The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Could have worded that better. I meant that keeping within capacity was one of the criteria for relaxing lockdown. From reports I have seen Nightingale has issues with staffing so while there are beds and overall capacity is there, some existing ICUs are still very stretched.Stevo_666 said:
Everything I have read recently has told me that we have ICU capacity, so not sure that is a critical issue currently. (If you recall, I posted recently that only 19 patients were treated in the Nightingale hospital over Easter, for example).rjsterry said:
Not really. Peak of what? We might well be past peak infection rate, but from the noises coming out of ICUs up and down the country we are not past peak ICU demand yet, which is one of the critical issues.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0 -
pangolin said:
I think looking back it will be clear it was the peak (hopefully) but we're still a bit too close to it to say with certainty.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Why do you lot not care that we can’t even count dead bodies!!!0 -
Trying to think of any other situation where a government would say, "carry on everyone. Afraid an extra ~500 a month of you are going to cop it for an unknown period, but most of you should be fine.morstar said:Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Well with 20,000 care homes it surely must be cost effective to hire somebody to sit in each one and count the bodies., even at a grand a day that leave a lot of change0 -
Been having a look at the numbers on Worldometer and they are all over the place.
Key thing that sticks out is Western Europe and travel destinations.
France, Italy & Switzerland all had Ski season and figure highly in mortality rates.
Austria similar but less pronounced.
Spain is bad and has both Skiing and winter sun travel. Not sure if the geography of the outbreaks supports this.
Londonwhich accounts for a 3rd of UK mortality is a global economic centre for both business travel and tourism and is highly densely populated. See tube pictures even after virus awareness.
Belgium and Netherlands both figure highly. Not sure how their ski industries contributed.
Germany is the stark contrast.
It seems travel is a significant contributory factor as you’d expect.0 -
He is talking about going forwards so that we can ease lockdown as soon as possible. It would be pretty weird if Rick’s context for needing more testing was that we had the optimum level of testing already. From there you need to figure out why we don’t have enough testing so that you can hypothesise how much you can increase by.. eg worldwide shortages will give you a very different answer than Govt does not see the needFirst.Aspect said:
Sorry are we talking about testing from this point forward now, or still lamenting that we haven't been testing to this point and look how bad it is?rick_chasey said:
Total lockdown, which we are in, is as extreme as you can be. If you want anything more nuanced you have to have accurate information.First.Aspect said:
Well you don't understand then. So far only the trend matters.rick_chasey said:
I've read the rest but it is off the back of this which I just can't agree with.First.Aspect said:
Actually, in large part what they need for policy decisions are self-consistent data. It doesn't matter so much if its accurate.rick_chasey said:some stuff
They had enough information to lock down or not before they pulled the trigger. May have been too late but it wasn't a testing related issue. From that point on it's been about keeping the peak as low as possible and knowing when it is. Doesn't matter if there is another identical trend you don't know the exact size of.
That is why testing is part almost all exit plans, including the one the U.K. announced todayz
Because about half of the last 156 pages are you lamenting what should have been.
For what it's worth there is a consensus on what needs to happen to inform things from here, and they have 3 weeks to get their act together.0 -
Switzerland has carried out more tests per head than Germany.0
-
For clarity, are you not happy with the way deaths are being recorded?surrey_commuter said:coopster_the_1st said:
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Well with 20,000 care homes it surely must be cost effective to hire somebody to sit in each one and count the bodies., even at a grand a day that leave a lot of change0 -
Luxembourg testing 2.5 x Germany but more than 2 x the mortality per head of population in a small country where regional variance can have less impact.
0 -
we can, and there are thousands of them.surrey_commuter said:pangolin said:
I think looking back it will be clear it was the peak (hopefully) but we're still a bit too close to it to say with certainty.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Why do you lot not care that we can’t even count dead bodies!!!0 -
More the tardinessTheBigBean said:
For clarity, are you not happy with the way deaths are being recorded?surrey_commuter said:coopster_the_1st said:
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Well with 20,000 care homes it surely must be cost effective to hire somebody to sit in each one and count the bodies., even at a grand a day that leave a lot of change0 -
Not only that but it makes a mockery of the idea of increasing the pension age.rjsterry said:
Trying to think of any other situation where a government would say, "carry on everyone. Afraid an extra ~500 a month of you are going to cop it for an unknown period, but most of you should be fine.morstar said:Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
Reduce it to 60 and tell them to stay home, the young will get jobs.
Trouble is they'd have to want the jobs. Fruit picking anyone?
