Conversation The Common Room
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat


About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Lockdown

Morons

Male
NotHermit  Male  Derbyshire
26-Apr-2020 20:31 Message #4778076
Saw a good one today, a couple walking into the supermarket, they put on disposable gloves.

On the way out, I see them put the gloves in the bin.
Nice and tidy, but they both pulled the gloves off with their teeth!

Anyone seen any morons ?
Female
Victoriana11  Female  Buckinghamshire
27-Apr-2020 07:42 Message #4778109
Perhaps they had dentures, and put them in the bin too. Soorreeee......

I was in a supermarket 2 days ago and the couple by the checkout in skimpy shorts, were 'snogging'..... the security man marched the chap out and kept the girl at the till saying "you pay - he goes outside"
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd
27-Apr-2020 09:51 Message #4778116
Whilst I find kissing in public a bit gross, I think it was a bit of an over reaction to throw the chap out, presumably they are part of the same household.
Female
Victoriana11  Female  Buckinghamshire
27-Apr-2020 19:39 Message #4778190
They were doing a bit of touchy feely groping - I think they had been on the vino.
Male
NotHermit  Male  Derbyshire
28-Apr-2020 18:21 Message #4778306
A peck on the cheek would be ok, but if they were flinging their hair and saliva around, would be a bit much.
Female
Topaz53  Female  Northamptonshire
28-Apr-2020 19:35 Message #4778322
The neighbour upstairs and next door who think it's ok to socialise in her house......
Well done them :/
Male
The_Snow_Covered_Fool  Male  Cheshire
30-Apr-2020 07:26 Message #4778486
Perhaps they were reliving where they first met ?



Chris.
Male
NotHermit  Male  Derbyshire
12-May-2020 22:42 Message #4779638
Was in Lidl today, a man wearing a mask, but not antiperspirant!
Female
Minnie-the-Minx  Female  Hertfordshire
13-May-2020 00:02 Message #4779648
Maybe he didn't want anyone to know that he smells so bad.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
13-May-2020 10:12 Message #4779649
The government has publcised (with the NHS logo) this equation:-
COVID Alert Level = R (rate of infection) + Number of infections

It is vital to use maths, and to have an COVID Alert Level that depends on a combination of factors. But the above equation is wrong, for reasons explained below.

A "rate" is often how much something changes with time. For example, the rate of growth of a plant can be how much it grows in an hour, the rate of an invasion can how much territory per week the invaded area increases, the rate of infection can be how many people catch the infection per day.

But you shouldn't add a rate of infections to a number of infections. Do you count the rate as being per hour, or per day or per week etc? In each case you will get a different answer. It's like trying to add a speed to a distance, which you mustn't do - e.g. 10 miles plus 30 miles per hour does not give 40 miles nor 40 miles per hour not any other number. So the government's equation is nonsensical.


In epidemic theory, "R" is usually used for the Effective Reproduction number or Effective Reproduction ratio (sometimes wrongly called the Effective Reproduction rate). It is "the average number of secondary cases per infectious case in a population made up of both susceptible and non-susceptible hosts. If R is greater than 1, the number of cases will increase, such as at the start of an epidemic. Where R equals 1, the disease is endemic, and where R is less than 1 there will be a decline in the number of cases." (Health Knowledge website, replacing great/equal/less symbols by words). The government has often mentioned trying to keep R less than 1.

If the government's equation is:
COVID Alert Level = R + Number of infections
where R is the Effective Reproduction number
then that is nonsensical too.

For example:-
(a) If R = 0.8 and Number of infections = 250,000, then that gives COVID Alert Level = 250,000.8.
(b) If R = 15 and Number of infections = 230,000, then that gives COVID Alert Level = 230,015.
That suggests that (b) is slightly less of a threat than (a).
But in fact (b) is very much more of a threat than (a),
In situation (a) the infections are not increasing much, whereas in situation (b) they are increasing horrifically. Situation (b) should have a much higher COVID Alert Level than situation (a), whereas the government's formula suggests the opposite.

Again this nonsense is cause by adding quantities that shouldn't be added.
Female
Greencare  Female  Berkshire
13-May-2020 10:16 Message #4779650
I think it is just a simplified equation to enable the majority of the population to understand something about how it is worked out. The actual mathematics, which hardly anyone would take any notice of or understand, are something for behind the scenes.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
13-May-2020 12:14 Message #4779655
Simplified equations are acceptable. But it's better to give no equation at all than a nonsensical one that gives ridiculous results. Some people might try using the government's equation, with misleading false results like those above.

The government could have said something like "We will calculate the COVID Alert Level based on various factors, including the Effective Reproduction ratio (which indicates how many people an infected person will infect) and the Number of infections", without giving an equation.

I attend (now using Zoom) various maths and theoretical physics classes and my diary for 18-Feb-20 includes "Roger taught 8 of us about epidemic spread rates. We tossed a dice to see the results of various infection ratios, (e.g. 1 or 2 for infecting 0 people, 3 or 4 for infecting 1 person, 5 or 6 for infecting 2 people), and replacing red (susceptible) playing cards by black ones." (He then went into calculus relations between numbers of susceptible, infected and recovered people.)
You could invent your own version of this dice and cards experiment to similate possible spreads of a virus. That can be much more realistic than the government's equation.
Male
tumbled  Male  Gloucestershire
13-May-2020 13:01 Message #4779656
The 'equation' is misleading......but I would say not to be taken literally....

Most people realise you can't really add two different 'things' together.....a number and a rate...

