New coronavirus in/from China

Post by **adam2** » 21 Jun 2020, 22:39

And a couple of illegal raves in the Bristol area.
No police action at either of these, apart from an apology afterwards about "the nuisance"

Lockdown ? not in Bristol or Manchester it would seem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53128121

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 22 Jun 2020, 08:53

My son lives in Bristol. Yesterday he told me he passed a pub that was open, with drinking outside. The police turned up, told the drinkers to social distance, then left. As far as he is concerned that's it, lockdown is over.
Me, I run a campsite, the advice is we'll be allowed to open from 4 July. It's as safe an environment as you can get other than being in your own home, private loo on every pitch, timed showers and what have you. After the Cummings affair we are opening whatever piffle waffle comes out of the Great Leaders gob and that's that. As far as we are concerned lockdown is over, we have no faith whatsoever in HMG.
It is now down to the great British public to display common sense.

Edit. This re-opening isn't just confined to my campsite, it's industry wide. The difference between myself and other owners may simply be in the level of contempt in which Boris and his band of merry incompetents are held.

Post by **adam2** » 22 Jun 2020, 18:47

In (unlikely) event that you face any police action for opening a campsite without permission, perhaps a suitable response might be "officer, it is not really a camp site, we are having a rave"
Raves seem to be allowed as a number have taken place without any police action.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 22 Jun 2020, 21:58

It seems to be all about numbers. If you have enough people to start a riot the police don't seems to want to do anything about anything. Parking all the bikers near the entrance should help put them off as well.

Also tell everyone to cough if the police arrive.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 22 Jun 2020, 22:42

adam2 wrote:And a couple of illegal raves in the Bristol area.
No police action at either of these, apart from an apology afterwards about "the nuisance"

That sounds very 1990s.
What about acid house making a comeback?
Have there been any New Age Traveller convoys lately? Socially distanced of course.

To keep on topic apparently the state of Victoria in Australia is having a spate of coronavirus flare ups right now. This newspaper - clearly a fascist organisation - questions if the BLM protests may have had a part in it.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 22 Jun 2020, 23:48

Yeah, lockdown is basically over as far as individuals are concerned. And yet the schools are still closed and legal mass-gatherings banned.

It is going to be very interesting to see what happens next, because I can't imagine another national lockdown is going to work, even if the infection rate does start ramping up again.

Post by **clv101** » 23 Jun 2020, 10:50

At yesterday's briefing Dr Jenny Harries OBE said: â€œthe infection rate for COVID is 1 in 1700, youâ€™d have to meet 1700 people before you were at risk of catching itâ€�.

Synch nonsense from the Deputy Chief Medical officer for England. In the real world there's a 1/1700 probability that the FIRST person I meet may infect me.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 23 Jun 2020, 10:53

clv101 wrote:At yesterday's briefing Dr Jenny Harries OBE said: â€œthe infection rate for COVID is 1 in 1700, youâ€™d have to meet 1700 people before you were at risk of catching itâ€�.

Synch nonsense from the Deputy Chief Medical officer for England. In the real world there's a 1/1700 probability that the FIRST person I meet may infect me.

What is the basis for calculating the infection rate? Is it due to testing or testing of a sample. If based on a sample then it should have confidence intervals +/- some percentage figure.

Initiation · Post by **Initiation** » 23 Jun 2020, 11:29

BritDownUnder wrote:
clv101 wrote:At yesterday's briefing Dr Jenny Harries OBE said: â€œthe infection rate for COVID is 1 in 1700, youâ€™d have to meet 1700 people before you were at risk of catching itâ€�.

Synch nonsense from the Deputy Chief Medical officer for England. In the real world there's a 1/1700 probability that the FIRST person I meet may infect me.
What is the basis for calculating the infection rate? Is it due to testing or testing of a sample. If based on a sample then it should have confidence intervals +/- some percentage figure.

I believe this is the figures from the ONS.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... surveydata

The 95% confidence interval range is 1 in 600 to 1 in 5000.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 23 Jun 2020, 13:20

It's probably a misuse of statistics because we have different levels of risk, infectability, etc. It's not a standard gaussian chance unless we are all the same genetics.

Post by **clv101** » 23 Jun 2020, 17:09

It's not a misuse of statistics, it's just plain wrong. Coming for someone with a full understanding of such simple statistics it is calculated to mislead.

If 1/1700 are infected is just wrong to say you have to meet 1700 to risk catching it.

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 23 Jun 2020, 17:57

clv101 wrote:
If 1/1700 are infected is just wrong to say you have to meet 1700 to risk catching it.

You are absolutely correct. And you presume this was done out of ignorance, rather than to specifically mislead?

Statistics lie and liars use statistics and all that.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 23 Jun 2020, 19:44

adam2 wrote:In (unlikely) event that you face any police action for opening a campsite without permission, perhaps a suitable response might be "officer, it is not really a camp site, we are having a rave"
Raves seem to be allowed as a number have taken place without any police action.

Well the Dear Leader gave it the go ahead today, so it looks like I'll be avoiding the slammer. The petit bourgeois and others have been booking like crazy.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 23 Jun 2020, 19:46

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
clv101 wrote:
If 1/1700 are infected is just wrong to say you have to meet 1700 to risk catching it.
You are absolutely correct. And you presume this was done out of ignorance, rather than to specifically mislead?

Statistics lie and liars use statistics and all that.

Yes, I heard the words coming out of her mouth and thought ''uh?''.

Post by **clv101** » 23 Jun 2020, 20:22

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
clv101 wrote:
If 1/1700 are infected is just wrong to say you have to meet 1700 to risk catching it.
You are absolutely correct. And you presume this was done out of ignorance, rather than to specifically mislead?

Statistics lie and liars use statistics and all that.

No, I'm specifically saying it wasn't said out if ignorance. I'm sure the deputy chief medical officer knows high school stats.