The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
rick_chasey said:
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.
Unless you are advocating a coup d'etat, we're stuck with them until a GE is called.rick_chasey said: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.
The one thing that is an absolute nailed on certainty to make this situation worse is a change of government.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You think the current cabinet are the best available even from the conservative MPs?rjsterry said:rick_chasey said: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.
Unless you are advocating a coup d'etat, we're stuck with them until a GE is called.rick_chasey said: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.
The one thing that is an absolute nailed on certainty to make this situation worse is a change of government.0 -
Here are the stats which explain why you won't get a reply to that:First.Aspect said:
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?
https://worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't know. Most of the ones I thought were any good aren't MPs any more. I think until Johnson fell ill, a number were still not really taking it seriously, and perhaps are now a bit more focused. What I would say is having been through a number of complex projects (not remotely close to the scale of running a government department, but I think they give some insight) where one of the lead participants have been replaced due to poor performance, I would suggest that they need to be catastrophically bad before it is better to replace them than just give them a kick up the arse and push on.kingstongraham said:
You think the current cabinet are the best available even from the conservative MPs?rjsterry said:rick_chasey said: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.
Unless you are advocating a coup d'etat, we're stuck with them until a GE is called.rick_chasey said: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.
The one thing that is an absolute nailed on certainty to make this situation worse is a change of government.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Agree - the last line of your post is the point that so many seem to miss.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.
Also there are some who seem to think that what governments do/don't do and when are the only relevant factors, which clearly is not the case."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quite a bit of chatter on here about when countries went into lockdown and how starting it earlier would have had different and more positive outcomes. France went into lockdown 5 days earlier than Germany, with more restrictions too, yet at this point in time the numbers of deaths linked to C-19 in France outpace Germany’s.0
-
I agree, I am trying to be objective about dealing with a sh1t sandwich.Stevo_666 said:
Agree - the last line of your post is the point that so many seem to miss.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.
Also there are some who seem to think that what governments do/don't do and when are the only relevant factors, which clearly is not the case.
It seems to be dividing into partisan lines now though where positions are entrenched. I for one will doubtless evolve my opinions and also some decisions will be proven with hindsight to have been either good or bad.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, just trying apply critical thinking and not take 1 dimensional statistics from an evolving situation as an absolute truth.0 -
Nobody has all or even most of the answers, and that may well not be the case until we are out the other side. I am keeping an open mind on what is a horrible situation, but there is so much more to the debate than it just being a political football or a 'country X vs country Y' comparison based on snapshots/using limited sets of data in a complex and evolving situation.morstar said:
I agree, I am trying to be objective about dealing with a censored sandwich.Stevo_666 said:
Agree - the last line of your post is the point that so many seem to miss.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.
Also there are some who seem to think that what governments do/don't do and when are the only relevant factors, which clearly is not the case.
It seems to be dividing into partisan lines now though where positions are entrenched. I for one will doubtless evolve my opinions and also some decisions will be proven with hindsight to have been either good or bad.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, just trying apply critical thinking and not take 1 dimensional statistics from an evolving situation as an absolute truth."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think this goes to show that there are way more variables than just government actions.kingstonian said:Quite a bit of chatter on here about when countries went into lockdown and how starting it earlier would have had different and more positive outcomes. France went into lockdown 5 days earlier than Germany, with more restrictions too, yet at this point in time the numbers of deaths linked to C-19 in France outpace Germany’s.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You didn't answer my question directly but based on your first paragraph, I'll take that as a 'no' unless you tell me otherwise. (I wasn't asking what you would do, just whether you thought Rick had a balanced view on the matter).surrey_commuter said:
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.
