Corona Virus

[Wymsey]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/who-most-likely-lose-jobs-4058901

[rachhere]

24 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/who-most-likely-lose-jobs-4058901

Cheery 

[Bellend Sebastian]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/20/air-pollution-may-be-key-contributor-to-covid-19-deaths-study

 

Before we get too excited the article does say that a causal link is yet to be established, and of course, where population density is higher, and disease transmission more likely, pollution levels are surely likely to be higher.

 

Interesting though

 

[Costock_Fox]

8 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/20/air-pollution-may-be-key-contributor-to-covid-19-deaths-study

 

Before we get too excited the article does say that a causal link is yet to be established, and of course, where population density is higher, and disease transmission more likely, pollution levels are surely likely to be higher.

 

Interesting though

 

I can’t imagine Bergamo being the most polluted area in Italy to be honest so not sure how accurate that is.

[bovril]

Just now, Costock_Fox said:

I can’t imagine Bergamo being the most polluted area in Italy to be honest so not sure how accurate that is.

Milan and Lombardia is though, and one of the worst in Europe if not the World. I think what happened with Bergamo was just pure bad luck, lots of people contracted it for a small town and they were overwhelmed. 

[Costock_Fox]

Just now, bovril said:

Milan and Lombardia is though, and one of the worst in Europe if not the World. I think what happened with Bergamo was just pure bad luck, lots of people contracted it for a small town and they were overwhelmed. 

True I guess, I can remember when it first broke in Italy and Bergamo was sandwiched between the 3 areas that had an issue.

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/20/air-pollution-may-be-key-contributor-to-covid-19-deaths-study

 

Before we get too excited the article does say that a causal link is yet to be established, and of course, where population density is higher, and disease transmission more likely, pollution levels are surely likely to be higher.

 

Interesting though

 

It seems very weak to me.

 

Much more likely that air pollution and spread of disease are more just symptoms of the same issues (I.e. overcrowded urban areas) than the 2 things being directly linked.

 

It's a bit like saying driving tractors leads to hay fever because tractors and hey fever are much more common in the countryside.

 

(Obviously I'm being feasitious and I might be wrong, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on correlation when both are clearly the symptoms of the same thing and you'd expect both higher air pollution and higher spread of disease to be true anyway in crowded urban areas).

Edited 20 April 2020 by Sampson

[davieG]

So much guess work, possibly educated going on now, these 'experts' are obviously bored with no proper tasks to do.

 

It seems to me unless they can say for definite then it's just scaremongering and doesn't really help.

[rachhere]

4 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It seems very weak to me.

 

Much more likely that air pollution and spread of disease are more just symptoms of the same issues (I.e. overcrowded urban areas) than the 2 things being directly linked.

 

It's a bit like saying driving tractors leads to hay fever because tractors and hey fever are much more common in the countryside.

 

(Obviously I'm being feasitious and I might be wrong, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on correlation when both are clearly the symptoms of the same thing).

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's very early to be drawing any sorts of conclusions, certainly, but given thousands of people die early as a result of air pollution ANYWAY, it's not a massive leap of logic to expect that an illness that attacks the respiratory system will have a more pronounced effect in areas where these are already compromised by filthy air

[BKLFox]

Swedish foreign minister Ann Linde has previously hit out at foreign governments, in particular US president Donald Trump, for criticising the more relaxed measures.

"We are doing roughly what most other countries are doing, but we are doing it in a different way,” Linde said earlier this month.

“No lockdown and we rely very much on people taking responsibility themselves.

"We do not have a strategy that aims at herd immunity at all.

"But on the other hand we don't have that total lockdown. That means that some countries think we are not doing anything, but we are doing what is right for Sweden."

 

Something we could learn from the Swedish people, to take accountability of our own actions during this crisis & in the future maybe not be so quick to sue a company because we burnt our lips on a coffee because their employee didn't say "careful its hot..."

 

Also quite a ballsy statement from her to finish with.

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

So much guess work, possibly educated going on now, these 'experts' are obviously bored with no proper tasks to do.

 

It seems to me unless they can say for definite then it's just scaremongering and doesn't really help.

I hate the use of the term 'expert', its banded around way too much. 

 

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It seems very weak to me.

