The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
More specifically, it has been suggested that air pollution in the Po valley was a contributory factor. It's ironic that the figures for premature deaths associated with air pollution in London were generally greeted with a shrug apart from a brief interest when a young girl who attended a school next to a busy road died from an asthma attack.briantrumpet said:With caveats about cause & effect, maybe interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/air-pollution-linked-to-far-higher-covid-19-death-rates-study-finds
Put that together with the much higher population density of the big cities, and (arguably) the more reluctance on sizeable parts of the population in big cities to observe the spirit of the lockdown, it could be a partial explanation of places such as London, Birmingham, and New York...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
tailwindhome said:
I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes
So, yeah, maybe unfair on the British there“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
But it's hard to point to a study that is more relevant than the one Rick is referencing.capt_slog said:
Not at all. And that's not what i said.rick_chasey said:Yeah let's just ignore everything that's more than 50 years old. Who needs evidence if it's in the past, eh?
However, the way things are done now is different from how they were done in the 1918. Things moved slower then, stock could be in transit for longer, factories made things from raw materials that were coming in a steady pipeline and finished goods moved the same way. 50 years? Okay, just go back a bit longer, we were still using the canals until 1963, (they were largely on the decline by then and the big freeze of that year was the final death of them.) but raw materials could be weeks away.
Take a look at this from 1945
How a bike was made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaxRQh03BOw
How much of that manufacturing process would you see now? They were making their own tubing from steel strip. These days, we don't make things this way, and firms don't carry the stock they used to even if they do make anything. It follows that if the way the industries run is not the same as in 1918, then the way they recover might not be if they have the same strictures put onto them as in 1918.
Your study might be right, who can tell? but it doesn't HAVE to be.0 -
Don't think that this has been posted yet, but the figures published every day are deaths recorded on the day, not deaths occurring. This means the 'real' figure is some way ahead of the official report - bad news - but we will have already passed the peak by the time we know about it - good news (I think).
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Great reporting by Reuters
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21P1VF?__twitter_impression=true“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Yes this is probably the most important article you’ll read on the UK’s respond to the coronavirus....tailwindhome said:Great reporting by Reuters
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21P1VF?__twitter_impression=true0 -
-
-
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
^Google "negative UK Covid19 news"
In more positive news Johnson's still stable and the measures put in place means the NHS is still able to cope with demand.0 -
The wonders of journalistic hindsight.0
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vaccine/607000/Dorset_Boy said:The wonders of journalistic hindsight.
I mean it wasn't always hindsight.0 -
Exactly Dorset Boy and it's getting rather too complacent now with the negative duo. it's fine to question but at-least be balanced.0
-
pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
Interviews with more than 20 British scientists, key officials and senior sources in Johnson's Conservative Party, and a study of minutes of advisory committee meetings and public testimony and documents, show how these scientific advisers concluded early the virus could be devastating.
But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government's top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at "moderate," suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak.By the end of January, the government's chief medical adviser, Whitty, was explaining to politicians in private, according to at least two people who spoke to him, that if the virus escaped China, it would in time infect the great majority of people in Britain. It could only be slowed down, not stopped. On Jan 30, the government raised the threat level to "moderate" from "low."Between February 13 and March 30, Britain missed a total of eight conference calls or meetings about the coronavirus between EU heads of state or health ministers - meetings that Britain was still entitled to join.According to emails and more than a dozen scientists interviewed by Reuters, the government issued no requests to labs for assistance with staff or testing equipment until the middle of March, when many abruptly received requests to hand over nucleic acid extraction instruments, used in testing. An executive at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford said he could have carried out up to 1,000 tests per day from February. But the call never came.
"You would have thought that they would be bashing down the door," said the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity. By April 5, Britain had carried out 195,524 tests, in contrast to at least 918,000 completed a week earlier in Germany.Amid the dreadful news from Italy, the scientists at NERVTAG convened by phone that Friday, 21st February. But they decided to recommend keeping the threat level at "moderate," where it had sat since January 30th. The minutes don't give a detailed explanation of the decision. Edmunds, who had technical difficulties and couldn't be heard on the call, emailed afterwards to ask the warning to be elevated to "high," the minutes revealed. But the warning level remained lower. It's unclear why.
"I just thought, are we still, we still thinking that it's mild or something? It definitely isn't, you know," said Edmunds.0 -
Criticising journalism as a record of what's already happened seems odd.Dorset_Boy said:The wonders of journalistic hindsight.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It is a well written summary but the only revelation to me was that scientists were making decisions on whether lockdown was feasible, which seems utterly bizarre.pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
0 -
Alright I finished the article. Few points.
They seemed critical that we weren't taking measures like stopping travel from China back on the 21st Jan. Was anyone doing this? Even SK waited until 4th Feb I believe. This thread didn't start for another month and a half after 21st Jan. Strict measures back then just weren't on the radar and would have annoyed people.
Some discussion about us not getting in on the EU ventilator scheme. I hadn't appreciated until recently that once you are in intensive care it's around a 50% chance of surviving. Once you get put on a ventilator in intensive care it drops to around a 20% chance of surviving. So two points - 1. I don't think we've run out yet anyway, and are sourcing them from other companies, and 2. People seem to be seeing them as a magic bullet that will save everyone, which they are not.
Early on in the article they are critical of the 'threat level' and question what raising it means, and what actions that triggers. Later on they are critical of us not raising it to moderate fast enough. They never tell us what raising it does. Either it means something or it doesn't, you can't criticise both.
They talk towards the end about the eventual lock down being enabled by everyone seeing what was happening in Italy, and this "opening up policy space". I took this to mean that without the public seeing the impact of the virus on another western country they would reject rules like these, and I tend to agree. Everyone had to go on that journey to reach a point where most will abide by the rules.
