Cable Forum
Page 21 of 64 « First 1117181920 21 2223242531 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

jfman 10-04-2020 23:24
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031185)
Being 2nd on the list of Pandemic preparedness is so bad, when we could've 14th like Germany.:rolleyes:
So where did their preparation go right and ours go wrong as we hit the 1000 per day mark compared to their 2728 in total?

It’s worth noting today’s total is just those announced today, not those having died in the 24 hour period. Most of them actually died at some point in the last week introducing administrative variations (e.g. low weekend counts catching up midweek) so it’s not truly a like for like figure.

Julian 10-04-2020 23:41
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
This "statistical analysis" is somewhat tedious

Without post mortems to establish the cause of death the figures are meaningless.

What would be more relevant would be the number of deaths over and above the norm.

All deaths are tragic and to have people pigeonholed to become a statistic is totally wrong.

nomadking 11-04-2020 00:10
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031186)
So where did their preparation go right and ours go wrong as we hit the 1000 per day mark compared to their 2728 in total?

It’s worth noting today’s total is just those announced today, not those having died in the 24 hour period. Most of them actually died at some point in the last week introducing administrative variations (e.g. low weekend counts catching up midweek) so it’s not truly a like for like figure.
Nothing comparable at all. How many cases in Germany needed admission to hospital compared to the UK? The spreading depends on people's behaviour. No amount of preparation can cope with the stupidity of people in the UK. Germany only started it's lockdown 2 days before the UK, so that can't be a factor. Germany never reached the same starting point as the UK. Eg Germany has around a quarter of estimated cases compared to the UK.
Quote:
The low figure is thought to be linked to mass testing, meaning that many people with mild symptoms are counted in Germany but not elsewhere.
However, the rate has been rising steadily, from 0.6 per cent a fortnight ago to 1.3 per cent last week and 2.1 per cent today.

Rexz 11-04-2020 01:09
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031188)
Nothing comparable at all. How many cases in Germany needed admission to hospital compared to the UK? The spreading depends on people's behaviour. No amount of preparation can cope with the stupidity of people in the UK. Germany only started it's lockdown 2 days before the UK, so that can't be a factor. Germany never reached the same starting point as the UK. Eg Germany has around a quarter of estimated cases compared to the UK.
I have seen people saying that Germany doesn't report all deaths as coronavirus but of the underlying condition. How much of that is true I have no idea but it would lead to their lower death rate compared to their infection rate. Also stating people in the UK as being stupid but another nation as being somehow better is ridiculous. You think Germany or any other country doesn't have their own minority of people who don't follow the rules of lockdown or social distancing?

jfman 11-04-2020 02:35
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031188)
Nothing comparable at all. How many cases in Germany needed admission to hospital compared to the UK? The spreading depends on people's behaviour. No amount of preparation can cope with the stupidity of people in the UK. Germany only started it's lockdown 2 days before the UK, so that can't be a factor. Germany never reached the same starting point as the UK. Eg Germany has around a quarter of estimated cases compared to the UK.
Nothing comparable because it's an inconvenient truth to you that Germany made interventions other than a lockdown - mass testing, contact tracing, in line with internationally recognised and established guidance on pandemic flu.

We shrugged our shoulders for a week and said "herd immunity".

The Government message will ultimately be to blame the people at the end of this however, like Hillsborough, that simply won't wash.

nomadking 11-04-2020 03:16
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Germany started their lockdown on 22nd March, UKs was announced on 23rd. Not a great difference. Sweden is yet to have a similar lockdown. As Germany had less cases in the first place, they have the spare testing capacity. Not all areas of Germany are as affected, eg Eastern Germany.
Quote:
The former East has generally been less affected. German media has suggested this could be linked to a lower population density and a less developed economy which makes encounters between global jet-setters less likely.

It all going to depend on points of introduction of the virus and the sorts of connections those "points" make with others.

Quote:
The rising number of cases, after the daily count had fallen to a two-week low on Monday, is a setback to German hopes of ending the lockdown.

Paul 11-04-2020 03:19
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
As the old saying goes ...

Their are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Unless every country in the world is using the same reporting system, and the same amout of testing (per population) then raw numbers dont tell you much, and are only useful for daily comparisons in the same country. Comparing countries is somewhat meaninless.

jfman 11-04-2020 04:04
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031193)
Germany started their lockdown on 22nd March, UKs was announced on 23rd. Not a great difference. Sweden is yet to have a similar lockdown. As Germany had less cases in the first place, they have the spare testing capacity. Not all areas of Germany are as affected, eg Eastern Germany.

It all going to depend on points of introduction of the virus and the sorts of connections those "points" make with others.
German states however took their own actions prior to this date. School closures (13 March) and banning mass gatherings of more than 1000 people (10 March) in North Rhine-Westphalia where the outbreak appears to have originated in Germany.

I’m unsure where your assertion Germany had less cases in the first place comes from - on 1st March we had 36 reported cases to Germany’s 130.

Not all of the UK is equally affected - London is much worse than Scotland. That’s a red herring. Considering the western German outbreak is closely intertwined with northern Italian I doubt anyone would consider the 9 hour drive from Lombardy to Cologne “global jet setting”.

nomadking 11-04-2020 08:50
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Allowing groups of up to 1000 people to gather, isn't exactly a lockdown, and possibly if anything worse than only allowing groups of more than 1,000. Those from smaller groups will then mingle with people from other smaller groups.


UK has an estimated 2.1m cases, compared to Germany's estimated 460,000.

jfman 11-04-2020 09:14
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031197)
Allowing groups of up to 1000 people to gather, isn't exactly a lockdown, and possibly if anything worse than only allowing groups of more than 1,000. Those from smaller groups will then mingle with people from other smaller groups.
Other smaller groups??? What other groups?

Compared with 55 000 people in a football stadium with larger numbers crowded into bars, fast food places, buses, metros, trams etc is definitely going to be worse.

It also has the effect of reducing the number of large events at once. 55 000 football fans don’t decide against going to the game and set up 55 x 1000 person gatherings doing something else.

Closing schools also has the effect of reducing the spread. A step taken earlier in Germany.

Quote:
UK has an estimated 2.1m cases, compared to Germany's estimated 460,000.
You seem to be missing my point. Clearly if Germany has kept the numbers low, despite a higher population, I’m literally claiming they have better managed the situation.

At some point in time both countries presumably had a handful of cases. Unless you are claiming that a disproportionate amount of people travelling to the UK came into the UK with it and that they all came at once. Yet Germany, within Schengen, didn’t get this kind of simultaneous movement of infected people across it’s borders?

Maggy 11-04-2020 09:35
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36031194)
As the old saying goes ...

Their are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Unless every country in the world is using the same reporting system, and the same amout of testing (per population) then raw numbers dont tell you much, and are only useful for daily comparisons in the same country. Comparing countries is somewhat meaninless.
:tu:

1andrew1 11-04-2020 11:12
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36031194)
As the old saying goes ...

Their are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Unless every country in the world is using the same reporting system, and the same amout of testing (per population) then raw numbers dont tell you much, and are only useful for daily comparisons in the same country. Comparing countries is somewhat meaninless.
The steepness and flattening of curves is a useful indicator and papers like the FT are trying to make the data more comparable eg stripping out the deaths in nursing homes in France. It's not so much the absolute figures but the rates and trends that are useful to compare.

