The big Coronavirus thread

coopster_the_1st

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.

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.

+1.

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 really wouldn't! I would not leave them in charge of running a bath...

Stevo_666

morstar said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Jeremy.89 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on

Herd immunity isn't really a cure, I'm assuming they mean an effective control method.

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.

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.

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.

Well put. Herd immunity is the end game. It is neither a cure or a solution, it is the only outcome.
The only relevant debate is what path do we follow to get there.
There are greatly conflicting considerations of economic and human cost.

Well put also.

tailwindhome

coopster_the_1st said:

This from the FT comments section is pretty much spot on

The correspondent ignores testing and tracing completely which is odd.


It's an oddity of this thread that those less keen on the acceptance of mass deaths are deemed negative.

morstar

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

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
  1. • 
       

This is U.K. specific?

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.

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.

Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.

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.

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.

More up to date data doesn't currently exist.

Which must be a key learning from this.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.

ddraver

Oh dude, get over yourself....

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

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.

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.

I know a couple of NHS consultants through work. They mentioned that so far things have been intense but manageable, but they are convinced the worst is still to come. They were not that impressed with PPE. It seems that provision is patchy, so "Good, but..." seems a fair assessment.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

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.

Isn’t this partly a reflection of the way things are reported.
I see massive political bias in both directions in articles and yet objectivity is what is going to lead to best outcomes and improved understanding.
Some twats will make good some good decisions and some good people will make some bad decisions.
The quicker we dispassionately understand the impacts of decisions, the quicker we move forwards.

E.g. Priti Patel is clearly a moron. She did however reign in police over reach.
That Northampton policeman is clearly keen to have officers in a supermarket supervising shopping but has doubtless done a lot of good work over many years.

tailwindhome

ddraver said:

Oh dude, get over yourself....

We've a thread full of dudes who need to get over themselves.

You may need to be more specific 😉

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

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
  1. • 
       

This is U.K. specific?

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.

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.

Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.

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.

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.

More up to date data doesn't currently exist.

Which must be a key learning from this.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.

But if you believe in easing the lockdown as soon as possible to save tens of billions. Why not spend a few tens of millions in getting better data.

Pross

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.

You realise that there is an absolutely enormous Irish presence at Cheltenham Festival don't you? Around 15,000 per day which is about 30% of the total.

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

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
  1. • 
       

This is U.K. specific?

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.

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.

Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.

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.

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.

More up to date data doesn't currently exist.

Which must be a key learning from this.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.

But if you believe in easing the lockdown as soon as possible to save tens of billions. Why not spend a few tens of millions in getting better data.

For clarification, I don’t explicitly believe that. I have however tried to debate objectively that delayed deaths are not a particular success.

Regarding data, I agree this is a sound investment but as somebody who works on business change projects, such upheaval is difficult in any large organisation in normal times.
At a time of national crisis, in a government organisation dealing with civil servants who are probably one of the most change resistant groups in existence...
I don’t see how any such project could be achieved successfully.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.

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.

+1.

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.

So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?

I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.

Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.

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.

+1.

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.

Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

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.

You realise that there is an absolutely enormous Irish presence at Cheltenham Festival don't you? Around 15,000 per day which is about 30% of the total.

Correct.

rick_chasey

In the middle of the worst deaths the U.K. has faced since the war “you’re relentlessly negative”

Grow up.


They need to get infections down to a point where testing and tracing is possible and then they can start to relax things and closely follow where it’s going.

That way you can be much more specific and prescriptive in how to lock down what to manage it.

kingstongraham

More realistic to assume that some are actively seeking good news stories, which I think is absolutely fair enough.

rick_chasey

I also find it very annoying people think I’m finding this difficult.

If I’m really honest, I’m enjoying the lockdown more than normal life.

Lots of time with the family, more hands at home to eat more nicely, more time to exercise every day. Socialising much more with friends as proximity is no longer an issue.

There are drawbacks sure but a lot of the flotsam and jetsam of life has floated away and I quite like it.

But I can divorce that with what’s obviously really bad news.

