The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
-
I think the next UK figures will come out on the 14th showing overall deaths.
This from New York is quite something. (From NY times)
0 -
Yesrick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
Every other country's figures will be under-reported in similar ways.surrey_commuter said:
Yesrick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
0 -
If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.0 -
As per Pross and Coopster if the NHS can only process a limited number of deaths then you will flatten the curve. In reality less people will be admitted to hospital and not be counted.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.
My issue is that if you have chosen a data driven response then you should make sure you have good data.
I was ignoring the infected numbers as they are a nonsense and now it seems the death numbers are two weeks out of date.
As good data could make the difference in thousands of deaths and the livelihoods of millions then spending more time and money to get good data seems like a massive oversight1 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
Herd immunity isn't really a cure, I'm assuming they mean an effective control method.coopster_the_1st said:This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
In which case I didn't realise we had herd immunity to SARS, MERS and ebola.
It's funny that the right have, for years, laughed at the idea that austerity might cause people to die sooner, but are now all concerned about the public health effect of this economic crisis.0 -
I see potential issues if you're deciding when to stop holding mass horse racing events and your data is two weeks out of whack.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
Not as per me, I was just trying to explain my understanding of what Coopster was saying to someone who seemed to be willfully misinterpreting it.surrey_commuter said:
As per Pross and Coopster if the NHS can only process a limited number of deaths then you will flatten the curve. In reality less people will be admitted to hospital and not be counted.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.
My issue is that if you have chosen a data driven response then you should make sure you have good data.
I was ignoring the infected numbers as they are a nonsense and now it seems the death numbers are two weeks out of date.
As good data could make the difference in thousands of deaths and the livelihoods of millions then spending more time and money to get good data seems like a massive oversight
Besides, that's plainly bollox as if you under report on some days you end up having spikes on other days (which we do seem to see and which I'm pretty sure someone explained last week was down to this very reason).0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
Quoted myself for the hard of reading who like to make things up and made the important bit bold in case their eyesight isn't too good.Pross said:
I'm reluctant to defend Coopster and appear to look like I'm in agreement but I don't think that's a reflection of what he is saying.pangolin said:
It's quite telling that you think of NHS capacity as how many dead they can churn out per day rather than how many people can concurrently receive care.coopster_the_1st said:
Yes. I don't know what capacity the NHS now has but I would guess well over 2000 deaths a day with the new Nightingale hospitals coming online.tailwindhome said:
So a 1000 deaths a day in Italy was because they lost control, a 1000 deaths a day in the UK is part of the plan.coopster_the_1st said:
We are letting the virus spread as fast around the population as NHS capacity will allow.tailwindhome said:
Nope.coopster_the_1st said:
You really don't understand what you are talking about as others as pointed out already.tailwindhome said:
So why are our death rates that of a health service which lost control?coopster_the_1st said:
Have we overwhelmed our health service?kingstongraham said:
Thought I'd look back. Well...coopster_the_1st said:
We are not 2 weeks behind Italy. It's rubbish to look at their numbers and then find the UK equivalent of positives and say that is how far behind we are. Both countries had patient zero at a similar time however Italy went weeks before catching up with contact tracing this patient. We knew all patient zero contacts (Brighton) very quickly.fenix said:
Doctor in Italy on breakfast TV today saying their health system is almost at breaking point. They're just a couple of weeks ahead.Pross said:
I still haven't seen / heard one expert on mainstream TV or radio say anything similar to some of the quotes in print or online media. They are still very much in the nothing to be overly concerned about unless you're elderly and / or have underlying health issues. Is this that TV / radio are toeing the official line or that the wider media are using hyperbole to get hits? I guess we'll find out within a month.
Countries who prepare well - death rate might be 1%. Countries with poor plans - 5%.
We need to flatten the infection curve. Do what the Italians have announced now.
Have people died because the they did not have the correct health intervention?
We have not lost control like Italy did
Are you a religious person by any chance?
Why are our death rates the same as a country that's lost control?
All this capacity being added in the form of the Nightingale hospitals will allow a faster virus spread so the UK is the other side of this pandemic sooner.
We won't be told the capacity figure the advisors are working to until afterwards(we'll probably be able to work it out from the peak daily death number) as too many do not understand what is going on with this virus
I think his point, in his own inimitable style, is that if we need for example an overall rate of 60% of the population to get the virus in order for it to start dying out then we are best getting there as soon as possible without any avoidable deaths i.e. operating just below the NHS capacity so that those who are able to recover do so. Overall it might mean 100,000 deaths in 6 months rather than 100,000 deaths in 12 months thus allowing us to start getting back to normal 6 months sooner.