This sounds encouraging, given that it's reported in a reputable source.
Quote:
A vaccine against coronavirus could be ready as soon as September, the British scientist leading one of the world’s most advanced efforts has said.
Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at Oxford University, told The Times she was “80 per cent confident” that the vaccine being developed by her team would work, with human trials due to begin in the next fortnight.
The government signalled that it would be willing to fund the manufacture of millions of doses in advance if results looked promising. This would allow it to be available immediately to the public if it were proven to work.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...mber-flmwl257x

Hugh 11-04-2020 11:29
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
With a huge caveat...
Quote:
Asked if the most optimistic scenario for a working vaccine was September, she said: “Yes and we have to go for that.” Success by the autumn was “just about possible if everything goes perfectly”.

However, she added: “Nobody can promise it’s going to work.”
No one bets the farm on "we can succeed if nothing goes wrong and it might be possible everything goes perfectly", because that's not the real world...

Here is the Oxford Uni press release from a week or two ago - http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-03-27-...-recruitment-0

Still probably a year or so before one gets into full production.

Update - here is the blog from the trial, latest entry last week. https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/bl...ine-deployment
Quote:
How long will it take to get the Oxford vaccine to deployment?

Vaccine development during an epidemic

Experts have estimated that it will take 12-18 months to develop a new vaccine at high speed. Under normal circumstances, most vaccine development programmes take more than five years, so this is still a considerably accelerated timescale.

This 12-18-month prediction includes the time taken to develop manufacturing processes to produce the vaccine on a larger scale, as well as preclinical testing in animals and evaluation of the vaccine in human participants in a clinical trial. Scientists need to assess the safety and efficacy of the vaccine over a number of weeks and months through phase I, II and III clinical trials. If the vaccine is safe and efficacious, regulatory approval is needed before the vaccine can be deployed.

Many of these stages can be undertaken more quickly if there are no unexpected roadblocks. Firstly, the use of a platform technology approach, i.e. a vaccine delivery system that has been used before and can be adapted for a new pathogen, can shorten the initial vaccine development time. Also, in an emergency situation, large scale manufacturing could be carried out concurrently while the clinical trial is ongoing, which can shorten the overall timescale for vaccine development. This would mean that if the clinical trial is successful, the vaccine would be ready in larger quantities, to be deployed immediately. Finally, regulatory review of promising candidates is also undertaken faster in an epidemic, because more staff and resources are dedicated to the review process.

Oxford University is using all these strategies in order to try to make a vaccine available as rapidly as possible once it is proven safe and effective.
Quote:
The best-case scenario is that by the autumn of 2020 we could have an efficacy result from the phase III trial to show that the vaccine protects against the virus, alongside the ability to manufacture large amounts of the vaccine, but these best-case timeframes are highly ambitious and subject to change.

Our ability to determine vaccine efficacy will be affected by the amount of virus transmission in the local population over the summer, and we are also beginning to consider initiating trials with partners in other countries to increase our ability to determine vaccine efficacy.

Hugh 11-04-2020 14:33
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031197)
Allowing groups of up to 1000 people to gather, isn't exactly a lockdown, and possibly if anything worse than only allowing groups of more than 1,000. Those from smaller groups will then mingle with people from other smaller groups.


UK has an estimated 2.1m cases, compared to Germany's estimated 460,000.
Can I ask where that figure is from, please?

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Bit of good news from the current pandemic.

Walking the dog this morning, we (me and the Dalmatian) had a chat (across the road) with another dog-walking acquaintance, an anesthesiologist at the local NHS Trust - trauma numbers are way down, especially from car/bike accidents and drunken mishaps.

pip08456 11-04-2020 14:37
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36031225)
Can I ask where that figure is from, please?

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Bit of good news from the current pandemic.

Walking the dog this morning, we (me and the Dalmatian) had a chat (across the road) with another dog-walking acquaintance, an anesthesiologist at the local NHS Trust - trauma numbers are way down, especially from car/bike accidents and drunken mishaps.
Considering there's only 1,712,674 confimed cases worldwide and Germany 122,530

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Pierre 11-04-2020 15:09
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36031228)
Considering there's only 1,712,674 confimed cases worldwide and Germany 122,530

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
I think the pertinent word in that sentence is “ confirmed”.

I recall back when it all started and the U.K. only had something like 200 confirmed cases the CMO or CSO said the real figure at that time was more like 20,000.

Mr K 11-04-2020 16:51
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
No wonder they kept Priti hidden away, she's a gibbering mess.

Julian 11-04-2020 16:57
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Bless

Damien 11-04-2020 17:15
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031183)
The facts are at least 980 have died over the last day, in comparison with other countries we aren't doing well.
They didn't die yesterday - not all of them anyway.

The numbers now include people who died several days earlier but have only just been reported. The Daily Stats are deaths registered and not occurred. This means the deaths for the day before are largely unknown with the majority not in. So we won't know what day was 'the peak' until about a week later.

To see why look at how the stats are reported. Here are today's numbers from NHS England: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...pril-2020.xlsx

You can see that yesterday 'only' had 115 deaths. So where did the other 802 come from? They've been added to the totals of previous days. The same will happen in the coming days for yesterday's 115 deaths.

This isn't your fault though because it's seems every journalist in the country is running with 'deadliest day yet' headlines. The only ones who are not appear to some of the BBC who (but not always!) use the word 'reported deaths', Sky and the FT. Reporters writing 'xxx died yesterday' is flat out untrue.

Drives me crazy. These organisations need to balance out the profile of their journalists to get a few with a background that isn't an arts degree. It's not a surprise some of the best reporting in this has come from places with decent economics reporting (Not including Preston - he has been rubbish).

The only tier below them are the newspaper columnists who are completely out of their depth with epidemiology, statistics and pandemics (and can't crib something they half-understood from a BBC documentary about global warming) who nevertheless bestow us with what they reckon. There should be more people who know statistics and public health policy and not someone who can bang out a few hundred words on why COVID-19 is the fault of capitalism to a reliable schedule. Morons.

Sephiroth 11-04-2020 17:30
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031239)
No wonder they kept Priti hidden away, she's a gibbering mess.
That remark goes hand in hand with your bio:

Services: ... Wife

Chris 11-04-2020 18:13
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36031243)
They didn't die yesterday - not all of them anyway.

The numbers now include people who died several days earlier but have only just been reported. The Daily Stats are deaths registered and not occurred. This means the deaths for the day before are largely unknown with the majority not in. So we won't know what day was 'the peak' until about a week later.

To see why look at how the stats are reported. Here are today's numbers from NHS England: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...pril-2020.xlsx

You can see that yesterday 'only' had 115 deaths. So where did the other 802 come from? They've been added to the totals of previous days. The same will happen in the coming days for yesterday's 115 deaths.

This isn't your fault though because it's seems every journalist in the country is running with 'deadliest day yet' headlines. The only ones who are not appear to some of the BBC who (but not always!) use the word 'reported deaths', Sky and the FT. Reporters writing 'xxx died yesterday' is flat out untrue.

Drives me crazy. These organisations need to balance out the profile of their journalists to get a few with a background that isn't an arts degree. It's not a surprise some of the best reporting in this has come from places with decent economics reporting (Not including Preston - he has been rubbish).

