Coronavirus
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Even on that basis England isn't too great
You must log in or register to see images
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Decent thread if anyone is arsed.
But yeah, Sturgeon.
You must log in or register to see media
But yeah, Sturgeon.
Neither have you. It's a forum
It is, yeah. That doesn’t mean you have to bang the same drum every day though.
True enough ... but the other 3 only started to deviate from Westminster's lead when it became obvious that the Government hadn't got a Scooby... the majority of deaths in Wales and Scotland occurred in that earlier period not since they went their own way ...
Public confidence in the Welsh assembly was only 29% of the population back in March ... it had risen to 69% by the end of June when Wales made it clear that it would no longer be following the stear of Bungling Boris and his band of Bullshitters ...
Ignorance you say...
Herd immunity is conceptually simple. If enough people become immune to an infectious agent, the entire herd is protected because infectious people rarely encounter a non-immune person, and so transmission fizzles out.
The level of individual immunity required to attain herd immunity depends on how infectious the virus is, as measured by R, the average number of people that each infectious person infects. The classic example is measles, which has an R number of around 15 and a herd immunity threshold of 95 per cent. The numbers for the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are about 3.5 and 60 to 70 per cent.
Herd immunity has only ever been attained by vaccination. But the declaration advocates naturally acquired immunity. In other words, letting between two-thirds and three-quarters of the population catch the virus.
There are a number of issues with this, not least collateral damage. Even if the death rate is under 1 per cent, letting the virus run free will hospitalise and kill millions.
But there is another crucial scientific detail that the declaration – along with most discussions of herd immunity – misses. We can’t take it for granted that widespread individual immunity will automatically create herd immunity.
Herd immunity can only be built if the immune response totally prevents individuals from picking up and transmitting the virus. That sometimes happens, but often doesn’t. A lot of the time, an immune response stops us from falling ill if we reacquire the virus, but doesn’t prevent onward transmission. The same is true of vaccines.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ovid-19-infections-will-create-herd-immunity/
Oh and this;
Levels of protective antibodies in people wane "quite rapidly" after coronavirus infection, say researchers.
Antibodies are a key part of our immune defences and stop the virus from getting inside the body's cells.
The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September.
They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times.
Prof Wendy Barclay said: "We can see the antibodies and we can see them declining and we know antibodies on their own are quite protective.
"On the balance of evidence, I would say it would look as if immunity declines away at the same rate as antibodies decline away, and that this is an indication of waning immunity."
There are four other seasonal human coronaviruses, which we catch multiple times in our lives. They cause common cold symptoms and we can be reinfected every six to 12 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54696873
The ignorance is most certainly (as per) all yours.
You’re welcome.
Its generally not an issue at Old Trafford. People start leaving about 20 minutes before the end anyway. Normally the Paddies go first so that they dont miss the Holyhead Ferry, then the Londoners who dont want to get caught in crowds on the M6. The ones from the Greater Manchester area leave next to avoid build-up of Traffic on the M60. Us locals walk out of an empty stadium just as the final whistle goes and are home in 10mins.Yes, I've noticed from reading reports that is the Manchester United line of why supporters should be allowed back. Yet despite looking, I can find plenty of information regarding inside the ground, but non about the dispersal of 23,500 people afterwards. Hence why I raised the question. Although looking at this footage, I suppose if there was a staged leaving process before the final whistle
You must log in or register to see media
Bottleneck there.
"England" is at a critical stage with infections now doubling every 9 days ... tighter national rules would have 'genuine benefits' say scientists ...
Twenty minutes is an exaggeration but there is a definite 'miss the traffic' movement with about ten minutes left.
In a stadium that holds circa 80k spectators it's not to going to be too difficult to space out the £23k proposed.
Not sure what the issue is personally, there simply will not be a 'scrum' exiting with those numbers, I'm fairly confident some thought has gone into it.
In a stadium that holds circa 80k spectators it's not to going to be too difficult to space out the £23k proposed.
Not sure what the issue is personally, there simply will not be a 'scrum' exiting with those numbers, I'm fairly confident some thought has gone into it.
All the trials have been successful as far as I know which suggests they weren’t really trials at all.
Non-league crowds are working fine.
It was all lies they said....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ssed-jewish-members/ar-BB1avnpD?ocid=msedgdhp
An investigation into anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has found Labour responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.
The party could face legal action after the equalities watchdog found the party guilty of three breaches of the law.
The EHRC has published its long-awaited major report into Labour’s handling of anti-Semitism complaints and found the party harassed and discriminated against Jewish people.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ssed-jewish-members/ar-BB1avnpD?ocid=msedgdhp
An investigation into anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has found Labour responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.
The party could face legal action after the equalities watchdog found the party guilty of three breaches of the law.
The EHRC has published its long-awaited major report into Labour’s handling of anti-Semitism complaints and found the party harassed and discriminated against Jewish people.
And now they're doing worse
... only if you include those prior numbers whilst following Westminster ... infections rate are rising quicker in England
...
Do you know how many fans attended the Brighton trial?
I'm just trying to compare it to the dispersal of 23,500 supporters in Manchester. I think I will stop using the term Old Trafford, because I'm not really questioning what goes on in the ground, more questions about how a bottle neck is prevented within the City afterwards, whether that be public transport as you have highlighted or other areas.
We've heard a lot recently on the news about how deprived the North is, so I'm assuming the people up north will be using the public transport network more than the South, so Brighton would make an interesting measure, well, unless of course, Manchesters less well off communities can't afford football...oh hang on, yup....I get it now, forget all this.
They'll all go and get trams, buses, walk or get in their car mate, it's really not that difficult.
The infrastructure around Old Trafford copes with a regular 75,000 crowd, a third of that will not be a problem. It's a big city is Manchester.
As for the traffic situation, fewer fans means far fewer cars anyway. Obviously.
The infrastructure around Old Trafford copes with a regular 75,000 crowd, a third of that will not be a problem. It's a big city is Manchester.
As for the traffic situation, fewer fans means far fewer cars anyway. Obviously.
2.5k apparently think there have been bigger trials in Rugby though .Do you know how many fans attended the Brighton trial?
I'm just trying to compare it to the dispersal of 23,500 supporters in Manchester. I think I will stop using the term Old Trafford, because I'm not really questioning what goes on in the ground, more questions about how a bottle neck is prevented within the City afterwards, whether that be public transport as you have highlighted or other areas.
We've heard a lot recently on the news about how deprived the North is, so I'm assuming the people up north will be using the public transport network more than the South, so Brighton would make an interesting measure, well, unless of course, Manchesters less well off communities can't afford football...oh hang on, yup....I get it now, forget all this.
- Status