Jump to content

Can we cruise again?


Featured Posts

23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

What do you think R 0.7 - 1.0 means?

It means that 1 person infects between 0.7 to 1 other.

 

It certainly doesnt mean 100% of the population will succumb to the virus if that is what you are thinking.

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

It means that 1 person infects between 0.7 to 1 other.

 

It certainly doesnt mean 100% of the population will succumb to the virus if that is what you are thinking.

 

Actually it does mean everyone would be infected eventually, at a time infinitely in the future to be precise.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Actually it does mean everyone would be infected eventually, at a time infinitely in the future to be precise.

Which of course in practice means 100% of the population will not become infected.

 

Once the R number reduces even further it could take decades for someone to become infected, by which time many of us will have shuffled off this mortal coil as it will potentially effectively peter out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Which of course in practice means 100% of the population will not become infected.

 

Once the R number reduces even further it could take decades for someone to become infected, by which time many of us will have shuffled off this mortal coil as it will potentially effectively peter out.

In practice it does not need R of 0.0 to be acceptable, but an R of 0.7 to 1.0 means a sustained level for a very long time.   We seem to manage to accept flu and other stuff that kills many thousands each year, so we can get to the point it kill numbers broadly in line with flu, with no restriction on the public, then I presume it would be seen by the public as acceptable.  But I think getting to an R of 0.0 is just not practical, so I don't believe it will peter out just like the majority of other viruses have not petered out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Only if it does not get blown up out of all proportion by ignorant sensationalist journalism.

 

 

Indeed. And governments, local authorities etc., who seem to be risk averse in the extreme, certainly out of step with that of the general population. Mind you, fear breeds fear so perhaps the campaign has been a success, more of general population are now a quivering mess, overcome by fear that a disease they probably won't catch but if they did, would be highly likely to lead to nothing more than a few days in bed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Only if it does not get blown up out of all proportion by ignorant sensationalist journalism.

 

 

It would seem that the public have been quite "happy" to accept deaths from flu up to around 30,000 a year in the past decade or so, (an average of 17,000 a year between 2014 and 2019 according to PHE).

 

Alternatively, "we" have been ignorant of the numbers, and would have been demanding action had we known.

 

Such action could have been a much higher take up of the annual vaccine offered, or a demand for it to be offered/available to many more people, in lower age groups.

 

Even now, there is little/no publicity of the numbers of annual deaths from flu, certainly not in a way that they can be easily compared with deaths from Covid19.

 

Now that lockdown is being reduced, it would be interesting and useful to see deaths from flu v deaths from Covid19, in order to see when we reach what could be seen as an "acceptable" level of deaths.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Indeed. And governments, local authorities etc., who seem to be risk averse in the extreme, certainly out of step with that of the general population. Mind you, fear breeds fear so perhaps the campaign has been a success, more of general population are now a quivering mess, overcome by fear that a disease they probably won't catch but if they did, would be highly likely to lead to nothing more than a few days in bed.  

 

The difference is that local authorities have a duty of care (for other people) whereas many ordinary individuals think they only have a duty of care to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

It would seem that the public have been quite "happy" to accept deaths from flu up to around 30,000 a year in the past decade or so, (an average of 17,000 a year between 2014 and 2019 according to PHE).

 

Alternatively, "we" have been ignorant of the numbers, and would have been demanding action had we known.

 

Such action could have been a much higher take up of the annual vaccine offered, or a demand for it to be offered/available to many more people, in lower age groups.

 

Even now, there is little/no publicity of the numbers of annual deaths from flu, certainly not in a way that they can be easily compared with deaths from Covid19.

 

Now that lockdown is being reduced, it would be interesting and useful to see deaths from flu v deaths from Covid19, in order to see when we reach what could be seen as an "acceptable" level of deaths.

Must admit I have never had a flu jab. I went once and the waiting room was full of people coughing and spluttering so I came straight out. A bit like Coronavirus we dont mix much in high density areas in the Flu season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Must admit I have never had a flu jab. I went once and the waiting room was full of people coughing and spluttering so I came straight out. A bit like Coronavirus we dont mix much in high density areas in the Flu season. 

 

Had my first flu jab one last autumn. It was by prior appointment, the GP's surgery was empty, and the whole process took about 90 seconds.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Machpoint005
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to boating...just noticed in the latest CRT email it says boats that aren't liveaboard going out for their day trip have to return to their home mooring at the end of the day. Whilst this doesn't apply to me it did make me curious. Many non-liveaboard boats shuffle about on towpath moorings and are now presumably allowed to start doing this again. Canals are pretty quiet currently. What is the argument against allowing lesuire boats to go out the marina and moor on the towpath overnight (with no one on board) to allow for a different day trip on a subsequent day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

The difference is that local authorities have a duty of care (for other people) whereas many ordinary individuals think they only have a duty of care to themselves.

Of course they have a duty of care. This can't be absolute though. Otherwise, councils would close down all their roads just in case someone might have an accident. CRT would have to fence off all canals just in case someone might fall in and drown. Fishing would be banned to make absolutely certain that nobody runs the risk, however remote, that someone might lose an eye if they were to walk past an angler who's casting out.

