The big Coronavirus thread

1…191192194196197…1347

Comments

  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Longshot said:

    sungod said:

    kingstonian said:

    Just had an email from the company we booked our now cancelled ski trip with. The airline (Air Canada) are not providing a refund, but instead going down the route of holding a credit in our name which we can use for a future booking with them. If we chose to not use that credit, we'd have to try to claim for the lost amount through travel insurance.

    I just saw on the BBS website that other airlines are taking the same approach.

    I realise that we are living in unprecedented times, but it feels odd that you can book a flight with a company to travel to a specific destination at a specific time, and they can cancel it with no opportunity to travel on that same route for many months and then not be obliged to refund the booking. As it happens we are looking to re-book our holiday for next year, but many won't and will then be arm-wrestling with their travel insurance policy.......

    if they are refusing to refund flights and you used a credit or amex debit card, you can go direct to your card issuer and get your money that way, for instance...
    https://www.headforpoints.com/2020/04/17/use-section-75-to-get-a-flight-or-hotel-refund/

    you have to go through the issuer's process, but in the end you'll get the money

    I think I'm going to end up doing that too. I have three flights, two hotels and car hire cancelled. All three flights are supposedly refundable as is the car hire and one hotel. So far, not seen anything but holding responses.

    Yes, we started down the route of trying to get refunds, or a payout from our travel insurance, and hit the same brick walls, but have decided to rebook for next year through the same firm which has actually made the whole problem much smaller as they are honouring the value of our original booking
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    Pross said:

    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.
    Given the number of long haul passenger jets sitting unused, surely there could be something better...(although loading cargo into a plane full of seats isn't efficient)

    Heck, if moneys no object just charter a 747 F.
    Presumably it wasn't needed and the RAF transport plane was sufficient. It seems that someone at the Mail has gone 'the order was for 80t and that plane can't carry 80t therefore it's too small' whereas 80t is the whole order and the plane was only due to pick up part of the consignment. The RAF have a pretty high degree of expertise in matching equipment to logistical need so my money is on the Mail making a story out of nothing, it's not like they are renowned for accurate and responsible reporting.
    Government should have sent 10 planes to be safe. No point sending just the plane you need for the job.
    Maybe they told the world and his dog there were 90 tonnes but only sent a plane for 30 because they knew that was all that was needed
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,516
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    Why would you want to compare it to another country?
    What use is it then?

  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,496
    varies by airline and hotel chain no doubt, fwiw i received a few grand back from ba in under 7 days of asking after they'd cancelled our flights for the end of march

    hilton was even faster, i just called the hotel and they did it same day - even though that booking was prepaid and non-refundable - they and other big chains seem to be behaving way better than most airlines
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,516
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.

    I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
    I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.

    It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,932
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    Why would you want to compare it to another country?
    What use is it then?

    I'll assume that's rhetorical. If you check back you'll see that I've pointed out that all countries undercount but by different amounts so the comparisons are pretty shaky beyond general trends.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,701
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    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.
    I am sure I kept reading that there were 90 tonnes of PPE coming from Turkey on Sunday. Always seemed a strange way of measuring what was coming.

    Anyway if I had somebody collecting 90 tonnes then I would be surprised if they sent a plane that only held 30 tonnes
    I can't remember. You may be right but the 400k gowns is the bit I remember. I thought there was talk of an overall order of 80t but yes, it's a weird way to quanitify it.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52362707

    Yesterday, a government minister, Matt Warman, released all those details for one NHS hospital trust: the United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust, which covers three hospitals with intensive care units, four in total. Although they don't service the entire population of Lincolnshire.

    Even in an area with relatively few Covid-19 infections, the daily use of PPE is pretty staggering: 39,500 surgical masks per day, 11,495 gloves, 1,501 gowns and 4,201 highly-protective FFP3 respirator masks, as well as aprons and eye protectors. That sums to a staggering 72,000 items a day in for one trust, alone.

    It gives some sense of the scale of PPE usage in the NHS. The United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust trust has seen just 0.5% of NHS England's coronavirus-related deaths. The county represents about the same proportion of cases, and it has the same proportion of England's hospitals. The trust is one of 223 hospital trusts in England.


