Weston Super Saint

I do wear a mask at all times in situations where the law demands I should. I also maintain social distancing of a minimum of 1 metre - however, I will increase this to two metres on the times when I have to visit Wales as per the regulations. I (I'm not sure about 'all people') do not wear eye covering as this is not currently required by law. I do have glasses though which will provide a modicum of protection. Ah, good, I'm glad you brought up the testing comment and the fact we are testing more now than we used to. You have, however, fallen into the same trap as everyone else when it comes to testing figures and have completely ignored the 'death rate' (I know Egg will remind us there's more to it than just deaths), which is currently claimed to peak at twice what it did in March / April. So yes, it's very true that because we are carrying out more tests we are finding more cases of the virus, but how do you square that with the current prediction regarding deaths? Surely more deaths means that more people are being infected than previously and that is despite the masks being compulsory? Unless you feel that the virus has mutated to become far more deadly now?

Are we allowed to question the efficacy of mask wearing yet? In Feb and March, I doubt many households in the country even owned a mask, let alone considered wearing one. Since July they have been a compulsory part of daily life, but infection rates are rising 5 times quicker than they did during the previous wave. Is it time to consider that this 'control' measure is not working, do some proper investigation into how the virus spreads rather than take the lazy option, then put measures in place that will be effective?

Will being closed give then more time to prepare?

If the other issues were significant surely they would be included on the COBR presentations rather than the current binary options of death and no death....

The latest Imperial study puts it at 1.15% for developed countries : https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/ Using that would mean we would need close to 400,000 new infections every day to produce 4,000 deaths - that's with an R rate of 1. Looks even more ludicrous when you use that percentage....

I wan't 'banging on about' herd immunity. Merely pointing out that 4,000 deaths per day is a completely arbitrary (and in my opinion, unrealistic) number. To extrapolate from that - using a 2% death rate and an assumption that R remains at 1 (with 200,000 infections it would certainly be considerably higher, but run with it for illustration purposes) and an assumption that deaths occur 14 days after infection. In month 1 there would be 6 million infections (200,000 per day from day 1) and 60,000 deaths (4,000 per day from day 15) In month 2 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths (4,000 per day from day 1) In month 3 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths In month 4 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths In month 5 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths - more than 50% of England would have been infected and therefore 'herd immunity' would begin to take over. In this scenario the virus would definitely need to mutate drastically within the first five months for herd immunity not to be effective, but more likely would need to mutate every 2 months.

46 million cases worldwide (confirmed through testing). 1.19 million deaths worldwide = 2.6% of those that have caught the virus have died (death rate). However, we know that people can catch the virus and not have any symptoms and therefore would have no reason to be tested. I'm also assuming that testing worldwide is not consistent and doubtless people with symptoms will not be tested (as happened in the UK in the early stages), so I would say a 2% death rate is probably about right. Would love to hear how you think it is different.

4000 deaths per day is an arbitrary number. With a 2% death rate, that would require 200,000 people being infected every single day. Not sure what the R would need to be in that scenario but it would be pretty high. Even with a completely flat growth rate in R that scenario would lead to herd immunity in about 6 months...

Agreed. More destruction for the local / independents with more going to the wall. Larger chains will likely survive. It is a resilient sector though and once the world re-opens - next summer? - the closed pubs will be snapped up at bargain basement prices and we'll start all over again!

To be fair, those with an online presence will be fine. Those that don't have an online presence were probably struggling before Covid became a factor. Hospitality will be screwed again - although November is traditionally a quiet month anyway, but they are unlikely to 'catch up' like they normally do with the Xmas period as I can't imagine Xmas parties will take place on the same scale as usual.

Mental. I think you've missed all the points once more. Wales had local lockdowns since mid September - a big hint for you so you don't miss the point once more, this is where the statistics will come from. England have also introduced local lockdowns. Even you can't have missed Manchester and Liverpool. Wales instigated a national lockdown (fire break) on Friday the 23rd. Another hint for you, this will have generated more statistics in terms of controlling the virus on a national level and whether or not this tactic is successful. I'm pretty sure everyone else understood the subtleties, but do please raise your hand if you're still struggling. Perhaps one more point, if it doesn't push you over the edge, whilst England are looking at a longer, full lockdown, Wales are saying that they are sticking to their original two week plan and not looking to extend it, even though they have the highest R rate in the UK which doesn't appear to be reducing despite a full lockdown and several local lockdowns.

To coin a phrase, pony. Parts of Wales have been in lockdown since mid September. There's no need to wait around for the data as it's already there.

Lol, Boris is going head to head with the egg chasing! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54762048

To be fair, my point was that a 'circuit break' is currently in progress in Wales. Surely the statistcis from that can inform further decisions about lockdowns, rather than relying on the scientists who are giving us their best guess. If it works it would be the best option, if it doesn't then a full lockdown is inevitable anyway....

What do the statistics say for the Welsh 'circuit break', is it working?

Not sure those figures make much sense. A quote from that article : What 'R' rate did they base the worst case scenario on where :

By 'dealt with' are you including inappropriate interference? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54731222

Anything in there about US election rigging 60 years ago?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54714660

Pretty effective if they only found evidence of tampering in one out of 3,100 counties

I do apologise for not carrying out a full investigation 60 years ago! Still, since it was in answer to a question asking how they "could have" done it, I wasn't expecting to have to provide absolute proof.

They're pretty good at making things (and people) 'disappear', maybe they had someone on the inside who tampered with the ballot boxes and made some votes disappear. I doubt that would have been beyond the wit of man, especially in the 60's.

No. HTH.

Let's see.... PPE - tick. Track and trace - tick Serco / fitness to work benefits - tick HS2 - tick

To be fair, would have expected black history month to be the perfect time for BLM marches up and down the country, but nothing... Odd really, it's almost as if it was a fad that died out really quickly.