 

Much more likely that air pollution and spread of disease are more just symptoms of the same issues (I.e. overcrowded urban areas) than the 2 things being directly linked.

 

It's a bit like saying driving tractors leads to hay fever because tractors and hey fever are much more common in the countryside.

 

(Obviously I'm being feasitious and I might be wrong, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on correlation when both are clearly the symptoms of the same thing and you'd expect both higher air pollution and higher spread of disease to be true anyway in crowded urban areas).

Exactly my thoughts; most of the region's majorly affected are crowded urban areas or highly densely populated areas. High pollution is a factor caused by the population size, in other words they're saying urban areas have higher infection rates but that doesn't sell papers. 

 

You could suggest the air pollutants could damage the lungs or irritate the lining, exacerbating the effects of covid, but any link such as that is months off.

 

You can find causation from most things if you try hard enough. 

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

It's very early to be drawing any sorts of conclusions, certainly, but given thousands of people die early as a result of air pollution ANYWAY, it's not a massive leap of logic to expect that an illness that attacks the respiratory system will have a more pronounced effect in areas where these are already compromised by filthy air

Of course its not a massive leap to think it might be true. Nothing is at this early stage. But the fact your brain already went in that leading direction based on unscientific evidence shows why articles like this are so dangerous.

 

But it's certainly unscientific, worthless clickbalt designed to either scare people to keep them clicking or to have some ulterior motive about environmentalalism based on weak claims, which no one should give any credence to right now.

 

It's just showing a correlation which anyone would expect to be highly likely to both be true in overcrowded urban areas anyway. I don't think it would surprise anyone that London and Birmingham are both the most polluted places in the UK and the most likely to spread disease in the UK for example even if they're entirely unrelated.

 

Absolutely scientists should do further studies on it to try and see if there is any cause and effect, just as they should anything else which might have a cause and effect no matter how small.

 

But right now, what's the point of creating an article about a correlation that anyone in the street could tell you that both is much more likely in big cities anyway regardless - unless they just want some clicks through scaremongering or there is some ulterior political motive?

Edited 20 April 2020 by Sampson

[davieG]

Just now, UniFox21 said:

I hate the use of the term 'expert', its banded around way too much. 

That's why I put it in '     '

[davieG]

Merc

 

No further deaths of Leicester hospital patients with coronavirus have been announced today.

It means bosses at the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust said have not announced fatalities of patients suffering from Covid-19 at the LRI, Leicester General or Glenfield since Saturday.

This does not mean that no patients have died in the past two days but that the processing of the cases is still being carried out.

As it stands the number of confirmed deaths linked to the coronavirus crisis in Leicester’s hospitals stands at 155.

[UniFox21]

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

That's why I put it in '     '

Wasn't directed at your usage, just a general dislike of it! Everyone and their dog is an 'expert' lately

[yorkie1999]

31 minutes ago, davieG said:

Merc

 

No further deaths of Leicester hospital patients with coronavirus have been announced today.

It means bosses at the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust said have not announced fatalities of patients suffering from Covid-19 at the LRI, Leicester General or Glenfield since Saturday.

This does not mean that no patients have died in the past two days but that the processing of the cases is still being carried out.

As it stands the number of confirmed deaths linked to the coronavirus crisis in Leicester’s hospitals stands at 155.

It could mean that, but it could also mean there's been no further deaths.

[Bellend Sebastian]

23 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Of course its not a massive leap to think it might be true. Nothing is at this early stage. But the fact your brain already went in that leading direction based on unscientific evidence shows why articles like this are so dangerous.

 

But it's certainly unscientific, worthless clickbalt designed to either scare people to keep them clicking or to have some ulterior motive about environmentalalism based on weak claims, which no one should give any credence to right now.

 

It's just showing a correlation which anyone would expect to be highly likely to both be true in overcrowded urban areas anyway. I don't think it would surprise anyone that London and Birmingham are both the most polluted places in the UK and the most likely to spread disease in the UK for example even if they're entirely unrelated.

 

Absolutely scientists should do further studies on it to try and see if there is any cause and effect, just as they should anything else which might have a cause and effect no matter how small.