 

Their duty of care will be a balance of risk vs. likelihood of the event in question happening. My point is that local authorities are the best example of a major shift in risk assessment during this crisis. From perhaps a pragmatic and sensible balance pre-covid to the status quo of extreme caution, a level out of step with the balance between the probability of the event occurring and the necessity of continuance of day to day life.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Now that lockdown is being reduced, it would be interesting and useful to see deaths from flu v deaths from Covid19, in order to see when we reach what could be seen as an "acceptable" level of deaths.

One thing I am curious about is how many deaths attributed to Covid 19 actually were down to 'normal' influenza?

 

In the absence of an extensive testing regime we will never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That 10 infected people will pass it on to between 7 and 10 more people, so the number of cases is slowly declining.

 

What do you think it means?

 

 

The nearer it is to 1.0, the more likely that everyone (unless immune) will eventually catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Had my first flu jab one last autumn. It was by prior appointment, the GP's surgery was empty, and the whole process took about 90 seconds.

 

 

 

 

Ive been having them yearly for at least ten years. It is much dependant on the GPs practice much like all pubs sell beer but some are rubbish pubs same can be said of GPs surgerys. All maybe NHS but the differences between places is huge. Our surgery is brilliant and like you I am in and out in seconds or my gp just stabs me if I visit for ongoing medical reasons lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

One thing I am curious about is how many deaths attributed to Covid 19 actually were down to 'normal' influenza?

 

In the absence of an extensive testing regime we will never know.

I think the published data only relates to those tested for Covid, so it won't be contaminated by flu deaths.  What we don't and can't know, of course, is how many died of either flu of Covid without being tested,  or how many have been infected and recovered, nor whether having recovered there's any immunity.  The published numbers are an indication of how likely the NHS is going to be able to cope, that's all, and a vague hint at the direction of infection rates.

Not everyone is going to get it, because some people will still get hit by a bus, same as while most of us blokes have prostate cancer, we usually die of something else first, so it doesn't matter much.  It just became a bit of an urban myth that the NHS could cure everything and nobody ever had to die of being ill, and that we weren't just another animal suffering from nature, like everything else except rocks.

Me, I'd rather be an animal on a boat though.  I can't see how sleeping in a tin can is endangering anyone, but any wide-ranging and rapidly thought out rule is always going to throw up a few anomalies that we have to live with, even us anarchists.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john6767 said:

Actually it does mean everyone would be infected eventually, at a time infinitely in the future to be precise.

Not necessarily. If nothing else changes, as the proportion of the population who have had the virus increases, R decreases, and when R gets low enough, the incidence drops exponentially. Of course decreases in R dues to to this so-called "herd immunity" could induce behavioural changes (either by public opinion, or policy) that compensate to increase R again.

 

MP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

One thing I am curious about is how many deaths attributed to Covid 19 actually were down to 'normal' influenza?

 

In the absence of an extensive testing regime we will never know.

It's a question which has occurred to me too. I don't think it would be technically difficult to add primers for the 'flu virus genome to the PCR reactions being used to test for COVID-19 and get some statistics on that, but I'm a computer guy who knows the theory, not a molecular biologist, so don't quote me.

 

MP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Had my first flu jab one last autumn. It was by prior appointment, the GP's surgery was empty, and the whole process took about 90 seconds.

The missus got one while discussing her ongoing medication. The doctor just said, as we were about to leave, “Oh, while you’re here...”. About 2 weeks later the pharmacist at our local chemist said much the same  


No, she didn’t have a second one ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the published data only relates to those tested for Covid, so it won't be contaminated by flu deaths.  What we don't and can't know, of course, is how many died of either flu of Covid without being tested,  or how many have been infected and recovered, nor whether having recovered there's any immunity.  The published numbers are an indication of how likely the NHS is going to be able to cope, that's all, and a vague hint at the direction of infection rates.

Not everyone is going to get it, because some people will still get hit by a bus, same as while most of us blokes have prostate cancer, we usually die of something else first, so it doesn't matter much.  It just became a bit of an urban myth that the NHS could cure everything and nobody ever had to die of being ill, and that we weren't just another animal suffering from nature, like everything else except rocks.

Me, I'd rather be an animal on a boat though.  I can't see how sleeping in a tin can is endangering anyone, but any wide-ranging and rapidly thought out rule is always going to throw up a few anomalies that we have to live with, even us anarchists.

The only even vaguely self-consistent rule is "stay at home, except to do stuff needed to avoid immediate harm (food shopping, medicine etc) or the immediate collapse of society (food truck drivers, policemen etc) Once you try and give a bit more freedom, you're bound to hit a million cases where if X is allowed, there's no reason why Y can't be, and if you allow all of those, the rules disappear in a puff of logic. The options are lockdown, nothing, or inconsistency. For the first, move to Scotland or Wales, for the last, England.

 

MP.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the published data only relates to those tested for Covid, so it won't be contaminated by flu deaths. 

I guess I was thinking mainly about the deaths in care homes the numbers of which have been published. Not all of those or indeed anything close to all will have been tested thus far so when the doctor is certifying death and puts covid 19 on the death cert. how, in the absence of a test result can he or she be 100% sure?

 

I am expecting when the figures for 'normal' influenza are eventually published for this year we are going to see a quite drastic but totally artificial fall in numbers over previous years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

I am expecting when the figures for 'normal' influenza are eventually published for this year we are going to see a quite drastic but totally artificial fall in numbers over previous years.

 

It was tracking just the low side of the 5 year average on the chart I saw, but I can't remember where I saw it so that won't help much.  ONS maybe? - I'll have a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.