Nice to be able to get so many digs in within 3 lines. 😉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 -
Not sure where you get 500 from. But what do you think happens with Flu and the 250 road deaths per month.rjsterry said:
Trying to think of any other situation where a government would say, "carry on everyone. Afraid an extra ~500 a month of you are going to cop it for an unknown period, but most of you should be fine.morstar said:Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
My point is not that we shouldn’t take action but that we should focus efforts.
We’re arguing to throw money at throwing literally hundreds of thousands of tests around but you think protecting those who actually need protecting doesn’t have validity.
The 958 in the under 60’s group will contain a significant number who could be identified as at risk.
My mum and dad are lucky. high risk but well looked after by friendly neighbours in a nice suburb.
I’d rather more vulnerable people who are less fortunate were looked after well than just testing loads and loads of low risk people unless they are directly involved in caring for others.0 -
Unfortunately for you the majority of the population think that is a waste of money and would rather the government just carried on focussing on what the NHS needs instead of providing you with more figures. Spoiler alert. Old people in nursing homes die often and in residential care home quite often.surrey_commuter said:coopster_the_1st said:
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Well with 20,000 care homes it surely must be cost effective to hire somebody to sit in each one and count the bodies., even at a grand a day that leave a lot of change0 -
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. Yes there's some lag on hospital cases but it's not that significant and doesn't seem to affect the trend which is surely what is critical?surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It seems to be only because a few countries moved away from the original protocol and started reporting deaths outside hospitals as well that now people are going on about the data being inaccurate even though it was common knowledge all along that only hospital deaths were being reported.
0 -
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy0 -
Given what is unfolding in Belgium right now, I’d suggest this tone is off. Don’t forget in Ireland, France, Belgium, Spain, care home deaths are between 40-50% of total covid deaths.john80 said:
Unfortunately for you the majority of the population think that is a waste of money and would rather the government just carried on focussing on what the NHS needs instead of providing you with more figures. Spoiler alert. Old people in nursing homes die often and in residential care home quite often.surrey_commuter said:coopster_the_1st said:
£2.4bn a daysurrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
Well with 20,000 care homes it surely must be cost effective to hire somebody to sit in each one and count the bodies., even at a grand a day that leave a lot of change0 -
~1,000 in roughly two months=500/month. As was pointed out way back there are millions of people in the under-60 + 1 or more risk factors category. That is a huge chunk of the workforce to park, not to mention the chunk of the over 60s still working full or part-time. And they don't all live alone either. I think your own circumstances fall into that group, no?morstar said:
Not sure where you get 500 from. But what do you think happens with Flu and the 250 road deaths per month.rjsterry said:
Trying to think of any other situation where a government would say, "carry on everyone. Afraid an extra ~500 a month of you are going to cop it for an unknown period, but most of you should be fine.morstar said:Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
My point is not that we shouldn’t take action but that we should focus efforts.
We’re arguing to throw money at throwing literally hundreds of thousands of tests around but you think protecting those who actually need protecting doesn’t have validity.
The 958 in the under 60’s group will contain a significant number who could be identified as at risk.
My mum and dad are lucky. high risk but well looked after by friendly neighbours in a nice suburb.
I’d rather more vulnerable people who are less fortunate were looked after well than just testing loads and loads of low risk people unless they are directly involved in caring for others.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Some good dataviz from the Economist. @surrey_commuter note that the daily figures from ALL countries have a time lag for the very good reason that CoD takes time to determine.
Well worth reading the whole thread as it explains that the totals of the official daily counts all underestimate the real 'excess deaths' but by widely varying amounts. Interestingly the UK's figures are one of the more accurate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Just read a report from the LA Times which is talking about how race is playing a factor in death rates. Apparently, in California 6% of C-19 cases are black men or women, yet that racial group represents approximately 12% of deaths. Whilst wealth (or the lack of it) is thought to be one factor, there is also speculation that genetics may also be a significant factor.0
-
This suggests otherwise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200401-coronavirus-why-death-and-mortality-rates-differrick_chasey said:
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It also makes the point that there is no right or wrong method just that some countries do things differently to others.0 -
https://www.ft.com/content/71e991a1-53ff-49f5-85b4-b111de7ddf6e
Big debate in Spain over care home deaths not being counted0 -
Agreed there isn’t a nice neat dividing line.rjsterry said:
~1,000 in roughly two months=500/month. As was pointed out way back there are millions of people in the under-60 + 1 or more risk factors category. That is a huge chunk of the workforce to park, not to mention the chunk of the over 60s still working full or part-time. And they don't all live alone either. I think your own circumstances fall into that group, no?morstar said:
Not sure where you get 500 from. But what do you think happens with Flu and the 250 road deaths per month.rjsterry said:
Trying to think of any other situation where a government would say, "carry on everyone. Afraid an extra ~500 a month of you are going to cop it for an unknown period, but most of you should be fine.morstar said:Doesn’t this chart suggest that an enormous effort should be focussed on facilitating proper self isolation for the over 60’s and vulnerable groups whilst the rest of the country tries to get back to normality.
