The Lakes

[DavidBee]

On 5/15/2020 at 2:17 PM, SuzanneH said:

My many happy years as a member of the TR Register community is sadly coming to an end.No, no, no. I'm sure that won't happen. Many good years ahead of pure enjoyment to you and yours!
I say so at the risk of being told to take a long walk off a short pier. Total strangers care -- you'd be surprised.

 

[Misfit]

D1070 what does the 1070 Stand for- target for metres walked a day, jobs required by swmbo during lockdown or improves on that TR5 of yours. 

[iain]

8 hours ago, Peter Cobbold said:

That is fascinating. I live in the dark patch in N Wales. The whole of N Wales (above the two lighter patches) has about one tenth of the number died than the Swamsea-Cardiff-Newport conurbation.  I had thought  our low  population density in the north offered soem protection, but not any more.

It seems my neighbours might not be taking lockdown seriously, as we are not a touristy area, nor especially a dormitory area for commuters to a city. Most everyone in our area has to run a car there is almost no buses.  Combine that mobility with a high density of extended families who have lived here for many generations...and rural roads that are never policed - and we could be seeing grannies being infected with illicit family visits.

I doubt it is D3 levels, Snowdonia has much higher rainfall than us, but has half the covid.

Peter, it’s also interesting to note that whilst Devon and Cornwall look very safe.........R has increased to 0.7, cf London 0.4 
As I predicted, hopefully wrongly, watch the next few days as numbers increase in the areas we least expect. Why? Complacency is my guess. 
In England R is highest in the north-east and Yorkshire where it is estimated to be 0.8

North-east and Yorkshire 0.8
South-west 0.76
England 0.75
North-west 0.73
East of England 0.71
South-east 0.71
Midlands 0.68
London 0.4
Guardian graphic. Source: University of Cambridge. Median estimated value of R, the average number of secondary infections due to a typical infection today

sorry no figs for Wales.

addendum.

similar analysis includes Wales....R = 0.8, Interesting comment also

Similar work by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine puts the number for London at 0.6 and the South West at 0.9. They also showed the R-values were 0.8 in Wales, and 1 in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. 
However, claims there are now just 24 cases a day in the capital and that it could soon be free of the virus have been criticised.
There were in fact 49 people admitted to London hospitals with Covid-19 yesterday and probably hundreds of cases that did not need hospital treatment.
"I am extremely worried about the media message that London could be coronavirus free in days," said Prof Matt Keeling, from the University of Warwick.
He added: "If people think London is coronavirus-free that could be dangerous, and could lead to complacency, undermining all the struggles and sacrifices that everyone has made so far.  A relaxation of vigilance could easily see R increasing above 1, and a second epidemic wave.

 

Iain

Iain

Edited May 17, 2020 by iain
Additional data re Wales

[Peter Cobbold]

23 minutes ago, iain said:

Peter, it’s also interesting to note that whilst Devon and Cornwall look very safe.........R has increased to 0.7, cf London 0.4 
As I predicted, hopefully wrongly, watch the next few days as numbers increase in the areas we least expect. Why? Complacency is my guess. 
In England R is highest in the north-east and Yorkshire where it is estimated to be 0.8

North-east and Yorkshire 0.8
South-west 0.76
England 0.75
North-west 0.73
East of England 0.71
South-east 0.71
Midlands 0.68
London 0.4
Guardian graphic. Source: University of Cambridge. Median estimated value of R, the average number of secondary infections due to a typical infection today

sorry no figs for Wales.

addendum.

similar analysis includes Wales....R = 0.8, Interesting comment also

Similar work by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine puts the number for London at 0.6 and the South West at 0.9. They also showed the R-values were 0.8 in Wales, and 1 in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. 
However, claims there are now just 24 cases a day in the capital and that it could soon be free of the virus have been criticised.
There were in fact 49 people admitted to London hospitals with Covid-19 yesterday and probably hundreds of cases that did not need hospital treatment.
"I am extremely worried about the media message that London could be coronavirus free in days," said Prof Matt Keeling, from the University of Warwick.
He added: "If people think London is coronavirus-free that could be dangerous, and could lead to complacency, undermining all the struggles and sacrifices that everyone has made so far.  A relaxation of vigilance could easily see R increasing above 1, and a second epidemic wave.