    400,000 gowns for 223 hospital trusts is gonna last less than a week.
    Yes, it's part of that one consignment and there are, I believe, numerous orders in Turkey, China etc. etc.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,516
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    @TheBigBean and @coopster_the_1st I think the latter. Everyone has an agenda of one sort or another and an absolute absence of prejudice is a fool's errand. Just read as broad a cross-section and go back to as many primary sources as you can. It's also worth remembering that one minor error in a report doesn't immediately invalidate the rest of the content. On the FT headline, I'd say it's not really about ventilators at all, but the situation of a civil servant giving one unambiguous answer to a parliamentary select committee and then shortly after writing to 'clarify' that what he actually meant was the exact opposite. Maybe I wouldn't put it on the front page but it's worthy of note.

    That's pretty much what I do except that I try to approach things without an agenda, and don't think it is unreasonable to expect others to do similarly. Of course, they need to sell papers, but I would like to buy the publication that targets people like me - although perhaps I am in a minority of one.

    To give one example, there was recent headline that x% of people that had died were from a BAME background. This was occasionally reported alongside y% of the UK being of a BAME background. Is it too much to ask for an attempt to weight this by area of deaths? E.g. If [50%] of deaths were in London, and London is [30%] BAME - is that not something that is worth reporting? I appreciate it may not fit in 140 characters though.
    We had this discussion before and i disagree with you. You think it is important that *both sides* are reported, even when one side is demonstrably false, and to maintain a balance between those two sides.

    e.g. the passenger aircraft being shot down by Russian forces in Ukraine. I said, in that instance, the journalist, when it became clear this was what had happened, that they should have reported that the Russian government issued a false statement denying it, and, IIRC, you thought that it was fine to report the Russian position as the 'other side'.

    I might well have misremembered this discussion, mind.
    I personally don't think "balanced" reporting should include giving equal weight to two things, one of which is manifestly incorrect. This gives equal credence to liars and imbeciles as it does to experts. There has to be some weight given to actual facts, no?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    First.Aspect said:



    It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.

    Or you thought that it was. I don't think anyone on here is using it as a gospel number.

    The general trend though is remarkable, given how much higher it could be.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,932
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.

    I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
    I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.

    It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
    Which is just an assumption based on what? The absence of a line by line dissection of the article? Like KG said, knock the number down to 30K if you prefer, but it's still substantially higher than the most often reported figure. I'm sort of assuming people can get to that point for themselves without making a song and dance out of it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,516
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    Why would you want to compare it to another country?
    What use is it then?

    I'll assume that's rhetorical. If you check back you'll see that I've pointed out that all countries undercount but by different amounts so the comparisons are pretty shaky beyond general trends.
    Fair enough. I don't think the FT is doing anything other than selling shock, on this one, though.

  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    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.
    I am sure I kept reading that there were 90 tonnes of PPE coming from Turkey on Sunday. Always seemed a strange way of measuring what was coming.

    Anyway if I had somebody collecting 90 tonnes then I would be surprised if they sent a plane that only held 30 tonnes
    I can't remember. You may be right but the 400k gowns is the bit I remember. I thought there was talk of an overall order of 80t but yes, it's a weird way to quanitify it.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52362707

    Yesterday, a government minister, Matt Warman, released all those details for one NHS hospital trust: the United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust, which covers three hospitals with intensive care units, four in total. Although they don't service the entire population of Lincolnshire.

    Even in an area with relatively few Covid-19 infections, the daily use of PPE is pretty staggering: 39,500 surgical masks per day, 11,495 gloves, 1,501 gowns and 4,201 highly-protective FFP3 respirator masks, as well as aprons and eye protectors. That sums to a staggering 72,000 items a day in for one trust, alone.

    It gives some sense of the scale of PPE usage in the NHS. The United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust trust has seen just 0.5% of NHS England's coronavirus-related deaths. The county represents about the same proportion of cases, and it has the same proportion of England's hospitals. The trust is one of 223 hospital trusts in England.


    400,000 gowns for 223 hospital trusts is gonna last less than a week.
    Yes, it's part of that one consignment and there are, I believe, numerous orders in Turkey, China etc. etc.
    The question that should be being asked is why are the gowns not being 'recycled'?

    I know some are but if they are technical enough pieces of kit that Burberry are producing them, compared to the effort of sourcing them it must be easy to put in a recycle sytem for them.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,701
    tailwindhome said:

    The good performance from Starmer at PMQ is something the country badly needs.
    Though he was helped immensely by the quiet in the chamber.


