Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[zico]

I am trying to find a source of data that shows infection rates by area, so I can browse the town or city a potential customer is from before travelling to them. This info seem to be withheld by the government now, unless someone knows otherwise!

If you go here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ and download the CSV spreadsheet, you can see daily cases narrowed down as far as lower tier local authority.

And from that link above, the direct CSV-data link below can be used to open the latest 'England cases' CSV file into Excel or similar -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/downloads/csv/coronavirus-cases_latest.csv

Note that in the above CSV data, there is the following data for today and historical days -

Nation (England)
Region (South West / West Midlands etc..)
Upper Tier Local Authority (County level)
Lower Tier Local Authority (Town level)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I can't make sense of that data. Column E shows "Daily lab cases" which is 41 for England, then Column J says there are 372 more cumulative cases. But surely that should be the same number as "Daily lab cases"?
Column J is possibly the most useful "Cumulative lab-confirmed rate" - presumably confirmed cases per 100,000?
There are 50,000-odd rows in the dataset, presumably repeated data for different time periods?
I did sort by "Cumulative lab-confirmed rate" - Leicester, Ashford, Preston, Barrow, Bradford look to be in the top 5.

[Leothebear]

I was about to rant about the UK's performance being the worst in Europe, when I checked for countries with the most cases per 1 million inhabitants.

https://www.statista.com/chart/21176/co ... tal-cases/

UK is not in the top 12.

[robbelg]

I was about to rant about the UK's performance being the worst in Europe, when I checked for countries with the most cases per 1 million inhabitants.

https://www.statista.com/chart/21176/co ... tal-cases/

UK is not in the top 12.

If you want a rant look at DEATHS per capita

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

UK is number 2

Rob

[MrFoolish]

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

[Bouleversee]

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

No, sorry. I don't see the logic of the shop staff not wearing them either which I heard someone saying was the case.

[Mike4]

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

That's easy. The more of the population you can persuade to wear face coverings, the less community spread of infection there is expected to be, AIUI. It doesn't matter a hoot if you in particular wears a face covering in any one particular shop/school/office, or not. The intention is to achieve a vastly higher proportion of the population wearing face coverings when mixing with other members of the population.

Similarly with travelling. No one individual trip does all the damage, but the less travelling about you can persuade your population to do, the less an infection will propagate.

[MrFoolish]

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

That's easy. The more of the population you can persuade to wear face coverings, the less community spread of infection there is expected to be, AIUI. It doesn't matter a hoot if you in particular wears a face covering in any one particular shop/school/office, or not. The intention is to achieve a vastly higher proportion of the population wearing face coverings when mixing with other members of the population.

Similarly with travelling. No one individual trip does all the damage, but the less travelling about you can persuade your population to do, the less an infection will propagate.

I understand the benefits of masks. My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

[Mike4]

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

That's easy. The more of the population you can persuade to wear face coverings, the less community spread of infection there is expected to be, AIUI. It doesn't matter a hoot if you in particular wears a face covering in any one particular shop/school/office, or not. The intention is to achieve a vastly higher proportion of the population wearing face coverings when mixing with other members of the population.

Similarly with travelling. No one individual trip does all the damage, but the less travelling about you can persuade your population to do, the less an infection will propagate.

I understand the benefits of masks. My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

Because cumulatively, masks in shops but not schools and workplaces are more effective than no masks anywhere. One manageable step at a time eh?

[robbelg]

I understand the benefits of masks. My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

If you spend 8 hours with someone infectious you're going to get it mask or no mask,but 5 mins near someone infectious a mask will probably save you (the infectious persons mask,not yours)

Rob

[UncleEbenezer]

Because cumulatively, masks in shops but not schools and workplaces are more effective than no masks anywhere. One manageable step at a time eh?

Haven't they ruled out compulsion in offices?

It's all down to what pressure groups they listen to. They must've come under pressure from someone re: shops.

[MrFoolish]

Because cumulatively, masks in shops but not schools and workplaces are more effective than no masks anywhere. One manageable step at a time eh?

I totally get that something is better than nothing, and that we need a phased return to normality. But it's not what Matt Hancock said.