You can do other things with them.....multiply for instance......but adding a number, any number, large or small.....to a rate doesn't work...

My interpretation is that the alert level is determined by two different things.....The rate.....and.....the number of cases...

The 'and'........if said in another way......could be said 'plus'

and 'plus' can be written '+'

But it was never intended to be 'added'

They are using the figures in a graph for instance....which shows what 'alert level' we are in....
Female
Victoriana11  Female  Buckinghamshire
13-May-2020 13:11 Message #4779657
Golly gosh, what are you lot on....... smiling.... V x

Male
tumbled  Male  Gloucestershire
13-May-2020 13:37 Message #4779660
Sums-thing that makes us talk Algibberish.....
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
13-May-2020 14:00 Message #4779661
Victoriana,

If you, or anybody else, would like to quote a bit that you don't understand, then Tumbled or I or someone else will be pleased to try to explain it. (Please don't write "all of it"!)
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd
13-May-2020 18:39 Message #4779665
Good one Tumbled, the way you explained that didn't make my eyes glaze over as they often do when someones talking maths, I must be really good at algibberish.
Female
Victoriana11  Female  Buckinghamshire
13-May-2020 19:45 Message #4779670
I cant say which bit I dont understand cos each time I start to read it, I go a bit dizzy. I am sure its not you, but it certainly is me !! My age, I expect.
Male
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia
13-May-2020 19:51 Message #4779671
Good grief and I thought Boydel was the numbers fanatic.
The government were struggling to get people to understand what "Stay at home" meant so they need to keep things simple.
I'm sure you remember Janet and John....
Male
tumbled  Male  Gloucestershire
13-May-2020 20:49 Message #4779675
Janet and John went up the hill...
To fetch a pale of water.....
While they were there
They met Jack and Jill...

and then they all got arrested for not social distancing properly....
Female
Andromeda  Female  Berkshire
13-May-2020 23:20 Message #4779678
Quite right too. I was walking along a grass pathway today and three girls had stopped for drinks and a snack on the pathway itself.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2020 11:13 Message #4780387
Tumbled,

"The 'equation' is misleading......but I would say not to be taken literally. ... t it was never intended to be 'added'"

It was shown as an equation with a plus sign and an equal sign. It wasn't only misleading, it was actually nonsensical, giving false and inconsistent resuots - My posts above gave the reasons and examples of that.

The government should have made it clear that it was not to be taken literally. Many people might have thought that was an example of the science that government rightly keeps emphasizing. Whereas that equation is ridiculous, which can reduce confidence in the government and scientists.


"a number and a rate"

But even the word "rate" was ambiguous, as being an increase per unit of time, or (completely different) being the average number of people one person infects. Both meanings were nonsensical in the equation as my examples showed

Even calling "R" a "rate" is poor nomenclature for the "Effective Reproduction ratio". (See the quote from the Health Knowledge website on 13-May-20 at 10:12.)

Sometimes the government has referred to R0 (where the 0 is a subscript). R0 is the "Basic Reproduction number" or "Basic Reproduction ratio", (again one shouldn't call it a "rate"). Whereas R considers the number of contacts who are susceptible and non-susceptible to the virus, R0 considers only the susceptible contacts.

So Effective Reproduction ratio = Basic Reproduction ratio x Fraction of the population that is susceptible.

So R and R0 are different numbers, with R0 larger than R.
Sometimes the government talks about getting R less than 1, sometimes R0 less than 1.
As it is possible to have R less than 1 and R0 greater than 1, the aim should be to get R0 less than 1.


"The 'and'........if said in another way......could be said 'plus' and 'plus' can be written '+'"

They could have used the well know symbol of & ampersand, and the equals sign could have been replaced by say an arrow.
Or (as I suggested on 13-May-20 at 12:14pm) "We will calculate the COVID Alert Level based on various factors, including ...", and omit the equation.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2020 11:17 Message #4780389
Tumbled: "They are using the figures in a graph for instance"

When several factors are involved, then it can be useful to have a graph with more axes, even if the factors are not independent.
To show how a "COVID alert level" is determined by the number of cases and the Effective Reproduction ratio, there could be a 3-dimensional graph, having the number of cases and the Effective Reproduction ratio has 2 horizontal axes and the COVID alert level as the vertical axis.
If more factors are to be shown, then to show it graphically we need methods other than more dimensions!



Extremely useful graphs that we see every day show the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths changing with time.

But in the USA Georgia Department of Public Health published a chart of 5 counties apparently showing a significant decline over time in the number of COVID-19 cases.
But they put the dates out of sequence as 30 April, 4 May, 6 May, 5 May, 2 May, 7 May, ending with 26 April which showed hardly any cases. This gave the completely false impression, for people (probably the huge majority, who didn't notice the dates sequence), that their latest date was the best. See
https://www.businessinsider.com/graph-shows-georgia-bungling-coronavirus-data-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

For a satirical view of this, if you can spare 3 minutes, see video “Muzzled By Trump, The CDC Releases Watered Down Guidelines For Reopening” in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zio9QCbprrI from 6 minutes 18 seconds to 9 minutes 15 seconds.
Female
NoSaint  Female  Devon
21-May-2020 12:13 Message #4780396
Sorry Jeff. I know you take everything literally but a lot of broadcasts which are aimed at millions of people do just "make a point" and to me that is perfectly acceptable. More importantly it is understood quite easily by almost everyone.


 Back to top

 Help with conversations