 

Iain

Iain

Iain, I was sceptical that behavioural scientists could bring anything useful to SAGE. Not any more !  Rural spread may be much faster than high density cities, we need them to find out why.  I'd buy complacency, yes.  BBCWales publishes deaths by health borad nightly and the biggest numbers by far was in the densely populated south. I was fooled into thinking the much smaller number up here, spread over a much bigger  area meant less risk of transmission.

Peter

Edited May 17, 2020 by Peter Cobbold

[Rod1883]

Scenes like this could be the reason if/when the R value starts to climb in rural areas. These are pics, from a safe distance (!) of cars and especially bikers today on the A29 here in West Sussex. The Police were out, putting themselves at risk, trying to disperse them and stop them from speeding - the camera van lady told me they had 'caught' over 50 bikes speeding, some doing over 80mph in the 50mph limit up Bury Hill!

[iain]

Yup. that will do it .....complacency at its best.

Iain

 

[roy53]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:52 PM, SuzanneH said:

My old dad used to say sarcastically  “ I’m alright Jack, +++  everyone else”

i guess Rods bikers sum that comment up.

Why do people just not get it.????

[ get it ment not understand ]

 

Roy

[SuzanneH]

38 minutes ago, roy53 said:

i guess Rods bikers sum that comment up.

Why do people just not get it.????

[ get it ment not understand ]

 

Roy

I was talking only about TR owners, not any other people with any other forms of transport.

[Bleednipple]

Agonising and arguing about other people's behaviour is bound to continue as we move out of the 'hard' lockdown. I think it's helpful to keep in mind how much different people's perspectives and risk tolerances vary.

Many of us on this forum are quite possibly in the higher risk categories for coronavirus, from age or medical history or both. But he majority of the population is not, and if you are under 65 and have no underlying major health issues (ie that's most people) your risk of dying if do you catch the coronavirus some time in the next 12 months (which most people won't) is probably not more than about 1 in 10,000. That's not too different from the risk of dying in a road accident in the same period. To follow that analogy: yes, most of us take reasonable precautions - like not driving like an idiot and wearing your seat belt - but we don't avoid road travel due to the risks, either to ourselves or indeed to other road users, including highly vulnerable ones like cyclists and pedestrians, whom we might inadvertently kill at some point.

So for younger and middle aged people who are at negligible direct personal risk from coronavirus, that leaves the moral question of how much you are prepared to change your behaviour, and for how long, to reduce the risks to others? To pick up now the national parks theme: as an individual, if I choose to go to a national park, and I happen to have the virus without symptoms, and I happen to have close contact with someone in a local shop in the national park, and I do actually infect them, and they die, well that tragic even though unlikely chain of events could perhaps just as easily have happened if I went to Tesco to buy stuff for a barbecue at home.

We know and fully expect that young people in their teens and twenties will almost always be the first to display 'unnecessarily' risky behaviours, like the group of bikers in the photo perhaps. We wouldn't condone it, but is it worse if they do that in a car park in the Pennines rather than in their home town? (After all, if they do cross-infect each other, the most likely people they'll pass it onto are the people they live with, or their dad or auntie).

Any argument that local healthcare facilities will be overwhelmed if there is an outbreak in a rural area may have been a concern early on bu doesn't really carry much weight at this stage of the emergency, from what I can see.

I realise this is an emotive subject but I think trying to look at it proportionately can't be a bad thing.

Nigel

[Peter Cobbold]

It may be that SAGE wants younger people to drive around and cross-infect while us vulnerable oldies hide behind our front doors. However re-opening   garden centres appears to have lured out elderly shoppers, so maybe SAGE is not being so clever.   Somehow thay have to keep the infection rate amongst the young and healthy up while protecting the vulnerable. Perhaps re-opening schools is one route?- but tough on granny is she shares a home with grandchild.  Adds new meaning to SAGA; Send A Granny Away.

Peter