Coronavirus Thread

[Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

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.

Based on your own evidence, you've taken 4342 off 49560 having previously 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." So we're still within the range that you said we were likely to be much lower than, and that's ignoring anything since 28th August. You can't take the figures as gospel, but not taking the figures as gospel ≠ blindly denying them.

 

You've not shown that the 42.5k quoted by Alf is an overestimation and accused him of picking it to suit his agenda, despite it being the lowest official number available. Now you've tried to dispute it by saying the deaths actually caused by covid are much lower than the total but your own evidence of that produces a figure higher than Alf's. 

You haven't been able to provide any figures to show that the death toll is significantly overstated by any Covid being in their system counting towards the figures.

You've claimed the excess deaths in the spring were as much, if not more likely, to be down to undetected cancer despite that being obvious nonsense.

 

So I'm not proving you wrong on minute points, these are significant untruths you're just blurting out. The foundations for what you say just aren't there. You've made your mind up that the burden of the deaths is lower than the burden to society of trying to save them and then are justifying it by making things up. Which is my issue, I have no problem with you viewing the situation that way but every problem with you just making shit up to justify it. Own the fact that you're unmoved by the trade-off of potential deaths from letting everyone go about their normal life and that nothing that happens in the next 6 months will sway you from that instead of chatting shit. 

[Stivo]

35 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

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.

The ONS produces multiple datasets.  
 

The one to which you linked the CEBM  commentary on is the dataset of the number of people who have died of covid19 based on death certificates filled in by their doctor.  This is the gold standard but is produced at least a month late and so is of no use for a dashboard.   No one can argue with the CEBM criticisms but the overall error is small.

 

Other datasets include

 

a) randomly selected households being tested to see how many people currently have it.

 

b) randomly selected households being tested for antibodies to see how many people in total have been exposed. I Was selected for this and so have done an antibody test. 

[yorkie1999]

36 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.

cases have fallen by 3700 since yesterday, 20% down,  that's good isn't it.

[WigstonWanderer]

7 hours ago, Nod.E said:

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritise.

 

The quality of life of 10 million. (Sweden)

 

Or saving the life of 40/50k already vulnerable people. 

 

In 10 years when the vast majority of those would be dead anyway, we'll be kicking ourselves we didn't choose the former.

 

Call me cynical, brutal or heartless. It's just the better thing for the human race, long term and short.

I sure there’s not a man here who wouldn’t sacrifice his life to improve the quality of yours

[Izzy]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

Yep.

 

That flapping you can hear is the sound of Brexit chickens coming home to roost. We have a govt packed with Brexit loyalists, led by the most inept PM in living memory, at a time we need a govt packed with talented politicians who can actually do the job they are paid for.

 

50 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 track and trace system.

Welcome back old friend - you've been missed 

 

You'll be pleased to know we have a dedicated Politics thread again now - for rants just like this! 

[Nod.E]

8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I sure there’s not a man here who wouldn’t sacrifice his life to improve the quality of yours

Numbers game.

 

Not about me.

 

It's about the vast majority of people. Yes that happens to include me.

[Nod.E]

32 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Based on your own evidence, you've taken 4342 off 49560 having previously 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." So we're still within the range that you said we were likely to be much lower than, and that's ignoring anything since 28th August. You can't take the figures as gospel, but not taking the figures as gospel ≠ blindly denying them.

 

You've not shown that the 42.5k quoted by Alf is an overestimation and accused him of picking it to suit his agenda, despite it being the lowest official number available. Now you've tried to dispute it by saying the deaths actually caused by covid are much lower than the total but your own evidence of that produces a figure higher than Alf's. 

You haven't been able to provide any figures to show that the death toll is significantly overstated by any Covid being in their system counting towards the figures.

You've claimed the excess deaths in the spring were as much, if not more likely, to be down to undetected cancer despite that being obvious nonsense.

 

So I'm not proving you wrong on minute points, these are significant untruths you're just blurting out. The foundations for what you say just aren't there. You've made your mind up that the burden of the deaths is lower than the burden to society of trying to save them and then are justifying it by making things up. Which is my issue, I have no problem with you viewing the situation that way but every problem with you just making shit up to justify it. Own the fact that you're unmoved by the trade-off of potential deaths from letting everyone go about their normal life and that nothing that happens in the next 6 months will sway you from that instead of chatting shit. 

Honestly I couldn't give a toss if the number was 30,000 or 60,000.

 

It's a minor point and the general point remains the same.

 

You seem to think I didn't realise I was contradicting some of my previous points by doing some research and finding the actual figures. 

 

I'll admit I was overzealous in my estimated impact of over reporting of deaths but I needn't have made that point to add to my argument.

Edited 9 October 2020 by Nod.E

[martyn]

16 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

cases have fallen by 3700 since yesterday, 20% down,  that's good isn't it.

You really shouldn't pay any attention to these daily figures, there is more reporting lag on certain days of the week. 

 

After about week or so (assuming Excel is playing ball) the data starts to resolve in terms of how many cases were reported on a particular day.

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, martyn said:

You really shouldn't pay any attention to these daily figures, there is more reporting lag on certain days of the week. 

