Coronavirus

The death rate seems to be around 0.5% so with 32,000 dead that would give around 6.4 million having been infected.

That’s reverse engineering and uses an entirely faulty logic. You get the death rate by dividing number of confirmed deaths by the number of known cases and you get a rough estimate. This varies wildly from country to country as we simply have no idea how many people are infected and the difference between those who died from or with the disease. It’s currently 0.5% in Germany but in the USA it’s 6%. We simply don’t know.

I disagree with your other point about getting a safe, low dosage in an open space like a park. You’re likening it too some kind of dodgy nuclear reactor, where you can calculate a safe amount of time at a certain distance to receive a low dose. It’s far more random than that; more akin to a minefield. You’re obviously less at risk the less time you spend in there but you can still take two steps in and get your arse blown off.

but in the USA it’s 6%

That’s reverse engineering and uses an entirely faulty logic. You get the death rate by dividing number of confirmed deaths by the number of known cases and you get a rough estimate. This varies wildly from country to country as we simply have no idea how many people are infected and the difference between those who died from or with the disease. It’s currently 0.5% in Germany but in the USA it’s 6%. We simply don’t know.

 

I disagree with your other point about getting a safe, low dosage in an open space like a park. You’re likening it too some kind of dodgy nuclear reactor, where you can calculate a safe amount of time at a certain distance to receive a low dose. It’s far more random than that; more akin to a minefield. You’re obviously less at risk the less time you spend in there but you can still take two steps in and get your arse blown off.

Erm lets just say you're confused. You work out the mortality rate by testing a known population population to work out prevalence and following each case to recovery or death. What you dont ever do is try and extrapolate a death rate when primarily you are only testing people who present at hospital with severe symptoms. The average mortality rate globally seems to be c0.5%.

What family outings to Costco? Doing that are you Whitey ?

Me? Costco? Do I seem that cheap?

Erm lets just say you're confused. You work out the mortality rate by testing a known population population to work out prevalence and following each case to recovery or death. What you dont ever do is try and extrapolate a death rate when primarily you are only testing people who present at hospital with severe symptoms. The average mortality rate globally seems to be c0.5%.

Meta-analysis of the published literature suggests that an IFR (‘mortality rate’ in your words) of 0.5% is at the very low end of the range of estimates. Its probably closer to 0.75% but could be as high as 1%. Needless to say there isn't a single IFR as it will vary from place to place and population to population.

More relevantly Chris Whitty (per The Cat and today’s No.10 press conference) suggests that roughly 10% of Londoners have had the virus whereas it is only 4% for the rest of the country. Put together and even accepting the figures will not be entirely up-to-date, that's lower than your quoted 6.4 million. They’re the experts and they’ve seen the data.

Scots' week was the first week of their school holidays, which were earlier than in England. Given that the Scots are keeping stricter travel restrictions, and we English have been warned not to cross any of the UK's internal borders, in theory they should stay at home. Mind you, Blackpool now seems to be where long term benefits claimants migrate to.

Almost all of the ERNIE site has been demolished.

Ah. That probably explains why I haven’t won for a while

Erm lets just say you're confused. You work out the mortality rate by testing a known population population to work out prevalence and following each case to recovery or death. What you dont ever do is try and extrapolate a death rate when primarily you are only testing people who present at hospital with severe symptoms. The average mortality rate globally seems to be c0.5%.

That’s the point though, it’s the same logic. You take a number of cases, see what percentage dies and that gives you a ‘death ratio’ for that particular sample. I’ve yet to see any science which proves it’s 0.5%, just a varying number of A/B = C tests.

What is the source for this 0.5%, out of interest.

Meta-analysis of the published literature suggests that an IFR of 0.5% is at the very low end of the range of estimates. Its probably closer to 0.75% but could be as high as 1%. Needless to say there isn't a single IFR as it will vary from place to place and population to population.

 

More relevantly Chris Whitty (per The Cat and today’s No.10 press conference) suggests that roughly 10% of Londoners have had the virus whereas it is only 4% for the rest of the country (based on serological/antibody testing). Put together that's substantially lower than 6.4m. They’re the experts and they’ve seen the data.

Meh. I havent seen todays broadcast but Chris Whitty gave the over 900,000 in London figures on 23rd April and he made clear it was just an estimate because randomised antibody testing hadnt yet started. If he repeated them tonight then it is old best guess stuff from three week old data.

