The big Coronavirus thread

kingstongraham

And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

ugo.santalucia said:

Social media dictated which commodities had to be stocked up... tinned and dry stuff was an obvious one, toilet paper was a bit unexpected

Goes back to the no deal Brexit Project Fear claptrap

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-bums-rush-no-deal-could-wipe-out-toilet-paper-stocks-11831093

Then when you hear about stockpiling, it's in the folk memory.

FTFY.

It demonstrates perfectly the irresponsibily from remoaners with their attempts at anything to achieve their agenda.

You been off to a parallel universe where we "gave it a go" and saw what happened?

I assume you've been to one for coronavirus as well.

rick_chasey

That would put corona deaths higher than from the blitz.

I look forward to explaining to future generations how I survived the hardship of corona.



(I'm sure I'll 'forget' that I've got a lot fitter, lost a stone, and am eating better than i ever have)

kingstongraham

Another practical suggestion (pragmatic even):

https://twitter.com/block_per/status/1252705946582814720

ddraver

Stevo_666 said:

It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

The FT are quickly gaining the same reputation as the Chinese regarding their data and reporting on C19.

This feels like a piece of sensationalism to try to remain relevant. I suspect this is driven by the message in their newsroom to get sales up or people will be fired.

rick_chasey

£350m, now shut up.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

The FT are quickly gaining the same reputation as the Chinese regarding their data and reporting on C19.

This feels like piece of sensationalism to try to remain relevant. I suspect this is driven by the message in their newsroom to get sales up or people will be fired.

A reputation with whom? I thought you'd be pleased that they were confirming what you had said we all need to get our heads around.

TheBigBean

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Today's Tuesday, so another week's worth of statistics of total UK deaths will be released. We'll have a better idea of the number of additional deaths have been caused by the coronavirus outbreak so far. My expectation? Lots.

My guess is lots of excess deaths, not all due to Corona, and then an argument over underreporting and other potential causes

Ok, we're on schedule then. KG added to this about the indirect deaths.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?

It's free to read to check it out for yourself.

I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?

It's free to read to check it out for yourself.

I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.

if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.

rick_chasey

On the note of the FT, here is today's big read.

https://www.ft.com/content/a13c4ac8-82eb-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

Here is the headline and subheadline

Wanted: a civilian army of contact tracers to end the lockdown

--
Reopening the economy will require large numbers of health workers to track new coronavirus infections

FWIW pretty much every realistic 'reopening' strategy relies very heavily on various forms of contact tracers and testing, as reported there and elsewhere.

Jeremy.89

kingstongraham said:

And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

No one driving, or doing anything more interesting tbf.

coopster_the_1st

So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

That should make an interesting hill for him to die on

rick_chasey

coopster_the_1st said:

So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

That should make an interesting hill for him to die on

If you're the one taking pot shots at me on that hill, I wouldn't be fearing for as much as a scratch mate.

Now where is that cocktail shaker?

tailwindhome

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

The FT are quickly gaining the same reputation as the Chinese regarding their data and reporting on C19.

This feels like piece of sensationalism to try to remain relevant. I suspect this is driven by the message in their newsroom to get sales up or people will be fired.

A reputation with whom? I thought you'd be pleased that they were confirming what you had said we all need to get our heads around.

Any thoughts on this one Coopster?

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

That should make an interesting hill for him to die on

So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.

First.Aspect

Any report that includes numbers together with a statement like, "estimated... may be as high as..." should be treated with a high level of caution.

At the very least dig deeper and find out what the "estimated... may be as few as" number is (if there even is one) and who is doing the estimating.

For example, we have ONS figures based on death certificates giving one number, and care home managers "estimating" another that is 10 times as high. Either may ultimately turn out to be closer to reality (if this is ever determined) but you shouldn't necessarily be going to full-indignant based on a number pulled out of the arse of an unqualified person.

surrey_commuter

Jeremy.89 said:

kingstongraham said:

And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

No one driving, or doing anything more interesting tbf.

There is an interesting stat about far more people died post 9/11 on the roads than died in the Towers.

rick_chasey

Update on testing, just over a week out from the deadline the 100,000 tests a day target.

Yesterday: 18,000

Stevo_666

ddraver said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though

Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then?

Jeremy.89

rick_chasey said:

Update on testing, just over a week out from the deadline the 100,000 tests a day target.

Yesterday: 18,000

After initially surprising me with the seeming competence of their response, the govt seems to be reverting to type.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

On the note of the FT, here is today's big read.

https://www.ft.com/content/a13c4ac8-82eb-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

Here is the headline and subheadline

Wanted: a civilian army of contact tracers to end the lockdown

--
Reopening the economy will require large numbers of health workers to track new coronavirus infections

FWIW pretty much every realistic 'reopening' strategy relies very heavily on various forms of contact tracers and testing, as reported there and elsewhere.

Other options to reduce spread and allow some activity:
Quarantine in hotels when tested positive, not sending people back to infect their families.
Restricted contacts - you go to work, see the same people, you come home. (Reduces chances, not eliminates them, especially when using public transport). If you can work from home, you work from home.
Masks

Still need testing though, to know whether it's working

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Update on testing, just over a week out from the deadline the 100,000 tests a day target.

Yesterday: 18,000

Is the problem the 100000 number or the 18000 number?

Put another way, when they were testing 800 a day, would you be happy if the dumbo had stood up and said there was a target of 15000?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Update on testing, just over a week out from the deadline the 100,000 tests a day target.

Yesterday: 18,000

Capacity 39,000 as noted above,

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

Jeremy.89 said:

kingstongraham said:

And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

No one driving, or doing anything more interesting tbf.

There is an interesting stat about far more people died post 9/11 on the roads than died in the Towers.

It is interesting but is it true? And what does it mean? More people died on the roads that day fleeing the towers, more people died in the US on the roads that year etc. etc.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true

Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?

It's free to read to check it out for yourself.

I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.

if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.

I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.

kingstonian

rick_chasey said:

£350m, now shut up.

What's £350m ?

rjsterry

Who's getting indignant? They've been pretty clear what they've done. We have ONS figures for deaths registered in w/c 10th April. Deaths take about 4 days to register so those figures are out of date. Using the trend from the hospital figures to 'see forward by ~4 days, they have estimated what the number of deaths occurring in w/c 10th April, and then extended this forward to 22nd April and then added them all up to give an estimate for total deaths so far.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Some of today's news:
- shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
- ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
- test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
- the plane was too small
- Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown

That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.

A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes

So nearly double the payload capacity of a C130 and a bit more than a Boeing 737. I'm not sure if your 'only' 37t was sarcasm as that's a pretty big payload albeit a few tonnes less than a Globemaster.