Coronavirus

Do you understand what the word ‘related’ means?

 

Excess deaths includes the indirect deaths caused by the pandemic. Suicides, acute stress related deaths and those who didn’t seek emergency help when they needed it. It is not 54,000 deaths WITH Coronavirus.

 

You also can’t really look at anything meaningful with excess deaths for another year. Only then will it be clearer how many had their lives cut short by weeks or months rather than years and decades.

This is a reasonable summary, I think. Not sure if the 30% false negative stat is accurate or not.

 

Will be interesting to see how many excess deaths there are at year end and again at end of 2021- ie how many deaths were people with ordinarily years left to live and how many were very sick people whose end was hastened by a few months.

 

Exactly this. There's a good chance the rest of this year and next year 'may' see a decrease against the rolling five year average as the most vulnerable have already succombed.

 

As I said many pages back, time will tell. Who knows, we may still even see the 'worst case' / 'do nothing' scenario of 250,000 excess deaths for the year, especially if we hit 'peak mark 2'.

Do you understand what the word ‘related’ means?

 

Excess deaths includes the indirect deaths caused by the pandemic. Suicides, acute stress related deaths and those who didn’t seek emergency help when they needed it. It is not 54,000 deaths WITH Coronavirus.

 

You also can’t really look at anything meaningful with excess deaths for another year. Only then will it be clearer how many had their lives cut short by weeks or months rather than years and decades.

 

Since it has been clear from the start that only those sick, in hospital, with appropriate symptoms were being tested, it is impossible to say whether those people have died 'with' covid-19.

 

Is it not generally accepted that deaths above and beyond the five year rolling average are generally assumed to be covid related? Surely there's an argument to include suicides and acute stress related deaths (likely to be a statistically small number), as they potentially wouldn't have happened had it not been for the virus?

Since it has been clear from the start that only those sick, in hospital, with appropriate symptoms were being tested, it is impossible to say whether those people have died 'with' covid-19.

 

Is it not generally accepted that deaths above and beyond the five year rolling average are generally assumed to be covid related? Surely there's an argument to include suicides and acute stress related deaths (likely to be a statistically small number), as they potentially wouldn't have happened had it not been for the virus?

 

Potentially the health impacts resulting from the response to COVID could be as large as the number of people dying from the disease itself. Screening for cancers have mostly stopped, most GP appointments are now remote (ie without examination), number of ante natal sessions are way down, along with A&E.

Sadly there will be quite a few whose relatives are in a care homecosting £1500 a week hoping the end is near. I also expect there are residents who also will be glad they have had a form of euthanasia

This is a reasonable summary, I think. Not sure if the 30% false negative stat is accurate or not.

 

 

It’s all about sensitivity and specificity.

 

Is this why there probably hasn’t been reinfections.

The new issue of Private Eye makes for very interesting reading.

 

They mention the 30% false negative issue amongst a host of others. This is compounded by a large number of the tests being carried out by people themselves rather than doctors or nurses which increases the chances of not getting a good sample.

ONS are also now including deaths of suspected cases, not just confirmed tests.

I think it's great that at today's press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

Edited 7 May, 2020 by CB Fry

I think its great that at the press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

Yes I noticed that! Absolutely ridiculous. Pretty concerning that the R rate is higher than a few weeks ago.

Is it just me who thinks that while it would be the decision of the government to ease lockdown, if things go wrong, the media and especially the newspapers will be just as much to blame. Why are they splashing stupid stories all over the front pages when no official statement is being made until Sunday.

 

While I think Beth Rigby from Sky is actually okay, I don't get these mixed messages that everyone is supposedly getting in this case. Dominic Raab could not have been any clearer by saying stay at home over the weekend so why are so many people making up their own rules. Probably because of the press reports.

 

I personally think there will be major problems on the horizon as for every 25 good people, there seems to be one ****. I don't think people in this country can be trusted to maintain social distancing, the chav element especially. Newspapers trying to get sales by splashing false headlines all over thei front pages are not helping one bit, it is totally irresponsible.