The only tier below them are the newspaper columnists who are completely out of their depth with epidemiology, statistics and pandemics (and can't crib something they half-understood from a BBC documentary about global warming) who nevertheless bestow us with what they reckon. There should be more people who know statistics and public health policy and not someone who can bang out a few hundred words on why COVID-19 is the fault of capitalism to a reliable schedule. Morons.
And ... breathe. There now, feel better? :D

Good point, well made though. A part of journalist training is in rapidly assimilating facts and explaining them in a way the chosen readership can understand. There are however limits to this process. Sometimes you just need someone with relevant expertise. It’s not surprising some of the best commentary has come from reporters with an actual grounding in economics.

Peston is the notable exception because he is making the basic error, as are many of the Arts-educated set, of treating this as a political crisis and trying to report in terms of whether one minister or another is competent, what decisions Raab is allowed to take while Boris is sick, whether the correct decisions have been taken around testing and so on - even to the extent of treating the scientists recommendations as political statements to be challenged on the basis of five minutes’ reading of something on Wikipedia, or a phone call with a favourite contact (there is footage doing the rounds of Robert Peston being handed his ar53 live on air by one of the gov’s senior advisers having tried, unsuccessfully, to lecture him on his chosen specialist field).

The reality is, only scientific expertise is going to identify solutions, and only resources whose availability is predicated on years of health, industrial and economic policy can implement those solutions. All the politicians can do is act on advice. The big political stories are a year down the road yet, when we begin to look in to how prepared we were, how prepared we could have been, and which industries we designate as strategic, to ensure domestic control and production in the future.

Hom3r 11-04-2020 18:35
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36031194)
As the old saying goes ...

Their are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Unless every country in the world is using the same reporting system, and the same amout of testing (per population) then raw numbers dont tell you much, and are only useful for daily comparisons in the same country. Comparing countries is somewhat meaninless.

George Canning. I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.

Mr K 11-04-2020 22:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
'Dangerous idiot’: Trump says ‘germ is so brilliant antibiotics can’t keep up with it’ in chaotic White House coronavirus meeting

The day coronavirus became the number one cause of death among Americans, US president Donald Trump appeared to confuse the viral disease with a bacterial infection which could be treated with antibiotics.

In a meandering address to journalists on Friday which lasted over two hours and veered between incomprehensibility and flippancy, the president pondered the nature of the deadly virus, which he described as a “very brilliant enemy”, and a “genius”.

Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it.

"And they're constantly trying to come up with a new – people go to a hospital and they catch – they go for a heart operation – that's no problem, but they end up dying from – from problems. You know the problems I'm talking about. There's a whole genius to it."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9460636.html

God help us. Please tell me they took 'the button' away from him a long time ago.

Paul 11-04-2020 22:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031294)
God help us. Please tell me they took 'the button' away from him a long time ago.
I doubt it.

On the bright side, he probably could not figure out how to press it. :dozey:

1andrew1 11-04-2020 23:09
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031239)
No wonder they kept Priti hidden away, she's a gibbering mess.
Quote:
Priti Patel confuses Britons with bungled coronavirus figures at press briefing
The Home Secretary was visibly nervous as she addressed the nation during the daily coronavirus briefing. Ms Patel mistakenly said that there had been "three hundred thousand and thirty four, nine hundred and seventy four thousand" coronavirus tests in Britain.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...ases-deaths-UK

Hugh 11-04-2020 23:52
Re: Coronavirus: PM Boris Johnson Now out of Intensive Care
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36031302)
Not a fan of PP, but we’ve all fumbled/mumbled - she’s done much worse to be pilloried for...

pip08456 12-04-2020 07:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Looks like immunity is off the table. What does this mean for a vaccine?

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...27177c51a3828a

Sephiroth 12-04-2020 08:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36031308)
Looks like immunity is off the table. What does this mean for a vaccine?

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...27177c51a3828a
As a synopsis in my own words, it seems that people who have died from the coronavirus have a severely depleted immune system. As part of the investigation into this, scientists have shown how the Coronavirus can drill into a T-cell and disable its function.

That leaves (again in my own words) the conundrum that those who recover do show antibodies which means that their immune system is not depleted.

Anyway, that's my understanding of a very good spot, Pip.

jfman 12-04-2020 08:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
It explains why it’s particularly deadly for those with compromised immune systems and other health conditions.

I don’t think it rules out (or in) immunity for those who have recovered but it’ll make a vaccination for those who need it most more challenging.

Pierre 12-04-2020 09:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
This story expands on the one above, main takeaway - “We just don’t know yet”

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soci...ing-protective

denphone 12-04-2020 09:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031313)
It explains why it’s particularly deadly for those with compromised immune systems and other health conditions.

I don’t think it rules out (or in) immunity for those who have recovered but it’ll make a vaccination for those who need it most more challenging.
Given a vaccine is unlikely until next year at the very earliest the self isolation period for those with compromised immune systems and other health conditions is likely to be much longer then the officially announced 12 weeks.

Damien 12-04-2020 09:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
That is just one experiment so it would be wise to take it with a heavy pinch of salt. There have been too many cases of newspapers running amok on the basis of a single study in normal times let alone now.

In the last month as Cronovirus cases have soared the death rate was remained relatively static and cases of reported reinfection small so the more scary predictions of humans being unable to develop immunity or this being deadlier than assumed are just seemingly less and less likely.

Maggy 12-04-2020 10:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Too much could,might be,possibly,it is thought.

How about a plain we don't know..YET! As soon as we do we will inform you.

Angua 12-04-2020 11:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36031320)
Too much could,might be,possibly,it is thought.

How about a plain we don't know..YET! As soon as we do we will inform you.
That sounds far too honest and straightforward. No politician would dare.

Hugh 12-04-2020 11:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
tbf, that’s what they are saying - we don’t know enough to say when things will happen, it’s too early in the spread yet.

It’s the press focusing on one point of an article to get clicks

Maggy 12-04-2020 11:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36031330)
tbf, that’s what they are saying - we don’t know enough to say when things will happen, it’s too early in the spread yet.

It’s the press focusing on one point of an article to get clicks
My comment was addressed to the media in general.;)

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36031328)
That sounds far too honest and straightforward. No politician would dare.
That's because they daren't appear uninformed when in effect they are uninformed. Too many previous teaching colleagues had this attitude..I always respected the 'I don't know but let's work it out together approach' myself.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

ianch99 12-04-2020 12:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Short memories indeed:

Boris Johnson's emotional tribute to NHS in first words from hospital 'I owe you my life'

Jun 2017:

The moment Tory MPs cheered blocking a pay rise for nurses and firefighters

jfman 12-04-2020 12:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Aye is his life with an extra couple of quid per hour per member of staff in NHS funding? Probably not.

1andrew1 12-04-2020 13:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
This writer's assessment of the West's reaction makes sense to me.
1. Temporary lock down to build up healthcare capacity.
2. Reopen with selective exclusion building up herd immunity aided by vaccination if and when it emerges.

https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/stat...532224/photo/1

Mr K 12-04-2020 13:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Nurses should refuse to treat coronavirus patients "as a last resort" if they are not given adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), according to new guidance.

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) issued the advice to its members in a bid to prevent more frontline deaths, following criticism of the government about the supply of protective gear for NHS staff caring for people with COVID-19.

