Ok and?
The foundation pays for their research and helps them get funding.
Thats part for course in medical research.
Sorry but you are reaching
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
The foundation pays for their research and helps them get funding.
Thats part for course in medical research.
Sorry but you are reaching
BlueStevie35
Player Valuation: £70m
All settings - 98 is the announced total, up 49 on yesterday but down 22 on last Friday, despite this the 7 day rolling average falls to an even 56. The earlier hospital figure sees that average rise to 9.43
Tea_drinker
Player Valuation: £15m
I'm just suspicious of philanthropists who remain in cahoots with massive businesses.
Hes powerful and has influence. He could probably get them to do what he wants and whats best.
Some massive businesses for tax reasons and making a good name for themselves love charity stuff so when he comes calling of course they may join in.
Not every mega corp is evil all of the time.
Gates is not the ahole people have portrayed him over the years. He and his wife genuinely care about things. Even when he was still running Microsoft Melinda was giving big to charity and helping causes. Its what led them to create the foundation.
I think the biggest problem with R is the over emphasis on it. It is useful, but only one part of the whole picture.
This may help.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02009-w
But fascination might have turned into unhealthy political and media fixation, say disease experts. R is an imprecise estimate that rests on assumptions, says Jeremy Rossman, a virologist at the University of Kent, UK. It doesn’t capture the current status of an epidemic and can spike up and down when case numbers are low. It is also an average for a population and therefore can hide local variation. Too much attention to it could obscure the importance of other measures, such as trends in numbers of new infections, deaths and hospital admissions, and cohort surveys to see how many people in a population currently have the disease, or have already had it.
It would explain maybe why the NI executive announced the R rate as being between 0.8 and 1.8. I took that as covering regional variations.
The Chief Medical Officer plumped for 1.3 overall as it happens.
Sorry, no idea how they calculate it, even on the health department website they aren’t clear!
R number – Covid-19
The Department of Health has published the current Covid-19 reproduction number (R).
www.health-ni.gov.uk
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
"R" is a best guess. In Aberdeen its higher than in Portishead, (near Bristol for Merica). UK average is 0.8 to 1.0.
Social distance, wear a mask indoor shops and that, wash your hands, plus dont be a tit should see most ok.
That said, schools getting open is a big headache which has to be scratched, somehow. Staged classes/year groups would be my suggestion.
Social distance, wear a mask indoor shops and that, wash your hands, plus dont be a tit should see most ok.
That said, schools getting open is a big headache which has to be scratched, somehow. Staged classes/year groups would be my suggestion.
-Rob-
Player Valuation: £15m
Any other Preston blues a little peeved at being put in to lock down despite the 'spike' being less than 50 cases in a week.
According to stats from Preston Hospital, there were just 3 people admitted to hospital during that week and zero deaths. That hardly warrants a lockdown.
According to stats from Preston Hospital, there were just 3 people admitted to hospital during that week and zero deaths. That hardly warrants a lockdown.
It’s been rolled out as an exact measurement, but in fact it’s not, yet we have based an unprecedented amount of public policy on it around the world as politicians look for something tangible they can explain in a field they are uncertain of. It’s a useful tool but you wouldn’t be using it, or hopefully using it in isolation without other data.
It’s likely each country is measuring it differently with different variables. It is by nature in exact, often relies on guesstimates or projecting/predicting-trends and generally can only be used on a Macro scape. It’s widely accepted as an inexact measurement. Infact around the world you are likely to see different countries calculating and applying it differently and all the suspicion that raises.
A guide to R — the pandemic’s misunderstood metric
What the reproduction number can and can’t tell us about managing COVID-19.
www.nature.com
Last edited:
Thanks for that mate.It’s been rolled out as an exact measurement, but in fact it’s not, yet we have based an unprecedented amount of public policy on it around the world as politicians look for something tangible they can explain in a field they are uncertain of. It’s a useful tool but you wouldn’t be using it, or hopefully using it in isolation without other data.
It’s likely each country is measuring it differently with different variables. It is by nature in exact, often relies on guesstimates or projecting/predicting-trends and generally can only be used on a Macro scape. It’s widely accepted as an inexact measurement. Infact around the world you are likely to see different countries calculating and applying it differently and all the suspicion that raises.
A guide to R — the pandemic’s misunderstood metric
What the reproduction number can and can’t tell us about managing COVID-19.
Safe to say though that if you have used the same method of calculation from the outset then it is a valid indicator of the trend of the virus albeit not an exact science.
Do you have any Muslim ray guns in Preston?
It’s like the elephant in the room isn’t it
The press try to delicately skate around it, every time a new area has their restrictions tightened.
Well if you trust the tester, method and reporter mate. For example, your data is only as good as your testing, data accuracy, efficacy and speed of data you are using.
Also in terms of method 10 different groups in the U.K. combine their data compiled through different statistical models and methods, negotiate with each other, compromise and build a consensus on what is likely to be the R range, that’s how in exact and subjective it can be.
In that scenario you could subjectively suspect, say if a politician wanted to open up an economy or wanted to be seen to manage the pandemic, as the above example illustrates you could suspect political influence on the data, variables, methods I mention above and reporting in keeping the R value low, but that’s me being tin foil hatted.
The only way really to get an accurate R is test the whole Country and even then it has a shelf life. It’s useful, but shouldn’t be used in isolation as the one stat to rule them all.
Last edited:
I don’t understand why sewage titers haven’t become more common reporting metric - they are comparatively “real time” and seem to be good at reflecting the overall population without an extensive testing infrastructure.
- Status