I think it's great that at today's press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

 

My take is fck it, it’s pretty much over. I confuse easily.

I think it's great that at today's press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

Beth Rigby is an embarrassment to her profession

I tried to download the Covid-10 app for us Isle of Wight residents this morning. Failed. The app is incompatible with my Samsung smartphone. I need to have Android 8 or higher, apparently. I am not alone in having this problem. No, it is NOT because us oldies don't understand the technology it is simply us oldies don't require an all-singing, all-dancing device. We just want something we can use as a telephone, a text messenger, to go online and to check the tide times. I don't need FaceBook, Instagram or Twitter, just something with Big Buttons and a Large Font.

 

Never mind. I can look Messrs Hancock and Seely (MP for IW) in the eye and tell them I tried to download, had no success, but took comfort in the allure of the gin bottle instead.

I think it's great that at today's press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

 

Laura Kuennsberg (sp?) has stopped demanding anything with her continued inability to remember to unmute herself before asking a question

Ahh the Saintsweb lads getting wound up by women again.

Riggers is getting under Brett's* skin I see.

 

 

*GDPR-compliant

I think it's great that at today's press conference the journalists have stopped demanding to hear details of the easing of restrictions ("why are you treating the British public like children") to complaining that the British people are now confused because some details of the easing of restrictions has been revealed ("why have you hinted at that at the beginning of the sunny bank holiday weekend"?)

 

Sheesh.

 

To be fair, briefing excitable journos who've been overegging headlines and what is likely to be announced was not a particularly clever or edifying strategy. There's a time and place for major announcements and any disciplined government should know that once the genie is out of the bottle, its incredibly hard to put back in.

Edited 7 May, 2020 by shurlock

They were clearly gearing up for some big opening up announcement on Sunday and now that the R has actually gone up they have to pull back from that. Doesn't seem the brightest thing to do to raise hopes like that even if the media are at least partially to blame.

They were clearly gearing up for some big opening up announcement on Sunday and now that the R has actually gone up they have to pull back from that. Doesn't seem the brightest thing to do to raise hopes like that even if the media are at least partially to blame.

 

Agree, though the chief statistician at the ONS also rightly pointed out that the R number shouldn't be viewed in isolation. While it is very important and captures the speed at which the virus is spreading (or contracting), the existing prevalence of the virus in the population is also important. Where levels are low, a small increase in R should be easier to manage since the higher transmission rate is partly offset by the lower number of individuals who can infect others in the first place.

 

As for the media, they are partly to blame, though it was depressingly predictable that some outlets would get carried away and so should have been anticipated. The Sun seemed more interested in punning on 80s/90s bands than communicating a complex policy message affecting millions of lives.

 

While I've knocked her quite a bit, I thought Kuenssberg's request for info on the government's estimates for R and how it varies geographically and has changed over the past few weeks was a decent intervention.

Edited 7 May, 2020 by shurlock

Agree, though the chief statistician at the ONS also rightly pointed out that the R number shouldn't be viewed in isolation. While it is very important and captures the speed at which the virus is spreading (or contracting), the existing prevalence of the virus in the population is also important. Where levels are low, a small increase in R should be easier to manage since the higher transmission rate is partly offset by the lower number of individuals who can infect others in the first place.

 

As for the media, they are partly to blame, though it was depressingly predictable that some outlets would get carried away and so should have been anticipated. The Sun seemed more interested in punning on 80s/90s bands than communicating a complex policy message affecting millions of lives.

 

While I've knocked her quite a bit, I thought Kuenssberg's request for info on the government's estimates for R and how it varies geographically and has changed over the past few weeks was a decent intervention.

