Scrutable

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:29 pm

headshot wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:46 pm

I live in Dudley MBC.

We were in Tier 1 before we went into lockdown, we’re coming out of lockdown a month later in Tier 3 and with a higher case rate. So lockdown has made things demonstrably worse here.

Our house is a 5 minute drive from the Worcestershire border - in tier 2.

Where am I right now, North Kesteven, seems to be only slightly above the national average, but Lincolnshire is in tier 3 because East Lindsey (i.e. Skegness) is twice as bad for some reason.

Councillor Martin John Hill OBE (cons.) is not happy about that, by the way, and would like special treatment.

Actually it seems like lots of conservative MPs are unhappy about the tier their regions are put in because they like telling other people what they can't do rather than being told what they can't do by someone else. (But a tier system which is essentially an extension of the lockdown for almost everyone is maybe more palatable than Johnson saying that the full lockdown needs to be extended.)

Also, lots of people seem to be coming to terms with the idea that when you have two different regions, at a certain point there's a border between them. Until you've got a mass testing a regime under which you can define tiers for individual houses, unfortunately that's the best we can do.

If you're in a low incidence location near to a high incidence place and you go into a lower tier, you'll get a lot of people coming in to your area to enjoy the benefits of being less locked down.
You might describe it as 'levelling up' but I'm not sure I'd want it.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:45 am

If you're in a low incidence location near to a high incidence place and you go into a lower tier, you'll get a lot of people coming in to your area to enjoy the benefits of being less locked down...

... which would of course be illegal, but practically unenforceable in a country like England.

We Can't stop PEOPlE COmiNG hERe If tHey WaNT tO / CAN'T EXPEcT PeOpLE tO ProVE whErE THey LIVe said every tier 2 pub restaurant owner offering a plate of chips and side salad with every pint because that counts as a "substantial meal".

The neighbouring constituency (in Worcestershire) to ours (in Dudley) has a higher number of actual infections, and higher rate of infection and is trending upwards when ours has plateaued is in Tier 2. We are in Tier 3.

Peterborough (in Cambridgeshire, tier 2) is flat at about 200 per 100,000 per week, while South Holland (in Lincolnshire, tier 3) is falling through 150 per 100,000 per week. However, South Holland is next to Boston which is at over 400 per 100,000 per week and you obviously don't want people from Boston all going to pubs in Spalding.

(England is at 209 per 100,000 per week overall.)

For comparison, Como is wondering if it can move to orange instead of red [Red Dwarf change-bulb-joke] and they're somewhere around 600.

Johnson is saying that "the problem is that we're coming out of this lockdown with the incidence of the disease still really high".

I know, it's a terrible idea, he should complain to whoever is in charge.

(He seems to be in a lab wearing a Public Health England lab coat as if he personally is doing... I don't know... something medically useful?)

nicked from FB. Got f.ck all else to do as Erewash is in tier 3...

Mrs V (who knows about these things) reckon it's more to do with ICU capacity as much as infections. Queens Med in Nottingham always over eggs the lack of capacity and therefore the level is higher, Derby on the other hand is more realistic but has higher infection levels but relatively higher ICU capacity.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:03 am

(England is at 209 per 100,000 per week overall.)

For comparison, Como is wondering if it can move to orange instead of red [Red Dwarf change-bulb-joke] and they're somewhere around 600.

One of the hardest things about comparing numbers is that some places use cases/100k in the last 14 days and others use 7 days. This seems like something where the EU might be able to make some recommendations. Obviously the UK would probably ignore them, but the confusion goes wider than that.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:27 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:03 am

(England is at 209 per 100,000 per week overall.)

For comparison, Como is wondering if it can move to orange instead of red [Red Dwarf change-bulb-joke] and they're somewhere around 600.

One of the hardest things about comparing numbers is that some places use cases/100k in the last 14 days and others use 7 days. This seems like something where the EU might be able to make some recommendations. Obviously the UK would probably ignore them, but the confusion goes wider than that.

I can cope as long as they say which one it is. It did take me a while to figure out the whole new cases per week per 100,000 thing because on the news they just say "infection rate" and you have to look at the small print.

The other issue is whether they use reporting date or case date, and which seven days they choose exactly, but those are relatively minor corrections.

