.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:15 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 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.

Or maybe the Gumpertz curve is real

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:21 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:16 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:13 pm



levelling off continues. Even before the lockdowns and tiers .

Just a natural levelling off?

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.

Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.

Shame the govt were bullied in to this.

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:39 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:21 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:16 pm

Just a natural levelling off?

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.

Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.

Shame the govt were bullied in to this.

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Liverpool hit tier 3 mid october

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

If interested in local rates.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:10 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:15 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:25 am That all sounds as expected really. I’d thought the criticism was aimed at the sheer volume of staff in business administration roles, rather than their individual salary. Ie the total cost.

I'm perhaps a bit too lazy to go far enough back in the thread to see where the wage issue arose. One of my arguments is that we have far too many managers (particularly at lower levels) that don't do enough clinical hours leaving areas short of cover.

That 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.

Not for us

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:39 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:21 pm

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.

Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.

Shame the govt were bullied in to this.

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:44 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:39 pm

Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.

Shame the govt were bullied in to this.

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

Based on... higher numbers this week than last week?

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:17 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:44 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

Based on... higher numbers this week than last week?

I was wondering that, but wasn't sure it was sensible to ask.

From what I’ve seen it was growing for many areas in tier 1. Flat in tier 2. Plummeting in tier 3.

The govt had all the necessary levers with the regional tier system to manage it.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:17 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:44 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

Based on... higher numbers this week than last week?

Are any “higher number” now evidence of exponential growth.

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:31 pm From what I’ve seen it was growing for many areas in tier 1. Flat in tier 2. Plummeting in tier 3.

The govt had all the necessary levers with the regional tier system to manage it.

Where did you see it? That directly contradicts Whitty's statements.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:52 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:31 pm From what I’ve seen it was growing for many areas in tier 1. Flat in tier 2. Plummeting in tier 3.

The govt had all the necessary levers with the regional tier system to manage it.

Where did you see it? That directly contradicts Whitty's statements.

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.

Westminster and Elmbridge - couple of random tier 2 cases

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:08 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:52 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:31 pm From what I’ve seen it was growing for many areas in tier 1. Flat in tier 2. Plummeting in tier 3.

The govt had all the necessary levers with the regional tier system to manage it.

Where did you see it? That directly contradicts Whitty's statements.

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 months

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:12 pm Westminster and Elmbridge - couple of random tier 2 cases

That second one looks like a shitshow

Is that 23 cases per 100,000 ?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:33 pm Is that 23 cases per 100,000 ?

Moe than double Edinburgh.

Weird chart reading skilz. Looks more on side of flat than exponential in recent times.

Plus tier 3 is available as a tool for areas where that’s not working.

It was sufficient to manage it with the system they had in place.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:36 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:33 pm Is that 23 cases per 100,000 ?

Moe than double Edinburgh.

Spiffing.

Eradication....

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:36 pm Weird chart reading skilz. Looks more on side of flat than exponential in recent times.

Plus tier 3 is available as a tool for areas where that’s not working.

It was sufficient to manage it with the system they had in place.

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).

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:33 pm Is that 23 cases per 100,000 ?

Per day. Not per week.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:47 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:36 pm Weird chart reading skilz. Looks more on side of flat than exponential in recent times.

Plus tier 3 is available as a tool for areas where that’s not working.

It was sufficient to manage it with the system they had in place.

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).

Perhaps just, but not the shitshow you described it as. Plus the top one is massively in control.

I’m pretty sure I’ve already stated these are tier 2, not tier 3.

The tier system provided sufficient controls to manage it.

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:13 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:47 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:36 pm Weird chart reading skilz. Looks more on side of flat than exponential in recent times.

Plus tier 3 is available as a tool for areas where that’s not working.

It was sufficient to manage it with the system they had in place.

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).

Perhaps just, but not the shitshow you described it as. Plus the top one is massively in control.

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)

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.

Tier 3 regs.







Harsher, working, and not the economy fvck we are under.

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.

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.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:44 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:39 pm

Well, the numbers suggest it was in fact working.

Shame the govt were bullied in to this.

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

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.

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.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:44 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:47 pm

The reporting is that it was working but not by enough to stop exponential growth.

Well that was wrong then.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shout at the guy saying it went into lockdown "the following week after Friday 16th October" I guess bimbo