Agree with all that. I have to say I don't think raab does himself any favours by coming across so unsure of himself. It may just be his mannerisms and style but it was particularly noticeable today when they really didn't need any wooly messaging before a sunny Bank Holiday. They'd have been much better off just hammering the stay home and save lives message up until the point that they actually have something new to say rather than telegraphing it to all the papers at least a week out from any announcement and allowing speculation to run wild.

Part of the problem was that the government set a review date for 7 May. Clearly when they set that date they were hoping to loosen the lockdown for VE day, which was a mistake really when you judge the length of time other countries have had to do their lockdowns for, this was never going to be able to happen. They should have set the review date for after the BH, but the papers (the ****ier ones) really haven't help, when I drove home from work yesterday where I live was busier and more normal thnn it has been all lockdown.

Agree with all that. I have to say I don't think raab does himself any favours by coming across so unsure of himself. It may just be his mannerisms and style but it was particularly noticeable today when they really didn't need any wooly messaging before a sunny Bank Holiday. They'd have been much better off just hammering the stay home and save lives message up until the point that they actually have something new to say rather than telegraphing it to all the papers at least a week out from any announcement and allowing speculation to run wild.

 

If you close your eyes when he's talking, he sounds an awful lot like Gordon Ramsay though!

If you close your eyes when he's talking, he sounds an awful lot like Gordon Ramsay though!

 

If you open your eyes does his voice change?

If you close your eyes when he's talking, he sounds an awful lot like Gordon Ramsay though!

 

Have you ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

If you open your eyes does his voice change?

 

No, but your eyes tell you it isn't him. HTH

https://quillette.com/2020/05/08/eno...ckdown-debate/

 

Worth a read. Limited data points cited but essentially makes the point that lock-down has been a public response to the virus and not influenced hugely by government policy decisions or actions.

 

Obviously test and trace needs competent government intervention though so you'd think the countries that do best with this over the long-term will be those with sensible, well-educated populations and organised well-led governments. No surprise we're doing badly, then.

https://quillette.com/2020/05/08/eno...ckdown-debate/

 

Worth a read. Limited data points cited but essentially makes the point that lock-down has been a public response to the virus and not influenced hugely by government policy decisions or actions.

 

Obviously test and trace needs competent government intervention though so you'd think the countries that do best with this over the long-term will be those with sensible, well-educated populations and organised well-led governments. No surprise we're doing badly, then.

 

Lol, page not found on that link, must've been pulled already

 

If lockdown hasn't been influenced by government policy decisions or actions, why are all pubs and restaurants closed? Do you think the entire leisure industry shut itself down voluntarily?

 

Presumably this doesn't count as Government policy?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

Lol, page not found on that link, must've been pulled already

 

If lockdown hasn't been influenced by government policy decisions or actions, why are all pubs and restaurants closed? Do you think the entire leisure industry shut itself down voluntarily?

 

Presumably this doesn't count as Government policy?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

 

It's still up, seems to work for me, but maybe the address changed.

 

 

https://quillette.com/2020/05/08/enough-with-the-phoney-lockdown-debate/

Lol, page not found on that link, must've been pulled already

 

If lockdown hasn't been influenced by government policy decisions or actions, why are all pubs and restaurants closed? Do you think the entire leisure industry shut itself down voluntarily?

 

Presumably this doesn't count as Government policy?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

 

UK "lock down" started 23 March. Most forms of transport use were below 50% against baseline by that date.

 

 

Sure, you'd still have pubs, restaurants and what have you open if there was no mandate and no economic safety net but they'd be virtually empty in most places.

UK "lock down" started 23 March. Most forms of transport use were below 50% against baseline by that date.

 

 

Sure, you'd still have pubs, restaurants and what have you open if there was no mandate and no economic safety net but they'd be virtually empty in most places.

What data are you looking at?

 

On Friday 20th March road traffic was still at 80%, it wasn’t until 2 days into lockdown that it finally halved to 40%.

 

TFL usage didn’t drop prior to the lockdown because the public were acting differently, it dropped because they closed a number of tube stations and started to run a massively reduced service.

What data are you looking at?