Ministers have been accused of being too slow to deliver the equipment, putting health workers at risk and meaning those treating coronavirus patients could pass it on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sk...-says-11972124

Sad that has come to this and it could have major implications. Medical staff have been put in an impossible position, treat somebody without the right protection and risk themselves, their families and other patients. Don't treat and watch patients suffer/deteriorate. Not a choice I'd like to have to take, and it's a disgrace we're putting nurses in that position.

denphone 12-04-2020 13:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
The PM Boris Johnson has been discharged from hospital.

Paul 12-04-2020 17:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36031372)
The PM Boris Johnson has been discharged from hospital.
Good to Hear. :tu:

For those that like pictures, these are the UK [daily] graphs for the last month.

Cases ;
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...chmentid=28303

Deaths ;
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...chmentid=28304

Over the last week, both appear to have pretty much levelled off.

I'm taking that as a good sign.

pip08456 12-04-2020 18:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
For those interested in helping go to https://foldingathome.org/covid19/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1586710676

World Community Grid is also going to be starting projects soon.

Damien 12-04-2020 18:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Complete lie here from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-herd-immunity

Utterly bogus, anti-science, dishonest nonsense. I would use stronger language but it would get me banned for rules I am meant to be enforcing :D

Quote:
The inclusion of “targeted herd immunity” as a possible UK government response to the Covid-19 pandemic – in a list of possible interventions considered for analysis by a contractor – appears to contradict strong denials by the health secretary 10 days earlier that it was any part of government policy.
Simulating something does not make it policy. Idiotic to suggest it does. I would hope the Government is war-gaming all sorts of scenarios but that doesn't make it policy.

The MOD probably has plans for invasions of France and Ireland, doesn't mean it's policy either.

ianch99 12-04-2020 18:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
I watched the PM give his thanks to the NHS:

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson says 'it could have gone either way'

To be honest, I found it moving. He seems to be genuine in his gratitude. Let's hope, that for someone who had built his career on dishonesty, he really does mean what he says and more importantly, changes his policy towards those in this country who are currently making the difference.

Pierre 12-04-2020 18:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36031405)
I watched the PM give his thanks to the NHS:

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson says 'it could have gone either way'

To be honest, I found it moving. He seems to be genuine in his gratitude. Let's hope, that for someone who had built his career on dishonesty, he really does mean what he says and more importantly, changes his policy towards those in this country who are currently making the difference.
There’s plenty of Boris haters out there but I like him.

denphone 12-04-2020 18:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36031407)
There’s plenty of Boris haters out there but I like him.
Its not a question of hate for the vast majority but more a question of trust.

1andrew1 12-04-2020 18:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36031408)
Its not a question of hate for the vast majority but more a question of trust.
Spot on.

Pierre 12-04-2020 20:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36031409)
Spot on.
What has he done, that has affected you directly that makes him untrustworthy in your eyes?

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36031405)
changes his policy towards those in this country who are currently making the difference.
What policy, what changes?

Mr K 12-04-2020 21:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36031415)
What has he done, that has affected you directly that makes him untrustworthy in your eyes?
Well to start with there's 5 or 6 children ( his Wikipedia page doesn't seem sure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson) plus 2 terminations via several wive's/partners.

Then there's the Brexit lies...

We could go on. However glad he's better, the alternatives were even worse....

jfman 12-04-2020 21:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Whether he is or isn’t trustworthy I genuinely hope Labour don’t pin their hopes on demonstrating that and for the public to care. For a sizeable chunk of the voters they need to win back I think they know he’s isn’t trustworthy, but gets things done, like Brexit against an Establishment trying to stop him.

That’s the narrative.

(Last word on it here from me I genuinely thought this was the Starmer thread when I typed this)

Mr K 12-04-2020 21:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031421)
Whether he is or isn’t trustworthy I genuinely hope Labour don’t pin their hopes on demonstrating that and for the public to care. For a sizeable chunk of the voters they need to win back I think they know he’s isn’t trustworthy, but gets things done, like Brexit against an Establishment trying to stop him.

That’s the narrative.
Well if he can protect NHS workers (as of tomorrow), give them a significant pay rise, rescue the economy, ignore/get rid of the right wing bigots, ensure we're all tested for Coronavirus, make this a more equal nation, then fair play to him. We await with anticipation, I always was an optimist ;)

RichardCoulter 12-04-2020 21:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36031405)
I watched the PM give his thanks to the NHS:

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson says 'it could have gone either way'

To be honest, I found it moving. He seems to be genuine in his gratitude. Let's hope, that for someone who had built his career on dishonesty, he really does mean what he says and more importantly, changes his policy towards those in this country who are currently making the difference.
Sometimes things happen to us personally or our loved ones that have a profound affect on our outlook/views. Let's hope that this is the case with Johnson.

Anybody's life can change in the blink of an eyelid as he very nearly found out.

Pierre 12-04-2020 21:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031420)
Well to start with there's 5 or 6 children ( his Wikipedia page doesn't seem sure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson) plus 2 terminations via several wive's/partners.
And? I don’t see what any of that has to do with his stewardship of the country.

Quote:
Then there's the Brexit lies...

We could go on. However glad he's better, the alternatives were even worse....
What Brexit lies......

Please go on, because you’ve delivered frig all.

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031421)
(Last word on it here from me I genuinely thought this was the Starmer thread when I typed this)
Agreed, such is the politization of this.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031422)
, give them a significant pay rise,
Which ones are badly paid ?

Maggy 12-04-2020 22:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
How about we move the subject/debate along?

jfman 12-04-2020 22:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think Coronavirus has legitimate political discussion, but it’s not about Boris and his many children, it’s the absolutely inept response from the Government that will see our body count the highest in Europe according to many.

Sephiroth 12-04-2020 22:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031431)
I think Coronavirus has legitimate political discussion, but it’s not about Boris and his many children, it’s the absolutely inept response from the Government that will see our body count the highest in Europe according to many.
A bit of conflated weasel wording there, jfman.

Which part of the highlighted sentence is "according to many" and which according to you?

"... absolutely inept response from the Government ..." is presumably your view as well as the many.

"...will see our body count the highest in Europe ..." ditto.

So, why try to cover yourself with the "according to many"?

Paul 12-04-2020 22:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031422)
Well if he can protect NHS workers (as of tomorrow), give them a significant pay rise, rescue the economy
Why single out NHS workers ?
I'm sure everyone else would like significant pay rises as well.

Who is collecting your rubbish ?
Who is providing your power ?
Who is providing your food ?

There are numerous other examples.

The NHS do a great job, but I suggest you remember everyone else who is doing a great job as well.

How do you think we would "rescue the economy" if we gave everyone significant pay rises ?

We are all going to suffer the economic repercussions of the massive spending over the next 2/3 months of lockdown, do you really think we could keep it up long term ?

Mr K 12-04-2020 22:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36031435)
Why single out NHS workers ?
I'm sure everyone else would like significant pay rises as well.

Who is collecting your rubbish ?
Who is providing your power ?
Who is providing your food ?

There are numerous other examples.

The NHS do a great job, but I suggest you remember everyone else who is doing a great job as well.

How do you think we would "rescue the economy" if we gave everyone significant pay rises ?

We are all going to suffer the economic repercussions of the massive spending over the next 2/3 months of lockdown, do you really think we could keep it up long term ?
You could have this conversation with someone trying to save your life in a a few weeks time, risking their own life if they don't have the correct PPE. As Boris has found you only value the NHS when you need it.

