Coronavirus Thread

[joachim1965]

3 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

I’ve said a few times now that come the end of the year when the.annual death numbers are announced we can compare it to previous years and see if Covid has taken 1000’s of extra lives.

it's irrelevant,  if deaths unrelated to covid are being recorded as covid deaths due to a positive test within 28 days of death.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

it's irrelevant,  if deaths unrelated to covid are being recorded as covid deaths due to a positive test within 28 days of death.

It’s not irrelevant though is it. The yearly death figure will tell us if Covid has taken lots of extra people. People still die, and will have died whether Covid has been a contributing factor or not. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

It’s not irrelevant though is it. The yearly death figure will tell us if Covid has taken lots of extra people. People still die, and will have died whether Covid has been a contributing factor or not. 

This. The amount of deaths above the yearly average will be at least mostly be attributable to Covid and its consequences, unless there's some other big factor pushing up death numbers or it can be somehow be explained as just an anomalous year in terms of people dying of various other causes.

Edited 9 September 2020 by leicsmac

[joachim1965]

2 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

It’s not irrelevant though is it. The yearly death figure will tell us if Covid has taken lots of extra people. People still die, and will have died whether Covid has been a contributing factor or not. 

the point is how can you know? if a heart attack death or a cancer death is recorded as covid due to a positive test within 28 days.

you can only get an accurate figure on excess deaths due to covid ,if covid actually contributed to their death.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

55 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Matt Hankcock suggesting the testing shortage isn't owing to a lack of tests - it's because the tests are being taken by those who don't need them.

 

I'm not even sure how to digest this sensibly. Are people supposed to know they're negative without the test? Who 'needs' a test other than those with symptoms, surely they're not doing it for fun.

He's having a laugh surely. There's literally adverts on TV saying get tested if you have symptoms  

[zorro en españa]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

can any of our Spanish correspondents advise if their case increase has led to an uptick In hospitalisations yet  - we know that the increases around Europe and here are down to the younger generations becoming infected and the question that need addressing is how long will this take to work upwards and is the generally circulating viral load enough to cause the over fifties to fall v ill as per earlier? 

I’ll do my best to answer but, as I have indicated previously, I am disappointed with how the statistics are being collated so never totally happy with the figures.

 

There has been a rise in hospitalisations not yet alarming although I have heard one city has reached its capacity although perfectly capable of being supported by neighbours.

 

My understanding is in the last seven days there have been 1,953 admissions to hospitals (against a total of 137,863) with 166 patients being admitted into ICUs (12,615).  To finish the picture there have been 261 deaths in last seven days (29,594).

 

Source: Spain’s declaration used by worldometers.  However when you look closely it is easy to find discrepancies (usually minor .... but why 😕).

 

Again it appears to be the larger conurbations that are suffering the most.

[brucey]

39 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

the point is how can you know? if a heart attack death or a cancer death is recorded as covid due to a positive test within 28 days.

you can only get an accurate figure on excess deaths due to covid ,if covid actually contributed to their death.

The excess deaths will be the total of deaths directly and indirectly due to Covid. We might not be able to identify the exact proportion of deaths directly from Covid, but we will have a rough idea. It is still very helpful to know how many in total died from Covid + collateral damage (untreated cancers, additional suicides, poverty etc). That number can be compared between countries and we can see which country managed to minimise the total damage, and achieved the best balance between suppressing infections while reducing collateral damage. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

39 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

the point is how can you know? if a heart attack death or a cancer death is recorded as covid due to a positive test within 28 days.

you can only get an accurate figure on excess deaths due to covid ,if covid actually contributed to their death.

Yes but if the annual deaths show an excess of say 20k then we know that Covid has taken a heavy toll on the population, if it’s more or less the same as any other year then we can surmise that a lot of people who died with Covid on their death certificate probably would have died anyway, it’s a very simplistic way of looking at it I know. 
People with Covid possibly would of died of old age, heart conditions, pneumonia or cancer etc etc 

I think we’re trying to say the same thing.

[reynard]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

Yep, once they have investigated. The point is, it could be someone on the inside leaking info before it's been substantiated, thus creating hysteria.

Not sure there is much room for conspiracy theories here. They don't need to investigate if the person has had the actual vaccine for more than around a few minutes. What will take longer is to discover if the vaccine caused it or whether the person had it anyway. This was always likely to happen and shows the process of vaccine development is being followed correctly

[simFox]

41 minutes ago, reynard said:

Not sure there is much room for conspiracy theories here. They don't need to investigate if the person has had the actual vaccine for more than around a few minutes. What will take longer is to discover if the vaccine caused it or whether the person had it anyway. This was always likely to happen and shows the process of vaccine development is being followed correctly

Conspiracy theory?

 

It's little more than claiming you've got a cure for cancer because one person recovers, or because some young American footballer dies, everyone else who's not as fit will succumb to covid. It's sensationalising an unknown anomaly.