 

After about week or so (assuming Excel is playing ball) the data starts to resolve in terms of how many cases were reported on a particular day.

Yes.

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, martyn said:

You really shouldn't pay any attention to these daily figures, there is more reporting lag on certain days of the week. 

 

After about week or so (assuming Excel is playing ball) the data starts to resolve in terms of how many cases were reported on a particular day.

Yeah that's why most find the rolling 7 day figure a bit more accurate. It could either be that the 17,000 yesterday had some carried over from previous days or there's still some lag in today's figures which will be added to coming days figures.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

Welcome back old friend - you've been missed 

 

You'll be pleased to know we have a dedicated Politics thread again now - for rants just like this! 

 

Ta.

 

Ah, but I'm discussing the politics of the Covid response; is that not relevant in a thread about Covid? Or do I need to refamiliarise myself with the forum rules lest I get another ban?

[Suzie the Fox]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ta.

 

Ah, but I'm discussing the politics of the Covid response; is that not relevant in a thread about Covid? Or do I need to refamiliarise myself with the forum rules lest I get another ban?

Welcome Back Buce, missed you xx

[WigstonWanderer]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ta.

 

Ah, but I'm discussing the politics of the Covid response; is that not relevant in a thread about Covid? Or do I need to refamiliarise myself with the forum rules lest I get another ban?

Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed your stay in WA last year.

 

The debate over Covid can get quite heated here, but generally it isn’t that political, though I think most people on both sides of the argument agree that the government are well out of their depth.

 

 

[Izzy]

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ta.

 

Ah, but I'm discussing the politics of the Covid response; is that not relevant in a thread about Covid? Or do I need to refamiliarise myself with the forum rules lest I get another ban?

I think the idea was to keep this thread just for ‘the virus’ and the politics thread for any political debate - but the two are so interlinked I guess that’s impossible.
 

Anyhow, don’t get yourself banned again FFS 

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

cases have fallen by 3700 since yesterday, 20% down,  that's good isn't it.

 

Well, it depends on what you are classing as a case.  Figures may well be the same and perhaps false positives are down.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I think the idea was to keep this thread just for ‘the virus’ and the politics thread for any political debate - but the two are so interlinked I guess that’s impossible.
 

Anyhow, don’t get yourself banned again FFS 

 

Should be easy enough - I just need to avoid politics, Trump, and responding to idiots...

 

See you in another year then.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54461218

 

'Many top City firms are thinking about how big their offices should be as staff continue to work mainly from home during the pandemic, a study indicates.'

[yorkie1999]

59 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Well, it depends on what you are classing as a case.  Figures may well be the same and perhaps false positives are down.

But, surely it’s comparable to the day before, even if both days could be wrong.

[yorkie1999]

46 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54461218

 

'Many top City firms are thinking about how big their offices should be as staff continue to work mainly from home during the pandemic, a study indicates.'

Don’t blame them, it’s the repercussions that come with it that will be the problem in the future. 

[fuchsntf]

57 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Should be easy enough - I just need to avoid politics, Trump, and responding to idiots...

 

See you in another year then.

Acch Buce.. Just go for Another Trek ....write a book, "Finding Covid ,Bans ,Politics & that other man"

If would be a best seller...Think of the Events & Motivation Speeches ,for Football forum Mods....Democrats, & Virologists..

[Leicester_Loyal]

So now they reckon some university cases are being counted as positives in other areas due to them being recorded as the students original address, dear lord

[yorkie1999]

30 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

So now they reckon some university cases are being counted as positives in other areas due to them being recorded as the students original address, dear lord

Would that not be the same as being tested in Coventry but living in Leicester though. The reason i ask because i know of 4 people who are from the Leicester area but had to go to Cov to get tested. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Would that not be the same as being tested in Coventry but living in Leicester though. The reason i ask because i know of 4 people who are from the Leicester area but had to go to Cov to get tested. 

If a cringey Leicester City fan account on twitter hasn't referred to CCFC as CoVIDtry City yet I will be disappointed. 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Nod.E 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? 

agree - there was a maths professor on the radio yesterday who said some models were showing a decent level of herd immunity kicking in at 20/25% 
 

3 hours ago, martyn said:

Why would experiencing rising cases mean masks are ineffective?

And we are yet to see if mask wearing reduces viral load and severity of illness .....of course many people aren’t wearing masks in any case

 

 

my eldest daughter (who originally brought the virus into the house in March ) has now been in close contact with someone who is positive (her bestie who she works with in the NHS). As such she is being tested (pillar one). would expect a negative result for obvious reasons but she is a bit off colour and my youngest has had a dodgy tummy on and off this week...... anyway, if anyone in the house tests positive we’ll be in the news as no way would anyone here not have contracted it late March .....

 

I’d be v shocked and pretty concerned that re infection had occurred .....
 

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Would that not be the same as being tested in Coventry but living in Leicester though. The reason i ask because i know of 4 people who are from the Leicester area but had to go to Cov to get tested. 

Not sure tbh, needs to be identified where they are currently living though, otherwise counties will be going into lockdown when their actually below the required threshold.