Re: climate - I saw a report on a few weeks ago that showed the main centres of infection were in a band between 30-odd and 50-odd degrees North of the equator. Can't find the original report, but here is one that suggests there could be a link:-
https://bbc.com/future/article/20200323-coronavirus-will-hot-weather-kill-covid-19
Re: your point about getting the economy going again - I believe it will have to happen soon otherwise more of the economic damage will become irreversible or long term. However as you probably know, this will almost inevitably come at a cost of increasing infections. Part of the debate is whether these are only a matter of time."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is like you read every 3rd line of what I post and then pick holes around the two lines you did not readrjsterry said:
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 Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
By speeding up the measurement of deaths by two weeks you improve the data by 30%. That may save 2% of GDP and tens of billions of pounds.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Or you could not bother because it will be a sub-optimal outcome and restate that we need to have comprehensive testing whilst acknowledging that it is impossible.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.0 -
And Japan still haven't locked down or introduced widespread testing or tracing. I'm wondering if it impacts certain ethnicities more than others. I've heard that death rates amongst black people is considerably higher than amongst whites which the US Surgeon General suggested could be down to the numbers being brought up in relative poverty, possibly even a generation removed. If anything Germany is the outlier rather than the UK. The only thing I can think of why Germany seems to be better is that their much higher testing rate is allowing for earlier intervention.kingstonian said:Quite a bit of chatter on here about when countries went into lockdown and how starting it earlier would have had different and more positive outcomes. France went into lockdown 5 days earlier than Germany, with more restrictions too, yet at this point in time the numbers of deaths linked to C-19 in France outpace Germany’s.
0 -
An updatemrfpb said:A bit more maths, trying to remove the "weekend" factor by looking at growth across a whole week.
9 Mar there were 321 identified cases.
09 Mar - 16 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.8 to 1543
16 Mar to 23 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.3 to 6,650
23 Mar to 30 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 3.3 to 22,141
30 Mar to 06 Apr cases multiplied by factor of 2.3 to 51,608
So the rate of growth has slowed to less than half where it was 3 weeks ago.
The rate for deaths is less clear as there were only 5 on 9 March, which is a very small numberfor statistical puirposes.
16th March there were 55 known deaths
16 Mar to 23 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 6.1 to 335
23 Mar to 30 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 4.2 to 1,408
30 Mar to 06 Apr deaths multiplied by factor of 3.8 to 5,373
From 6 to 13 April cases multipled by a factor of 1.7 to 88,621
Deaths multipled by a factor of 2.1 to 11,329
That's a marked drop in progress of the death rate - half where it was two weeks ago. It's too early to say it's plateaued though.0 -
Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Some really interesting points getting raised in the BBC Q&A session at the moment with Dr Chris Smith (Virologist).0
-
Cases can only increase at the same rate as available tests so you would expect to see the multiple reduce.mrfpb said:
An updatemrfpb said:A bit more maths, trying to remove the "weekend" factor by looking at growth across a whole week.
9 Mar there were 321 identified cases.
09 Mar - 16 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.8 to 1543
16 Mar to 23 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.3 to 6,650
23 Mar to 30 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 3.3 to 22,141
30 Mar to 06 Apr cases multiplied by factor of 2.3 to 51,608
So the rate of growth has slowed to less than half where it was 3 weeks ago.
The rate for deaths is less clear as there were only 5 on 9 March, which is a very small numberfor statistical puirposes.
16th March there were 55 known deaths
16 Mar to 23 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 6.1 to 335
23 Mar to 30 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 4.2 to 1,408
30 Mar to 06 Apr deaths multiplied by factor of 3.8 to 5,373
From 6 to 13 April cases multipled by a factor of 1.7 to 88,621
Deaths multipled by a factor of 2.1 to 11,329
That's a marked drop in progress of the death rate - half where it was two weeks ago. It's too early to say it's plateaued though.
Known deaths looks more promising and did used to be my preferred metric but these adjustments two weeks after the event have knocked my confidence.
