Anyone expecting marinas to open after Sundays announcement

[RJJ]

The exact location of the marina is not relevant... it is in England (but its not difficult to see my location)

The RYA advice is that marinas need not have locked their gates . If you want reference to that please read the content of the following link.
Coronavirus - advice and information for recreational boaters | News | News & Events | RYA - Royal Yachting Association

The RYA are not saying we should be going out on our boats , indeed they don't want boating to be specifically prohibited as lifting that would take time. However the RYA is saying we should have access to marinas for checks.

Thanks, quite agree

 

[Sandy]

KFC re-opens in Plymouth

This is the impact on the Solent opening up next week.

 

[Aja]

You might want to read a bit more widely and also reconsider how proof works.

First, nobody knows exactly how any of the millions of transmissions globally have taken place. Infection to symptom lag is reckoned as typically 5 to 7 days, so to identify a specific transmission is bonkers. Unless the victim hasn't been indoors for days.

There is evidence of outdoor transmission in certain environments, where there is prolonged close proximity. The risk appears to be compounded where the pattern of exhalation is vigorous and prolonged, hence the example often given is a shouty football stadium

You are wrong to say there is no evidence against outdoor transmission, particularly regarding fleeting encounters such as when you pass somebody on the pavement (or pontoon). There are reams of papers exploring how exhaled moisture particles of various forms behave and disperse; how coronaviruses disperse within those particles and on their own; how long they survive under different conditions; how they are transferred to infect the next victim whether directly (through inhalation) or indirectly (through contact with contaminated surfaces, and how much viral load is related to probability of infection. I am no virologist, but I can read all this stuff and recommend you please do the same before declaring "no evidence" regarding outdoor transmission.

None of the evidence stacks up to certainty but it is remarkably consistent. Indoor risks are greater. Prolonged social contact risks are greater. Contact surfaces risks are greater (so take countermeasures). Walking past someone who is breathing normally is near-zero risk and that's IF they are infected.

So sneeze into your sleeve; step away from someone about to sneeze; isolate if symptomatic; disinfect gates and trolleys. It ain't rocket science.

Two words.
New Zealand.

When I can see my grandchildren being allowed to play safely in a playpark, then I'll consider going out for a sail.

 

[RJJ]

Deaths are down... I concede. Are they down below half relative to the peak? Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? no. They are still above.

You're quite right I refer to positive tests because they are confirmed case load... Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? whether anything outside of them is going up or down neither of us should be speculating because there is definitely no evidence... blame Westminster. I'll point out that we're STILL seeing a stable case load long after the death rate began to decline.

Fewer deaths does not mean infections are declining... the two are different things. Coronavirus does not and never did have a 100% mortality rate. As for per 100 million pop... they're stable too. Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? that's not cumulative that's new cases as in 79 new case identified every day in the UK.

The ICU occupancy is primarily down because they've had much fewer cases from other things being admitted to hospital this is well documented and evidenced by the Excess Deaths that the UK is currently experiencing (source ONS) in the UK we've had over 42,000 excess deaths that's more or less a 60% increase above the average. I mean I know I cherry pick but yeesh. The NHS had planned on there being the same caseload plus coronavirus patients... didn't happen so yes they've had more capacity and time to get better at dealing with the epidemic leading imo to fewer people dying rather than the virus being any less dangerous without hospital care.

As evidenced by Sweden... compare and contrast to those that implemented a rigorous lockdown (new zealand perhaps?)... it effectively eliminated the virus to zero or very close to zero. Sweden on the otherhand looks set to overtake the UK in number of deaths per 100m pop and may also do so based on total numbers.

Staying home is the best way to reduce community transmission and save lives. While reducing exercise doesn't reducing outdoor exercise reduces the chance of interaction with others and therefore the rate of infection goes down.

Until we have much better testing and proper separation of the infected from the healthy we will continue to have a problem, the lockdown is just the only practical way we have of achieving that.

Edit
Another example of the effectiveness of lockdown is Iran which is seeing a spike after easing measures recently.

Edit
I can actually English, I've recently switched typing methods, as well as started learning another language and my spelling/word order can be atrocious sometimes. Apologies.

