The Lemon Fool

So Cornwall has a rolling rate of 62.4, the Isle of Wight a rate of 70.5 and they are tier 1.

Yet my District Council area has a rolling rate 65.7 (at the bottom of 'below average' on the chart) and cases falling 47% in the last week, and the town I live in itself far lower than that (the three districts in the town show 'supressed' / 27.7/ 44.5) and yet we are in tier 2 because the whole country has a rolling rate of 91.2.

And that is because two distant cities in the county have rates of 130.6 and 200.7; cities I have no intention of going anywhere near.

Hmm.

AF62 wrote:So Cornwall has a rolling rate of 62.4, the Isle of Wight a rate of 70.5 and they are tier 1.

Yet my District Council area has a rolling rate 65.7 (at the bottom of 'below average' on the chart) and cases falling 47% in the last week, and the town I live in itself far lower than that (the three districts in the town show 'supressed' / 27.7/ 44.5) and yet we are in tier 2 because the whole country has a rolling rate of 91.2.

And that is because two distant cities in the county have rates of 130.6 and 200.7; cities I have no intention of going anywhere near.

I would guess it is because Cornwall and the Isle of Wight are more cut off from most other places, either by water or by distance.

No idea where you are but if you are surrounded by other areas with high infection rates then that could explain the anomaly. How "distant" are those two cities in your county with high rates? How many minutes drive from them to you is it? If your town was tier one then the residents of those cities might flock to your town to enjoy the pubs and restaurants.

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:So Cornwall has a rolling rate of 62.4, the Isle of Wight a rate of 70.5 and they are tier 1.

Yet my District Council area has a rolling rate 65.7 (at the bottom of 'below average' on the chart) and cases falling 47% in the last week, and the town I live in itself far lower than that (the three districts in the town show 'supressed' / 27.7/ 44.5) and yet we are in tier 2 because the whole country has a rolling rate of 91.2.

And that is because two distant cities in the county have rates of 130.6 and 200.7; cities I have no intention of going anywhere near.

I would guess it is because Cornwall and the Isle of Wight are more cut off from most other places, either by water or by distance.

No idea where you are but if you are surrounded by other areas with high infection rates then that could explain the anomaly. How "distant" are those two cities in your county with high rates? How many minutes drive from them to you is it? If your town was tier one then the residents of those cities might flock to your town to enjoy the pubs and restaurants.

The Isle of Wight I might agree with you, but I can see the Tamar bridge being busy with people from Plymouth popping over the border to have a drink in Saltash.

However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

dealtn wrote:

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

But there is a Tier 1 (and effectively a Tier 0). Take a trip to the Isle of Wight if you are so minded.

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:

dealtn wrote:

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

But there is a Tier 1 (and effectively a Tier 0). Take a trip to the Isle of Wight if you are so minded.

TJH

I was thinking of answering the original query with the one word: "Time"

Seeing subsequent replies, involving the IoW, I feel a joke coming on. Think I better leave it there, before it is judged "Off Topic" etc.

XFool wrote:NEWS
23/09/2020 12:50 BST | Updated 26/09/2020 09:17 BST

No, 90% Of Coronavirus Tests Are Not 'False Positives' And This Is Why

Huffington Post

Experts explain why a theory doing the rounds about the number of people wrongly diagnosed with Covid-19 is simply not true.

Poor article which doesn't debunk anything, let alone what was originally being said (e.g. Pillar 2 is not mentioned at all in the article).

But then XFool would not be able to judge this because he refuses to read arguments presented by the people being criticised...


GS

GoSeigen wrote:Poor article which doesn't debunk anything, let alone what was originally being said (e.g. Pillar 2 is not mentioned at all in the article).

If anyone can discover why the article should be expected to even mention "Pillar 2", perhaps they can let us know.

dealtn wrote:

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

But the people in town I live in and all the surrounding area have modified their behaviour and infection rates in this area are on the bottom of the 'below average' scale. However it seems we are in tier 2 because the decision is being made on a county level, and there are people in cities 30 miles away who have not modified their behaviour and their infection rate is high.

However if the argument is that a tier 1 surrounded by tier 2 wouldn't work as people would travel to avoid the restrictions, then basing it on a county level is utterly stupid. Eight miles away there is a town across the county border which also has a high infection rate and those people are far more likely to visit my town than those from the cities in the county with the high infection rates. Thus if you are working on a wider area basis unless you do that on a cross county basis then there is no point.

