Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Mostly obesity, let's be honest. 

 

It's hard to put an exact figure on it but for as long as it ranks behind Cancer and heart disease (combined about 330k per year) in deaths, I can't see why we would damage a generation's aspirations to reduce the numbers a little.

 

Again, bear in mind the true number of causal Covid deaths to date is likely much lower than the 40/50k we're at now.

 

Made this point a thousand times but it's all too easy to make it sound horrific when you talk about thousands of deaths. The context is that 50,000 as a percentage of 65.5m is 0.0763%.

 

To add more context to that number, it's 4 seconds out of a 90 minute football match.

 

I know you'll tell me I'm trivialising the death of real people but I'm sorry, I'm more interested in looking after the people that represent the other 89 minutes and 56 seconds. 

Why are you using 65.5 million. There's roughly 550,000 that have caught it and 42,000 have died from it which is about 7%, who's to say that that the other 65million are immune and won't catch it over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Mostly obesity, let's be honest. 

 

It's hard to put an exact figure on it but for as long as it ranks behind Cancer and heart disease (combined about 330k per year) in deaths, I can't see why we would damage a generation's aspirations to reduce the numbers a little.

Bit over the top? 

 

Life Expectancy 81 Years (or 972 months). People had to stay in completely for what 3 months, and stick to a few rules for 6 months so far. So what's that, 0.9259259259259258% of your life. Apparently those sorts of numbers don't matter. 

 

6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Again, bear in mind the true number of causal Covid deaths to date is likely much lower than the 40/50k we're at now.

 

And the deaths aren't going to just stop any time soon, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

 

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Why are you using 65.5 million. There's roughly 550,000 that have caught it and 42,000 have died from it which is about 7%, who's to say that that the other 65million are immune and won't catch it over time.

A recent ONS study found that 86.1% of positive cases were asymptomatic.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/more-than-80-positive-cases-in-covid-study-had-no-core-symptoms

 

Many, many, many more than 550,000 will have caught it but not shown in the stats.

 

And again, died 'from it'? No, no, no. Try 'with it'

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-certificate-data-covid-19-as-the-underlying-cause-of-death/

 

You're also assuming that the most vulnerable won't already have been disproportionately affected. And you're also not allowing for the improvements in treatments, either.

 

Modelling using 7% * (population - known cases)? Jeeeeeesus Christ. You might get a job in the government with modelling like that.

Edited by Nod.E
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Bit over the top? 

 

Life Expectancy 81 Years (or 972 months). People had to stay in completely for what 3 months, and stick to a few rules for 6 months so far. So what's that, 0.9259259259259258% of your life. Apparently those sorts of numbers don't matter. 

 

And the deaths aren't going to just stop any time soon, 

Doesn't look like the restrictions are about to stop any time soon. 

 

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that we'll be paying for the furlough scheme for decades. It isn't just about those months we locked down. Entire industries may never recover, and that has a ripple effect.

 

In short, we're fvcked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Mostly obesity, let's be honest. 

 

It's hard to put an exact figure on it but for as long as it ranks behind Cancer and heart disease (combined about 330k per year) in deaths, I can't see why we would damage a generation's aspirations to reduce the numbers a little.

 

Again, bear in mind the true number of causal Covid deaths to date is likely much lower than the 40/50k we're at now.

 

Made this point a thousand times but it's all too easy to make it sound horrific when you talk about thousands of deaths. The context is that 50,000 as a percentage of 65.5m is 0.0763%.

 

To add more context to that number, it's 4 seconds out of a 90 minute football match.

 

I know you'll tell me I'm trivialising the death of real people but I'm sorry, I'm more interested in looking after the people that represent the other 89 minutes and 56 seconds. 

If we're being honest, lots of people just want to get on with life how they want it to be, and refuse to see that if we all do that as a society, the nhs will likely get overwhelmed, and all the death numbers for covid, cancer, stroke, everything will rise.