 

I doubt the scientists involved released any statement without any facts, so likely it's just leaked information. You can get off your conspiracy high horse, leaking information just means someone "told". If you've got kids you'll be used to it! 😂😂

Edited 9 September 2020 by simFox

[Leicester_Loyal]

Looking through social media it feels like this is the turning point, so many people are openly saying they disagree with this decision or they are not actively going to follow this rule.

[simFox]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

When is the next election? This lot really do need outing, they’re nothing more than a bunch of incompetent fools that believe it’s their god given rite to spout crap and whatever they say goes and the British public can either take it or take it. Anything but these self serving pricks.

The problem is, labor aren't providing the right opposition in my view. They are creating more fear and hysteria by criticising the government response and the number of deaths. I dread to imagine what a Corbyn lockdown would have been like.

 

I watched PMQ and it was just about test capacity. Nothing about the false positive rate or knee-jerk reaction to the results.

Edited 9 September 2020 by simFox

[BKLFox]

@simFox The latest Hancock debacle is another example of what i am referring too with knee jerk reaction..

 

My observation again is that the reader  takes the comments, 1st personally & then politically. I mean that in the reader defends himself 1st prior to fully digesting, "what..no i haven't had a test without having the symptoms why on earth would i do that, how dare you blame me for your failings"

But what's the true story here, to me its the LABs can't cope with the amount tests being submitted & thats fair we don't have the facilities like say Germany do to manage the huge numbers, so have limited testing in a way for the LABs to catch up, akin to Protect the NHS.

Now why are the LABs struggling, they have said they can cope with upto 200k daily tests & they have been, so maybe they are getting numbers in greater than that & would assume varstly greater numbers to knock them out.

So they are potentially getting, lets say 250k daily tests, 500k every 2 days, yet the + cases are what little under/over 1k per day currently...so is he lying?

 

The way its presented by him & the media isn't right but the context probably isn't far from the truth is it? Can we honestly say as a public, that all tests have been carried out due to having 1 of the 3 symptoms i would hazard not, just taking that 2 day number half a million with 1 of the 3 symptoms & yet only 'roughly' 3k +cases??
There will be multiple tests done on the back of other flu/cold like symptoms, multiple tests requested by hypochondriacs, multiple tests done simply by people who want to just see, & go through the process, its true there are people out there like that, & then everything inbetween.

 

Of course what i have written could be utter bull but it shows a thought of between the lines reading, how many people that read the headline even went past the headline before it was re-tweeted etc?

 

This is what i refer to, immediate reaction to a comment / statement & its been like that from day 1

 

 

[yorkie1999]

16 minutes ago, simFox said:

The problem is, labor aren't providing the right opposition in my view. They are creating more fear and hysteria by criticising the government response and the number of deaths. I dread to imagine what a Corbyn lockdown would have been like.

 

I watched PMQ and it was just about test capacity. Nothing about the false positive rate or knee-jerk reaction to the results.

Personally i'm not bothered about what sort of opposition they offer, i  want a different party in just to remind this arrogant bunch that they have been put in positions of enormous privilege by the electorate not, as they seem to think, to the manor born. Besides, a bit of socialism for a few years would be quite fun. 

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Generalisation -  Why can't people get their heads around this (& most changes amendments in fact) & have to go directly into a Monty Python style spoof knocking the Government?

 

Is it that hard to sit back, digest the information & realise the differences there are in relation to mood, behaviours, awareness, safety measures etc etc between 30 people in a social circle & 30 people in a work (& school) environment?

Someone been careful can choose to avoid to socialise, but they cant choose to not go to work or school, that alone makes the exemptions silly.  There will be people at the workplace who are "its just the flu bro" and make no effort to keep their distance, there is workplaces which never did distancing such as building sites, and similar issues with schools.

Edited 9 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Matt Hankcock suggesting the testing shortage isn't owing to a lack of tests - it's because the tests are being taken by those who don't need them.

 

I'm not even sure how to digest this sensibly. Are people supposed to know they're negative without the test? Who 'needs' a test other than those with symptoms, surely they're not doing it for fun.

Well they have been doing door to door testing of people without symptoms.  Thats a policy his department started, so he himself is to blame.

[Voll Blau]

22 minutes ago, simFox said:

The problem is, labor aren't providing the right opposition in my view. They are creating more fear and hysteria by criticising the government response and the number of deaths. I dread to imagine what a Corbyn lockdown would have been like.

 

I watched PMQ and it was just about test capacity. Nothing about the false positive rate or knee-jerk reaction to the results.

What do you expect Starmer to do? Give Johnson a big thumbs at the despatch box every week and just say "you keep going champ, you're doing your best"?

 

One of the functions of being in opposition is to hold the government to account where they think it's going wrong, and it's clear something's going very wrong when people are being asked to drive hundreds of miles to get a test.