Public Health England will report first findings from test, track trace plan later this month. The ONS have another sampling exercise. . Until those numbers come through all you can do is extrapolate from comparable experiences elsewhere, New York being the closest match to London - where the death rate was around 0.79%. Stamford University calculate the global death rate at 0.2% whilst the University of Berkeley put the Italian death rate at 0.5% (in a much older population). If over 900,000 Londoners had been infected three weeks ago and yet only 5,596 people had died in hospital in London as of yesterday whilst infected with Covid-19 you dont need to be especially acute with stats to work out the hospital death rate will be only just over 0.5% after new infections are counted.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurvey/england10may2020

https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-numbers-london

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883784/COVID19_Epidemiological_Summary_w19_FINAL.pdf

Meh. I havent seen todays broadcast but Chris Whitty gave the over 900,000 in London figures on 23rd April and he made clear it was just an estimate because randomised antibody testing hadnt yet started. If he repeated them tonight then it is old best guess stuff from three week old data.

 

Public Health England will report first findings from test, track trace plan later this month. The ONS have another sampling exercise. . Until those numbers come through all you can do is extrapolate from comparable experiences elsewhere, New York being the closest match to London - where the death rate was around 0.79%. Stamford University calculate the global death rate at 0.2% whilst the University of Berkeley put the Italian death rate at 0.5% (in a much older population). If over 900,000 Londoners had been infected three weeks ago and yet only 5,596 people had died in hospital in London as of yesterday whilst infected with Covid-19 you dont need to be especially acute with stats to work out the hospital death rate will be only just over 0.5% after new infections are counted.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurvey/england10may2020

https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-numbers-london

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

Or better still look at meta-analyses that systematically pool and synthesise all published research on the question:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v1.full.pdf

Infinitely better than our amateur efforts or cherrypicking studies.

Let’s agree to disagree: while it’s not inconceivable, I think your current estimate of 6.4 million is on the high side.

Or better still look at meta-analyses that systematically pool and synthesise all published research on the question:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v1

 

Infinitely better than our amateur efforts or cherrypicking studies.

 

Let’s agree to disagree: I think your current estimate of 6.4 million is wide of the mark.

The figure in your linked paper review is 0.75% and it states this number is highly uncertain. I've quoted around 0.5% based on other studies. The difference between the two is relatively small.

Even taking your figure as correct a 0.75% infection fatality rate would still give a figure of 4.265 million people in the UK having been infected.

The figure in your linked paper review is 0.75% and it states this number is highly uncertain. I've quoted around 0.5% based on other studies. The difference between the two is relatively small.

 

Even taking your figure as correct a 0.75% infection fatality rate would still give a figure of 4.265 million people in the UK having been infected.

I didn’t dispute the 0.5% figure per se. I just said it was at the lower bound of the confidence interval. Of course, by the same logic, it could be at the upper bound of 1%. FWIW I believe Whitty also said he estimates it’s closer to 1% or just below (though I’d need to rewatch the presser to corroborate).

I didn’t dispute the 0.5% figure per se. I just said it was at the lower bound of the confidence interval. Of course, by the same logic, it could be at the upper bound of 1%. FWIW I believe Whitty also said he estimates it’s closer to 1% or just below (though I’d need to rewatch the presser to corroborate).

Depends what you count and how you count. Roughly twice as many people died last month as you would ordinarily expect. Some died from COVID-19, some died from fear of COVID-19d (not accessing healthcare when ill for fear of getting infected or being a burden on the NHS) and some died as a consequence of the Governments reaction to COVID-19 - including cancellation of routine clinics, screening, new cancer treatments and elective operations, suicides, and a myriad other factors.

Looks like the consensus is that it would make a pretty **** weapon even at the 'upper bound of the confidence interval'

Looks like the consensus is that it would make a pretty **** weapon even at the 'upper bound of the confidence interval'

Unless the weapon was designed to cause economic damage too.

Unless the weapon was designed to cause economic damage too.

Global economic damage that would hit its developers hardest?

****ing 5g.

Unbelievable

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-12/station-ticket-office-worker-dies-with-covid-19-after-being-spat-at/

Unbelievable

 

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-12/station-ticket-office-worker-dies-with-covid-19-after-being-spat-at/

Wow.

Wow.

Yep. Awful.

Doubtless some will be challenging this account.

Unbelievable

 

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-12/station-ticket-office-worker-dies-with-covid-19-after-being-spat-at/

Disgusting. Manslaughter at least.

Unbelievable

 

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-12/station-ticket-office-worker-dies-with-covid-19-after-being-spat-at/

Shocking

Me? Costco? Do I seem that cheap?

