The R is 0.8...

You'll come into contact with the staff that work there though.

 

errm, I think it does though. That's the way I translate all the bumph on the internet about it. Care to read some of it yourself. It has nothing to do with 2nd spikes or control measures at all.

 

I do. I was being flippant about the low R figure in London. can't be right that can it?

 

The R rate is based on averages.

AKA if the R is 0.7, a cross-section of 10 people, on average 7 will infect someone else, 3 will not.

Again, that's an average. It might be that one person infects 7 and 9 infect nobody.

 

Think you’ve had your answer explained quite clearly by others.
I would only be repeating what they’ve put.

 

thanks BR.
am still floundering! - are you saying that when R is as low as 0.7 - 7 out of every 10 people will be infected (either by one person or by seven different people) That's a hell of a lot of infected people.

 

I assume you don't really understand how the R is arrived nor how relevant it is.
(if you did I presume you wouldn't have to mention an irrelevant statistic re children.)

 

Sorry if you’re not but are you purposely being daft because you’re bored?

 

tad personal there JD !

 

No, if it’s 0.7, 7 out of 10 infected people will infect someone else.

 

thanks BR - think I'm getting it now! - so if the R figure is less than 10m the number of people with the virus gradually declines - the lower the R figure the faster that will happen -
if the R figure is over 10 then there's a problem.
Cheers.

 

1, not 10, but yes.

 

Or with people who live with people who work there etc etc.

 

yes, should have put 1 not 10.
so with a figure of 0.9 we're sailing close to the wind.
Muchos Gracias BR.

 

Indeed.

 

A bizarre answer, it's an average, as others have clearly explained.

If 100 people have the virus, and 99 of them isolate, they won't infect anyone. If the other one goes out and infects 100 people, the R value amongst those 100 people is 1.

If, on the other hand, all 100 go out and infect 1 person each, the R value is 1.

If 50 of them go out and infect 2 people each, the R value is 1, and so on.

The relevance of it is that it's a measure of how well people with the illness are isolating.

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

181 England deaths have today been announced. Just 39 are from yesterday and the rest go back as far as the 4th of April.

0-19 - 0
20-39 - 1
40-59 - 21
60-79 - 53
80+ - 106

Barnsley again registered 1 death from that total. My own Calderdale and Huddersfield trusts registered a second zero day in a row. 22 deceased over an age range of 59 years. I don't get how the R rate can be near 1 when deaths are getting lower every single day.

 

thanks S. - my initial reply was a bit bizarre - apologies.
I understand the implication of an R figure below 1 (things heading the right way) R figure above 1 (things going the wrong way)
We have a daily figure of how many people are infected - the problem I have with the 'formula' is that were we to take a cohort of say 100 infected people we don't know how many people were responsible for the infection of this 100 so getting the R figure is problematic?
It would be far simpler if we were told the figure of new cases each day - perfectly good way of noting if the disease is being checked or not. Also regional variations would be show up.

 

As the deaths and hospital numbers continue to go down daily despite infections not going down as quick, the so called R rate will go down.

 

Just catching up on this thread and I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Thanks for steering me to the right destination.