 

On Friday 20th March road traffic was still at 80%, it wasn’t until 2 days into lockdown that it finally halved to 40%.

 

TFL usage didn’t drop prior to the lockdown because the public were acting differently, it dropped because they closed a number of tube stations and started to run a massively reduced service.

 

 

 

What date did the PM / Government tell people not to go to pubs, restaurants, gyms etc etc, but hadn't 'officially' closed them - from memory it was about a week or so before the 23rd March wasn't it?

 

Surely that would have had an affect on travel?

All you’ve done is post the same graph that shows what I just said?

It was Friday 20th March when the Government said pubs would close that day. It was about 5 days before that they started softly advising people not to go out.

It was Friday 20th March when the Government said pubs would close that day. It was about 5 days before that they started softly advising people not to go out.

 

Well from the photos circulating on the internet today I think we know what people think of government advice. If you want people not to do something you either have to make it impossible( ie shutting places down) or extremely onerous if they get caught doing it anyway.

Well from the photos circulating on the internet today I think we know what people think of government advice. If you want people not to do something you either have to make it impossible( ie shutting places down) or extremely onerous if they get caught doing it anyway.

 

I see the OB is tearing its hair out.

 

I see the OB is tearing its hair out.

 

 

Yep, seen that,the beach photos, the idiots cut off at the Old Harry Rock and the anti-lockdown protest near Westminster Bridge. Today is just the first day of three to boot.

It was Friday 20th March when the Government said pubs would close that day. It was about 5 days before that they started softly advising people not to go out.

 

If you tell people that in a couple of days time there will be a lockdown they’re going to make the most of their last couple of days of freedom. Some will go to a pub where they might not otherwise have bothered.

I see the OB is tearing its hair out.

 

 

They are widely spaced in the open air. Probably the safest place in the country.

They are widely spaced in the open air. Probably the safest place in the country.

 

Widely spaced

 

Unless they all miraculously happen to be living together, I see lots of compact groups. Presumably they’ve been sat down for a while and chatting face to face.

 

Either way, it’s moot. There are clear rules to follow unless you’re arrogant or selfish enough to think you’re above them.

Edited 9 May, 2020 by shurlock

[

 

QUOTE=Whitey Grandad;2818714]They are widely spaced in the open air. Probably the safest place in the country.

 

The groups might be spaced but the people in them certainly aren't . Unless of course they all live together anyway which I doubt looking at the number in the group of girls toward the middle. Some more idiots here, protesting against amongst other things 5G, Vaccinations, Bill Gates and the Lockdown. Here in France that would be about 2000 euros in the Nations's much depleted coffers.

Edited 9 May, 2020 by Window Cleaner

Yet another daily update dominated by some absolute idiots in the media asking stupid questions relating to mixed messages. The government need to stop being so nice with their "that's a very good/important question" to something along the lines of:

 

How f***ing thick are you people to not understand our message here, we don't have this slogan here just for a bit of colour, it's there for a reason. I realise I will now get sacked by the government after you lot all go on a witch hunt because I swore and that's what you lot do. We make it clear when you will hear more and yet you dimwits continue putting fictional dates and stories in your papers to try and be sensationalist. That goes for TV and newspaper journalists".

 

Who knows, maybe the thick numbskulls might actually understand the message then. There are not mixed messages regarding this weekend, people are just selfish and ignorant in not abiding to the rules as they have their own agendas.

 

Similarly, no wonder the poor police are in despair. When you get a lowlife piece of scum being tasered by the police and everyone saying it's terrible in front of his "poor" kid, how about defending the police and instead investigating why this piece of filth was driving at dangerous speed, with no insurance and potentially even drunk and clearly not handing himself over without a struggle.

 

If the kid's Dad actually behaved responsibly, this would not happen in the first place. I'm sick and tired of the scum on our streets being defended while the rest of us who actually try to do the right thing have to accept it.