Times has been suggesting there could be a major crisis in care homes brewing as staff have next to no PPE . Of course you could argue they would be an anomaly in the stats.0 -
DeVlaeminck said:
Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
It's not that I'm not reading it, it's that I don't agree that increasing the accuracy of mortality will help that much. It's too many steps removed from the thing we actually need to know already. And as someone who runs a small business, getting to some slightly reduced degree of lockdown two weeks sooner (if that's what the data indicates) is not going to make the difference between getting through this or not.surrey_commuter said:
It is like you read every 3rd line of what I post and then pick holes around the two lines you did not readrjsterry said:
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 Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
By speeding up the measurement of deaths by two weeks you improve the data by 30%. That may save 2% of GDP and tens of billions of pounds.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Or you could not bother because it will be a sub-optimal outcome and restate that we need to have comprehensive testing whilst acknowledging that it is impossible.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There was a table i copied in last week that showed that days announc3d d3aths added to rhe days on which they happened. Some were 4 weeks gone.surrey_commuter said:
Cases can only increase at the same rate as available tests so you would expect to see the multiple reduce.mrfpb said:
An updatemrfpb said:A bit more maths, trying to remove the "weekend" factor by looking at growth across a whole week.
9 Mar there were 321 identified cases.
09 Mar - 16 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.8 to 1543
16 Mar to 23 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 4.3 to 6,650
23 Mar to 30 Mar cases multiplied by factor of 3.3 to 22,141
30 Mar to 06 Apr cases multiplied by factor of 2.3 to 51,608
So the rate of growth has slowed to less than half where it was 3 weeks ago.
The rate for deaths is less clear as there were only 5 on 9 March, which is a very small numberfor statistical puirposes.
16th March there were 55 known deaths
16 Mar to 23 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 6.1 to 335
23 Mar to 30 Mar deaths multiplied by factor of 4.2 to 1,408
30 Mar to 06 Apr deaths multiplied by factor of 3.8 to 5,373
From 6 to 13 April cases multipled by a factor of 1.7 to 88,621
Deaths multipled by a factor of 2.1 to 11,329
That's a marked drop in progress of the death rate - half where it was two weeks ago. It's too early to say it's plateaued though.
Known deaths looks more promising and did used to be my preferred metric but these adjustments two weeks after the event have knocked my confidence.
Times has been suggesting there could be a major crisis in care homes brewing as staff have next to no PPE . Of course you could argue they would be an anomaly in the stats.
So long as the metric is consistent, the trend should be apparent I think it is for deaths. The "real" figures won't be known for a couple of years . But you must realise this is similar to figures on the economy, GDP isn't fully known for two years, but everyone uses the quarterly first approximation for the decision making. They have no choice
Trying to get a nationwide statistic published everyday within 24 hrs is extremely difficult and prone to all sorts of fluctuations, which is why I did my own weekly breakdown. There may be room to finesse it, but we have what we have. And I think the public want there daily numbers, though, so it's not going to change soon.0 -
Marginal gains - it would help somerjsterry said:
It's not that I'm not reading it, it's that I don't agree that increasing the accuracy of mortality will help that much. It's too many steps removed from the thing we actually need to know already. And as someone who runs a small business, getting to some slightly reduced degree of lockdown two weeks sooner (if that's what the data indicates) is not going to make the difference between getting through this or not.surrey_commuter said:
It is like you read every 3rd line of what I post and then pick holes around the two lines you did not readrjsterry said:
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 Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
By speeding up the measurement of deaths by two weeks you improve the data by 30%. That may save 2% of GDP and tens of billions of pounds.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Or you could not bother because it will be a sub-optimal outcome and restate that we need to have comprehensive testing whilst acknowledging that it is impossible.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Reports are suggesting that only 4,000 small businesses have got Govt help out of 300,000 applications. The equivalent number in the USA under the much ridiculed Trump administration is 725,0000 -
Is there anyone here with any online influence? I'd really like someone to start a #WalkOnTheRight campaign. Very simple and would make a difference.0
-
Seem the Belgians are including deaths in care homes in their figures at 40-50% of the total.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think I agree about accurate mortality data. The range for mortality from covid seems so high that trying to back work out number of infections from number of deaths is a bit of a mugs game.rjsterry said:
It's not that I'm not reading it, it's that I don't agree that increasing the accuracy of mortality will help that much. It's too many steps removed from the thing we actually need to know already. And as someone who runs a small business, getting to some slightly reduced degree of lockdown two weeks sooner (if that's what the data indicates) is not going to make the difference between getting through this or not.surrey_commuter said:
It is like you read every 3rd line of what I post and then pick holes around the two lines you did not readrjsterry said:
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 Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
By speeding up the measurement of deaths by two weeks you improve the data by 30%. That may save 2% of GDP and tens of billions of pounds.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Or you could not bother because it will be a sub-optimal outcome and restate that we need to have comprehensive testing whilst acknowledging that it is impossible.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
I'm not as sure about two weeks not helping small businesses. Depending on where those two weeks fall, they could be key. For any summer seasonal business, two weeks of summer is going to be snapped up.