    Yeah, thought he was good from the clips I saw. Managed to ask a proper question without showboating and making it all about him. I think it helped to not have the opposing sets of football supporters there cheering on their man. I'd actually like to see Parliament adapt from this and for debates to be a bit more grown up.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Former lawyers in sounding like lawyers shocker.
    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    Why would you want to compare it to another country?
    What use is it then?

    I'll assume that's rhetorical. If you check back you'll see that I've pointed out that all countries undercount but by different amounts so the comparisons are pretty shaky beyond general trends.
    Fair enough. I don't think the FT is doing anything other than selling shock, on this one, though.

    And why are the FT entering into this and the politics around ordering new ventilators. It's not like there is a shortage of economics discussion to go on at the moment.

    All the FT has done is move towards becoming another one of the gutter press. On non-economic matters I give it less credence than the Guardian, the Sun & Daily Mail.

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477


    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,701
    rick_chasey said:

    Former lawyers in sounding like lawyers shocker.

    It's not like there's a shortage of former lawyers in that place but they usually manage to sound like a bunch of posh kids cheering on their house team. It's a shame Starmer wasn't leading Labour six months ago.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,093
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    @TheBigBean and @coopster_the_1st I think the latter. Everyone has an agenda of one sort or another and an absolute absence of prejudice is a fool's errand. Just read as broad a cross-section and go back to as many primary sources as you can. It's also worth remembering that one minor error in a report doesn't immediately invalidate the rest of the content. On the FT headline, I'd say it's not really about ventilators at all, but the situation of a civil servant giving one unambiguous answer to a parliamentary select committee and then shortly after writing to 'clarify' that what he actually meant was the exact opposite. Maybe I wouldn't put it on the front page but it's worthy of note.

    That's pretty much what I do except that I try to approach things without an agenda, and don't think it is unreasonable to expect others to do similarly. Of course, they need to sell papers, but I would like to buy the publication that targets people like me - although perhaps I am in a minority of one.

    To give one example, there was recent headline that x% of people that had died were from a BAME background. This was occasionally reported alongside y% of the UK being of a BAME background. Is it too much to ask for an attempt to weight this by area of deaths? E.g. If [50%] of deaths were in London, and London is [30%] BAME - is that not something that is worth reporting? I appreciate it may not fit in 140 characters though.
    We had this discussion before and i disagree with you. You think it is important that *both sides* are reported, even when one side is demonstrably false, and to maintain a balance between those two sides.

    e.g. the passenger aircraft being shot down by Russian forces in Ukraine. I said, in that instance, the journalist, when it became clear this was what had happened, that they should have reported that the Russian government issued a false statement denying it, and, IIRC, you thought that it was fine to report the Russian position as the 'other side'.

    I might well have misremembered this discussion, mind.
    Yes, we have had the discussion before. I would like the quote from the Russian forces and the evidence of why it is false. Bellingcat did a good job on this with both the Iranian missile and the Salisbury attack.



  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    rick_chasey said:

    Former prosecutor in sounding like prosecutor shocker.

    FTFY

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,093
    edited April 2020
    Singapore are +1,016 new cases today. That's going to be a lot of track and trace.

    For comparison Korea is +11 which is likely to be the foreigners/Koreans in quarantine on arrival
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    TheBigBean said:

    Singapore are +1,016 new cases today. That's going to be a lot of track and trace.

    For comparison Korea is +11 which is likely to be the foreigners/Koreans in quarantine on arrival

    In Singapore tracing them may not be an issue.
    In seems they've a huge problem in dorms holding migrant workers.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,022
    tailwindhome said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Singapore are +1,016 new cases today. That's going to be a lot of track and trace.

    For comparison Korea is +11 which is likely to be the foreigners/Koreans in quarantine on arrival

    In Singapore tracing them may not be an issue.
    In seems they've a huge problem in dorms holding migrant workers.
    We may not have to wait that many weeks after all...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,302
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.

    I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
    I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.

    It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
    It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.

    He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.

    If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.

    It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,302
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,302
    Someone wrote it on a sign!


  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    Stevo_666 said:

    tailwindhome said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Singapore are +1,016 new cases today. That's going to be a lot of track and trace.

    For comparison Korea is +11 which is likely to be the foreigners/Koreans in quarantine on arrival

    In Singapore tracing them may not be an issue.
    In seems they've a huge problem in dorms holding migrant workers.
    We may not have to wait that many weeks after all...
    Sorry, you've lost me.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,022
    Stevo_666 said:

    tailwindhome said:



    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    john80 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    And another one on Singapore:

    "Singapore is to close schools and all but the most essential workplaces for a month, in a raft of stricter measures to limit a second wave of coronavirus cases.