 

This is why the country is and will be in a mess until the authorities start getting tough. Get the message out there that anyone flouting the lockdown rules without a very valid reason or especially travelling a long distance for a day out will get a £1,000 fine end of. That should be a deterrent to anyone with half a brain.

 

The lockdown could be eased a lot if only we had people in this country who respected the rules and could be trusted. However, led by the chav element and many others, they will not have the patience to know how to behave and queue to go in a shop for example.

 

I have no faith in the majority of us being able to get back to the new normal because of the large number of morons we have in this country.

Widely spaced

 

Unless they all miraculously happen to be living together, I see lots of compact groups. Presumably they’ve been sat down for a while and chatting face to face.

 

Either way, it’s moot. There are clear rules to follow unless you’re arrogant or selfish enough to think you’re above them.

 

Yes, there are some small groups but it’s a common trick to use a telephoto lens and show a foreshortened image, one of the things that really annoys me.the photo you show is similar. There is actually a wide spacing between the subjects.

 

Whatever, these places and situations are not where the virus is being spread. That honour belongs to hospitals and care homes and indoor places with poor ventilation where people spend long times together.

??? Well here’s a thing. In New York two thirds of new hospitalisations are of people who stayed at home.

 

(From about 1:00 in)

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154826983001#sp=show-clips

??? Well here’s a thing. In New York two thirds of new hospitalisations are of people who stayed at home.

 

(From about 1:00 in)

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154826983001#sp=show-clips

 

That’s not proof of anything. They may well have stayed at home but then the one time they went out to buy groceries they touched a door handle just after some guy who had a BBQ with 6 of his mates.

That’s not proof of anything. They may well have stayed at home but then the one time they went out to buy groceries they touched a door handle just after some guy who had a BBQ with 6 of his mates.

 

I never said it was a proof. But if one person goes out and touches a door handle and catches it that would be very unfortunate. But two thirds of those hospitalised? There’s something going on here that’s worthy of further investigation.

That’s not proof of anything. They may well have stayed at home but then the one time they went out to buy groceries they touched a door handle just after some guy who had a BBQ with 6 of his mates.

 

Exactly.

 

Likewise, stay-at-homers may have caught the virus from another household member who had gone to work, used public transport, touched the proverbial door handle etc. In this scenario, many of those infected may not have even left the house at all. Research suggests that this is a critical transmission mechanism: a household member catches the virus outside, brings it back and infects other inhabitants due to the close proximity of living under one roof. It is another reason why the Swedish experience isn’t particularly illuminating given that more than half of all homes in Sweden are made up of one resident -the highest proportion in Europe. This reduces risk in a way that is simply unavailable to many UK households.

 

Frankly given the specific definition and breakdown of the survey categories (nursing home, home, prison, homeless, congregate, assisted living, other), I would have expected the source of admission to be significantly higher among those coming from home. While two-thirds may seem large, it is arguably smaller than the share of the population as a whole. I suspect everyone on this forum would identify themselves as coming from home -as opposed to a nursing home, prison or off the streets.

 

None of this has stopped the furiously hard of thinking on social media from taking these raw findings and asserting the lockdown has been a failure - that somehow it is not safe to stay at home. No all these findings show is how transmissible the virus is and how hard it is to shield those who stay at home. That makes it more, not less important to maintain effective social distancing and ensure we don’t rush out of a lockdown prematurely before community transmission has been meaningfully lowered.

Edited 9 May, 2020 by shurlock

I never said it was a proof. But if one person goes out and touches a door handle and catches it that would be very unfortunate. But two thirds of those hospitalised? There’s something going on here that’s worthy of further investigation.

 

What though? That isn’t a hypothesis. Anyone retired and/or elderly is going to be staying at home and not working. All those stats show is a roundabout way of saying the elderly and at risk are more likely to go to hospital, which we know already.

 

You’re quoting Fox News, one of the most ridiculously biased pro-republican media outlets going. Even the anchor sounds like a snidey teenager.