The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
The vaccine will be shared freely to all available places that can produce it. Getting the world economy started is enough. There is no need to profit from it locally or nationally.
I agree entirely with Coopster's post.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
As for balance, some of you sound like Eamonn...
0 -
Would he? Or would he release it freely and live off that decision for the rest of his life?Pross said:If a US company gets a vaccine first Trump will probably hold off licensing it to other countries until they pay enough to cover the trillions spent on the US response. Hopefully one of Bill Gates' sponsored companies will come up with something and make it open source for worldwide production.
I would support charging China for the vaccine though, although in reality if they held off they would have their own vaccine 12 months later, probably sooner.0 -
It depends whether we're talking about the formula for the vaccine or physical units of the vaccine.tailwindhome said:coopster_the_1st said:The vaccine will be shared freely to all available places that can produce it. Getting the world economy started is enough. There is no need to profit from it locally or nationally.
I agree entirely with Coopster's post.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
He’d do both. He’d find a way to claim he’d gifted it whilst adding all sorts of caveats to benefit himself, trump organisations and US in that order.coopster_the_1st said:
Would he? Or would he release it freely and live off that decision for the rest of his life?Pross said:If a US company gets a vaccine first Trump will probably hold off licensing it to other countries until they pay enough to cover the trillions spent on the US response. Hopefully one of Bill Gates' sponsored companies will come up with something and make it open source for worldwide production.
0 -
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?0 -
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
0 -
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
0 -
It wasn’t just the timing but phrasing.
Whilst the govt hadn’t fully done the lockdown Boris would tell people not to go to pubs, but not before saying it was a citizen’s “inalienable right” to go to a pub.
What was he trying to say there?
Then that evening all the pubs run by bigger firms shut down and so the smaller pubs picked up everyone else who was exercising said “inalienable right” leading to *absolutely rammed pubs*,
The whole thing was a mess. At that point we all knew a lockdown was coming yet it took almost another week for it to happen.
Guys like SC were on it faster than people like me and called it; that mistake had led to thousands of deaths and everyone goes “awe they were trying their best, bless em”.
It’s not good enough. Get rid of the appalling talent in office and get some talent in.
0 -
Which supports the idea that lower population density and lower movement of people is advantageous in reducing spread.joe2019 said:
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
So the numbers at a moment in time are a snapshot of a specific set of circumstances and not solely an outcome of government in/action.
The stats will tell the whole story only when this is over.0 -
My thinking too. Our ball, we make the rules. (Whoever wins the race).First.Aspect said:
Depends on who finds it, who can make it fastest and who buys it first. Who needs it most is going to be irrelevant. See, for example, face masks being turned back to the US at Canadian border, or UK companies prioritising PPE supply to England, not Scotland.pblakeney said:This morning’s cheery thought.
A tested and viable vaccine will be available at some point.
Who gets it first? The needy? The popular? The highest bidder? Nationalistic, it’s ours we get it first, sod the rest?
Elbows out.
Then the highest bidders, then the ones best at playing the allies/bleeding heart game.
Not a pretty picture is it?
I was considering the worldwide picture, not UK.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 -
Where on the curve were they when they got locked down? That is the measure I am and we are all referring to.morstar said:
Which supports the idea that lower population density and lower movement of people is advantageous in reducing spread.joe2019 said:
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
So the numbers at a moment in time are a snapshot of a specific set of circumstances and not solely an outcome of government in/action.
The stats will tell the whole story only when this is over.0 -
I think Rick is an emotional chap who is not averse to using this forum to vent or to test out some ideas and check the counter arguments.Stevo_666 said:
I'm interested in your view on this SC.Stevo_666 said:
So do you think that Ricks arguments on this thread are balanced?surrey_commuter said:
You should check the stats, he really is not digging around for random stats to rubbish the UK Govt’s C19 strategy, we are top 10 for being rubbish in most meaningful categoriesStevo_666 said:
Have a look at the BBC website. Because they are testing more than we are - including large numbers with only mild symptoms, their mortality rate appears to be lower.rick_chasey said:
Explain Germany’s 60-70% fewer deaths in comparison to the U.K then?nickice said:
Agreed. At some point it's going to get out of control without a full lockdown.john80 said:Singapore has over 200 new cases per day and a large number cant be tracked or traced to a source. Where you boys going with this. I would say they are rapidly getting into the same boat as everybody else.
As for absolute numbers, who knows. It's a complex area with multiple potential factors. What is your explanation?
Also we await with baited breath your next statistical comparison with a country where we come off worse on some metric or other at this point in the crisis. I'm sure there are more if you look hard enough.
Your statement above does seem to imply that you have gone through the same exercise of looking at the stats.
I already have that link bookmarked btw.
As you know I seriously disagreed with our initial preparation and speed of reaction, even so I am staggered at how badly we are performing. Looking at maps I do wonder if temperate climate has an impact or that is just a reflection of development and so more accurate measurement.
