Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think I made that paritcular claim. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just to quote from this ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be a pendant a moment this isn't a statistical anomaly, it is a methodological deficiency.

That said the idea of separating what deaths are caused by covid and what are caused by other factors is often quite difficult (in cases not clear cut as getting hit by a bus).

However when everyone uses different methodologies it becomes incredibly difficult to make meaningful comparisons even if some are more sophisticated than others.

However this methodology evidently becomes less accurate the longer the pandemic goes on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The latest changes in England ;

* From 25 July indoor gyms, pools and other sports facilities can reopen

* On 1 August the government will update its advice on going to work, asking employers to make decisions about how and where their staff can work safely
* From the same date, most remaining leisure settings, including bowling, skating rinks, casinos and all close contact services, such as beauticians, will be allowed to reopen
* Live indoor theatre and concerts will be able to resume with socially distanced audiences
* Wedding receptions for up to 30 people will also be allowed from next month

* From September, schools, nurseries and colleges will be open for all children and young people on a full-time basis, while universities are also working to reopen as fully as possible

* From October, the government intends to allow audiences to return to stadiums, while conferences and other business events can recommence, subject to the outcome of pilots

Re: Coronavirus
 

We will see what the government was advised, and when, after the report is published.

I note that you have conceded that we will have more years of this while we continue to attempt to slow the virus down. That is precisely why I have been advocating the isolation of the 'at risk' groups and freeing up the rest of the population to go about their business as usual. That will get the whole thing out of the way in the UK with the minimum death rate, since most healthy people will survive this unscathed.

The alternative is a continuing hit to the economy, with public tolerence to these restrictions diminishing all the time.

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

We can all see that you criticise the government at every turn, so we know which side you are batting for.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

And how often have you supported the government, jfman? The words 'glass houses' and 'stones' come to mind!

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

There are plenty of posts supporting your point of view, mate. We all have to accept that we are debating with people who have a wide range of opinions. You mustn't get so upset if someone disagrees with you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've accepted that flawed UK Government policy means we have years of this, yes. However other countries will not. We will have years of economic turmoil to go with it.

The economy simply will not 'bounce back' as consumer spending remains diminished, neither will we 'get the virus out the way' - our own esteemed Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer are indicating we now face years of this, with greater and lesser restrictions on activity reacting to it.

And we know where you stand - tens of thousands of lives lost are an acceptable price to pay in the pursuit of economic growth.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the flawed policy is simply entrenching the recession and reducing the chances of ever returning to 'normal'.

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

I supported the lockdown and the furlough scheme. So once again your evidence base is weak.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As was mentioned at the start, we’ll only have some kind of idea of the a death rate when comparing the numbers for 2020 against all the previous years ( and even that will not be accurate). And then when we compare that figure against all the other nations of the world And their figures will We have any kind of idea how we did.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the last hope for the figures is truly “they would all have died in 2020” anyway then I suspect, as with much of your insight into the virus, you’ll end up badly disappointed.

Still, at least Boris can blame the second wave on employers and local governments now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

While the excess death metric is probably the best to use, it suffers from overestimation bias because there may be additional deaths caused by the lockdown measures that are unrelated to Covid infection. Such as death because conventional medical proceedure were delayed.

Or even conversely underestimation because people have been doing less dangerous things.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems if someone had actually tested positive for COVID 19 but was subsequently run over by a bus that the death was falsely placed on the virus list.

Figures are currently being re-assessed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How on earth do you make that out? How has our government's policy put us in a worse position than any other country? I have said consistently that it is far too early to make such judgements now. When all this is over, we will be able to compare, but not now. Countries that were patting themselves on the back a few weeks ago are finding that they are having to cope now with a second wave. Then there will be a third, and a fourth until this virus is done with us. I don't know why you have this dreamy idea that by locking down earlier we could have saved more lives. Each lockdown that ends simply exposes everyone once again to this highly infectious virus.

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Where did I say that? I said protect the vulnerable groups and let the virus run through the healthy population. That minimises the number of deaths and is a far more sustainable position to take.

You have no real solution that is capable of working. You cannot keep people locked up forever, and any government that tries to do so is doomed to failure.

And the virus would still hit us when the years of lockdown finally ended.

As for a vaccine, I wouldn't hold my breath. When have we ever concocted a vaccine capable of defeating one of the coronavirus infections? You cannot sensibly pin all your hopes on finding a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

During the pandemic of 1918/19, over 50 million people died worldwide and a quarter of the British population were affected. The death toll was 228,000 in Britain alone.

That was 100 years ago, no hospitals with todays modern path labs and equipment, no computers spitting out instant spread sheets and graphs, no clever screening and testing available. How do we know those figures are anywhere near accurate?

Seems to me that given the technology we have now, it's all still guesswork and pigeonholing stuff into little boxes :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where’s your entrepreneurial spirit Old Boy? It’s not ‘too hard’ to make interim assessments based on the evidence available. I suspect the problem is the evidence at present doesn’t suit your narrative.

It’s not my dreamy idea - it’s the ‘experts’ at Sage. You’re also ignoring that some countries are having success - and it’s the countries that are not that are ultimately undermining efforts around the world to combat the virus.

You cannot sensibly say that running the virus through the population is a credible solution. There is no black and white between who will survive and will not, allowing everyone else to safely go about their day.

Not finding a vaccine again I refer to your lack of ‘entrepreneurial spirit’. We’ve the greatest minds in the world on this, on what may be the single biggest human endeavour since the moon landings.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1. No, it's not hard to make an interim assessment, but plainly, that would be wildly inaccurate. Lockdowns slow the virus, but don't eliminate it. Further waves will push the numbers up throughout the world, and that's one of the reasons why it is too early to make proper judgements on which countries have got it right. I would also remind you that it is ridiculous to compare our numbers with other countries, since each of them set such different criteria as to what constitutes a covid death. The fact that other countries only count hospital deaths (not deaths in the community or in care homes) is all the evidence you need that comparisons at this stage are pretty pointless.

2. I agree that some countries are having some initial success. This time next year, I very much suspect the situation will look a lot different. I don't care where you got the dreamy idea from, but it's wrong. There are disagreements within Sage as to how to best deal with this.

3. Allowing the virus to run through the healthy population is exactly what needs to happen. It is the only practical way, and it is nature's way. But by protecting 'at risk' groups, we keep deaths to the minimum.

4. What I said was you cannot pin all your hopes on a vaccine. You have no plan B, so if you were in charge, you would be locking everyone up forever - until the riots started, that is.