Sephiroth 12-04-2020 22:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031436)
You could have this conversation with someone trying to save your life in a a few weeks time, risking their own life if they don't have the correct PPE. As Boris has found you only value the NHS when you need it.
Not at all. You were accusing Paul of only valuing the NHS when he needed it. By implication, you meant pretty much everyone else - and there is no genuine basis for your assertion.

Paul 12-04-2020 22:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031436)
As Boris has found you only value the NHS when you need it.
You know nothing about what I value.
I can tell you however that I dont value your pointless "contributions" to Cable Forum.

Pierre 12-04-2020 22:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031436)
. As Boris has found you only value the NHS when you need it.
No doubt you are a 24/7/365 advocate of the NHS that sings, dances and does them occasional mime, all the time for the deep love you feel for the NHS.

Or possibly the typical virtue signalling Facebook warrior were all sick to the back teeth of.

I know where my pound is.

Carth 12-04-2020 22:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
I'm at work for 6am tomorrow . . yes on a bank holiday.

I work in a food factory so can't work from home . . . unless I just don't go, and not get paid :rolleyes:

It's not 'frontline' like the NHS workers, and for many it's nothing like their wage either, but if I and those like me decided to stay off work you'd all be eating grass and bark next week :D

It's probably as difficult to maintain a 2 meter distance from one another in a factory as it is a hospital :p:

Biggest difference though, is that we're working with product not people, and not (hopefully) in close contact with Covid 19 all day long.

NHS workers deserve a massive 'thankyou' package when this is all over :Yes:

jfman 12-04-2020 22:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36031433)
A bit of conflated weasel wording there, jfman.

Which part of the highlighted sentence is "according to many" and which according to you?

"... absolutely inept response from the Government ..." is presumably your view as well as the many.

"...will see our body count the highest in Europe ..." ditto.

So, why try to cover yourself with the "according to many"?
There's been a number of articles saying it's going that way Seph. I don't have to say it, and given the number of people in the thread inclined to defend the Government at all costs it's not an effective use of my (plentiful) time.

I suppose what I am curious about is what would be a bad total that would make others in the thread think it has been mismanaged.

I'll be happy to come back and discuss when we see final figures and excess death counts. I'll be over the moon if we aren't the worst in Europe.

pip08456 12-04-2020 23:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031441)
There's been a number of articles saying it's going that way Seph. I don't have to say it, and given the number of people in the thread inclined to defend the Government at all costs it's not an effective use of my (plentiful) time.

I suppose what I am curious about is what would be a bad total that would make others in the thread think it has been mismanaged.

I'll be happy to come back and discuss when we see final figures and excess death counts. I'll be over the moon if we aren't the worst in Europe.
I'm curious as to where the Government hasn't followed the advice of its science and medical advisors which would go towards a case of mismanagement.

Chris 12-04-2020 23:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
The final calculation will be horrifically complex. We need to arrive at “excess deaths” - those who would not have died in the very short term had they not contracted the virus, which will mean discounting some people who are currently being counted - while also including those whose death from c19 wasn’t immediately obvious.

When making a comparative count against other similar countries we also need to look at where each country started from. If, for example, a significantly higher number got into the UK at a very early stage from a virus hotspot, then that immediately puts us at a disadvantage, and it would be unfair to judge our response on equal terms with a country where only a few infected people initially got in.

Likewise the effectiveness of the official response must in some way be measured while taking our industrial starting point into account. Is it the case that Germany’s pharmaceutical and industrial chemical industries gave them a head start on testing kits, for example? Were chances to ensure strategic domestic production of key chemicals and other resources missed during the routine wargaming all governments do when considering scenarios like this?

Of course as soon as politicians feel the death rate has fallen to an acceptable level the gloves will come off and this will just get a two dimensional political treatment, who should have done what and when, aided and abetted by all the usual cheerleaders writing for all the usual outlets.

But the hard research work must be done, it must be done well, and the outcome must be treated honestly by our politicians. We can’t afford to go through this sort of upheaval again. We simply have to learn the lessons and be properly prepared.

Hugh 12-04-2020 23:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Sephiroth 12-04-2020 23:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031441)
There's been a number of articles saying it's going that way Seph. I don't have to say it, and given the number of people in the thread inclined to defend the Government at all costs it's not an effective use of my (plentiful) time.

I suppose what I am curious about is what would be a bad total that would make others in the thread think it has been mismanaged.

I'll be happy to come back and discuss when we see final figures and excess death counts. I'll be over the moon if we aren't the worst in Europe.
I understand what you've just said. In this situation there are different strands accounting for different things.

One strand is the overall count, which follows expected epidemic behaviour. The Guvmin, in following the science, isn't to be seriously criticised here, imo.

Another strand is the tragedy of deaths among selfless NHS workers, where the Guvimin should be criticised for the waffle and bullshit they've been putting out instead of coming clean from day 1 that they simply can't get the stuff that's needed due to worldwide demand.

Yet another strand is the deaths of transport workers for which the Guvmin can't be directly blamed. The bus companies couldn't get hold of protective gear and sanitisers but the Guvmin did ignore something that was predictable.

A further strand is what's going on in care homes. The Guvmin should be roundly criticised for not setting the Communities Secretary ("Three Homes") onto that

I suppose that in terms of strands, the Guvmin hasn't done all that well. But in terms of wider impact, they've done all that could be expected, imo.

pip08456 13-04-2020 00:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36031446)
I understand what you've just said. In this situation there are different strands accounting for different things.

One strand is the overall count, which follows expected epidemic behaviour. The Guvmin, in following the science, isn't to be seriously criticised here, imo.

Another strand is the tragedy of deaths among selfless NHS workers, where the Guvimin should be criticised for the waffle and bullshit they've been putting out instead of coming clean from day 1 that they simply can't get the stuff that's needed due to worldwide demand.

Yet another strand is the deaths of transport workers for which the Guvmin can't be directly blamed. The bus companies couldn't get hold of protective gear and sanitisers but the Guvmin did ignore something that was predictable.

A further strand is what's going on in care homes. The Guvmin should be roundly criticised for not setting the Communities Secretary ("Three Homes") onto that

I suppose that in terms of strands, the Guvmin hasn't done all that well. But in terms of wider impact, they've done all that could be expected, imo.
There's a huge difference in not doing all that well and mismanagement. I think their biggest failing is lack of transparency. The truth may well have been hard to bear but would have prepared people for the worst which I think is yet to hit.

jfman 13-04-2020 06:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36031442)
I'm curious as to where the Government hasn't followed the advice of its science and medical advisors which would go towards a case of mismanagement.
There are clear obvious points where it’s deviated from what the rest of the world are doing. Following bad advice doesn’t admonish you when there’s plenty of contradictory evidence out there including the WHO advice on dealing with pandemics - test, trace, isolate. The question would be what gave them the confidence that our advice was better?

Would it not enter your head as to wonder why we end up with a death toll higher than Italy, if we did, despite having longer to react? I’m guessing not.

Hugh 13-04-2020 08:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Reasonably balanced article in the Times today.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...TM_1Imag_CR1_2
Quote:
Each day’s deaths represent infections from almost a month ago. Since a revolutionary treatment is not on the short-term horizon, it seems plausible that we will pass Italy and Spain in absolute numbers and possibly pass Italy in proportion, too.