If you are asking what would I do, based upon we are where we are. I would be dedicating my time (when not improving data) to finding a way to easing lockdown. I have no faith in the Govt delivering assistance in a timely manner so have a huge concern for small businesses so would be looking to get them up and running again.0 -
Mmm. Possibly.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
Belgium went into lockdown 5 days before we did. First community transmission confirmed a day later.
How do the two countries compare, per capita, now?0 -
Various neighbours around me have been told to get back to work, while maintaining social distancing or lose their jobs.
I guess that is within the guidelines, but not the spirit or intention.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 -
Don't forget that SC is a fully capable of organising an emergency ICU facility of a few thousand beds at a moment's notice, so he knows what he's talking about. 🙄Pross said:
See, what does overly emotive and hysterical comments like this add to anything? The system is what has always been in place. I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to get a new system in place to provide more real-time recording (although who knows with the history of public sector IT projects) but then how do you go about picking up those deaths that occurred between the last one recorded under the old system and new ones being recorded as they happen?surrey_commuter said:kingstongraham said:So in Singapore, they are trying to test and track where people who have the virus are and who they have been in contact with, and because of that, they now know that it is spreading, so they are locking down to get control. It sounds sensible.
How is that any better than our 6 week wait to count dead bodies?
It is people like you who took the Great out of Britain1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I know.rick_chasey said:
Where on the curve were they when they got locked down? That is the measure I am and we are all referring to.morstar said:
Which supports the idea that lower population density and lower movement of people is advantageous in reducing spread.joe2019 said:
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
So the numbers at a moment in time are a snapshot of a specific set of circumstances and not solely an outcome of government in/action.
The stats will tell the whole story only when this is over.
Imagine the virus travelling through two distinct populations with the same start date.
Population 1 is packed into a condensed area whilst population 2 is spread far and wide.
All other things being equal, the spread through population 2 is much slower.
Lockdown happens at the same time, population 2 benefits more. It is not solely the action taken that has influenced this outcome.
Conversely, in the absence of a vaccine, population 2 has to wait years for the spread to complete it’s journey.
People get ill far more gradually but ultimately the population is affected to the same level.
The pandemic spread is a multi dimensional and complex soup of cause and effect.0 -
Haha - you think this is the moment he becomes presidential lolcoopster_the_1st said:
Would he? Or would he release it freely and live off that decision for the rest of his life?Pross said:If a US company gets a vaccine first Trump will probably hold off licensing it to other countries until they pay enough to cover the trillions spent on the US response. Hopefully one of Bill Gates' sponsored companies will come up with something and make it open source for worldwide production.
I would support charging China for the vaccine though, although in reality if they held off they would have their own vaccine 12 months later, probably sooner.0 -
It is a sobering thought that in your parliamentary and political system - like ours - given the way that "talent" is selected, elected and rewarded means those in office now are (arguably) the pick of the bunch.rick_chasey said:
It’s not good enough. Get rid of the appalling talent in office and get some talent in.
Does that help?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Interesting how those talking about South Korea and Singapore regularly don't mention Japan where there is no lockdown and apparently very little testing. For some reason mortality rates in Asia seem lower than the West no matter what course of action is being taken.0
-
During the initial spread, infections will spread per outbreak. I don't think the numbers per capita, or even per country are reflective of much other than in broad strokes. As the UK has gone from outbreaks in London and the Midlands to everywhere, we clearly missed an opportunity to learn from Italy.
Also Belgium includes non hospital deaths in its figures.1 -
Johnson is who we've got, it's tilting at windmills to be railing against him being there. But now it seems to make even less sense than ever that not having always been totally pro-Brexit is a disqualifying factor for any cabinet post.0
-
You are basing that comment on the assumption that the infection spreads at an equal rate in each country from the point of a single first infection. I don't think it is realistic to assume that: some countries will have had multiple 'first cases', boosting their number of infections and making their numbers look 'worse'.rick_chasey said:
Where on the curve were they when they got locked down? That is the measure I am and we are all referring to.morstar said:
Which supports the idea that lower population density and lower movement of people is advantageous in reducing spread.joe2019 said:
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
So the numbers at a moment in time are a snapshot of a specific set of circumstances and not solely an outcome of government in/action.
The stats will tell the whole story only when this is over.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Pross said:
See, what does overly emotive and hysterical comments like this add to anything? The system is what has always been in place. I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to get a new system in place to provide more real-time recording (although who knows with the history of public sector IT projects) but then how do you go about picking up those deaths that occurred between the last one recorded under the old system and new ones being recorded as they happen?surrey_commuter said:kingstongraham said:So in Singapore, they are trying to test and track where people who have the virus are and who they have been in contact with, and because of that, they now know that it is spreading, so they are locking down to get control. It sounds sensible.