Where it becomes an issue is if our rate becomes for example 200,000 in 6 months when it would have been 100,000 in 12 months and then you're back to the argument of whether saving 100,000 additional lives justifies the impact on jobs, the economy and the possible health impacts of a longer term lockdown.
We would also be back into the Brexit thread argument of not knowing what would have happened had we opted for the alternative solution.
0 -
We have adopted the above. The only debate is how long is a "short temporary" lockdown?coopster_the_1st said:This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
A week? A month? 3 months? A year? People have different views. Quelle surprise!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Updatedrick_chasey said:
I guess you haven’t nosied at The Lancet in the past month?Stevo_666 said:I see all of the usual suspects have replied. Sorry to disappoint
Just passing on info from a relevant source. Interestingly but perhaps predictably, the reaction in all cases was was 'Ah, but...' rather than 'Ah, good...'
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pross said:
Quoted myself for the hard of reading who like to make things up and made the important bit bold in case their eyesight isn't too good.Pross said:
I'm reluctant to defend Coopster and appear to look like I'm in agreement but I don't think that's a reflection of what he is saying.pangolin said:
It's quite telling that you think of NHS capacity as how many dead they can churn out per day rather than how many people can concurrently receive care.coopster_the_1st said:
Yes. I don't know what capacity the NHS now has but I would guess well over 2000 deaths a day with the new Nightingale hospitals coming online.tailwindhome said:
So a 1000 deaths a day in Italy was because they lost control, a 1000 deaths a day in the UK is part of the plan.coopster_the_1st said:
We are letting the virus spread as fast around the population as NHS capacity will allow.tailwindhome said:
Nope.coopster_the_1st said:
You really don't understand what you are talking about as others as pointed out already.tailwindhome said:
So why are our death rates that of a health service which lost control?coopster_the_1st said:
Have we overwhelmed our health service?kingstongraham said:
Thought I'd look back. Well...coopster_the_1st said:
We are not 2 weeks behind Italy. It's rubbish to look at their numbers and then find the UK equivalent of positives and say that is how far behind we are. Both countries had patient zero at a similar time however Italy went weeks before catching up with contact tracing this patient. We knew all patient zero contacts (Brighton) very quickly.fenix said:
Doctor in Italy on breakfast TV today saying their health system is almost at breaking point. They're just a couple of weeks ahead.Pross said:
I still haven't seen / heard one expert on mainstream TV or radio say anything similar to some of the quotes in print or online media. They are still very much in the nothing to be overly concerned about unless you're elderly and / or have underlying health issues. Is this that TV / radio are toeing the official line or that the wider media are using hyperbole to get hits? I guess we'll find out within a month.
Countries who prepare well - death rate might be 1%. Countries with poor plans - 5%.
We need to flatten the infection curve. Do what the Italians have announced now.
Have people died because the they did not have the correct health intervention?
We have not lost control like Italy did
Are you a religious person by any chance?
Why are our death rates the same as a country that's lost control?
All this capacity being added in the form of the Nightingale hospitals will allow a faster virus spread so the UK is the other side of this pandemic sooner.
We won't be told the capacity figure the advisors are working to until afterwards(we'll probably be able to work it out from the peak daily death number) as too many do not understand what is going on with this virus
I think his point, in his own inimitable style, is that if we need for example an overall rate of 60% of the population to get the virus in order for it to start dying out then we are best getting there as soon as possible without any avoidable deaths i.e. operating just below the NHS capacity so that those who are able to recover do so. Overall it might mean 100,000 deaths in 6 months rather than 100,000 deaths in 12 months thus allowing us to start getting back to normal 6 months sooner.
Where it becomes an issue is if our rate becomes for example 200,000 in 6 months when it would have been 100,000 in 12 months and then you're back to the argument of whether saving 100,000 additional lives justifies the impact on jobs, the economy and the possible health impacts of a longer term lockdown.
We would also be back into the Brexit thread argument of not knowing what would have happened had we opted for the alternative solution.