BTW, my local supermarket has got rid of the entry queues and one-way system. So many mixed messages here!

[Bouleversee]

r

According to Matt Hancock, a mask is useful in a shop where you come across people you don't normally meet. But not useful in a workplace or a school with people you meet regularly.

Doubtless I'm a bit thick so perhaps someone can explain this one to me?

That's easy. The more of the population you can persuade to wear face coverings, the less community spread of infection there is expected to be, AIUI. It doesn't matter a hoot if you in particular wears a face covering in any one particular shop/school/office, or not. The intention is to achieve a vastly higher proportion of the population wearing face coverings when mixing with other members of the population.

Similarly with travelling. No one individual trip does all the damage, but the less travelling about you can persuade your population to do, the less an infection will propagate.

Sorry, but if you want to get rid of the damned thing quickly, everyone should wear a mask. I have been self-shielding and not been shopping for 4 months but come Aug. 1 when I am told I can go shopping, what is the point of my wearing a mask (when it is highly unlikely that I would be exhaling anything infectious), which I obviously would do, if the staff serving me, having been serving umpteen maskless customers day after day and probably living in close proximity with others in not very spacious accommodation, is not wearing one. For all I know, they may all be behind glass screens but those screens will be breathed on by the maskless customers and droplets may still be in the air, so I won't feel safe unless all customers are wearing masks. I see no point in my wearing a mask, which won't protect me, unless everyone else does likewise so we can protect each other and until then I won't be going shopping, especially if the queuing systems etc. are being withdrawn. The only reason we were told at the outset that they didn't do any good was because there were none available to buy.

Moderator Message:
RS: Edited to remove adjective suggesting there is only a problem with "foreign staff.

[MrFoolish]

I understand the benefits of masks. My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

If you spend 8 hours with someone infectious you're going to get it mask or no mask,but 5 mins near someone infectious a mask will probably save you (the infectious persons mask,not yours)

Rob

I'm not sure the risks are as binary as you are making out. What is the risk at 2 metres for 8 hours? What is the risk if you bump into someone walking round the corner? What is the risk from contaminating a surface? Masks in the workplace would mitigate against these things, I would suggest. So workplace or shop... what's the difference?

[Itsallaguess]

My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

It's difficult to judge without him explicitly explaining himself, but I suspect there's an element of 'bubbles' to the different approaches.

In workplaces and in schools, there is going to naturally be an element of repetitive 'bubbles', which in and of themselves will limit the extent of any potential cross-infection at the borders of those bubbles.

Such 'bubbles' will not exist in the retail environment, and so there is some sense in having a different, more extensive approach to limiting cross-infection where those bubbles cannot exist in such fluid retail settings.

Clearly everyone always wearing masks in every single waking moment, in all settings, will deliver a much-improved limitation to cross-infections occurring, but if a decision is made that such a comprehensive approach is not warranted at this time, and is only warranted in some settings, then the bubble-free, ultra-fluid settings of general retail, where cross-infections would have no 'natural borders' in the same way most school and workplace settings will, does make sense to be set apart...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[MrFoolish]

I find your 'bubbles' explanation quite persuasive, Itsallaguess. But if shops are such a risk of random cross infection, wouldn't you think the staff need to wear masks also?

From what I've seen, the young shelf-stackers in my local supermarket have never bothered with social distancing. They stand around in close groups chatting. Quite why the management let this go on I don't know.

[Gersemi]

I understand the benefits of masks. My question is why Matt Hancock thinks they are effective in shops but not in schools and workplaces?

I think the issue is that there is zero chance of pursuading people to wear a mask all day in an office. Wearing one for eight hours or so is unpleasant as hospital staff will tell you. As others have said you will be meeting the same people within most offices - if one of you catches the virus you may spread it to others within the office, but if you are all wearing masks when in shops and on public transport you won't spread it to many other people (though you will probably give it to your household, apparently this is where it is passed on most for obvious reasons). In this way it's hoped that outbreaks can be contained - lessening the chance that the first person in an office will catch it and pass it on.

Having said that at my office - where there are very few people working, most of us are working at home - there have been a couple of cases, but it didn't lead to everyone working in the office being infected, so if sensible measures are in place it need not spread to all co-workers.