That would not necessarily be proof that we had done the wrong thing. Each country is different. London is a global hub with a large, dense population: it was always going to risk a big outbreak. On the other hand, we are also an island. Germany, which isn’t, has managed to control the disease better than any large country in Europe.

Ultimately, it may be that the reason for our death toll is simple. The countries that have done the best, so far, engaged in massive testing and isolation early on. We tried to do that, but did not have the capacity.
Washington Post view

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-r...m=4&linktot=78
Quote:
Haber pointed to a number of key factors that gave Germany an advantage in its preparations: the widespread mass testing program; a relatively young population that made up the initial bulk of covid-19 cases, and mostly survived; and the benefit of time to expand intensive care facilities and build up stockpiles of medical equipment.

“We were able to prepare because we were not the first country in Europe affected, and we saw and could analyze developments elsewhere,” Haber said, adding that the “well-oiled machinery” of the country’s universal health-care system and effective coordination between the federal government and local and state agencies helped. Germany’s hospitals still have a surfeit of available beds for coronavirus-positive patients and may not face the same pressures that buckled health-care systems in other European countries.

Compared with Britain, Germany gave itself a real head start in testing. “The people [they were in contact with] were also traced and tested repeatedly and they were isolated as well,” Evangelos Kotsopoulos, spokesman for the German Association of Accredited Laboratories, told the BBC, adding that it helped “flatten the curve a bit and slowed down the rate of infection.”

“Rather than following countries like South Korea in taking immediate draconian action to stop the disease — including the use of mass testing — Johnson’s team thought a more modulated approach would ultimately save more lives and cause less economic harm,” the Financial Times detailed in a piece on the government’s early missteps.

Now, Britain finds itself playing catch-up while lacking key German advantages: a sophisticated and sizable biotech industry that helped fast-track widespread testing, and a decentralized political structure that — unlike, say, its equivalent in the United States — effectively enabled private laboratories and local and state-level agencies to take the lead on implementing testing. “While Germany broadened its testing strategy to cover all those with mild symptoms — the core of a strategy to test, trace and isolate people infected with the virus — by March, Britain was struggling to scale up,” the FT noted.

“We have the best scientific labs in the world but we did not have the scale,” British Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the BBC. “My German counterpart, for instance, could call upon 100 testing labs ready and waiting when the crisis struck, thanks in large part to Roche, one of the biggest diagnostic companies in the world.”
At this time, I think the Government made decisions based on what they thought was best for the country at that time, then changed when evidence within and without the country showed differently - I hope we learn from this, but any witch hunt will only make that more difficult.

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 09:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36031408)
Its not a question of hate for the vast majority but more a question of trust.
Is there a single politician that you could call trustworthy?

As for the number of deaths from coronavirus, it is worth pointing out that an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales alone in 2017/18, according to ONS figures.

I do not recall as much newspaper reporting about that at the time.

Hugh 13-04-2020 10:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031460)
Is there a single politician that you could call trustworthy?

As for the number of deaths from coronavirus, it is worth pointing out that an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales alone in 2017/18, according to ONS figures.

I do not recall as much newspaper reporting about that at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...est-since-1976

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46399090

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/...than-40-years/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-outbreak.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-ineffective/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/w...-a4004521.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ties-5pnxrrf5b

Hom3r 13-04-2020 10:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well my mum is still in hospital, she has had Covid-19. But because of this and the fact the hospital has banned all vistors, and as such my mum is on a low.

She's not eating properly, to compound this she still has no movement below her knees, hopefully when the spinal cord swell calms down she can walk.

But at the moment the nurses are moving her postion every 2 hours.


But on a brighter notice, I'm very proud of my niece, she is working extra house in our Asda, she is putting the food on shelves.

Some people do respect her and keep a safe distance, but she spends a lot of time out the back .

jfman 13-04-2020 10:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031460)
Is there a single politician that you could call trustworthy?

As for the number of deaths from coronavirus, it is worth pointing out that an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales alone in 2017/18, according to ONS figures.

I do not recall as much newspaper reporting about that at the time.
What’s your point, caller?

The Government’s own analysis puts Coronavirus at 250,000 without intervention, and that’s not counting indirect deaths caused by a lack of medical resources to treat them.

I cannot stress enough that this isn’t just a bad case of seasonal flu.

Pierre 13-04-2020 11:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031467)
What’s your point, caller?

The Government’s own analysis puts Coronavirus at 250,000 without intervention, and that’s not counting indirect deaths caused by a lack of medical resources to treat them.

I cannot stress enough that this isn’t just a bad case of seasonal flu.
Is there any evidence of deaths caused by a lack of medical resources?

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

This article also explains why calculating the death toll, even of those that die in hospital, is complex.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...165-X/fulltext

jfman 13-04-2020 11:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36031468)
Is there any evidence of deaths caused by a lack of medical resources?

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

This article also explains why calculating the death toll, even of those that die in hospital, is complex.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...165-X/fulltext
If you read my post correctly you’ll find I made so such claim.

Unless you are claiming it’s possible for 250 000 people to die of Coronavirus (Government estimate that killed off the herd immunity idea) without having an adverse effect on other treatments/intensive care availability. That’d be truly quite astonishing.

The death toll may be challenging but the excess deaths is quite easy. Over the longer term we will find out if claims (without published evidence) that a sizeable proportion would have died anyway are reflected with less than expected death totals.

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 11:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031467)
What’s your point, caller?

The Government’s own analysis puts Coronavirus at 250,000 without intervention, and that’s not counting indirect deaths caused by a lack of medical resources to treat them.

I cannot stress enough that this isn’t just a bad case of seasonal flu.
Yes, it is. The difference being that currently there is no way we can treat it, because it is new. That was the government's concern, and that of governments around the world. The sudden heavy demand for hospital services, concentrated over a few short weeks, was the problem.

There is no doubt that the emergency measures have reduced numbers. I didn't claim that this was not the case. What I am saying is that so far at least, the number of recorded deaths is nowhere near those recorded for seasonal flu. Of course, they are still going up, but we appear to be reaching the peak now. It's a stretch to believe the final figure will be five times what we have now. Double, sure, maybe three times. But five times? Yeah, right!

nomadking 13-04-2020 11:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
So is Covid-19 in addition to the regular seasonal flu or a replacement for it? Given the later timing(ie post-winter) of it, it would seem to be an additional source of deaths.


The only "treatment" seems to be to keep people alive long enough for their own bodies to overcome it by themselves.

jfman 13-04-2020 11:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031472)
Yes, it is. The difference being that currently there is no way we can treat it, because it is new. That was the government's concern, and that of governments around the world. The sudden heavy demand for hospital services, concentrated over a few short weeks, was the problem.

There is no doubt that the emergency measures have reduced numbers. I didn't claim that this was not the case. What I am saying is that so far at least, the number of recorded deaths is nowhere near those recorded for seasonal flu. Of course, they are still going up, but we appear to be reaching the peak now. It's a stretch to believe the final figure will be five times what we have now. Double, sure, maybe three times. But five times? Yeah, right!
Another one arguing about a point I didn’t actually make. 250 000 without intervention - that’s the analysis that drove the Government policy we have now so I’m amazed at you questioning it to be honest you are usually a keen and unquestioning follower.