Ah sorry, I don't know a lot about Costco. It 's probably like Netto or Leader Price then.

Yep. Awful.

 

Doubtless some will be challenging this account.

If I was her husband I would make sure I track down and kill this cnt.

Also dreadful that was still working in public with underlying respiratory problems.

Ah sorry, I don't know a lot about Costco. It 's probably like Netto or Leader Price then.

If anything it is for the more affluent. Just bulk quantities

If anything it is for the more affluent. Just bulk quantities

So not like Netto and Leader Price then, they're for the ultra cheapskates. Shocking quality, all grease and sugar.

So not like Netto and Leader Price then, they're for the ultra cheapskates. Shocking quality, all grease and sugar.

Costco are a bit more like Makro. Netto tried in the U.K. market late 90s/early 2000s, there was one in West End for a while. Didn’t last and ALDI/LIDL had a bit more staying power.

Disgusting. Manslaughter at least.

There's no way of proving she caught it from him though?

It's obviously assault but the chain of causation can easily be challenged, I would have thought.

There's no way of proving she caught it from him though?

 

It's obviously assault but the chain of causation can easily be challenged, I would have thought.

Corporate manslaughter?

"Visit Blackpool has rebranded as Do Not Visit Blackpool to discourage visitors as lockdown restrictions are eased.

The tourism body changed its name on social media after the prime minister outlined new guidance on Sunday."

"Visit Blackpool is not the only tourism organisation to make a change. Visit Chester's has become Visit Chester (Soon) and Liverpool's tourism body is Visit Liverpool Later."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52634899

Costco are a bit more like Makro. Netto tried in the U.K. market late 90s/early 2000s, there was one in West End for a while. Didn’t last and ALDI/LIDL had a bit more staying power.

Exactly, I think Makro is probably the best comparison; it's essentiallly wholesale quantities, cheaper prices in bulk.

Exactly, I think Makro is probably the best comparison; it's essentiallly wholesale quantities, cheaper prices in bulk.

Costco has good meat and their petrol is 5p or 6p cheaper than anywhere else.

Not everything is cheaper, you have to know your prices.

Costco is perfect for lockdown. Go once every few weeks, buy up big, then just the odd top up from co-op.

I notice they've given up showing the global deaths comparison chart during the daily briefing. Is it a) because it makes us look bad, or b) it doesn't really change much so is a bit pointless?

Costco is perfect for lockdown. Go once every few weeks, buy up big, then just the odd top up from co-op.

 

I notice they've given up showing the global deaths comparison chart during the daily briefing. Is it a) because it makes us look bad, or b) it doesn't really change much so is a bit pointless?

I think it served a purpose when "similar" countries were experiencing a situation worse than our own. It served to forewarn us that the changes afoot were needed, or else we will end up like Italy/Spain.

Now we have had the changes and over-taken these countries, there is no need for the re-inforcement of the message, "this is going to kill people".

Of course, whether we ought to be locking down more, not less, and whether we could have, should have, ought to have, locked down harder and faster, will all be subject to the post-match analysis.

And there is no glory in finishing top of this table.

Costco is perfect for lockdown. Go once every few weeks, buy up big, then just the odd top up from co-op.

 

I notice they've given up showing the global deaths comparison chart during the daily briefing. Is it a) because it makes us look bad, or b) it doesn't really change much so is a bit pointless?

Because it makes us look bad. A few weeks ago they were only to keen to make comparisons with likes of Italy and Spain. Now they are saying we shouldn’t make comparisons.....!!

Grant Shapps telling people to cycle or walk to work. Ridiculous to think this applies to many and is any sort of solution to stopping tube trains being rammed.

Also mentioning his £2bn investment in cycling improvements many times. Now is not the time mate to try to crowbar this in at every opportunity.

Boris used to talk about excess deaths, I assume hoping that this would reduce the impact of the covid death toll (with the assumption that some deaths would have happened normally), but now the excess deaths, according to ONS figures, are higher than the covid death rate he doesn't mention it anymore.

Grant Shapps telling people to cycle or walk to work. Ridiculous to think this applies to many and is any sort of solution to stopping tube trains being rammed.

Also mentioning his £2bn investment in cycling improvements many times. Now is not the time mate to try to crowbar this in at every opportunity.

A young colleague at my wife's work was knocked down and very sadly killed cycling to work, trying to avoid public transport last month. It was her first time she had attempted to cycle to work and this was when the roads were empty.