 

Lots of people keep pitting causes of death against each other, but it's an irrelevance. So is covid case rate. Make your judgement on how to not overload the nhs, and keep cancer care etc going. I haven't heard a solution that doesn't involve suppressing covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fktf said:

If we're being honest, lots of people just want to get on with life how they want it to be, and refuse to see that if we all do that as a society, the nhs will likely get overwhelmed, and all the death numbers for covid, cancer, stroke, everything will rise.

 

Lots of people keep pitting causes of death against each other, but it's an irrelevance. So is covid case rate. Make your judgement on how to not overload the nhs, and keep cancer care etc going. I haven't heard a solution that doesn't involve suppressing covid.

But the case numbers simply are not being reflected in hospitalisations. It's perfectly natural that a respiratory disease should prosper somewhat in autumn and winter months. 

 

I'm yet to see any data that shows we're heading for April levels of hospitalisation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

It doesn't say that. It says, of the people the ONS sampled, 86.1% of the positive cases didn't show any of the 3 core symptoms on the day they were sampled. That's not the same as saying 86.1% of cases were asymptomatic. 

 

11 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-certificate-data-covid-19-as-the-underlying-cause-of-death/

 

You're also assuming that the most vulnerable won't already have been disproportionately affected. And you're also not allowing for the improvements in treatments, either.

 

Modelling using 7% * (population - known cases)? Jeeeeeesus Christ. You might get a job in the government with modelling like that.

 

You haven't read that properly have you. It states that 92.2% of death certificates listed Covid as the underlying cause. The underlying cause, as defined by WHO, being“a) the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or b) the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury”. So, you banging the drum that Covid hasn't been the main driver behind their death has led to you producing evidence that in the vast majority of cases suggests it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

But the case numbers simply are not being reflected in hospitalisations. It's perfectly natural that a respiratory disease should prosper somewhat in autumn and winter months. 

 

I'm yet to see any data that shows we're heading for April levels of hospitalisation.


Liverpool?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/hospitals-in-north-of-england-to-run-out-of-covid-beds-within-a-week
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

It doesn't say that. It says, of the people the ONS sampled, 86.1% of the positive cases didn't show any of the 3 core symptoms on the day they were sampled. That's not the same as saying 86.1% of cases were asymptomatic. 

Semantics.

 

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

You haven't read that properly have you. It states that 92.2% of death certificates listed Covid as the underlying cause. The underlying cause, as defined by WHO, being“a) the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or b) the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury”. So, you banging the drum that Covid hasn't been the main driver behind their death has led to you producing evidence that in the vast majority of cases suggests it was.

Currently one whole third of reported deaths did not cite Covid as the underlying cause. One third. Madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

A recent ONS study found that 86.1% of positive cases were asymptomatic.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/more-than-80-positive-cases-in-covid-study-had-no-core-symptoms

 

Many, many, many more than 550,000 will have caught it but not shown in the stats.

 

And again, died 'from it'? No, no, no.

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-certificate-data-covid-19-as-the-underlying-cause-of-death/

 

You're also assuming that the most vulnerable won't already have been disproportionately affected. And you're also not allowing for the improvements in treatments, either.

 

Modelling 7% against population - cases? Jeeeeeesus Christ. You might get a job in the government with modelling like that.

I'm not modelling anything, i'm going by what the reported figures are. And if 86.1% of positive cases were asymptomatic, that 86.1% would have come from the cases that were tested positive, which is 550,000, so according to the ons 473,000 people didn't show any symptoms, 42000 died and the remaining 35,000 were the only ones who knew they had... come off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nod.E said:

1. But the case numbers simply are not being reflected in hospitalisations.

 

2. It's perfectly natural that a respiratory disease should prosper somewhat in autumn and winter months. 

 

3. I'm yet to see any data that shows we're heading for April levels of hospitalisation.

1. That's a reason why case rate is irrelevant. 

 

2. That's the reason to be concerned about overwhelming the nhs

 

3. Is the problem. Hospitalizations are starting to increase, and we're expecting it to do better in winter, so we know admissions are only going to go up. It's just a bitch to predict by how much because the data are lagged by over a week. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Semantics.