    The city state of 5.7 million has been held up as a model for the rest of the world after it successfully fought back the virus in the first few months of this year through aggressive testing measures and intensive tracing of carriers.

    Singapore's contact-tracing smartphone app helped it minimise the spread of coronavirus, but the city state has now reported a number of new cases CREDIT: Catherine Lai/AFP
    But it has struggled to keep out a fresh wave of coronavirus cases, many of them imported through overseas arrivals from virus hotspots in Europe and the US.

    This week, infections topped 1,000, and on Friday, a fifth death was reported.

    In a speech to its citizens, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: "We have decided that instead of tightening incrementally over the next few weeks, we should make a decisive move now, to pre-empt escalating infections."

    Food establishments, markets and supermarkets, clinics, hospitals, utilities, transport and key banking services will remain open.

    However, schools and universities will switch to full home-based learning, and Mr Lee urged his citizens to stay at home as much as possible and avoid socialising beyond their families.

    "If we don't go out, if we avoid contact with others, then the virus won't be able to spread. It is as simple as that," he said.

    The South East Asian state had until this week maintained a relative sense of normality after adopting social-distancing measures alongside sophisticated technology to push back the virus.

    The resurgence of cases raised new concerns about the difficulties of maintaining containment measures in the long term.

    Mr Lee assured Singapore's citizens that food supplies would not run out and promised an announcement early next week about additional stimulus measures to boost the economy.

    The new strict curbs are intended as a form of "circuit breaker" after a sharp rise of cases in March, particularly in domestic infections whose origin could not be traced.

    Lawrence Wong, Minister for National Development, who co-chairs a task force to fight the virus, called the increase in the number of local and unlinked coronavirus cases "very, very worrying trends".

    He indicated the Government would be ready to reverse restrictions by the end of April if the guidelines successfully suppressed the virus.

    "If there's poor compliance, poor implementation, then we have to be prepared for these measures to continue," Mr Wong said. "Let’s hunker down and beat the virus together."

    The new measures come after warnings in other Asian countries that the early relaxation of social-distancing rules could allow the floodgates to open on new Covid-19 cases."

    News flash they wont be beating anything until a vaccine is available. Wonder when people will realise all these shining example of countries with harsh lockdowns are not much better off. Heres hoping Sweden hold their nerve and their scientists are right. Poor old Rick might have take a climb down on all his should have been harder earlier and test test test craic. Who is for lockdown for the next 12 months and the complete decimation of the economy. Yeah.
    I don't understand your point, as he is doing exactly what I have been proposing.

    The economy won't suddenly fire up again whilst people are dying in their thousands. You do know that, right? Lockdown or not, if you have loads of people dying, the economy is ruined regardless.

    You proposed a test and trace approach as apparently this would reduce impact. Singapore has done this and initially had success in your eyes controlling deaths. Dething for which you criticised the UK approach repeatedly. They are just announcing a significant lockdown period with resulting economic impacts. What was the win other than some deaths not being brought forward.
    The death count in Singapore stands at 11
    See where they are in a few weeks time (and factor in the point that their population is less than 10% of the UK).
    TWH - was referring to our exchange just yesterday on Singapore.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    tailwindhome said:



    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    john80 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    And another one on Singapore:

    "Singapore is to close schools and all but the most essential workplaces for a month, in a raft of stricter measures to limit a second wave of coronavirus cases.

    The city state of 5.7 million has been held up as a model for the rest of the world after it successfully fought back the virus in the first few months of this year through aggressive testing measures and intensive tracing of carriers.

    Singapore's contact-tracing smartphone app helped it minimise the spread of coronavirus, but the city state has now reported a number of new cases CREDIT: Catherine Lai/AFP
    But it has struggled to keep out a fresh wave of coronavirus cases, many of them imported through overseas arrivals from virus hotspots in Europe and the US.

    This week, infections topped 1,000, and on Friday, a fifth death was reported.

    In a speech to its citizens, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: "We have decided that instead of tightening incrementally over the next few weeks, we should make a decisive move now, to pre-empt escalating infections."

    Food establishments, markets and supermarkets, clinics, hospitals, utilities, transport and key banking services will remain open.

    However, schools and universities will switch to full home-based learning, and Mr Lee urged his citizens to stay at home as much as possible and avoid socialising beyond their families.