Gersem

[Itsallaguess]

But if shops are such a risk of random cross infection, wouldn't you think the staff need to wear masks also?

It would certainly lower the risk of cross-infection further, but as the workers will be in their own 'bubble' within each shop setting, and each shopper will hopefully be wearing a face covering, then a lot of the risk-reduction of 'out of bubble' cross-infection will still be taking place without shop-workers themselves wearing masks.

I agree that, generally, 'more masks' would equal 'less risk of cross-infection', but as discussed earlier, if a judgement is made that 'everyone in a mask, 100% of the time' is not somewhere they think is necessary to be right now, then there's obviously a level of judgement required as to where they do want to be, and the bubble-borders of work and school settings do give some natural limits to the extents that cross-infections should rapidly occur before any test and trace might need to get involved.

In fact the test and trace element also brings a level of explanation into this too, in that where infections do continue to crop up, the level of investigation required for work and school-based settings, with their regular attendees, will naturally be much less than that which might be required to answer any 'who's come into your shop in the past 7 days' questions that might be asked, so for test and trace to be able to consider that even where random shoppers might not be able to be traced, then so long as they were wearing a mask then there's a much-reduced chance of cross-infection (not zero, admittedly..), and so the test and trace element might also add to the bubble-borders to help deliver some reasoning to the different approaches to mask-requirements between work and school settings, and those of retail settings...

Now, if you were going to ask why there's a difference between the mask requirements for shops, and no mask requirements for pubs, then I'll be scratching my head with you at that point...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[MrFoolish]

[
Having said that at my office - where there are very few people working, most of us are working at home - there have been a couple of cases, but it didn't lead to everyone working in the office being infected, so if sensible measures are in place it need not spread to all co-workers.

Not to dismiss your point, but someone I know caught the virus in his workplace, passed it on to his mother, who died.

I do find it concerning that BJ is encouraging people back into work. IMO, if people can work effectively at home, it makes sense to do so on many levels.

[jfgw]

It's difficult to judge without him explicitly explaining himself, but I suspect there's an element of 'bubbles' to the different approaches.

In workplaces and in schools, there is going to naturally be an element of repetitive 'bubbles', which in and of themselves will limit the extent of any potential cross-infection at the borders of those bubbles.

School bubbles linked with family bubbles linked with work bubbles. A bit like chain mail.


Julian F. G. W.

[Mike4]

Sorry, but if you want to get rid of the damned thing quickly, everyone should wear a mask. I have been self-shielding and not been shopping for 4 months but come Aug. 1 when I am told I can go shopping, what is the point of my wearing a mask (when it is highly unlikely that I would be exhaling anything infectious), which I obviously would do, if the foreign staff serving me, having been serving umpteen maskless customers day after day and probably living in close proximity with others in not very spacious accommodation, is not wearing one. For all I know, they may all be behind glass screens but those screens will be breathed on by the maskless customers and droplets may still be in the air, so I won't feel safe unless all customers are wearing masks. I see no point in my wearing a mask, which won't protect me, unless everyone else does likewise so we can protect each other and until then I won't be going shopping, especially if the queuing systems etc. are being withdrawn. The only reason we were told at the outset that they didn't do any good was because there were none available to buy.

Much as this must have been and still be an awful way to have to live, I think you miss the point of rules on face coverings in any particular type of setting.

Govt rules on face coverings as I understand them, are not about protecting you as an individual, but about influencing the COVID statistics. 'Big picture' stuff. The govt has decided that the COVID death statistics can be pushed down at the same time as releasing the lockdown (which tends to push them UP) by making people wear face coverings when mixing with other people, hence the rules on face coverings. I think they are deadly worried about many more spikes in infections caused by people getting bored with lockdown (if you can believe it still exists) and ignoring it. The population's patience with lockdown has run out and its broadly being ignored now.

People often make the unfortunate error of believing govt rules on stuff like this have their individual interests at the heart of it. Sadly not the case in my opinion. I don't think the govt cares a jot about the fate of any one individual member of the population they govern. Not me, and not even you!