 

It's not semantics, it's being able to understand the story that the data is actually telling me instead of what I want it to be telling me.

 

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Currently one whole third of reported deaths did not cite Covid as the underlying cause. One third. Madness.

So you've gone from stating that the true Covid-caused deaths is likely much lower than the raw figure to citing that only 70% of deaths in an 8 week period were caused by Covid. 

 

You did your Trumpian fake news spiel without producing a shred evidence yesterday. Today your musings have ended up with you producing evidence that what you say is nonsense. Progress.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Doesn't look like the restrictions are about to stop any time soon. 

We've had several months of very few restrictions outside of large events. 

 

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that we'll be paying for the furlough scheme for decades.

The current mooted tax hikes are aimed mostly at the well off. Even if we are taxed more, it's hardly going to ruin a "generations aspirations". 

 

Any industry on its knees will recover quickly once things are considered "over". People aren't going to stop going out for meals or drinks or stop wanting holidays abroad. Other names will just step in and fill the void that might be left by others. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

I mean, it might not be labeled that, but they are hardly ignoring the issue. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54435425

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54322935

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-54433783

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54477618

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmmqx9w8k5wt/students

 

 

It's not on that graphic due to it being about other places and not schools surely?

 

What's been censored that you think shouldn't? Are they not just removing the most ridiculous poisonous shite. I'm telling you know, if it's to stamped out there are going to be shocking long term implications. Because I'm seeing it weaponised and becoming far more sophisticated. These people are being informed and educated by some of the most ridiculous shite I've ever seen. 

 

Congrats on finding a single article, but that article has an awful lot of spin in it downplaying it, the BBC felt they had a duty to try and downplay it, the question is why.  The rest are uni articles or dont mention schools.  Compare it to the articles on local news media that dont have the spin attached.  The way it was written and the references to the DfE suggests it needed the DfE approval and scrutiny before publishing. 

 

If you can find a "national" not "regional" bbc article on the situation without any references to a minister or any government department then fair play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

Congrats on finding a single article, but that article has an awful lot of spin in it downplaying it, the BBC felt they had a duty to try and downplay it, the question is why.  The rest are uni articles or dont mention schools.  Compare it to the articles on local news media that dont have the spin attached.  The way it was written and the references to the DfE suggests it needed the DfE approval and scrutiny before publishing. 

 

If you can find a "national" not "regional" bbc article on the situation without any references to a minister or any government department then fair play.

I can find the NHS document which lays it out weekly. Not really the sign of censorship or government involvement. 

 

Given the backing of the 'Defund the BBC' campaign by some fairly influential Tories - you'll find there is a good number of people who believe the media is anti-government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

Congrats on finding a single article, but that article has an awful lot of spin in it downplaying it, the BBC felt they had a duty to try and downplay it, the question is why.  The rest are uni articles or dont mention schools.  Compare it to the articles on local news media that dont have the spin attached.  The way it was written and the references to the DfE suggests it needed the DfE approval and scrutiny before publishing. 

 

If you can find a "national" not "regional" bbc article on the situation without any references to a minister or any government department then fair play.

Before I look could you set out the full criteria for what doesn't account. Because we've gone from no BBC website articles at all.  Yo University articles don't count, neither do regional articles. Oh and neither do articles referencing government departments, which they are always going to do as it's their statistics most of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

I'm not modelling anything, i'm going by what the reported figures are. And if 86.1% of positive cases were asymptomatic, that 86.1% would have come from the cases that were tested positive, which is 550,000, so according to the ons 473,000 people didn't show any symptoms, 42000 died and the remaining 35,000 were the only ones who knew they had... come off it.

Mate you've got this so wrong.

 

The ONS numbers were taken from a study of randomly selected households, whereas the case numbers have an obvious skew towards people that had symptoms and so got tested.

 

Implication being that many more people are likely to have had the virus without even knowing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the figures are all doom and gloom again today.

 

Wearing masks therefore must surely be deemed as ineffective?  

 

Scientific studies of the past 40 years back this up.  Top scientists who are not mainstream will gladly point out the research.