In another thread I posted Lombardy's recent numbers in the same units.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:17 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:29 pm

headshot wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:46 pm

I live in Dudley MBC.

We were in Tier 1 before we went into lockdown, we’re coming out of lockdown a month later in Tier 3 and with a higher case rate. So lockdown has made things demonstrably worse here.

Our house is a 5 minute drive from the Worcestershire border - in tier 2.

Where am I right now, North Kesteven, seems to be only slightly above the national average, but Lincolnshire is in tier 3 because East Lindsey (i.e. Skegness) is twice as bad for some reason.

Councillor Martin John Hill OBE (cons.) is not happy about that, by the way, and would like special treatment.

Actually it seems like lots of conservative MPs are unhappy about the tier their regions are put in because they like telling other people what they can't do rather than being told what they can't do by someone else. (But a tier system which is essentially an extension of the lockdown for almost everyone is maybe more palatable than Johnson saying that the full lockdown needs to be extended.)

Also, lots of people seem to be coming to terms with the idea that when you have two different regions, at a certain point there's a border between them. Until you've got a mass testing a regime under which you can define tiers for individual houses, unfortunately that's the best we can do.

Conservatives really struggle with people telling them they can't do stuff. It seems to go against the natural order of things. When foxhunting was banned some years ago lots of bewildered upper class gents complained that someone was preventing them doing what they wanted to do

I am informed that the Shrek Experience on the south bank is to reopen on monday (by very disgruntled offspring no 1, whose photo business operates there).

I wonder how many visitors a tourist thing like that is going to draw.

In Ireland, from next week all retail, hairdressers, gastropubs etc. can reopen, against advice. I hope hospitals will be fully staffed over Christmas.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:03 am

Peterborough (in Cambridgeshire, tier 2) is flat at about 200 per 100,000 per week, while South Holland (in Lincolnshire, tier 3) is falling through 150 per 100,000 per week. However, South Holland is next to Boston which is at over 400 per 100,000 per week and you obviously don't want people from Boston all going to pubs in Spalding.

(England is at 209 per 100,000 per week overall.)

For comparison, Como is wondering if it can move to orange instead of red [Red Dwarf change-bulb-joke] and they're somewhere around 600.

Turns out Como officially will be orange as of Sunday, I mean, the numbers are too scattered for me to even see if they're coming down (they're over 500 on this scale). Lombardy is dropping quite quickly as a whole though but it's still around 400.

The maddest thing about all this mess is that nobody in the public eye is pointing out that the two week break over Christmas is a perfect length of time to isolate all the asymptomatic cases caused by transmission within schools, so it would be the ideal moment for tightening restrictions to really drive down the number of causes.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:10 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:03 am

Peterborough (in Cambridgeshire, tier 2) is flat at about 200 per 100,000 per week, while South Holland (in Lincolnshire, tier 3) is falling through 150 per 100,000 per week. However, South Holland is next to Boston which is at over 400 per 100,000 per week and you obviously don't want people from Boston all going to pubs in Spalding.

(England is at 209 per 100,000 per week overall.)

For comparison, Como is wondering if it can move to orange instead of red [Red Dwarf change-bulb-joke] and they're somewhere around 600.

Turns out Como officially will be orange as of Sunday, I mean, the numbers are too scattered for me to even see if they're coming down (they're over 500 on this scale). Lombardy is dropping quite quickly as a whole though but it's still around 400.

Actually what annoys me is trying to compare this rate of new cases per week with figures which try to estimate how many cases there currently are, as in the symptom tracker app data, which actually says that South Holland is pretty bad.

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news ... ct-4744206

(by the way it's the whole of Lombardy which moves to the orange tier next week meaning basically that non-essential shops can open and you're free to move around in your own council area without having a good reason)

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:38 pm

Conservatives really struggle with people telling them they can't do stuff. It seems to go against the natural order of things. When foxhunting was banned some years ago lots of bewildered upper class gents complained that someone was preventing them doing what they wanted to do

They are so accustomed to challenging authority they don't realise the difference beween being prevented from foxhunting, which arises from other people's preferences and values, and being prevented from spreading a contagious disease, which is more like being ordered to leave a building which is on fire - it's advice over how to achive what you want rather than a disagreement between people wanting different things.