So why would you not measure % occupancy rate rather than deaths. How do you account for maximum admissions?Pross said:
Quoted myself for the hard of reading who like to make things up and made the important bit bold in case their eyesight isn't too good.Pross said:
I'm reluctant to defend Coopster and appear to look like I'm in agreement but I don't think that's a reflection of what he is saying.pangolin said:
It's quite telling that you think of NHS capacity as how many dead they can churn out per day rather than how many people can concurrently receive care.coopster_the_1st said:
Yes. I don't know what capacity the NHS now has but I would guess well over 2000 deaths a day with the new Nightingale hospitals coming online.tailwindhome said:
So a 1000 deaths a day in Italy was because they lost control, a 1000 deaths a day in the UK is part of the plan.coopster_the_1st said:
We are letting the virus spread as fast around the population as NHS capacity will allow.tailwindhome said:
Nope.coopster_the_1st said:
You really don't understand what you are talking about as others as pointed out already.tailwindhome said:
So why are our death rates that of a health service which lost control?coopster_the_1st said:
Have we overwhelmed our health service?kingstongraham said:
Thought I'd look back. Well...coopster_the_1st said:
We are not 2 weeks behind Italy. It's rubbish to look at their numbers and then find the UK equivalent of positives and say that is how far behind we are. Both countries had patient zero at a similar time however Italy went weeks before catching up with contact tracing this patient. We knew all patient zero contacts (Brighton) very quickly.fenix said:
Doctor in Italy on breakfast TV today saying their health system is almost at breaking point. They're just a couple of weeks ahead.Pross said:
I still haven't seen / heard one expert on mainstream TV or radio say anything similar to some of the quotes in print or online media. They are still very much in the nothing to be overly concerned about unless you're elderly and / or have underlying health issues. Is this that TV / radio are toeing the official line or that the wider media are using hyperbole to get hits? I guess we'll find out within a month.
Countries who prepare well - death rate might be 1%. Countries with poor plans - 5%.
We need to flatten the infection curve. Do what the Italians have announced now.
Have people died because the they did not have the correct health intervention?
We have not lost control like Italy did
Are you a religious person by any chance?
Why are our death rates the same as a country that's lost control?
All this capacity being added in the form of the Nightingale hospitals will allow a faster virus spread so the UK is the other side of this pandemic sooner.
We won't be told the capacity figure the advisors are working to until afterwards(we'll probably be able to work it out from the peak daily death number) as too many do not understand what is going on with this virus
I think his point, in his own inimitable style, is that if we need for example an overall rate of 60% of the population to get the virus in order for it to start dying out then we are best getting there as soon as possible without any avoidable deaths i.e. operating just below the NHS capacity so that those who are able to recover do so. Overall it might mean 100,000 deaths in 6 months rather than 100,000 deaths in 12 months thus allowing us to start getting back to normal 6 months sooner.
Where it becomes an issue is if our rate becomes for example 200,000 in 6 months when it would have been 100,000 in 12 months and then you're back to the argument of whether saving 100,000 additional lives justifies the impact on jobs, the economy and the possible health impacts of a longer term lockdown.
We would also be back into the Brexit thread argument of not knowing what would have happened had we opted for the alternative solution.0 -
Keep trying Brian, I am interested in feedback from the front line. I have one other mate who is a NHS consultant, but he got himself signed off work until the end of this month on account of a previous health issue.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Update from my mate on the NHS frontline - he's due back at work tomorrow. This time he'll be on the high dependency C19 unit which apparently needs the maximum PPE. He says they have enough PPE, which might disappoint some people.
I've gently prodded my medic friends, but they seem to be keeping schtum."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I haven't said you shouldn't. You implied that from my post above and I then suggested there would be a correlation. Maybe death rate is an easier measure for people to understand and gives a shock factor to try to keep them following the guidance that is in place? To be honest I have a bit of an issue with politicians and reporters that suggest a total number of deaths for a day being less than the previous day is something to celebrate and won't be happy until they're reporting zero.surrey_commuter said:Pross said:
Quoted myself for the hard of reading who like to make things up and made the important bit bold in case their eyesight isn't too good.Pross said:
I'm reluctant to defend Coopster and appear to look like I'm in agreement but I don't think that's a reflection of what he is saying.pangolin said:
It's quite telling that you think of NHS capacity as how many dead they can churn out per day rather than how many people can concurrently receive care.coopster_the_1st said:
Yes. I don't know what capacity the NHS now has but I would guess well over 2000 deaths a day with the new Nightingale hospitals coming online.tailwindhome said:
So a 1000 deaths a day in Italy was because they lost control, a 1000 deaths a day in the UK is part of the plan.coopster_the_1st said:
We are letting the virus spread as fast around the population as NHS capacity will allow.tailwindhome said:
Nope.coopster_the_1st said:
You really don't understand what you are talking about as others as pointed out already.tailwindhome said:
So why are our death rates that of a health service which lost control?coopster_the_1st said:
Have we overwhelmed our health service?kingstongraham said:
Thought I'd look back. Well...coopster_the_1st said:
We are not 2 weeks behind Italy. It's rubbish to look at their numbers and then find the UK equivalent of positives and say that is how far behind we are. Both countries had patient zero at a similar time however Italy went weeks before catching up with contact tracing this patient. We knew all patient zero contacts (Brighton) very quickly.fenix said:
Doctor in Italy on breakfast TV today saying their health system is almost at breaking point. They're just a couple of weeks ahead.Pross said:
I still haven't seen / heard one expert on mainstream TV or radio say anything similar to some of the quotes in print or online media. They are still very much in the nothing to be overly concerned about unless you're elderly and / or have underlying health issues. Is this that TV / radio are toeing the official line or that the wider media are using hyperbole to get hits? I guess we'll find out within a month.
