Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
I doubt it will be poppycock, these scientists are independent experts from universities etc they're not politicians and not paid by the government either. They should have no agenda and are there voluntarily to share their expertise.

As for how they calculated it they have access to all the track and trace data. They know exactly who has tested positive as well as trying to trace whom they got it from and whom they have infected and how.

Pubs and bars aren't allowed to be "crowded" at the minute. Any that flout social distancing rules can be shut down.
It's likely to be poppycock.

1. High risk of low-quality testing & tracing data—eg. due to inadequate coverage of pubs. Tracing contacts you've had at home is easy; reliably tracing contacts you may have had at the pub is considerably more difficult, and there is no reason to believe the UK has solved this problem.

2. No evidence has been presented that shows the transmission in pubs and the like to be so low as to not merit concern. If say 15% of cases directly result from hanging out at the pub, that's a huge problem—not least because you risk creating a greater number of clusters.

3. So long as people stay away from pubs, you are likely to see fewer cases directly linked to pubs. That's not a good argument for loosening restrictions on pubs; on the contrary, it implies that, when restrictions are lifted, more cases—and a larger share of cases—will be directly or indirectly linked to pubs.

4. You have to assess evidence in context. There is no reason to believe that pubs are sufficiently low-risk environments, and good reason to believe the opposite: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...shire-12038760