| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
June 3rd 20, 09:51 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: 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. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. |
|
#3
June 3rd 20, 10:06 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: 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. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. I've not thought of it that way. Thank you. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and Johnson followed his advise. It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no regard for anything else. The cabinet members and Johnsons' political advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence. The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in. In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously. |
|
#4
June 3rd 20, 12:46 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
|
|
#5
June 3rd 20, 01:21 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 13:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:06:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no regard for anything else.Â* The cabinet members and Johnsons' political advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence.Â* The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other than Brexit I see little evidence they are capable of that, eitherI could have phrased that better but you're correct and we've ended up with the mess we're in. In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously. There should be completely separate teams dealing them. What has the almost invisible Gove been doing the last couple of months? I think they do but part of the Brexit team has been transferred to Covid. |
|
#6
June 3rd 20, 05:15 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 11:06, wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: 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 democraticÂ* 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. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered.Â* They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration.Â* I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. I've not thought of it that way.Â* Thank you. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and Johnson followed his advise. It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no regard for anything else.Â* The cabinet members and Johnsons' political advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence. Â*The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in. Unfortunately they are not competent to deal with Brexit either. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
|
#7
June 3rd 20, 05:14 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: 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. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. I suspect his current press secretary is still banging his head against the wall. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
|
#8
June 3rd 20, 08:28 PM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
New boarding on London's buses
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: 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. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. I suspect his current press secretary is still banging his head against the wall. He's so low key, I had to look up who it was: one Rob Oxley, who appears to be a real lightweight, appointed mainly for his right-wing Brexit credentials, rather than any senior press experience. He's certainly no Bernard Ingham, Alastair Campbell, Damian McBride or Andy Coulson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Oxley So, in effect, that's been another role performed by the Dom, who's known to regularly leak policies and bad news about ministers to the press. I'm sure he's the one who's been bad-mouthing Hapless Hancock, who looks a lot more confident now. |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