Countries who prepare well - death rate might be 1%. Countries with poor plans - 5%.
We need to flatten the infection curve. Do what the Italians have announced now.
Have people died because the they did not have the correct health intervention?
We have not lost control like Italy did
Are you a religious person by any chance?
Why are our death rates the same as a country that's lost control?
All this capacity being added in the form of the Nightingale hospitals will allow a faster virus spread so the UK is the other side of this pandemic sooner.
We won't be told the capacity figure the advisors are working to until afterwards(we'll probably be able to work it out from the peak daily death number) as too many do not understand what is going on with this virus
I think his point, in his own inimitable style, is that if we need for example an overall rate of 60% of the population to get the virus in order for it to start dying out then we are best getting there as soon as possible without any avoidable deaths i.e. operating just below the NHS capacity so that those who are able to recover do so. Overall it might mean 100,000 deaths in 6 months rather than 100,000 deaths in 12 months thus allowing us to start getting back to normal 6 months sooner.
Where it becomes an issue is if our rate becomes for example 200,000 in 6 months when it would have been 100,000 in 12 months and then you're back to the argument of whether saving 100,000 additional lives justifies the impact on jobs, the economy and the possible health impacts of a longer term lockdown.
We would also be back into the Brexit thread argument of not knowing what would have happened had we opted for the alternative solution.
So why would you not measure % occupancy rate rather than deaths. How do you account for maximum admissions?Pross said:
Quoted myself for the hard of reading who like to make things up and made the important bit bold in case their eyesight isn't too good.Pross said:
I'm reluctant to defend Coopster and appear to look like I'm in agreement but I don't think that's a reflection of what he is saying.pangolin said:
It's quite telling that you think of NHS capacity as how many dead they can churn out per day rather than how many people can concurrently receive care.coopster_the_1st said:
Yes. I don't know what capacity the NHS now has but I would guess well over 2000 deaths a day with the new Nightingale hospitals coming online.tailwindhome said:
So a 1000 deaths a day in Italy was because they lost control, a 1000 deaths a day in the UK is part of the plan.coopster_the_1st said:
We are letting the virus spread as fast around the population as NHS capacity will allow.tailwindhome said:
Nope.coopster_the_1st said:
You really don't understand what you are talking about as others as pointed out already.tailwindhome said:
So why are our death rates that of a health service which lost control?coopster_the_1st said:
Have we overwhelmed our health service?kingstongraham said:
Thought I'd look back. Well...coopster_the_1st said:
We are not 2 weeks behind Italy. It's rubbish to look at their numbers and then find the UK equivalent of positives and say that is how far behind we are. Both countries had patient zero at a similar time however Italy went weeks before catching up with contact tracing this patient. We knew all patient zero contacts (Brighton) very quickly.fenix said:
Doctor in Italy on breakfast TV today saying their health system is almost at breaking point. They're just a couple of weeks ahead.Pross said:
I still haven't seen / heard one expert on mainstream TV or radio say anything similar to some of the quotes in print or online media. They are still very much in the nothing to be overly concerned about unless you're elderly and / or have underlying health issues. Is this that TV / radio are toeing the official line or that the wider media are using hyperbole to get hits? I guess we'll find out within a month.
Countries who prepare well - death rate might be 1%. Countries with poor plans - 5%.
We need to flatten the infection curve. Do what the Italians have announced now.