Otoh for winter resorts with poor snow, a lockdown an extra two weeks earlier may have also been a god send...
0 -
That point on recoveries was raised in today's press conference. I think it was the CSO who answered and basically said we have recorded cases and recorded deaths so the difference between them is the number who have recovered.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
There's also those still infected.Pross said:
That point on recoveries was raised in today's press conference. I think it was the CSO who answered and basically said we have recorded cases and recorded deaths so the difference between them is the number who have recovered.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
So we are the only country in the World not counting recoveries?Pross said:
That point on recoveries was raised in today's press conference. I think it was the CSO who answered and basically said we have recorded cases and recorded deaths so the difference between them is the number who have recovered.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
We really are clueless.
Then again maybe I am the clueless one. we don’t know how many people have it, how many people have died from it so how on earth would we know how many have recovered.
Yeah, yeah, I know, we have never measured that number and it would be imperfect anyway with a difficult transition period so we won’t bother trying.0 -
Small businesses are wary of taking on loans until they can see some sort of future where they might be able to pay them back. It looks like there will be some clarity one way or the other in the next week or so, so I'd expect take-up to increase after that as businesses have some idea what they are bridging over. The job retention scheme portal is going online from April 20th, so obviously nobody has accessed that yet, but if you furloughed staff from 1st April, that's not a problem.surrey_commuter said:
Marginal gains - it would help somerjsterry said:
It's not that I'm not reading it, it's that I don't agree that increasing the accuracy of mortality will help that much. It's too many steps removed from the thing we actually need to know already. And as someone who runs a small business, getting to some slightly reduced degree of lockdown two weeks sooner (if that's what the data indicates) is not going to make the difference between getting through this or not.surrey_commuter said:
It is like you read every 3rd line of what I post and then pick holes around the two lines you did not readrjsterry said:
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 Fixing how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.achieving German levels of testing.
How to you make the optimum decisions on lockdown with incomplete and out of date data.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
By speeding up the measurement of deaths by two weeks you improve the data by 30%. That may save 2% of GDP and tens of billions of pounds.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Or you could not bother because it will be a sub-optimal outcome and restate that we need to have comprehensive testing whilst acknowledging that it is impossible.
Improving how we count the deaths seems far more plausible than achieving German levels of testing.
Reports are suggesting that only 4,000 small businesses have got Govt help out of 300,000 applications. The equivalent number in the USA under the much ridiculed Trump administration is 725,000
An earlier lifting of the lockdown followed by realising that we had gone too soon and having to shut everything down would be if anything more damaging than hanging on another fortnight to be sure.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Or 5-10% depending on whether you listen to Chris Whitty or the Daily Scandal.tailwindhome said:Seem the Belgians are including deaths in care homes in their figures at 40-50% of the total.
0 -
Chris Whitty says the 5-10 % of the Belgian death figures are in care homes?First.Aspect said:
Or 5-10% depending on whether you listen to Chris Whitty or the Daily Scandal.tailwindhome said:Seem the Belgians are including deaths in care homes in their figures at 40-50% of the total.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
No, the best estimates are 5-10% of ours.0
