London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 20, 10:37 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 622
Default 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.* 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   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 20, 11:08 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Default 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


  #33   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 20, 11:08 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Default New boarding on London's buses

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote:
On 02/06/2020 17:00,
wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
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.* 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*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the
US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be
passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if

-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until
they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

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.

So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.* However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.


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?


Anna Noyd-Dryver
  #34   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 20, 06:40 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2020
Posts: 13
Default 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.* 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   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 20, 07:44 AM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 622
Default 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.* 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.


  #37   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 20, 08:23 AM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 311
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 20, 08:24 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 311
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 20, 08:25 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 311
Default 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?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Front-boarding only for BBs Recliner[_4_] London Transport 46 January 21st 20 07:14 PM
Arn't all new buses in London supposed to be hybrids? [email protected] London Transport 26 February 24th 17 04:18 PM
Please stand behind the line as the train approaches and let passengers off before boarding [email protected] London Transport 5 June 29th 11 10:41 AM
Changeless bus passenger denied boarding Walter Briscoe London Transport 40 September 18th 08 11:20 PM
Bendy buses - speed of boarding Steph Davies London Transport 2 November 28th 03 09:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017