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

What do you expect Starmer to do? Give Johnson a big thumbs at the despatch box every week and just say "you keep going champ, you're doing your best"?

 

One of the functions of being in opposition is to hold the government to account where they think it's going wrong, and it's clear something's going very wrong when people are being asked to drive hundreds of miles to get a test.

I was trying to say this to people a month ago, they have been crowding most of their testing resources in hot spots, not only did that manipulate the figures heavily but it also meant those not in these areas have been finding it very hard to get tested.

[Stivo]

Which presumably makes it harder for areas outside the current big 6 to break into it.  Same old story...

[BKLFox]

14 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

What do you expect Starmer to do? Give Johnson a big thumbs at the despatch box every week and just say "you keep going champ, you're doing your best"?

 

One of the functions of being in opposition is to hold the government to account where they think it's going wrong, and it's clear something's going very wrong when people are being asked to drive hundreds of miles to get a test.

Certainly do not give him a thumbs up but don't challenge everything just for the sake of being the opposition.

 

Yesterday saw a feed of Starmer being interviewed & the subject of Furlough was brought up & Starmer has said its wrong to stop it but then wouldn't be drawn into how long he would let it run for or what size pot he would allocate to Furlough if he was in charge, its easy to drop a fart & walk away & blame someone else if your not going to be held accountable.

[Voll Blau]

7 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Certainly do not give him a thumbs up but don't challenge everything just for the sake of being the opposition.

 

Yesterday saw a feed of Starmer being interviewed & the subject of Furlough was brought up & Starmer has said its wrong to stop it but then wouldn't be drawn into how long he would let it run for or what size pot he would allocate to Furlough if he was in charge, its easy to drop a fart & walk away & blame someone else if your not going to be held accountable.

He hasn't though? I don't want to turn this into a Politics Thread 2 but Labour have clearly backed most government measures to tackle this, despite Johnson's ridiculous and persistent whinge that the whole world is against him.

 

If you've got a link to that Starmer interview, I'd like to see it as I haven't. For what it's worth, I don't think Labour have been bang on all the time in their response to this either, but the idea that they've just been grandstanding and point-scoring in the kind of constructive opposition they've been providing is frankly wrong. If it was then Johnson would be able to give straight answers to the straight questions Starmer's been asking week after week instead of the irrelevant garbage that keeps coming out of his mouth. It's not good enough in a time of national crisis. when the public rightly deserve answers about what's going on.

[joachim1965]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Looking through social media it feels like this is the turning point, so many people are openly saying they disagree with this decision or they are not actively going to follow this rule.

it's not even a temporary measure, it's for the foreseeable. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

So no gigs or sport or anything, then? How is the music industry meant to survive? 

[simFox]

11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

He hasn't though? I don't want to turn this into a Politics Thread 2 but Labour have clearly backed most government measures to tackle this, despite Johnson's ridiculous and persistent whinge that the whole world is against him.

 

If you've got a link to that Starmer interview, I'd like to see it as I haven't. For what it's worth, I don't think Labour have been bang on all the time in their response to this either, but the idea that they've just been grandstanding and point-scoring in the kind of constructive opposition they've been providing is frankly wrong. If it was then Johnson would be able to give straight answers to the straight questions Starmer's been asking week after week instead of the irrelevant garbage that keeps coming out of his mouth. It's not good enough in a time of national crisis. when the public rightly deserve answers about what's going on.

Of course they have to provide opposition, but the criticism has only increased the poor response we have witnessed. In my view we need to look critically at how we have handled the economy, but no one wants to put money before lives, it's a moral judgement and it's without reason.

 

We know about this virus, we have an adult population, we don't need to be guided by tyranny and Draconian new laws. We need sensible and measured responses, not rules on how many people I can have in my house! But no one's questioning that. He's clung onto testing capacity, which is probably one of the drivers that are getting us into this mess. I don't mind more testing, so long as we treat the data sensibly and don't use it to put more people on the breadline unnecessarily.

 

As for testing without symptoms. I've got to get a test to board a plane, another when I land and another after 7 days. I'm sure plenty of other people have to get tested who don't want to, but there we are.

 

If someone kept telling me everyday I'm not doing enough lockdown or saving enough lives, I'd be trying to prove that I'm doing enough. Labor have there own part to play in this and in my view the are also part of the problem.

Edited 9 September 2020 by simFox

[Stuntman_Mike]

4 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Matt Hankcock suggesting the testing shortage isn't owing to a lack of tests - it's because the tests are being taken by those who don't need them.

 

I'm not even sure how to digest this sensibly. Are people supposed to know they're negative without the test? Who 'needs' a test other than those with symptoms, surely they're not doing it for fun.

 

I've just ordered a new test online, shame on me for not knowing if I've got it before it comes.