The tone on here when Italy was having a lot of deaths was grave. The U.K. has worse numbers and it’s all “gotta think positive”.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

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.

You realise that there is an absolutely enormous Irish presence at Cheltenham Festival don't you? Around 15,000 per day which is about 30% of the total.

Correct.

I don't get the point about the difference between cancelling the St Patrick's Day stuff and allowing Cheltenham to go ahead then. I assumed you were implying Cheltenham contributed to the spread in England whilst cancelling the parades kept it down in Ireland?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

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.

You realise that there is an absolutely enormous Irish presence at Cheltenham Festival don't you? Around 15,000 per day which is about 30% of the total.

Correct.

I don't get the point about the difference between cancelling the St Patrick's Day stuff and allowing Cheltenham to go ahead then. I assumed you were implying Cheltenham contributed to the spread in England whilst cancelling the parades kept it down in Ireland?

One govt took it seriously and the other didn’t.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

In the middle of the worst deaths the U.K. has faced since the war “you’re relentlessly negative”

Grow up.


They need to get infections down to a point where testing and tracing is possible and then they can start to relax things and closely follow where it’s going.

That way you can be much more specific and prescriptive in how to lock down what to manage it.

But can testing and tracing really achieve the end game?

Again, genuine question, not argumentative!

Suppose as a sovereign nation with the enormous benefit of being an island we get totally on top of tracing and testing.

The disease is travelling globally and the lockdown simply has to continue indefinitely until there is global herd immunity or the entire world has consistent levels of testing and tracing.

In a global economy with a global pandemic, the fight is only as strong as the weakest link.

China’s lockdown has benefitted from nobody wanting to go there. If people were in and out of Wuhan at normal levels, there would be an ongoing problem.

rjsterry

Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?

*something I recognise, shall we say.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.

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.

+1.

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.

So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?

I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.

Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.

It's a global pandemic, what else do you expect other than lots of people dying? So take your own advice above.

Some way down the line we will be better placed to see how things have panned out in what is a complex, fast moving and unpredictable global situation with a whole range of considerations and impacts, but for now the COVID LMS is in full swing.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.

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.

+1.

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.

Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?

You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.

morstar

rjsterry said:

Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?

*something I recognise, shall we say.

Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

ddraver said:

Oh dude, get over yourself....

We've a thread full of dudes who need to get over themselves.

You may need to be more specific 😉

We appreciate your self awareness

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?

*something I recognise, shall we say.

Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.

The way the media are reporting a vast majority of C19 you could easily be led to believe that if you get the virus you are going to be hospitalised and die. They definitely are not presenting a pragmatic version of the situation.

Some balance is badly needed and seeing the PM of our country leaving hospital will give a massive positive boost to peoples mindset for fighting this disease

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

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.

You realise that there is an absolutely enormous Irish presence at Cheltenham Festival don't you? Around 15,000 per day which is about 30% of the total.

Correct.

I don't get the point about the difference between cancelling the St Patrick's Day stuff and allowing Cheltenham to go ahead then. I assumed you were implying Cheltenham contributed to the spread in England whilst cancelling the parades kept it down in Ireland?

One govt took it seriously and the other didn’t.

I'm still struggling to see how the relative death rates per head of capita can be realistically linked in any way to the respective decisions on those two events given a significantly higher percentage of the population of Ireland attended Cheltenham than that of England (roughly 0.3% to 0.07% by my calculation). For what it's worth I work in Cheltenham but avoided it completely during festival week and felt carrying on with it was irresponsible.

Surely a far more likely explanation is the one you were talking about yourself the other day, population density, together with England being much more of a hub and destination for international travel?

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?

*something I recognise, shall we say.

Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.

To be fair to Raab, it's only what every friend or relative of someone who is seriously ill says. A hangover of the medieval view of illness as divine punishment perhaps, and a comforting idea when you're scared. Raab definitely looked scared when he was saying it, but it's complete b******s.

tailwindhome

rick_chasey

tailwindhome said:

No USA on that despite the title.