Thanks, the vertical scale on the chart you shared is logarithmic and confirms (although it doesn't look that way) that UK deaths are below half of peak. If you check the numbers rather than the shape.

Specifically, based on the hospital-only data (I am not sure the all-setting data is available going back that far), the top individual day was 10 April with 980. 9 May: 270.

A better measure (per your FT link) is 7-day rolling average, which peaked around 13 April at 851. 9th May: 377. Like I said, below half. Comfortably, on either measure.

If you follow the details, you'll know that all estimates of infection are pretty sketchy. That's why estimates of fatality rates vary (although increasingly reports are saying lower, perhaps by a factor of 10-50x, than the 2-4pc initially suggested back in Feb). The reported cases are heavily influenced by the testing regime in place, which has changed, but still no way captures all cases. If tomorrow you tested the whole population and found a million infections, it wouldn't indicate a spike in infections but a change in your detection.

Deaths, however, give a much clearer indication of the curve and on a lagged basis. If deaths are down from peak (well below half) then unless the reporting criteria have changed (which they haven't) then infection is also below half. Or rather, it was below half about three weeks ago; we don't really know what it is today but it is reasonable to expect continued decline. What you argue above would require the fatality rate to have changed, which I would love to hear the rationale for.

Edit: "The ICU occupancy is primarily down because they've had much fewer cases from other things being admitted to hospital this is well documented and evidenced by the Excess Deaths that the UK is currently experiencing ". Wrong. ICU occupancy figures also peaked due to CV and are now down again. Significantly; I can't recall if below half, but you can look up the COBR briefing yourself.

 

[bdh198]

KFC re-opens in Plymouth

This is the impact on the Solent opening up next week.

I don’t plan to be doing any ‘drive-through sailing’ when the restrictions are eased! I’ll leave my car in a car park, keep a safe distance from other people and only be on my boat with members of my family.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I do understand how proof works... not sure about you. First of all things are 'observed', data collected, analyzed into information through standard and specific statistical analyses. Conclusions are then made leading to further research where sample sizes are controlled and factors such as experimenter bias are weeded out. It's at this point in the process we look at getting the statistical significance as high as we can by setting the bar to a rigorous level. This is all then peer reviewed before (unless there's a special exception) being published in a scientific journal specific to the field of study... and even that's no 'proof' but it's what most people accept.

And even then most scientific papers are wrong, fundamentally and not just in the details, though it's probably a bit better in the more reputable journals. Probably.

Deaths are down... I concede. Are they down below half relative to the peak? Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? no. They are still above.

Unfortunately the worldometers website has removed the seven-day moving average lines it was showing yesterday, but the trend is quite clear, despite incredibly noisy data and the wholly unbelievable drop in deaths at weekends.

When I last checked the moving average it was about half the peak: 550-ish vs 980-ish, iirc.

 

[V1701]

And even then most scientific papers are wrong, fundamentally and not just in the details, though it's probably a bit better in the more reputable journals. Probably.

This is a very good point and further the whole process of peer review and the academic publishing model in general are highly questionable...

 

[JumbleDuck]

This is a very good point and further the whole process of peer review and the academic publishing model in general are highly questionable...

Indeed. The combination of publish-or-die on the academic side and publish-for-profit on the editorial side is a toxic one, and peer review does not seem to be nearly as effective as it might. The last paper I was asked to peer review was on a particular aspect of teaching and I recommended rejection on the basis that it contain no original investigation, just a series of vague platitudes and generalisations (par for the course in education research, I'm afraid). The journal, a reputable one in the field, sprang into action ... by dropping me from their list of reviewers.

 

[crewman]

Email from Port Edgar, Scottish marinas to stay closed for 3 more weeks. Earliest start date for crane-in is 29 May.

I sail with friends not family so not possible to argue self distancing.

 

[Bilgediver]

It is perfectly possible that sailing which meets the rules of social distancing be allowed however it may be a while before we can go out with crews who are not part of our household. Just have to settle for a few more weeks of virtual regattas

 

[coveman]

KFC re-opens in Plymouth

This is the impact on the Solent opening up next week.

