Re: Coronavirus
 

No worries I thought I'd made a glaring error that I'd missed.:D

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Money can be found, it always is to bail out big businesses. Money does not grow on trees but it's introduced by central banks. Increasing money supply doesn't make anyone Venezuela nor does it always increase inflation during economic downturns.

As I've said before your household budget based analysis is fundamentally flawed at macroeconomic level. The USA has frequently spent it's way out of recession. That doesn't, and never has, made them socialist by any definition going.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Aha!

Re: Coronavirus
 

If what's being proposed is accepted as the correct way of getting the economy going again whilst protecting people, why didn't we do this instead of lockdown?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

They aren't mutually exclusive or competing options. The health crisis and economic crisis are one and the same.

You couldn't control spread without lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No idea what Corbyn's garden looks like.

Ayway, when Boris was asked what the difference will be between the austerity measure from 2010 and what is ahead of us, he said "this time we want to help everyday people".

Which means that wasn't the intention 10 years ago but let's face it, we always knew that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To use an analogy, the virus is a runaway train and the lockdown was a brake. Basically it has slowed down enough now you can release the brake a little.

If we release the lockdown and there is no difference then the lockdown was a mistake (although we didn't know that at the time, you only get reliable data on the virus after it has infected a lot of people - also the Chinese data was bullshit)

Re: Coronavirus
 

How do they work out the current 'R' figure?

and how accurate is it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They look on CF and see what the experts are saying;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Using the Government COVID alert scale of 1 to 5, and using the formula

COVID alert level = R (rate of infection) + number of infections

We are at a COVID alert level of between 223060.5 and 223060.9... :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

The simplest way is you put the total infections data you've been given by the NHS into a graph and you fit an exponential function to it, the best fitting R number is then reported to be R.

The accuracy is determined by the amount of data you have (which unfortunately means you are least accurate at the beginning of the pandemic and most accurate after it's all over)

Now of course you say, what if the NHS data is incomplete. Well that is a major issue.

Also remember R is just a sort of average and it is vulnerable to various conditions at the time. Social distancing and lockdown pushes R down so it's entirely possible different countries have different Rs for the same virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just guesswork again then, using incomplete and possibly flawed data

Also, using the formula shown by Hugh, my neighborhood has an R value of 0 so I should be free to party & BBQ to my hearts content . . . in fact other neighborhoods with a zero rating could join in :p:



of course, none of us have been tested so we really aren't sure if we've had it, got it, or are naturally immune to it :rolleyes:

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It isn't guesswork. This is literally how you define R. It's not like viruses come carved with R values in them.

Re: Coronavirus