So it would seem that until the whole of the south of England falls to a tier 1 infection level that nobody in the south of England will make it to tier 1.

AF62 wrote:

dealtn wrote:

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

But the people in town I live in and all the surrounding area have modified their behaviour and infection rates in this area are on the bottom of the 'below average' scale. However it seems we are in tier 2 because the decision is being made on a county level, and there are people in cities 30 miles away who have not modified their behaviour and their infection rate is high.

However if the argument is that a tier 1 surrounded by tier 2 wouldn't work as people would travel to avoid the restrictions, then basing it on a county level is utterly stupid. Eight miles away there is a town across the county border which also has a high infection rate and those people are far more likely to visit my town than those from the cities in the county with the high infection rates. Thus if you are working on a wider area basis unless you do that on a cross county basis then there is no point.

So it would seem that until the whole of the south of England falls to a tier 1 infection level that nobody in the south of England will make it to tier 1.

I suspect "County" or similar is used for simplicity, not because of a notional argument about marginal travel. We have already seen many instances of how "complicated" doesn't work. So, some will feel they are in the wrong tier, and have a grievance about it. I suspect if you want perfection you will be waiting a very long time.

(I suspect the IOW considers itself part of the South of England, possibly Cornwall too, but even if not I don't agree that parts can't be tier 1, with others higher. Kent being tier 3 suggest otherwise unless you think going the other way is different somehow.)

Meanwhile, not all is as it would seem with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astraze ... p-to-snuff

GrahamPlatt wrote:Meanwhile, not all is as it would seem with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astraze ... p-to-snuff

Could this be the source of the mistake?

"There are many different regimens in these trials—the UK study has more than two dozen arms, meaning the volunteers were divided into that many groups according to age and how much of the vaccine would be administered and when."

It does rather sound as if it all needs sorting out, or clarification.

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:So Cornwall has a rolling rate of 62.4, the Isle of Wight a rate of 70.5 and they are tier 1.

Yet my District Council area has a rolling rate 65.7 (at the bottom of 'below average' on the chart) and cases falling 47% in the last week, and the town I live in itself far lower than that (the three districts in the town show 'supressed' / 27.7/ 44.5) and yet we are in tier 2 because the whole country has a rolling rate of 91.2.

And that is because two distant cities in the county have rates of 130.6 and 200.7; cities I have no intention of going anywhere near.

I would guess it is because Cornwall and the Isle of Wight are more cut off from most other places, either by water or by distance.

No idea where you are but if you are surrounded by other areas with high infection rates then that could explain the anomaly. How "distant" are those two cities in your county with high rates? How many minutes drive from them to you is it? If your town was tier one then the residents of those cities might flock to your town to enjoy the pubs and restaurants.

The Isle of Wight I might agree with you, but I can see the Tamar bridge being busy with people from Plymouth popping over the border to have a drink in Saltash.

Arbitrage opportunities like that will inevitably exist where two different tiers have a boundary. So that is an argument to minimise the boundaries, meaning large contiguous zones like the one you are in! That means some people will be unlucky (you) and some will be lucky (residents of those two cities in your county). But overall it is better than having hundreds of micro-zones all over the country at the council or county level.

AstraZeneca now announced a further global trial.

CEO says AstraZeneca likely to run new global trial of COVID-19 vaccine - Bloomberg News

Reuters

“Now that we’ve found what looks like a better efficacy we have to validate this, so we need to do an additional study,” Soriot was quoted as saying.

XFool wrote:AstraZeneca now announced a further global trial.

CEO says AstraZeneca likely to run new global trial of COVID-19 vaccine - Bloomberg News

Reuters

The article omits to mention that nobody over age 55 was in the "half dose" group for which 90% success was claimed. Such a group would be at less risk anyway.

If AZN have to perform a do-over to get to the numbers the regulators want, at least outside the UK, then this hands a disadvantage to AZN.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ca-vaccine

And if there is any chance the US regulator will not approve it, then that will really be a slap in the face. I would want a different vaccine in that case.

Lootman wrote:The article omits to mention that nobody over age 55 was in the "half dose" group for which 90% success was claimed. Such a group would be at less risk anyway.