    "If we don't go out, if we avoid contact with others, then the virus won't be able to spread. It is as simple as that," he said.

    The South East Asian state had until this week maintained a relative sense of normality after adopting social-distancing measures alongside sophisticated technology to push back the virus.

    The resurgence of cases raised new concerns about the difficulties of maintaining containment measures in the long term.

    Mr Lee assured Singapore's citizens that food supplies would not run out and promised an announcement early next week about additional stimulus measures to boost the economy.

    The new strict curbs are intended as a form of "circuit breaker" after a sharp rise of cases in March, particularly in domestic infections whose origin could not be traced.

    Lawrence Wong, Minister for National Development, who co-chairs a task force to fight the virus, called the increase in the number of local and unlinked coronavirus cases "very, very worrying trends".

    He indicated the Government would be ready to reverse restrictions by the end of April if the guidelines successfully suppressed the virus.

    "If there's poor compliance, poor implementation, then we have to be prepared for these measures to continue," Mr Wong said. "Let’s hunker down and beat the virus together."

    The new measures come after warnings in other Asian countries that the early relaxation of social-distancing rules could allow the floodgates to open on new Covid-19 cases."

    News flash they wont be beating anything until a vaccine is available. Wonder when people will realise all these shining example of countries with harsh lockdowns are not much better off. Heres hoping Sweden hold their nerve and their scientists are right. Poor old Rick might have take a climb down on all his should have been harder earlier and test test test craic. Who is for lockdown for the next 12 months and the complete decimation of the economy. Yeah.
    I don't understand your point, as he is doing exactly what I have been proposing.

    The economy won't suddenly fire up again whilst people are dying in their thousands. You do know that, right? Lockdown or not, if you have loads of people dying, the economy is ruined regardless.

    You proposed a test and trace approach as apparently this would reduce impact. Singapore has done this and initially had success in your eyes controlling deaths. Dething for which you criticised the UK approach repeatedly. They are just announcing a significant lockdown period with resulting economic impacts. What was the win other than some deaths not being brought forward.
    The death count in Singapore stands at 11
    See where they are in a few weeks time (and factor in the point that their population is less than 10% of the UK).
    TWH - was referring to our exchange just yesterday on Singapore.
    Oh Ok.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,516
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    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.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    Yes you are wrong. That isn't what the FT did.

    Classic Rick rebuttal. File = zero bytes.

    So they did extrapolate for two weeks (not over whole course) and they did assume all extra deaths above mean are coronavirus related?

    Also, this methodology doesn't give you a number you can compare to anything else, because no other countrys' death rates are calculated this way.
    You could just read it yourself. It is free to read.

    I haven't been comparing this figure to other nations anyway.
    I have. It is crude. They are using the trend in hospital deaths as a multiplier for all-cause excess deaths. There is also a statement that average deaths had been running at less than long-term averages and another statement that the week they have selected would be "at least 20% low". This means, I suspect, that they've bumped the "all causes number" up by a bit to account for the lower than average long-term death rate, and then by another 20% to account for easter. That and they have, as I said, attributed 100% of these to Covid, whereas the statistics show that at least 1/4 to 1/3 are down to other causes.

    It doesn't really matter - the point I'm making is how it was read unquestioningly.
    It's just intended to be an idea of how many people have died. If you aren't interested, and only want to compare the UK to how other countries are performing, then use a different number that can be compared.

    He says in the article that the week ending 10th April will likely be 2,000 low, not 20% - because the number registered on Good Friday is so much lower than other days. Sounds reasonable. I hadn't considered that when I looked at the numbers with a layman's eye, and thought they were about 2,000 lower than I had expected given the previous week. I took it as good news, but next week may show that it was just a statistical anomaly.

    If that is the case, then when the numbers for week ending 17th April come out, and that shows an enormous number, then part of that will be Easter meaning it includes some of the previous week's figures.

    It's a big number. How much lower would you estimate it being given the same information they have used?
    I guess I object to the inference that here is the number they aren't telling us - and I do think it was taken fairly widely at face value I'm afraid. Sorry if that offends.

    I don't know what the actual number is. No one does. Does it matter? Not really. But this "guestimate" by the FT (which is now being reported, in a "balanced" manner alongside things that have actually been measured) could be closer or further from the actual number than some other reported number, in precisely the way the FT hoped.

    God I hate the British media.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477




    Amazing how this can be so complex and so viciously simple at the same

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!

Categories