 

Further lockdowns will also prove ineffective, as current lockdown measures have failed to stop the rises.

 

Whether or not these cases are actual cases or old cases or false, who knows, the govt will turn a blind eye to it.

 

You cannot stop seasonal increases in respiratory viruses.  The previous lockdown coincided with the seasonal drop, hence the decrease in cases.

 

Rather than build immunity at a time of low risk, the outcomes are now likely to be worse.

 

Doubling down on a lockdown is going to upset a lot of people.  In hindsight, restrictions should have been lifted in May imo and then reintroduced if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

He's back !! ...   and still chewing on his brexit bone ! ...   :D

 

Welcome back Bucey ! ...   :thumbup:

 

Not Brexit per se but this govt and its Prime Minister were elected to serve one purpose - Brexit (and it remains to be seen how well they manage that). Unfortunately, managing this crisis requires a different skill set, one that seems sadly lacking. Bozo is completely out of his depth, an opinion shared by millions of voters (check the polls) and an increasing number of party members and backbenchers. Even the most blinkered supporter must surely see what a clusterfvck omnishambles he and his govt have made of the Covid response, from the constant u-turns to the World Beating :rolleyes: test and trace system.

Edited by Buce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

It's not semantics, it's being able to understand the story that the data is actually telling me instead of what I want it to be telling me.

 

So you've gone from stating that the true Covid-caused deaths is likely much lower than the raw figure to citing that only 70% of deaths in an 8 week period were caused by Covid. 

 

You did your Trumpian fake news spiel without producing a shred evidence yesterday. Today your musings have ended up with you producing evidence that what you say is nonsense. Progress.

My 'musings' take 10% off the figure up until 8 weeks ago and 30% off the last 8 weeks and future numbers.

 

Even at the worst case scenario total number, my point still stands that this is not worth sh*tting the bed over.

 

You're doing here what you always tend to do. Prove me wrong on a minute point and claim that as victory for having successfully debated the bigger point. 

 

Well done buddy, my 45,000 to 'miniscule number' point no longer stands. That doesn't change the fact that a) the full number shouldn't be taken as gospel and b) the ends of reducing death numbers slightly do not justify the means of crippling a country and the livelihoods of millions upon millions of people.

Edited by Nod.E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stivo said:

Perhaps some of those nightingale hospitals in the north will finally get some use then, eh?

 

The virus was allowed to make its way through London during March and April and we locked down before it was allowed to get through the north. Is it surprising that all the recent peaks are in the north? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Not Brexit per se but this govt and its Prime Minister were elected to serve one purpose - Brexit (and it remains to be seen how well they manage that). Unfortunately, managing this crisis requires a different skill set, one that seems sadly lacking. Bozo is completely out of his depth, an opinion shared by millions of voters (check the polls) and an increasing number of party members and backbenchers. Even the most blinkered supporter must surely see what a clusterfvck omnishambles he and his govt have made of the Covid response, from the constant u-turns to the World Beating :rolleyes: track and trace system.

You really cannot argue that our testing system is world beating.  Of course you might have misunderstood that to mean world beating in terms of effectiveness rather than being the most ****ing expensive / profitable to Serco etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I see the figures are all doom and gloom again today.

 

Wearing masks therefore must surely be deemed as ineffective?  

 

Scientific studies of the past 40 years back this up.  Top scientists who are not mainstream will gladly point out the research.

 

Further lockdowns will also prove ineffective, as current lockdown measures have failed to stop the rises.

 

Whether or not these cases are actual cases or old cases or false, who knows, the govt will turn a blind eye to it.

 

You cannot stop seasonal increases in respiratory viruses.  The previous lockdown coincided with the seasonal drop, hence the decrease in cases.

 

Rather than build immunity at a time of low risk, the outcomes are now likely to be worse.

 

Doubling down on a lockdown is going to upset a lot of people.  In hindsight, restrictions should have been lifted in May imo and then reintroduced if necessary.

Why would experiencing rising cases mean masks are ineffective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...