 

But right now, what's the point of creating an article about a correlation that anyone in the street could tell you that both is much more likely in big cities anyway regardless - unless they just want some clicks through scaremongering or there is some ulterior political motive?

That's an excitingly broad definition of 'clickbait' isn't it? It's even got the word 'may' in the headline.

 

Some academics have looked at some data and noticed a trend they seem worthy of further investigation. Are we not meant to even mention this until this is proven beyond doubt? Theories exist, and this one to my inexpert ears did not sound entirely fanciful.

 

And needless to say, you cannot even begin to imagine the directions my brain goes in, so please do not dwell on that and instead pick me up a Twix when you're next out. Thx

[Guest Fktf]

11 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Good summary. I like your term “managed herd immunity” to describe the government’s initial strategy. My own feeble attempts to explain this seemed to cause more confusion than anything and got a load of people’s backs up . This is a much better phrase to use.
 

In your opinion, are the government still following a managed herd immunity strategy? In my view it seems unlikely. Seems likely that once this phase is over from peak or trough, up to 10m people could have been infected and that’s probably a wild overestimate. This would have to be repeated several times to get much effect as regards herd immunity and that’s assuming that infected/recovered people become immune for a lengthy period, for which there appears to be some doubt.

 

The alternative strategy would appear to be be suppression followed by test, trace and isolate. This is what has so far been so successful in South Korea and seems to now be what is intended for us here in Australia, and what I personally had hoped for after reading the Hammer and Dance article.

 

I think it’s now what the UK government would like to do, but are faced with multiple difficulties of testing capacity and an impatient population. Being slow to lock down in the first place due to the initial strategy has meant a much longer and deeper crisis, making it more difficult to switch to test and trace. A bit like the old Irish joke, “If I was goin there I wouldn’t start from here”.

I achieved the same thing with the herd immunity debate the other day to be fair!

 

As far as my reading has taken me on this, going through several iterations of allowing the virus to spread has been considered. The initial modelling was based on allowing the virus to spread slowly, and put in place some social distancing measures to flatten and broaden the curve as cases started to ramp up. However, this early modelling vastly under-estimated how infectious the virus is, and it was on the basis of the updated modelling from the Ferguson group - that showed we had to suppress transmission quickly in order to not break NHS capacity - that we went into lockdown. In that paper, though, they model the effects of turning on and off social distancing past the initial peak as a management strategy. 

 

So the current measures are definitely to suppress transmission. What you can't really see at the moment is whether we're trying to suppress in order to go for test, trace, isolate, or whether we've had a bit of a botched effort on the first iteration of allowing the virus to spread, and had to resort to suppression to stop the virus getting out of control. However, given other news going around at the moment (PPE, start of vaccine trials earlier than thought), I'd be quite surprised if we haven't changed strategy.

 

 

[StanSP]

429 hospital death toll reported in England. 348 of these reported over the weekend, others took place at earlier dates. 

[Kopfkino]

Why are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown still comfortably our best prominent politicians? Obviously not being in front line politics makes it much easier but Blair's interview today was class

[z-layrex]

2 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Too many people believe they're the protagonist in a life film that everybody is watching.

It's why I don't look at social media anymore. People who in person seem perfectly pleasant come across as narcissistic lunatics on facebook.

[Lionator]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Why are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown still comfortably our best prominent politicians? Obviously not being in front line politics makes it much easier but Blair's interview today was class

Perhaps they're the last scrapings of a time where you could form opinion of politicians based on what you actually see through your own eyes rather than what your social media/peer bubble tells you is that right political ideology to support. We live in a post truth world, sadly Tony Blair contributed to the development of that.

[WigstonWanderer]

19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Why are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown still comfortably our best prominent politicians? Obviously not being in front line politics makes it much easier but Blair's interview today was class

Yes, I watched the Blair interview and couldn’t help wishing he was in charge. Perhaps Boris will draft him in. If he’s got any sense he’d run a mile. 

Edited 20 April 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[hackneyfox]

Not been on this thread for some time.

 

Why aren't we allowed to criticise the government for their perceived lack of forethought and planning?

It's time people did get angry rather than wait till a government inquiry tells us that 'lessons have been learn't after tens of thousands have died when they shouldn't have.

 

Am I missing the 'angry thread'?