4 ms·

See table 2 in the most recent weekly national COVID-19 surveillance report [1], which breaks down where outbreaks have happened. In London, there were 220 outb

by twic 6y ago

See table 2 in the most recent weekly national COVID-19 surveillance report [1], which breaks down where outbreaks have happened. In London, there were 220 outbreaks last week: Educational 108 Hospital 42 Care home 38 Workplace 20 Other 10 Prisons 1 Food outlet/restaurant 1 This is outbreaks, not infections - i don't think we have statistics on that, so this is the best indication we have of where the virus is spreading. Schools, hospitals, care homes, and workplaces account for the huge majority of spread. There's no empirical reason to think either tube trains or supermarkets are the problem. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-flu-and-covid-19-surveillance-reports https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-flu-and-co...

317070 6y ago
One needs to be careful with such statistics though. The Netherlands had similar numbers but luckily also reported they could only trace 20% of the outbreaks. And that puts things in a very different perspective. Of the traced outbreaks, most were in schools. But that is not really a surprise, as outbreaks in schools are really easy to trace. If you have a group of 25 students which basically spend 40 hours a week together and they all get sick, super obvious. But how do you trace clients of a restaurant back to a restaurant? You mostly don't. My reading of these lists is as a mix between places that are easy to trace, and places where really a lot of infections are happening. It is hard to tell which are which and which are both. Not to mention where the other missing 80% of cases came from.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Edit, ignore the next paragraph, I was looking at this week vs last wekk... Weirdly I see slightly different numbers... Table 2 on page number 26 of the first pdf? Sorry if I'm looking in the wrong place... Either way, I think this relies on contact tracing data, but contact tracing doesn't happen on trains or in supermarkets (super markets are exempt why exactly? No one knows). That's why their zeros...
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Both are places where a huge number of people pass, and nearly nobody stays for long. I imagine both would give a very large number of false positives, so you'll need a lot of work to get little impact.

by twic 6y ago

317070 6y ago

One needs to be careful with such statistics though. The Netherlands had similar numbers but luckily also reported they could only trace 20% of the outbreaks. And that puts things in a very different perspective. Of the traced outbreaks, most were in schools. But that is not really a surprise, as outbreaks in schools are really easy to trace. If you have a group of 25 students which basically spend 40 hours a week together and they all get sick, super obvious. But how do you trace clients of a restaurant back to a restaurant? You mostly don't. My reading of these lists is as a mix between places that are easy to trace, and places where really a lot of infections are happening. It is hard to tell which are which and which are both. Not to mention where the other missing 80% of cases came from.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Edit, ignore the next paragraph, I was looking at this week vs last wekk... Weirdly I see slightly different numbers... Table 2 on page number 26 of the first pdf? Sorry if I'm looking in the wrong place... Either way, I think this relies on contact tracing data, but contact tracing doesn't happen on trains or in supermarkets (super markets are exempt why exactly? No one knows). That's why their zeros...

marcosdumay 6y ago
Both are places where a huge number of people pass, and nearly nobody stays for long. I imagine both would give a very large number of false positives, so you'll need a lot of work to get little impact.