Search results

My point was not to comment on relative risks. It was just dismissing the professor's nonsensical claim of Londoners excellent behaviour. No I don't, my post clearly shows the opposite. I've not claimed "r" as a cause but have stated it is the effect of the early high infection rate reducing...

ꝏ .

And much of that 12% in the early stages, as you acknowledge. Ergo it is now much lower, not like other cities at present. .

No point now the horse has bolted and our "r" is is so low at an accepted "6" and still reducing. And with Londoners behaviours I can't see any increase in mask use, as this account shows: A Day in London Lives I've had to put up with many silly things said about London from people living far...

Around here it would be just you. The reason you feel that way is because you've been secluding yourself. I don't because I've been going out all the time and as often as I like, as has almost everyone else around here. Only a tiny minority use a mask and they are clearly the few who do...

I'm not even going to answer the obvious errors in your response. Instead I'll content myself with an extract from Danidl's response, a quote from Professor Matt Keeling, Professor of Populations and Disease, University of Warwick and my response to what he said: “What this study highlights is...

A good post Danidl and agree with virtually all of it, but the above statement is totally untrue. It's academics once again clinging onto their blind, blinkered belief that only lockdown could account for the admitted up to 0.3 lower "r" in London and fantasising to suit, a false belief that...

But you dont, it's one rule for you and one for others. You expect me to provide evidential links but expect to fob me off with the ratio of London's population to the national one as evidence of the London current infection rate. It's not. And you even tried to suggest London's lower rate...

Best ask Public Health England and Cambridge University, I merely reported their reported findings, trusting that these respected bodies are generally reliable. But they did NOT say free by this weekend, they said MAY be free for June which is 30 days long. Obviously it's for your risk...

But it was nearly 200 years ago. .

As I suspected, you don't even bother to read my posts before replying. I posted those ONS numbers and a link to the ONS web page bearing them. But they are NOT London's reduced infection numbers nor is there any claim that they are. Those London numbers are in a different post where I...

It means they stress the importance of co-operation, without any bullying. That gets the best outcome, co-operation from all who will, none from those who never co-operate. The outcome from bullying threats is less co-operation from those who normally would but resent the threats, plus no...

Emphatically no, there must be no compulsion, since compulsion and fines will ensure track and trace will fail. The public aren't completely stupid. Once they get wind of the possibility of 14 days locked down in quarantine and a hefty fine for any breach, they won't declare any symptoms...

Although I gave an overall agree, I do not agree that we are more wary now. If anything it's the opposite and everyone I speak to says they are fed up with lockdown and thinks the whole infection thing has been exaggerated. Certainly I'm no longer bothering with concentration on distancing...

You really are making yourself look very silly now. That is true everywhere, so cannot account for the huge discrepancies between London and National outcomes. .

It was wholly justified. Frankly I'm surprised at how far you'll go to avoid the facts when they don't fit, concocting a belief in Londoners behaviours that even contradicts what you've been posting previously. Why is it so difficult to understand that the very high early numbers of infections...

Even truer in regional towns and cities outside of London, yet they lag way behind London in Re. .

Yes it is, see below. So your made up calculated theory number is better than an actual one from a pair of reputable bodies? Did you even bother to look at the ONS numbers? London took an earlier hit so much greater that it was up to double the rest of the country. That's why we are getting...

Another one like Danidl trying to deny the evidence because it doesn't fit your predictions? .

That's not so, making your story fit the inconvenient facts? In fact some in here have reposted photos of th crowded underground, some buses and crowded parks, which I'm sure you've seen in this thread. Indeed they were frequently criticising us about our obvious lack of social distancing at...