You are saying those NOT over 55 are in the "at less risk" group - just to be clear!

Lootman wrote:If AZN have to perform a do-over to get to the numbers the regulators want, at least outside the UK, then this hands a disadvantage to AZN.

And if there is any chance the US regulator will not approve it, then that will really be a slap in the face. I would want a different vaccine in that case.

It seems likely to put the date back for this vaccine. I would still take it if the trials all go well.

AF62 wrote:

dealtn wrote:

AF62 wrote:
However why have three tiers if unless you are cut off from civilisation you will never get into tier 1?

How do you incentivise people in Tier 2 to moderate their behaviour if there is no Tier 1? Tiering is to be reviewed regularly so don't simply focus on the "current" tierings.

But the people in town I live in and all the surrounding area have modified their behaviour and infection rates in this area are on the bottom of the 'below average' scale. However it seems we are in tier 2 because the decision is being made on a county level, and there are people in cities 30 miles away who have not modified their behaviour and their infection rate is high.

However if the argument is that a tier 1 surrounded by tier 2 wouldn't work as people would travel to avoid the restrictions, then basing it on a county level is utterly stupid. Eight miles away there is a town across the county border which also has a high infection rate and those people are far more likely to visit my town than those from the cities in the county with the high infection rates. Thus if you are working on a wider area basis unless you do that on a cross county basis then there is no point.

So it would seem that until the whole of the south of England falls to a tier 1 infection level that nobody in the south of England will make it to tier 1.

The district council covering the area where i live has a moderate infection rate, The parish were I live has a very low infection rate but there are 3 parishes nearby where the infection rate is very high.

How granular do we expect the tiers to be? Counties seem reasonable but we have to accept some anomalies will occur.

sg31 wrote:
The district council covering the area where i live has a moderate infection rate, The parish were I live has a very low infection rate but there are 3 parishes nearby where the infection rate is very high.

How granular do we expect the tiers to be? Counties seem reasonable but we have to accept some anomalies will occur.

If you look closely at the England map of new Tier 1,2 and 3 you'll see a tiny splotch of red just to the west of Greater London. That's Slough which has been placed in Tier 3. The rest of Berkshire is in Tier 2, including Eton (almost one whole mile away from Slough) and Windsor (3 miles away). This must be OK because presumably people from Slough never leave the town and nobody from nearby towns would ever dream of going there.

Meanwhile, up in the North, Stockport is in the opposite position as it has a much lower infection rate than the rest of Greater Manchester, but obviously can't be in a different tier because it's in the North.
Likewise, Alnwick in Northumberland has a very low infection rate, but it can't be in a lower tier because it's in the same county as Hexham which has a high infection rate, and is just a mere hour's drive away. And of course, it's also in the North.

XFool wrote:It seems likely to put the date back for this vaccine. I would still take it if the trials all go well.

I would prefer it too, as it is the only vaccine so far whose trial results measured infection by SARS-CoV2 as opposed to symptoms of COVID-19, AIUI.

zico wrote:

sg31 wrote:
The district council covering the area where i live has a moderate infection rate, The parish were I live has a very low infection rate but there are 3 parishes nearby where the infection rate is very high.

How granular do we expect the tiers to be? Counties seem reasonable but we have to accept some anomalies will occur.

If you look closely at the England map of new Tier 1,2 and 3 you'll see a tiny splotch of red just to the west of Greater London. That's Slough which has been placed in Tier 3. The rest of Berkshire is in Tier 2, including Eton (almost one whole mile away from Slough) and Windsor (3 miles away). This must be OK because presumably people from Slough never leave the town and nobody from nearby towns would ever dream of going there.

Meanwhile, up in the North, Stockport is in the opposite position as it has a much lower infection rate than the rest of Greater Manchester, but obviously can't be in a different tier because it's in the North.
Likewise, Alnwick in Northumberland has a very low infection rate, but it can't be in a lower tier because it's in the same county as Hexham which has a high infection rate, and is just a mere hour's drive away. And of course, it's also in the North.

Kent was in the south last time I looked. Far south actually. But all hell is breaking loose about all of the county being put in Tier 3, when the infection hotspots are only Swale and Thanet. Where all the chavs live.