Have people died because the they did not have the correct health intervention?
We have not lost control like Italy did
Are you a religious person by any chance?
Why are our death rates the same as a country that's lost control?
All this capacity being added in the form of the Nightingale hospitals will allow a faster virus spread so the UK is the other side of this pandemic sooner.
We won't be told the capacity figure the advisors are working to until afterwards(we'll probably be able to work it out from the peak daily death number) as too many do not understand what is going on with this virus
I think his point, in his own inimitable style, is that if we need for example an overall rate of 60% of the population to get the virus in order for it to start dying out then we are best getting there as soon as possible without any avoidable deaths i.e. operating just below the NHS capacity so that those who are able to recover do so. Overall it might mean 100,000 deaths in 6 months rather than 100,000 deaths in 12 months thus allowing us to start getting back to normal 6 months sooner.
Where it becomes an issue is if our rate becomes for example 200,000 in 6 months when it would have been 100,000 in 12 months and then you're back to the argument of whether saving 100,000 additional lives justifies the impact on jobs, the economy and the possible health impacts of a longer term lockdown.
We would also be back into the Brexit thread argument of not knowing what would have happened had we opted for the alternative solution.0 -
More up to date data doesn't currently exist.Jeremy.89 said:
I see potential issues if you're deciding when to stop holding mass horse racing events and your data is two weeks out of whack.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
Some (all?) of those other diseases don't have the asymptomatic phase C19 has so it's easier to isolate those infected and eradicate them (the virus not the person!) that way. Once C19 had spread that was no longer an option so effectively herd immunity is the only way forward.Jeremy.89 said:
Herd immunity isn't really a cure, I'm assuming they mean an effective control method.coopster_the_1st said:This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
In which case I didn't realise we had herd immunity to SARS, MERS and ebola.
It's funny that the right have, for years, laughed at the idea that austerity might cause people to die sooner, but are now all concerned about the public health effect of this economic crisis.
If C19 doesn't mutate very quickly it may be possible to eradicate it completely using vaccination.
You do see a lot of people still arguing that a complete lock down would bring this to an end quicker which does ignore the point made in that letter.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]2 -
A curious trope of the whole coronavirus mess is those who typically ideologically don’t trust the state and want less intervention are deeply trusting of the state in this crisis and visa versa.0
-
Herd immunity is prevention rather than cure - and generally prevention is better than cure. It can come about by either vaccination and/or people catching the disease.Jeremy.89 said:
Herd immunity isn't really a cure, I'm assuming they mean an effective control method.coopster_the_1st said:This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
In which case I didn't realise we had herd immunity to SARS, MERS and ebola.
It's funny that the right have, for years, laughed at the idea that austerity might cause people to die sooner, but are now all concerned about the public health effect of this economic crisis.
I posted a link about a potential acceleration of the timeframe for the development of a vaccine, which would be a real game changer, but for some reason there was pretty much no response to it. I suppose that it's not just journalists who can't see the wood for the trees.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
3 -
First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
Not praise, as mentioned above. I had thought it might elicit some sort of positive response, but the first instinct seemed to be to rebutt. It would have been perfectly fine to say 'that's good, but on the other hand....', but not even that happened.ddraver said:Sorry, you were expecting praise for posting a link?
Not all heroes wear capes eh?
Part of the problem seems to be that some have already made up their minds on this and are more interested in lookingfor ways to justify their predetermined view rather than looking at the situation objectively. I'm not the only one to have remarked on this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well put. Herd immunity is the end game. It is neither a cure or a solution, it is the only outcome.DeVlaeminck said:
Some (all?) of those other diseases don't have the asymptomatic phase C19 has so it's easier to isolate those infected and eradicate them (the virus not the person!) that way. Once C19 had spread that was no longer an option so effectively herd immunity is the only way forward.Jeremy.89 said:
Herd immunity isn't really a cure, I'm assuming they mean an effective control method.coopster_the_1st said:This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on
In which case I didn't realise we had herd immunity to SARS, MERS and ebola.
It's funny that the right have, for years, laughed at the idea that austerity might cause people to die sooner, but are now all concerned about the public health effect of this economic crisis.
If C19 doesn't mutate very quickly it may be possible to eradicate it completely using vaccination.
You do see a lot of people still arguing that a complete lock down would bring this to an end quicker which does ignore the point made in that letter.
The only relevant debate is what path do we follow to get there.
There are greatly conflicting considerations of economic and human cost.0 -
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