The problem is far from it just solely being heavy demand for medical care over a few short weeks. It’s clearly more deadly and more easily transmitted than seasonal flu. As I’ve pointed out to you a million times if it was just the flu nobody would have noticed and it’d just get chalked up as a few extra deaths here and there or a particularly cold winter.

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 11:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031473)
So is Covid-19 in addition to the regular seasonal flu or a replacement for it? Given the later timing(ie post-winter) of it, it would seem to be an additional source of deaths.


The only "treatment" seems to be to keep people alive long enough for their own bodies to overcome it by themselves.
Yes, it is an additional cause of deaths. As a number, it is frightening people. I am merely making the point that a higher number of seasonal flu deaths happen in many years and people scarcely bat an eyelid.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031474)
Another one arguing about a point I didn’t actually make. 250 000 without intervention - that’s the analysis that drove the Government policy we have now so I’m amazed at you questioning it to be honest you are usually a keen and unquestioning follower.

The problem is far from it just solely being heavy demand for medical care over a few short weeks. It’s clearly more deadly and more easily transmitted than seasonal flu. As I’ve pointed out to you a million times if it was just the flu nobody would have noticed and it’d just get chalked up as a few extra deaths here and there or a particularly cold winter.
We are talking about the seriousness of the actual number of deaths recorded, jfman. Stop criticising points I did not make.

Mr K 13-04-2020 11:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
All a numbers game, which doesn't help those affected. I never really understood the '20,000 deaths' is a good result line one of the experts came out with. Seems like a crap result to me. Yes every country is affected, but compared to a similar sized country e.g
Germany, we've done very poorly. They got their act together with testing and tracing, we didn't and are unfortunately paying the price. Hopefully lessons will be learned about our lack of investment in public services and obsession with tax cuts, but it's going to be an expensive lesson in several ways.

jfman 13-04-2020 12:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031476)
Yes, it is an additional cause of deaths. As a number, it is frightening people. I am merely making the point that a higher number of seasonal flu deaths happen in many years and people scarcely bat an eyelid.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------



We are talking about the seriousness of the actual number of deaths recorded, jfman. Stop criticising points I did not make.
You are the one who incorrectly interpreted my post and questioned the 250,000 Government figure. That needed pointed out.

People literally don’t notice when seasonal flu causes more deaths because it’s over more months. Uncontrolled Coronavirus could achieve those figures in less than six weeks and continue to do so until it’s a quarter of a million.

Sephiroth 13-04-2020 12:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
On the question of why UK mortality stats are exceeding Italy's, are the following factors relevant?

1/
UK population is 68m; Italy is 60m.

2/
Italy stats don't include people who contracted the disease when ski-ing, who then left Italy, returned to the UK and infected others - so welling our numbers? That could be a 4 figure number returning from Italy each passing on to 5 people, etc.

nomadking 13-04-2020 12:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
There isn't any real way you can compare anything using population size. The nearest thing you can get to compare mortality rates is to compare those that require hospitalisation. Even then, there are so many other factors involved in survivability as to make comparison invalid and meaningless.

RichardCoulter 13-04-2020 12:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Earlier, I wondered why black people made up 1/3 of the population of Chicago, yet accounted for 70% of coronavirus cases. It was suggested that it might be because black people were more likely to live in poverty/have poorer health to start with, were more likely to be in occupations that couldn't be done from home or even that it was because they congregated together more.

A doctor on Channel 5 this morning said that vitamin D helps to fight this and other viruses and that, because the colour of dark skinned people makes it harder for the body to create vitamin D, this is likely to be the reason why black Americans are being disproportionately affected.

That's something i'd not previously thought of.

jfman 13-04-2020 12:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36031490)
Earlier, I wondered why black people made up 1/3 of the population of Chicago, yet accounted for 70% of coronavirus cases. It was suggested that it might be because black people were more likely to live in poverty/have poorer health to start with, were more likely to be in occupations that couldn't be done from home or even that it was because they congregated together more.

A doctor on Channel 5 this morning said that vitamin D helps to fight this and other viruses and that, because the colour of dark skinned people makes it harder for the body to create vitamin D, this is likely to be the reason why black Americans are being disproportionately affected.

That's something i'd not previously thought of.
Literally whitewashing.

nomadking 13-04-2020 12:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36031490)
Earlier, I wondered why black people made up 1/3 of the population of Chicago, yet accounted for 70% of coronavirus cases. It was suggested that it might be because black people were more likely to live in poverty/have poorer health to start with, were more likely to be in occupations that couldn't be done from home or even that it was because they congregated together more.

A doctor on Channel 5 this morning said that vitamin D helps to fight this and other viruses and that, because the colour of dark skinned people makes it harder for the body to create vitamin D, this is likely to be the reason why black Americans are being disproportionately affected.

That's something i'd not previously thought of.
Are the people dying from it, insufficient in Vitamin D? Unlikely. A lot of people have died that don't have dark skin.



More likely they hang around in "gangs" of one sort or another. Obvious example is religious groups. One person brings it into a group and it spreads within that group. Multiple identified examples of where a religious gathering has led to large spreading.

papa smurf 13-04-2020 13:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031494)
Are the people dying from it, insufficient in Vitamin D? Unlikely. A lot of people have died that don't have dark skin.



More likely they hang around in "gangs" of one sort or another. Obvious example is religious groups. One person brings it into a group and it spreads within that group. Multiple identified examples of where a religious gathering has led to large spreading.
I don't know wether to laugh or cry at that scientific revalation.

Maggy 13-04-2020 13:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Let's be very careful about how we discuss this particular issue please.

richard s 13-04-2020 13:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
What got me angry was the people saying they should have stayed in China and not came home.... A Holes.

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 13:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031479)
You are the one who incorrectly interpreted my post and questioned the 250,000 Government figure. That needed pointed out.

People literally don’t notice when seasonal flu causes more deaths because it’s over more months. Uncontrolled Coronavirus could achieve those figures in less than six weeks and continue to do so until it’s a quarter of a million.
Yes, that's kind of what I was saying. Except that the media has bolstered this into a much bigger thing to fear than it actually is.

I did not incorrectly interpret your post - I was correcting your interpretation of mine. No matter.

These ridiculously high figures that have been banded about recently should be put into context. First, there was a study made projecting that the UK was facing an extraordinary number of deaths. That report was found to be grossly inaccurate and much more realistic corrections have been made.

The comparisons that are being made with other countries are naive to say the least. These comparisons do not always explain adequately the varying population size of each country (for example, Italy has a smaller population than the UK, so why wouldn't our number of deaths be higher? Even more important is population density. That is why London's figures stand out on our national graphs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ering-numbers/

[EXTRACT]

Apocalyptic predictions that Britain’s coronavirus death toll will be the largest in Europe have abounded over the past week.

The “scaremongering” began after a report from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), based at the University of Washington in Seattle, suggested the UK could reach 66,000 deaths by August, peaking at nearly 3,000 a day, and accounting for more than 40 per cent of total deaths across the Continent.

The figures were gleefully seized upon by the Left-wing press and emblazoned over front pages as evidence that the Government’s strategy has failed.

Yet, within hours, British experts had branded the modelling as “absurd”, and by this weekend the IHME had revised down its estimate to 37,494 – and admitted it could be as low as 26,000 which is not hugely dissimilar to Imperial College’s figure of around 20,000.