My point is not that we shouldn’t take action but that we should focus efforts.
We’re arguing to throw money at throwing literally hundreds of thousands of tests around but you think protecting those who actually need protecting doesn’t have validity.
The 958 in the under 60’s group will contain a significant number who could be identified as at risk.
My mum and dad are lucky. high risk but well looked after by friendly neighbours in a nice suburb.
I’d rather more vulnerable people who are less fortunate were looked after well than just testing loads and loads of low risk people unless they are directly involved in caring for others.
But even if you identify 50% of the population are either directly at risk or included in at risk by association, that allows a significant proportion to get back to normal which benefits both themselves and the vulnerable.
The vulnerable will be more readily able to access the services we’re currently all competing to access. E.g online shopping.
I think that makes more sense than what is about to happen.
We are all locked down for another 3 weeks at which point we are all not locked down quite as much and the infection rate rises again across the entire group.
Why not let the infection rate rise now amongst the low risk and keep the higher risk out the equation more effectively.0 -
No there are two correct ways to count. 1. the way that gives the highest number. 2. any way we aren't doing it.Pross said:
This suggests otherwise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200401-coronavirus-why-death-and-mortality-rates-differrick_chasey said:
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It also makes the point that there is no right or wrong method just that some countries do things differently to others.
This is getting boring now. How about we move on to what to do next, rather than ooh Ethel about what just happened.1 -
How about the *actual number of people dying as a result of coronavirus*. Not just those in certain circumstances. Otherwise it’s pointless.First.Aspect said:
No there are two correct ways to count. 1. the way that gives the highest number. 2. any way we aren't doing it.Pross said:
This suggests otherwise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200401-coronavirus-why-death-and-mortality-rates-differrick_chasey said:
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It also makes the point that there is no right or wrong method just that some countries do things differently to others.
This is getting boring now. How about we move on to what to do next, rather than ooh Ethel about what just happened.
Here’s the death rate in my own home: zero.
Pointless otherwise. You’d make bad accountants.0 -
OK. We can reduce the daily total then as that includes anyone who died with Coronavirus even if it wasn't known to have cause the death (that BBC article gives an example of someone with terminal cancer). We might have to put up with longer lag times while everyone has a PM to determine cause of death though. The ONS figures can be reduced even further as they include anyone suspected of having CV. Or did you mean count everyone who could possibly have died as a result of CV?rick_chasey said:
How about the *actual number of people dying as a result of coronavirus*. Not just those in certain circumstances. Otherwise it’s pointless.First.Aspect said:
No there are two correct ways to count. 1. the way that gives the highest number. 2. any way we aren't doing it.Pross said:
This suggests otherwise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200401-coronavirus-why-death-and-mortality-rates-differrick_chasey said:
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It also makes the point that there is no right or wrong method just that some countries do things differently to others.
This is getting boring now. How about we move on to what to do next, rather than ooh Ethel about what just happened.
Here’s the death rate in my own home: zero.
Pointless otherwise. You’d make bad accountants.0 -
rick_chasey said:
How about the *actual number of people dying as a result of coronavirus*. Not just those in certain circumstances. Otherwise it’s pointless.First.Aspect said:
No there are two correct ways to count. 1. the way that gives the highest number. 2. any way we aren't doing it.Pross said:
This suggests otherwise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200401-coronavirus-why-death-and-mortality-rates-differrick_chasey said:
Er no.Pross said:
We're counting in the same way as most other countries. .surrey_commuter said:
That is my point, maybe deaths are slowing or maybe none are being counted in the Midlands because Mrs Miggins always takes the week after Easter off and she is the only one who knows the password.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
It also makes the point that there is no right or wrong method just that some countries do things differently to others.
This is getting boring now. How about we move on to what to do next, rather than ooh Ethel about what just happened.
Here’s the death rate in my own home: zero.
Pointless otherwise. You’d make bad accountants.
“As a result of Coronavirus”, or “Died with Coronavirus in their system”?
As has been debated in this thread multiple times, they aren’t the same. It is the former being counted at the moment.0 -
It’s fairly obvious in pretty much all cases if corona pushed them over the edge or not.
But yes why not include everyone who had it?
People keep talking about moving on from this but no one knows where we are. Ex Science chief said as much yesterday.0 -
Counting people who die in a certain type of building isn’t counting everyone is it? Regardless of where you fall on if it was corona or something else that made them pass.0