I like cycling but there's too many idiots on the road driving selfishly. The roads are also very narrow in certain places with no chance of adding cycle lanes. Add in the number of potholes and a long distance rush hour commute by bike does not appeal.

Two roads that need looking at to encourage more people in Southampton:

Portsmouth Road. Too narrow to add cycle lanes but is a main connecting road between the east of the city and the main centre.

Thomas Lewis Way is a decent example of an easy fix. There's enough room to incorporate cycle lanes with bollards to keep people safe. There's been a few cyclists killed there over the years despite the wide road.

Some good work has been done, especially from the West of the city alongside the docks. But if you really want people to commute by bike more main roads need to be made safe.

Most people are happy to pootle around their local area on a bike, this doesn't mean they are going to suddenly commute 5 or 10 miles to work without it being made safer.

So apparently Boris didn't share his speech on Sunday in advance with the Cabinet !! No wonder there are inconsistencies and confusion.

I like cycling but there's too many idiots on the road driving selfishly. The roads are also very narrow in certain places with no chance of adding cycle lanes. Add in the number of potholes and a long distance rush hour commute by bike does not appeal.

 

Two roads that need looking at to encourage more people in Southampton:

 

Portsmouth Road. Too narrow to add cycle lanes but is a main connecting road between the east of the city and the main centre.

 

Thomas Lewis Way is a decent example of an easy fix. There's enough room to incorporate cycle lanes with bollards to keep people safe. There's been a few cyclists killed there over the years despite the wide road.

 

Some good work has been done, especially from the West of the city alongside the docks. But if you really want people to commute by bike more main roads need to be made safe.

 

Most people are happy to pootle around their local area on a bike, this doesn't mean they are going to suddenly commute 5 or 10 miles to work without it being made safer.

And also hygiene. Showering and having change of clothes is very impractical for a lot of work places.

A young colleague at my wife's work was knocked down and very sadly killed cycling to work, trying to avoid public transport last month. It was her first time she had attempted to cycle to work and this was when the roads were empty.

That’s horrific

A young colleague at my wife's work was knocked down and very sadly killed cycling to work, trying to avoid public transport last month. It was her first time she had attempted to cycle to work and this was when the roads were empty.

Terrible. Cycling on the roads is fcking dangerous at the best of times. Cycling to and from work in rush hour even more so and I would never ever entertain doing it. Being encouraged to do it and that 2 billion is being invested in cycle lanes etc to make it safer is like being encouraged to jump in a fire but not to worry about getting burned because the fire will be out soon. Regardless £2 billion will barely scratch the surface of what needs to be done to make the country's roads properly safe for cyclists.

And also hygiene. Showering and having change of clothes is very impractical for a lot of work places.

Good point. Site manager on my last development cycled in every day. He reeked, his office reeked. His office even reeked when he wasn't in it.

Grant Shapps telling people to cycle or walk to work. Ridiculous to think this applies to many and is any sort of solution to stopping tube trains being rammed.

Also mentioning his £2bn investment in cycling improvements many times. Now is not the time mate to try to crowbar this in at every opportunity.

I'd keep bloody fit cycling to and from Tadley every day. It's a 70 mile round trip.

Good point. Site manager on my last development cycled in every day. He reeked, his office reeked. His office even reeked when he wasn't in it.

Was he deputy headmaster at a school in a previous career?

It seems that both Southampton and Norwich are applying to have their whole populations tested on a weekly basis via mouth swab tests. Good idea if it can be implemented.

A young colleague at my wife's work was knocked down and very sadly killed cycling to work, trying to avoid public transport last month. It was her first time she had attempted to cycle to work and this was when the roads were empty.

Truly horrific. Imagine being a 'novice' rider in London, utter carnage!

My daughter has just phoned. She says she has been shopping and everybody seemed to be acting as if the lockdown has ended and she was the only one trying to Social Distance. Aisles as busy as they have ever been, and when she waited at the till, leaving a 2m gap, three people inserted themselves in front of her.

My daughter has just phoned. She says she has been shopping and everybody seemed to be acting as if the lockdown has ended and she was the only one trying to Social Distance. Aisles as busy as they have ever been, and when she waited at the till, leaving a 2m gap, three people inserted themselves in front of her.

Sorry to hear that, Badger. It confirms my suspicion after Sunday that if you give people an inch, they'll take a yard. I also read infection rate in Germany has tripled after some easing of the lockdown. Nightingale Hospitals, stand ready for incoming.

Johnson had a mare at PMQs.