It would be different if there were a genuine tradeoff between economic damage and saving lives. The we might disagree over how much a life is worth. But all the evidence shows that whatever you want the most effective way to get it is by effective action against the disease.

AMS wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:40 pm

The maddest thing about all this mess is that nobody in the public eye is pointing out that the two week break over Christmas is a perfect length of time to isolate all the asymptomatic cases caused by transmission within schools, so it would be the ideal moment for tightening restrictions to really drive down the number of causes.

They're aware. Have you seen Surgeon's plan for Scotland where schools break up a little bit early for Christmas and go back significantly later to try and stop infections travelling from schoolchild to extended family and then back into schools again.

AMS wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:40 pm

The maddest thing about all this mess is that nobody in the public eye is pointing out that the two week break over Christmas is a perfect length of time to isolate all the asymptomatic cases caused by transmission within schools, so it would be the ideal moment for tightening restrictions to really drive down the number of causes.

Yup, and there's already the normal 'bubble' mechanism to allow people that live alone to have someone to mix with. But instead, there's now an arbitrary number of households that can mix, which will suit some families, e.g. 1 set of parents and 2 children's households, but be a nightmare for others to negotiate - or they'll just cheat because it does seem so arbitrary

Hunting Dog wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:19 pm

Yup, and there's already the normal 'bubble' mechanism to allow people that live alone to have someone to mix with. But instead, there's now an arbitrary number of households that can mix, which will suit some families, e.g. 1 set of parents and 2 children's households, but be a nightmare for others to negotiate - or they'll just cheat because it does seem so arbitrary

I suspect that it may be possible to demonstrate formally that any level of restrictions apart from "Do not leave your own home apart from one shopping trip a week" will inevitably lead to situations where something that any reasonable person would agree is absurd at the boundaries between rules. For example, a town with one side of the main road in another county so that pub A is open and not pub B. Or, as we have here, children's play areas closed in parks, but the same children mixing for many hours a day in schools. There is unlimited potential for gammons to focus on these absurdities, because even if Omniscient Jones™ himself was running the government, there would be contradictions. This problem does not admit of fully Cartesian solutions, and until we recognise that, the battle with the "skeptics" will never end.

AMS wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:40 pm

The maddest thing about all this mess is that nobody in the public eye is pointing out that the two week break over Christmas is a perfect length of time to isolate all the asymptomatic cases caused by transmission within schools, so it would be the ideal moment for tightening restrictions to really drive down the number of causes.

Exactly A proper circuit breaker. As opposed to what we had this time round, where my daughter spent 10 days in self-isolation because of a contact at college.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:30 pm

AMS wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:40 pm

The maddest thing about all this mess is that nobody in the public eye is pointing out that the two week break over Christmas is a perfect length of time to isolate all the asymptomatic cases caused by transmission within schools, so it would be the ideal moment for tightening restrictions to really drive down the number of causes.

Exactly A proper circuit breaker. As opposed to what we had this time round, where my daughter spent 10 days in self-isolation because of a contact at college.

For clarification - that was to show that there were plenty of teenagers and young adults being exposed to COVID-19 during the so-called lockdown.

I am "deeply sorry" for implying that Rita Ora was stupid to have a party.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:52 am

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:45 am

If you're in a low incidence location near to a high incidence place and you go into a lower tier, you'll get a lot of people coming in to your area to enjoy the benefits of being less locked down...

... which would of course be illegal, but practically unenforceable in a country like England.

We Can't stop PEOPlE COmiNG hERe If tHey WaNT tO / CAN'T EXPEcT PeOpLE tO ProVE whErE THey LIVe said every tier 2 pub restaurant owner offering a plate of chips and side salad with every pint because that counts as a "substantial meal".

... or indeed a scotch egg

BUT ThIs is THE TIme OF YEaR When we HAVe The MoSt peOpLE yes that's why you have to stay closed now.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:46 pm

I am "deeply sorry" for implying that Rita Ora was stupid to have a party.

I have no idea who Rita Ora is, but I would be most amused if it meant "Go stick your head in a pic" in Māori.