For anyone following the trajectory of deaths it was clear that something extraordinary would have to happen for our daily death rate to shoot up to 3,000. All other countries have exhibited a smooth upward trend followed by gradual leveling off, so the UK would have needed to experience a trend-defying upward kick to get anywhere close to the IHME figures.

Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham, said: "Redoing their prediction in under a week strongly suggests major flaws in their models. This is not the first model to be shown to have got their projections seriously wrong. Although this is a pandemic, the epidemiology in each country is different and different within countries.”

Explaining the updated figures, the IHME said the new data had taken into account the effect of social distancing and included four more days of data.

But epidemiologists at Imperial also pointed out that the model showed Britain had already exceeded its intensive care capacity by three times, even though the NHS currently has plenty of spare critical care beds.

Prof James Naismith, director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute and Professor of structural biology at Oxford University, said: “I note the IHME updated their forecasts and they have substantially lowered the worst-case and central scenarios for deaths.

“It is to be greatly regretted that too much online and media coverage of the earlier IHME predictions focused on worst-case scenarios without making absolutely clear the very large ranges that the IHME clearly stated for their UK predictions. When these ranges are deliberately omitted (or obscured) by others, who then choose to focus on worst-case scenarios, this is little more than reckless scaremongering.”

It is also unfair to compare countries that have vastly different population densities, social mixing, demographics and family structures. Take Ireland as an example. As of lunchtime yesterday, the country had recorded 8,928 cases and 320 deaths. Which is 65 deaths per million people. In contrast, Britain had 78,991 cases and 9,875 deaths, 145 deaths per million. However, the population density of Ireland is lower than in Britain, approximately 186 people per square mile compared to 727 people in the UK. And while 83 per cent of Britons live in urban areas, just 63 per cent of Irish people do.

jfman 13-04-2020 13:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031500)
Yes, that's kind of what I was saying. Except that the media has bolstered this into a much bigger thing to fear than it actually is.

I did not incorrectly interpret your post - I was correcting your interpretation of mine. No matter.

These ridiculously high figures that have been banded about recently should be put into context. First, there was a study made projecting that the UK was facing an extraordinary number of deaths. That report was found to be grossly inaccurate and much more realistic corrections have been made.

The comparisons that are being made with other countries are naive to say the least. These comparisons do not always explain adequately the varying population size of each country (for example, Italy has a smaller population than the UK, so why wouldn't our number of deaths be higher? Even more important is population density. That is why London's figures stand out on our national graphs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ering-numbers/

[EXTRACT]

Apocalyptic predictions that Britain’s coronavirus death toll will be the largest in Europe have abounded over the past week.

The “scaremongering” began after a report from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), based at the University of Washington in Seattle, suggested the UK could reach 66,000 deaths by August, peaking at nearly 3,000 a day, and accounting for more than 40 per cent of total deaths across the Continent.

The figures were gleefully seized upon by the Left-wing press and emblazoned over front pages as evidence that the Government’s strategy has failed.

Yet, within hours, British experts had branded the modelling as “absurd”, and by this weekend the IHME had revised down its estimate to 37,494 – and admitted it could be as low as 26,000 which is not hugely dissimilar to Imperial College’s figure of around 20,000.

For anyone following the trajectory of deaths it was clear that something extraordinary would have to happen for our daily death rate to shoot up to 3,000. All other countries have exhibited a smooth upward trend followed by gradual leveling off, so the UK would have needed to experience a trend-defying upward kick to get anywhere close to the IHME figures.

Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham, said: "Redoing their prediction in under a week strongly suggests major flaws in their models. This is not the first model to be shown to have got their projections seriously wrong. Although this is a pandemic, the epidemiology in each country is different and different within countries.”

Explaining the updated figures, the IHME said the new data had taken into account the effect of social distancing and included four more days of data.

But epidemiologists at Imperial also pointed out that the model showed Britain had already exceeded its intensive care capacity by three times, even though the NHS currently has plenty of spare critical care beds.

Prof James Naismith, director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute and Professor of structural biology at Oxford University, said: “I note the IHME updated their forecasts and they have substantially lowered the worst-case and central scenarios for deaths.

“It is to be greatly regretted that too much online and media coverage of the earlier IHME predictions focused on worst-case scenarios without making absolutely clear the very large ranges that the IHME clearly stated for their UK predictions. When these ranges are deliberately omitted (or obscured) by others, who then choose to focus on worst-case scenarios, this is little more than reckless scaremongering.”

It is also unfair to compare countries that have vastly different population densities, social mixing, demographics and family structures. Take Ireland as an example. As of lunchtime yesterday, the country had recorded 8,928 cases and 320 deaths. Which is 65 deaths per million people. In contrast, Britain had 78,991 cases and 9,875 deaths, 145 deaths per million. However, the population density of Ireland is lower than in Britain, approximately 186 people per square mile compared to 727 people in the UK. And while 83 per cent of Britons live in urban areas, just 63 per cent of Irish people do.
We don't yet know that Britain will not be the worst in Europe - simply their updated mathematical modelling have offered a different opinion on the matter.

All of the mathematical modelling - including the one you kept referring to as 'proof' that something like 60% of the country already have had Coronavirus -make guesses to plug all of the unknowns.

South Korea has 1302 people per square mile, and 81% in urban areas - so it's equally sub-optimal to shrug our shoulders and claim we couldn't do any better and simply blame population density.

I get that some people want to deflect all possible blame from the Government, I really do, but if we don't appropriately learn the lessons adequately then we leave ourselves exposed for a second/third wave or any future pandemic. Both human and economic costs.

Pierre 13-04-2020 13:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Don’t eat an undercooked bat, should be the biggest lesson learnt.

pip08456 13-04-2020 14:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36031504)
Don’t eat an undercooked bat, should be the biggest lesson learnt.
Is that where it originated though? It would appear that China may not think so why else would it clamp down on research into the origins of it?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-pages-suggest

In other news.

Risk of dying from a stroke drops by a quarter with thousands of lives saved

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 17:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36031478)
All a numbers game, which doesn't help those affected. I never really understood the '20,000 deaths' is a good result line one of the experts came out with. Seems like a crap result to me. Yes every country is affected, but compared to a similar sized country e.g
Germany, we've done very poorly. They got their act together with testing and tracing, we didn't and are unfortunately paying the price. Hopefully lessons will be learned about our lack of investment in public services and obsession with tax cuts, but it's going to be an expensive lesson in several ways.
It's not just about that, Mr K, it is about population densities. Clearly, if certain countries like the UK have a lot of people living or travelling close together (eg those tube trains in London), you will have more people acquiring the virus.

It's not as simple and as clear cut as some may believe. Additionally, the tests have to be accurate or they will not produce the desired results in containing this thing.

---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031492)
Literally whitewashing.
Oh, does that help? :D

jfman 13-04-2020 17:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
For more than 20 seconds as long as you sing God Save the Queen.

OLD BOY 13-04-2020 17:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031533)
For more than 20 seconds as long as you sing God Save the Queen.
While washing your hands, of course.

Mick 13-04-2020 19:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: President Macron extends French lock down until May 11th.

Britain may follow/extend by same length.

Chris 13-04-2020 19:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Sacrebleu!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:41.
Page 21 of 64 « First 1117181920 21 2223242531 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum