what CoronaVirus precautions are your club taking?

mike12

Was half expecting to get banned if I posted it.
Yes unfortunately it is a joke.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Against better judgement I am continuing.

So yes that would have been the unfettered infection rate.

And then we started doing stuff. And more stuff. And some more. In a relatively short space of time.
So the numbers are coming down but because we tried a number of things in a short space of time we don't really know which of the things we did caused the decrease.

Was it the staying away from work, school, public transport, gatherings? The hygiene improvement, the distancing, the lockdown? All of the above or any kind of combination?

I posted a graph a few pages back that indicates that the R number in Germany hasn't changed since the lockdown. The distancing and the hygiene and avoid gatherings seems to have done the trick. Germany had gone into full lockdown when their number was just under 1 and it stayed stubbornly just under 1 for the entire lockdown. No sign of it trending anywhere.

Thats how I conclude that some small easing is not going to kill us. It appears the lockdown was an ineffective measure applied on top of no work, school, distancing etc. Be by all means careful but our emergency committee seems so paralysed for some reason they can't even tell us what numbers they would feel more comfortable with.

Combine that with the people getting a little tired I was saying give them a little easing. Keeps them on board and its not going to hurt.

Germany has been showing a spike since they eased restrictions. Heading back towards R0=1. The problem with your graph is that it doesn't take account of factors like delays in testing, delays in developing symptoms which can be up to seven days. You're just fixating on the numbers without acknowledging what's behind them. And in a crisis, the numbers will have all sorts of weaknesses which really won't be exposed until much later when the actual trends can be seen. So we're trying to develop hindsight in advance. A very difficult feat to carry off.

CalamariFritti

Just after watching six news and that sounds a little better now. An actual plan and 5 criteria to be announced tomorrow. Lets see.

Not much hope for golf next week though.

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

Germany has been showing a spike since they eased restrictions. Heading back towards R0=1. The problem with your graph is that it doesn't take account of factors like delays in testing, delays in developing symptoms which can be up to seven days. You're just fixating on the numbers without acknowledging what's behind them. And in a crisis, the numbers will have all sorts of weaknesses which really won't be exposed until much later when the actual trends can be seen. So we're trying to develop hindsight in advance. A very difficult feat to carry off.

Germany has not seen a 'spike' since the reopening. Its been like that - up and down by 0.1 or 0.2 - since mid March. Now its just gone by 0.1, so what?

By your own words that wouldn't make any sense anyway with the built-in delay. They eased a bit on Monday how could it 'spike' on Tuesday because of it?

Anyway, this is as entrenched a debate as any of them. COVID hasn't changed that. People will believe their numbers and their interpretation and nobody has ever been swayed in one of those threads.

All I was saying is I think it would be wiser to give little something in order to maintain compliance levels over being totally rigid. Hopefully tomorrows government communication will be little more positive and proactive and give the people something to look forward too at least. So far its been nothing but grave faces and grave words and 'its not enough'. Its depressing.

downthemiddle

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Germany has not seen a 'spike' since the reopening. Its been like that - up and down by 0.1 or 0.2 - since mid March. Now its just gone by 0.1, so what?

By your own words that wouldn't make any sense anyway with the built-in delay. They eased a bit on Monday how could it 'spike' on Tuesday because of it?

Anyway, this is as entrenched a debate as any of them. COVID hasn't changed that. People will believe their numbers and their interpretation and nobody has ever been swayed in one of those threads.

All I was saying is I think it would be wiser to give little something in order to maintain compliance levels over being totally rigid. Hopefully tomorrows government communication will be little more positive and proactive and give the people something to look forward too at least. So far its been nothing but grave faces and grave words and 'its not enough'. Its depressing.

Ease the restrictions and the only thing people will have to look forward to is a dose of Covid.

Seve OB

newport2 wrote: »

Well I guess in tennis just yourself and your opponent touch the same gear (nicer way? ). Touching flags and rakes in golf involves many more people having indirect contact with each other.

newport2 wrote: »

I was responding to this post



So yes, we don't touch rakes or flags. I was making the point that in tennis, while you do have to touch the same gear as the other player, unlike golf (without our restrictions on flags and rakes) it's only gear that one other player needs to touch. So with the measures currently in place, I think both games are low risk.

thecomedian wrote: »

Apologies for that.

With tennis the balls would be well contaminated if someone playing had it. Having played both id have golf a step lower.

So re tennis being considered “safe” well it’s not, it’s daft actually and IMO even less safe than going to the shops.

Today I went to dunnes. Person there manning the trolley bay, wipes it down before he gives it to you, you can disinfect your hands and they supply disposable gloves. Pick what you need, load it in bags, bring it home, wipe it down, put it away, wash your hands and carry on.


Play tennis with an infected person who is asymptomatic, ball is going to transfer this, no disposable gloves for every time you hold the ball, you sweat, no gloves, wipe you forehead, you get it, there is no avoiding it.
Tomorrow there are 2 of you who are a symptomatic playing with 2 new guys, 4 guys the next day, family’s of all playing get infected, spreads to work colleagues..............

Extreme I know, but daft to even consider it is in anyway more safe than going shopping

newport2

Seve OB wrote: »

So re tennis being considered “safe” well it’s not, it’s daft actually and IMO even less safe than going to the shops.

Today I went to dunnes. Person there manning the trolley bay, wipes it down before he gives it to you, you can disinfect your hands and they supply disposable gloves. Pick what you need, load it in bags, bring it home, wipe it down, put it away, wash your hands and carry on.


Play tennis with an infected person who is asymptomatic, ball is going to transfer this, no disposable gloves for every time you hold the ball, you sweat, no gloves, wipe you forehead, you get it, there is no avoiding it.
Tomorrow there are 2 of you who are a symptomatic playing with 2 new guys, 4 guys the next day, family’s of all playing get infected, spreads to work colleagues..............

Extreme I know, but daft to even consider it is in anyway more safe than going shopping

I never mentioned shopping or said anything was safe. I said I would consider golf and tennis low risk. And by that I mean with people you know ie I might consider a game of tennis with someone from my household, not with someone who I do not interact closely with on a daily basis anyway. But I take your points.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Germany has not seen a 'spike' since the reopening. Its been like that - up and down by 0.1 or 0.2 - since mid March. Now its just gone by 0.1, so what?

By your own words that wouldn't make any sense anyway with the built-in delay. They eased a bit on Monday how could it 'spike' on Tuesday because of it?

The built in delay makes it more worrying, not less so. You don't know if it's going to be sustained or not and it's already too late if it is. That's why the trend is more important than the individual figures. As I've repeatedly said.

CalamariFritti

Ah well like I said we all live in our own COVID reality and we advocate what we believe is right and we obviously chose to ignore what doesn't fit into our worldview. I mean 6 weeks under one, what more of a trend does one need? Irelands R is even lower than Germany's. Not saying its the only number that matters but there is certainly some selective recognition going on.

Lets hope for some good news today anyway. All the best.

Is it just me or is boards slow AF the last couple of days?

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ah well like I said we all live in our own COVID reality and we advocate what we believe is right and we obviously chose to ignore what doesn't fit into our worldview. I mean 6 weeks under one, what more of a trend does one need? Irelands R is even lower than Germany's. Not saying its the only number that matters but there is certainly some selective recognition going on.

Lets hope for some good news today anyway. All the best.

Is it just me or is boards slow AF the last couple of days?

R0 < 1 is not the panacea to cure all ills. It has to keep dropping. The trend must be downwards consistently. Otherwise when you ease restrictions, there will be enough numbers to start the whole thing off again. Ideally, with an up to seven day asymptomatic carrier duration and a further seven day post symptomatic infectious period, you need 14 days to clear out the infection from the population. If you know that you have all possible vectors closed down and isolated and no new ones emerge, you can be pretty confident it will die out. And that's the actual goal here.

And yes, boards has been incredibly slow over the last few days for me too. Takes up to 15 seconds for a page to load. And some features aren't working like editor mode switching and inline editing.

CalamariFritti

The problem with your take IMO is that the WHO has long ago declared that it will not die out. I don't know why some people here still believe that can be done.

I agree with you in theory it could be done. But thats not ever going to happen while we still have infections with health care staff happening and all those 'essential' workers gong about. The lockdown is actually too half arsed to make that happen.

And like I pointed out repeatedly. The largest dataset there is so far points out that the lockdown has not brought R down further at all.

Unless we have an actual proper lockdown R isn't really going to change towards zero.

Meanwhile we have stable R for six weeks plus in the largest dataset available and that isn't deemed a trend by some.

gypsy79

prawnsambo wrote: »

R0 < 1 is not the panacea to cure all ills. It has to keep dropping. The trend must be downwards consistently. Otherwise when you ease restrictions, there will be enough numbers to start the whole thing off again. Ideally, with an up to seven day asymptomatic carrier duration and a further seven day post symptomatic infectious period, you need 14 days to clear out the infection from the population. If you know that you have all possible vectors closed down and isolated and no new ones emerge, you can be pretty confident it will die out. And that's the actual goal here.

What is your qualification to say this?

With a first class honours degree in mathematics from Trinity (70% of my chosen topics been Statistics), a masters in data analytics and an actuarial professional qualification I am calling BS.

kieran.

You know what they say, in the right hands statistics can be manipulated to prove anything...:):eek:

gypsy79

kieran. wrote: »

You know what they say, in the right hands statistics can be manipulated to prove anything...:):eek:

Not an educated user of data. I can usually spot when a person is fiddling the data to get THEIR point across miles away

In fact this is 90% of journalists

If you list a serious of facts then people will often assume that their is no bias. But in fact there can be tonnes of bias if you look at the facts not included. nearly every anti Trump post/article is guilty of this

prawnsambo

gypsy79 wrote: »

What is your qualification to say this?

With a first class honours degree in mathematics from Trinity (70% of my chosen topics been Statistics), a masters in data analytics and an actuarial professional qualification I am calling BS.

Common sense.

If the trend of infections is consistently downwards, it means it's coming under control. If it's upwards, it's not. Yes, you will have outliers and hot spots, but as long as those are controlled and isolated, the trend should continue downwards. I'm not sure how you think that's BS, but hey ho.

gypsy79

prawnsambo wrote: »

Common sense.

If the trend of infections is consistently downwards, it means it's coming under control. If it's upwards, it's not. Yes, you will have outliers and hot spots, but as long as those are controlled and isolated, the trend should continue downwards. I'm not sure how you think that's BS, but hey ho.

Its BS mainly because you have just made up your own rules based on your version of common sense not actual science.

The R number is one of the good numbers to look at. And once it is below 1 then all will be good. In fact keeping it as close to 1 as you possibly can in my opinion (not opinion) might be the best approach as it is the best and safest way to get herd immunity. Of course paying special attention to the vulnerable

Not quoting anything. This isn't going to zero. It is too ingrained in the healthcare workers

We dont know where we are with herd immunity. That will be the most likely way out of this. There are tonnes of people who have had this thing and dont even suspect that they have had it.

Anecdotely I can back that up with my father in law, who has tested positive at 83 years old, the high at risk group tested positive yesterday as he is in residential care. He hasnt shown one symptom other than a slight cough and a small fever for 12 hours 2 weeks ago. He was tested as part of checks.

ronnie3585

Jaysus lads, this thread has descended into absolute sh*te.

Another reason I’m hoping for the golf courses to reopen ASAP is that it will get the keyboard warriors out into the fresh air and away from their computers.

gypsy79

Point I am making is that the statistics as I read them should mean that golf should be open very soon

Do I believe they will be?

No, this government after been very strong initially are starting to show the weaknesses that made the people (even their traditional voters) turn against them

Smugness!!

prawnsambo

gypsy79 wrote: »

Its BS mainly because you have just made up your own rules based on your version of common sense not actual science.

It's not just my 'version' of common sense, it's the approach that a number of countries have taken including NZ and South Korea. NZ has eliminated the virus completely.

gypsy79 wrote: »

The R number is one of the good numbers to look at. And once it is below 1 then all will be good. In fact keeping it as close to 1 as you possibly can in my opinion (not opinion) might be the best approach as it is the best and safest way to get herd immunity. Of course paying special attention to the vulnerable

Herd immunity is only going to be achieved by vaccination. The way it has been achieved with other diseases like polio, smallpox and a host of other viruses. That's actually the best and safest way. And I'd really like to see what you suggest is 'not your opinion' on the subject.



In any event, we'll know this evening what plans the government has for coming out of lockdown. I would be surprised if there's no good news (however deferred).

twounderpar

Lots of discussion here on when we will get back to our club for some golf. Unfortunately, it's not going to be an option for some golfers.
The latest club to close its gates for good, as reported in the Offaly Express, is Castle Barna in Daingean Co.Offaly.

GreeBo

gypsy79 wrote: »

The R number is one of the good numbers to look at. And once it is below 1 then all will be good. In fact keeping it as close to 1 as you possibly can in my opinion (not opinion) might be the best approach as it is the best and safest way to get herd immunity. Of course paying special attention to the vulnerable

An R0 of zero doesnt mean "all will be good" It means that eventually the virus will stop spreading and what ever is left will "be good".

If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
An R0 of .5 means that if I meet 2 people I will probably infect 1 of them, thats still more than enough to overwhelm our health services.

The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases.
This is its "natural" rate of infection. We have it at or under 1 purely down to social distancing. As soon as you lift those restrictions it will jump right back up, social distancing doesnt mean the virus has forgotten how to infect people.

Not quoting anything. This isn't going to zero. It is too ingrained in the healthcare workers

What does "ingrained in healthcare workers mean"?
Either they are getting it and are immune, and so its not a worrying trend, or they are getting it and are not immune and so your earlier points are meaningless.

CalamariFritti

GreeBo wrote: »

An R0 of zero doesnt mean "all will be good" It means that eventually the virus will stop spreading and what ever is left will "be good".

If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
An R0 of .5 means that if I meet 2 people I will probably infect 1 of them, thats still more than enough to overwhelm our health services.

The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases.
This is its "natural" rate of infection. We have it at or under 1 purely down to social distancing. As soon as you lift those restrictions it will jump right back up, social distancing doesnt mean the virus has forgotten how to infect people.

What does "ingrained in healthcare workers mean"?
Either they are getting it and are immune, and so its not a worrying trend, or they are getting it and are not immune and so your earlier points are meaningless.

Argh Greebo. I am a bit disappointed now, I expected better from you.

An R0 of .5 means 2 infected will infect one new person, not the other way around or whatever weird version you're having there. What you're saying is actually just 1. 0.5 will not overwhelm anyone's health system.

The virus can not survive out in the open. it is not a viable entity in its own right if you like. It can only survive in hosts. But any infected host is either cured within a couple of weeks or dead. Therefore the virus must spread in order to survive itself. If it can't spread it will 'die out'. I am putting some stuff into apostrophes because a virus isn't really a living organism.

1 means the humber of infected remains constant. (Well actually not quite since a few of the infected will be dying) But on a maths whiteboard 1 means the number of infected hosts remains constant.

Anything under 1 means it will 'die out' (eventually). The lower the number the sooner it will die out.

Anything above 1 is bad. Means the number of infected is growing. Don't know if we know Irish numbers But Ms Merkel said that a persistent rate of 1.3 would bring the German system to its knees within a few months.

R0 = 0 would mean we would be rid of it within a couple weeks.

Roger_007

twounderpar wrote: »

Lots of discussion here on when we will get back to our club for some golf. Unfortunately, it's not going to be an option for some golfers.
The latest club to close its gates for good, as reported in the Offaly Express, is Castle Barna in Daingean Co.Offaly.

Most clubs will be in financial difficulties before the end of this year. Many will not survive.

BoldReason

Heard some stories of a Resort hotel and golf course going to sell the golf course. Not sure if it's a result of this but not ideal for the members. Hopefully it gets sorted.

GreeBo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

An R0 of .5 means 2 infected will infect one new person,

Explain to me how two people infect 1 person.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The virus can not survive out in the open. it is not a viable entity in its own right if you like. It can only survive in hosts. But any infected host is either cured within a couple of weeks or dead. Therefore the virus must spread in order to survive itself. If it can't spread it will 'die out'. I am putting some stuff into apostrophes because a virus isn't really a living organism.

This is wrong. Or at best incomplete. Tests have proven that the virus can survive on surfaces like plastic and stainless steel for up to three days. On cardboard for up to 24 hours and for up to 3 hours in the air. If you search through my posts, you'll find that I linked the research and that others did too. I'm also pretty sure that I quoted these tests in a reply to you.

CalamariFritti

GreeBo wrote: »

Explain to me how two people infect 1 person.

It's maths/statistics. It's a better way of saying that over a large number of cases the ratio is 2:1. So 1000 infected will infect 500 other people. 2 will infect 1.

You cold say that 1 infected is infecting 0.5 new people but since 0.5 people sounds even weirder its being expressed like that frequently.

Ms Merkel explained it quite well actually when asked what 0.9 was. She said you have 10 infected. 9 of them will infect another one. 1 one of them doesn't infect anyone.

@prawnSamo yes we know if stays viable for a short period of time in the open. For the purpose of this maths/logic talk we can disregard that.

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

Explain to me how two people infect 1 person.

To be fair, these are averages. Like R0=3 means one person will infect three on average. So R0=0.5 means one person will infect 0.5 on average or for every two infected people, one more will be infected. Your analogy should really have said that you had a 50/50 chance of infecting somebody rather than you'd infect 1 out of 2.

GreeBo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It's maths/statistics. It's a better way of saying that over a large number of cases the ratio is 2:1. So 1000 infected will infect 500 other people. 2 will infect 1.

You cold say that 1 infected is infecting 0.5 new people but since 0.5 people sounds even weirder its being expressed like that frequently.

And that is different than 1 person infecting half the people they meet how?

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, these are averages. Like R0=3 means one person will infect three on average. So R0=0.5 means one person will infect 0.5 on average or for every two infected people, one more will be infected. Your analogy should really have said that you had a 50/50 chance of infecting somebody rather than you'd infect 1 out of 2.

Yep, but its the same as saying that an infected person infects half the people they meet.

Otherwise he is saying that R0 of 0.5 means 1 infected person cant infect anyone in a room of 1000 people, which I dont believe is the case.

Whats the difference between 50:50 and 1 in 2 chance?!