How is that any better than our 6 week wait to count dead bodies?
It is people like you who took the Great out of Britain
The first thing you do is accept that you have a problem then you need to change the mentality of “this is what has always been in place” , then you change the mentality of “there will be problems in the transition phase”.
Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.0 -
I don't understand why population 1 hasn't benefited more from an early intervention than population 2.morstar said:
I know.rick_chasey said:
Where on the curve were they when they got locked down? That is the measure I am and we are all referring to.morstar said:
Which supports the idea that lower population density and lower movement of people is advantageous in reducing spread.joe2019 said:
Same is true in the South West, comparatively very low numbers down her.rick_chasey said:
So Scotland was much further behind the curve re infections, so in essence they had a much earlier lockdown than England.First.Aspect said:
This much is true and, yes, hold them to account for PPE supply, and testing. But just don't get that mixed up with the science.rick_chasey said:Don’t tolerate mediocrity, lads.
Think it’s entirely fair we hold the U.K. govt up to the highest standards.
No real excuse.
You haven't explained yet Rick how it is that Scotland is doing so much better than England, despite no difference in policy.
Could it be blind luck?
So the numbers at a moment in time are a snapshot of a specific set of circumstances and not solely an outcome of government in/action.
The stats will tell the whole story only when this is over.
Imagine the virus travelling through two distinct populations with the same start date.
Population 1 is packed into a condensed area whilst population 2 is spread far and wide.
All other things being equal, the spread through population 2 is much slower.
Lockdown happens at the same time, population 2 benefits more. It is not solely the action taken that has influenced this outcome.
Conversely, in the absence of a vaccine, population 2 has to wait years for the spread to complete it’s journey.
People get ill far more gradually but ultimately the population is affected to the same level.
The pandemic spread is a multi dimensional and complex soup of cause and effect.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
You're still apparently failing to grasp that even with near instantaneous registration of deaths the numbers are still a trailing indicator of the spread of the disease by about 4 weeks. Unless you plan on registering deaths preemptively. Just because numbers of deaths are currently the most accurate statistic, doesn't mean that they are the right statistic to look at.surrey_commuter said:Pross said:
See, what does overly emotive and hysterical comments like this add to anything? The system is what has always been in place. I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to get a new system in place to provide more real-time recording (although who knows with the history of public sector IT projects) but then how do you go about picking up those deaths that occurred between the last one recorded under the old system and new ones being recorded as they happen?surrey_commuter said:kingstongraham said:So in Singapore, they are trying to test and track where people who have the virus are and who they have been in contact with, and because of that, they now know that it is spreading, so they are locking down to get control. It sounds sensible.
How is that any better than our 6 week wait to count dead bodies?
It is people like you who took the Great out of Britain
The first thing you do is accept that you have a problem then you need to change the mentality of “this is what has always been in place” , then you change the mentality of “there will be problems in the transition phase”.
Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'd argue the government is pursuing the antibody test as the silver bullet of data.surrey_commuter said:Pross said:
See, what does overly emotive and hysterical comments like this add to anything? The system is what has always been in place. I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to get a new system in place to provide more real-time recording (although who knows with the history of public sector IT projects) but then how do you go about picking up those deaths that occurred between the last one recorded under the old system and new ones being recorded as they happen?surrey_commuter said:kingstongraham said:So in Singapore, they are trying to test and track where people who have the virus are and who they have been in contact with, and because of that, they now know that it is spreading, so they are locking down to get control. It sounds sensible.
How is that any better than our 6 week wait to count dead bodies?
It is people like you who took the Great out of Britain
The first thing you do is accept that you have a problem then you need to change the mentality of “this is what has always been in place” , then you change the mentality of “there will be problems in the transition phase”.
Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
If they get the test and then fail to deploy it, that will be a failure for which they will rightly be judged. But right now I can see pursuing that as a better investment than improving death statistics.0 -
I agree it would be ideal to have as close to real-time data as possible. I'm just saying it's probably not as simple as giving hospitals access to a daily online survey unless we decide to take an approach of somehow ignoring the days between the current position and any new system.surrey_commuter said:Pross said:
See, what does overly emotive and hysterical comments like this add to anything? The system is what has always been in place. I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to get a new system in place to provide more real-time recording (although who knows with the history of public sector IT projects) but then how do you go about picking up those deaths that occurred between the last one recorded under the old system and new ones being recorded as they happen?surrey_commuter said:kingstongraham said:So in Singapore, they are trying to test and track where people who have the virus are and who they have been in contact with, and because of that, they now know that it is spreading, so they are locking down to get control. It sounds sensible.
How is that any better than our 6 week wait to count dead bodies?
It is people like you who took the Great out of Britain
The first thing you do is accept that you have a problem then you need to change the mentality of “this is what has always been in place” , then you change the mentality of “there will be problems in the transition phase”.
Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.0