Mad -obviously, none of them can cook and haven't eaten for 6 weeks!!

 

[Mark-1]

I’d suggest that my wife and I going to the boat and going sailing are almost zero risk to ourselves or others. On the other hand, a crew of 10 winch gorillas racing or race training is high risk. How do you enable one and stop the other?

By saying everyone on board together needs to be from the same household. In just the same way that I can go cycling with my family but not with a group of mates.

Having said that day sailing has never been banned. Some marinas and harbour authorities have prevented it in some places, but the lockdown law doesn't prohibit it AFAICT.

 

[Laser310]

Oxford actually suggests that being out doors may encourage the virus to spread

Oh.., Say no more!

Their modeling, indeed most of the modelling associated with this disease, is not deserving of confidence - i say that as a scientist who has done mathematical modeling.., had it published in peer-reviewed journals.., and so on.

 

[Stemar]

the whole process of peer review and the academic publishing model in general are highly questionable...

A bit like democracy - the worst possible system of government you could possibly imagine, except for all the others. It's muddled, muddied and inefficient, but it does tend to get there eventually. If you publish bollocks (looking at you, Andrew Wakefield), you can cause a lot of trouble, but you get caught out eventually, and future publications get closer scrutiny.

You also have to look at where articles are published. There's a good number of "scientific journals" that will publish anything and provide the "peer review" if you willing to pay.

 

[JumbleDuck]

A bit like democracy - the worst possible system of government you could possibly imagine, except for all the others. It's muddled, muddied and inefficient, but it does tend to get there eventually. If you publish bollocks (looking at you, Andrew Wakefield), you can cause a lot of trouble, but you get caught out eventually, and future publications get closer scrutiny.

Good points.

You also have to look at where articles are published. There's a good number of "scientific journals" that will publish anything and provide the "peer review" if you willing to pay.

And some reputable journals are rather too ready to go for sensationalist articles. It will take Nature a very long time to live down publishing Benveniste on homeopathy and Fleischmann & Pons on cold fusion.

 

[doug748]

............You also have to look at where articles are published. There's a good number of "scientific journals" that will publish anything and provide the "peer review" if you willing to pay.

Yes.

The system seems to work well enough at the top so if you are Niels Bohr, fine, because there is a wide audience of brilliant people looking on. Though even Cyril Burt got away with nonsense for years because it sounded plausible and nobody could be arsed to look at the figures.

At the bottom of the chain some of the publications are full of pot boiling rubbish, designed to keep very minor academics in their posts. To pluck one discipline out of thin air, check out the Physical Education technical press.

.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The system seems to work well enough at the top so if you are Niels Bohr, fine, because there is a wide audience of brilliant people looking on. Though even Cyril Burt got away with nonsense for years because it sounded plausible and nobody could be arsed to look at the figures.

There may even be a problem at the Niels Bohr level, which is that reviewers and editors are less likely to question eminence. That's how Martin Fleischmann managed to publish utter rubbish - and fraudulent rubbish at that - about cold fusion and Eric Laithwaite was able to make a complete fool of himself over gyroscopes.

At the bottom of the chain some of the publications are full of pot boiling rubbish, designed to keep very minor academics in their posts. To pluck one discipline out of thin air, check out the Physical Education technical press.

The standard of research in education generally is pathetic.

 

[ryanroberts]

The standard of research in education generally is pathetic.

It also turned out that most of psychology 101 was the result of a few charismatic professors in the 1960s making stuff up and that much of the work since isn't much better. Including much that has made it into the popular consciousness, business practice and in some cases law The Replication Crisis in Psychology.

And let's not even think about nutritional science, where the long running comedy of the Daily Mail claiming x causes y a week after claiming x prevents y is accidentally an accurate representation of the field.

 

[FlyingGoose]

 

[ryanroberts]

Shame I no longer work in clinical evidence 'data science', I'd love to drop a meta search and classification for what public health academia has been working on for the last decade. Certainly on the American side I suspect there's rather more eye / grant catching things like 'gun control' and 'health inequality' than 'viable reporting protocols for pandemic data'.