Still didn't see any "shocking details".- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.0 -
Seems like one big mistake was thinking that we would have preferred 500,000 deaths to a lockdown. That turns out to be a minority view.
And the lack of testing. We still can't know how large, where or when the second peak will be, even though we may make it through the first one without overwhelming the health service.0 -
It is describing an environment where a) the experts don't want to "worsen the fears of the government" and b) the government doesn't trust its own powers and the public to do what needed to be done.
You create an environment where the government actively rubbishes the 'expert advice' on a daily basis and will call you out publicly of you disagree with them and funnily enough the experts on other stuff are frightened to tell the gov't what's going on.
The government not acting on what experts have been saying for months and then doing a last minute turn around in a half arsed attempt that sounds ok but really isn't is exactly the behaviour we have seen with this administration over and over again on important issues.
0 -
I sort of agree. They have to be realistic with their recommendations though don't you think? They could have looked at the evidence in late Jan and said - right if we want to really protect the UK we are shutting down the borders now. No-one comes in or out. We will test and trace any patients that are here already. But it was too soon and the scientists (I assume) would have thought - a) the Gov won't go for this and b) even if they did, the people wouldn't go for this.surrey_commuter said:
It is a well written summary but the only revelation to me was that scientists were making decisions on whether lockdown was feasible, which seems utterly bizarre.pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
focuszing723 said:
Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.
Not sure what else you expected from 'the usual suspects'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Alright I don't disagree with that. Maybe it's your language I find odd. Did anything in that article really shock you or are you just hamming it up for effect?rick_chasey said:It is describing an environment where a) the experts don't want to "worsen the fears of the government" and b) the government doesn't trust its own powers and the public to do what needed to be done.
You create an environment where the government actively rubbishes the 'expert advice' on a daily basis and will call you out publicly of you disagree with them and funnily enough the experts on other stuff are frightened to tell the gov't what's going on.
The government not acting on what experts have been saying for months and then doing a last minute turn around in a half arsed attempt that sounds ok but really isn't is exactly the behaviour we have seen with this administration over and over again on important issues.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
That's a political decision though. If the politicians reject that advice on political grounds, then that's different to it not even being an option that is modelled and presented to them. Which it eventually was.pangolin said:
I sort of agree. They have to be realistic with their recommendations though don't you think? They could have looked at the evidence in late Jan and said - right if we want to really protect the UK we are shutting down the borders now. No-one comes in or out. We will test and trace any patients that are here already. But it was too soon and the scientists (I assume) would have thought - a) the Gov won't go for this and b) even if they did, the people wouldn't go for this.surrey_commuter said:
It is a well written summary but the only revelation to me was that scientists were making decisions on whether lockdown was feasible, which seems utterly bizarre.pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
0 -
The detail they gotpangolin said:
Alright I don't disagree with that. Maybe it's your language I find odd. Did anything in that article really shock you or are you just hamming it up for effect?rick_chasey said:It is describing an environment where a) the experts don't want to "worsen the fears of the government" and b) the government doesn't trust its own powers and the public to do what needed to be done.
You create an environment where the government actively rubbishes the 'expert advice' on a daily basis and will call you out publicly of you disagree with them and funnily enough the experts on other stuff are frightened to tell the gov't what's going on.
The government not acting on what experts have been saying for months and then doing a last minute turn around in a half arsed attempt that sounds ok but really isn't is exactly the behaviour we have seen with this administration over and over again on important issues.0 -
Also if you you at the sports bodies and journeys recorded by TFL the country was shutting down without any political directionkingstongraham said:
That's a political decision though. If the politicians reject that advice on political grounds, then that's different to it not even being an option that is modelled and presented to them. Which it eventually was.pangolin said:
I sort of agree. They have to be realistic with their recommendations though don't you think? They could have looked at the evidence in late Jan and said - right if we want to really protect the UK we are shutting down the borders now. No-one comes in or out. We will test and trace any patients that are here already. But it was too soon and the scientists (I assume) would have thought - a) the Gov won't go for this and b) even if they did, the people wouldn't go for this.surrey_commuter said:
It is a well written summary but the only revelation to me was that scientists were making decisions on whether lockdown was feasible, which seems utterly bizarre.pangolin said:
Like what? I'm halfway through and it seems to be mostly telling us things we knew or had made an educated guess at based on the Government's behaviour. It's a well written interesting article but I wouldn't describe it as absolutely loaded with shocking details.rick_chasey said:Absolutely loaded with shocking detail after shocking detail.
0 -
Yeah. I'm finished with this. Their agenda is just too damn blatant and shouldn't be pampered tooStevo_666 said:focuszing723 said:Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.
Not sure what else you expected from 'the usual suspects'.
Every morning "Google UK Negative" it's what brightens their day, just sad really.0 -
I'm content with what I've posted.focuszing723 said:Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.
If you don't want to read it you have the ability to curate the thread to only include the posters whose contribution you want to read.
There is also an accompanying antidote thread you should feel free to enjoy.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
focuszing723 said:
Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.
There are a lot of interesting thoughts on here that are weeks ahead of the media. When do you think they will notice that we don’t count deaths properly at the weekend and that this skews the numbers?
Being positive and getting on the front foot does not work for a global pandemic0 -
Yeah mate, let's all find the good in the highest amount for a single day, 854, of people dying from corona, you absolute melt.focuszing723 said:
Yeah. I'm finished with this. Their agenda is just too damn blatant and shouldn't be pampered tooStevo_666 said:focuszing723 said:Can't you start a new thread for yourselves called "Negative Covid19 News I Googled".
Leave it to the rest of us to contribute with current information and positive developments.
Not sure what else you expected from 'the usual suspects'.
Every morning "Google UK Negative" it's what brightens their day, just sad really.0
