The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I know you love to blame everything on the media - as though it is one monolithic body - but do you really think there is any chance of the general public carrying on as normal? Do you think people in Sweden aren't scared? And that's still a long way from normal.coopster_the_1st said:
Ignoring the rules, this could be done safely now.First.Aspect said:I have no idea when we are going to be able to safely see our parents/grandparents etc. again.
Sit outside in the garden downwind of the parents/grandparents and keep at least 2m apart. The risk is being in an enclosed space.
However I know of one example where the older relative is so fearful of this solution that thinking about this is worse than leaving them in isolation. There is more risk from the mental side of C19 than the virus itself.
The long term mental effects of the panic created are going to be huge. I don't know how they are going to be overcome by those scarred by the media created fear.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and
years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I love the idea of the media enjoying all this, even while their industry is being destroyed by it.0
-
For the many the reason for being in a care/nursing home is because you are no longer able to look after yourself. How frail do you think you have to be before the care/nursing home environment is your only option?rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?0 -
Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
Personally I think the Government is a disgrace, half our Corona problems are related to leaving the EU and I have a feeling this Lockdown will last till Christmas!
Come January it will be time for the second wave!0 -
It will mean the wheat are sorted from the chaff.kingstongraham said:I love the idea of the media enjoying all this, even while their industry is being destroyed by it.
A number, probably a large one of those highly paid journalists are going to find out if they really are worth their salary...0 -
Are you talking about haircuts?focuszing723 said:Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
I think you are possibly right here - I'll let you know if anything comes of my asking the question on twitter.coopster_the_1st said:
For the many the reason for being in a care/nursing home is because you are no longer able to look after yourself. How frail do you think you have to be before the care/nursing home environment is your only option?rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?1 -
Damn my stupidity!Stevo_666 said:
Are you talking about haircuts?focuszing723 said:Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
0 -
Those are two different things. My father in law is in a residential care home, so I'm well aware of how the decision is made. @mrfpb posted some figures on the typical length of stay in a residential care home, but from the figures I can quickly find the median stay is two and a bit years - i.e. 50% will stay longer. Previously you were arguing that the FT's estimate of care home deaths was overstated, which if true would diminish their impact on the average YLL figure.coopster_the_1st said:
For the many the reason for being in a care/nursing home is because you are no longer able to look after yourself. How frail do you think you have to be before the care/nursing home environment is your only option?rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You could have blamed the auto correct...focuszing723 said:
Damn my stupidity!Stevo_666 said:
Are you talking about haircuts?focuszing723 said:Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...0 -
You've still not let on who you consider to be the wheatcoopster_the_1st said:
It will mean the wheat are sorted from the chaff.kingstongraham said:I love the idea of the media enjoying all this, even while their industry is being destroyed by it.
A number, probably a large one of those highly paid journalists are going to find out if they really are worth their salary... 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Looking through the data it appears the deaths they've used for the study are Italian...rick_chasey said:I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...0 -
See! That's how stupid I am. Sat here in my doom cut!Stevo_666 said:
You could have blamed the auto correct...focuszing723 said:
Damn my stupidity!Stevo_666 said:
Are you talking about haircuts?focuszing723 said:Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
0 -
That's right - to get an idea of proportion of people who died with multiple long term conditions.Jeremy.89 said:
Looking through the data it appears the deaths they've used for the study are Italian...rick_chasey said:I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
Anyway...
I think for those in care homes, life expectation would be lower, and I don't know what overlap there would be with the high multiple long term conditions.1 -
OK that sounds a fair bit more sensible than what I had misunderstood from the synopsis.kingstongraham said:
Pretty sure that's not right - look at the section "Long-term condition prevalence and correlation models."Jeremy.89 said:
A couple of things.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
They have used a right mismatch of data...feels like they may have gone on a fishing trip.
Secondly, if I'm reading the synopsis correctly, they have assumed the number of comorbidities amongst the number of deaths based on the underlying population, rather than using the actual number of comorbities that the people dying have been suffering from.
Seeing this sort of big data approach in action makes me self conscious about my lack of statistical chops. But simultaneously concerned about everyone elses ability to understand statistics. I realise its a scientific paper, and written as such, but the section you referred to does sort of read like stats buzzword bingo.
0 -
I'm not sure that's strictly accurate. Isn't it more something about recording those who had Covid 19 even if it wasn't thought to be the cause of death or something like that?rick_chasey said:
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
0 -
April 6th is the date the CQC has started collating information on the death toll in care homes.Pross said:
I'm not sure that's strictly accurate. Isn't it more something about recording those who had Covid 19 even if it wasn't thought to be the cause of death or something like that?rick_chasey said:
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
That has been widely reported0 -
Based on 25% nursing/care home deaths, no idea if that is too low but that is for another discussion. That adds 1700 people to the data and the vast majority will be in the first couple of years. That is going to move the average down a huge amount. Would also make the charts much more impactful against their finding.kingstongraham said:
That's right - to get an idea of proportion of people who died with multiple long term conditions.Jeremy.89 said:
Looking through the data it appears the deaths they've used for the study are Italian...rick_chasey said:I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
Anyway...
I think for those in care homes, life expectation would be lower, and I don't know what overlap there would be with the high multiple long term conditions.
Increase the percentage of care home deaths and the more the average moves lower.
It just goes to prove that even with basic knowledge you can use stats to prove almost anything. I doubt they set out to prove 'the majority will die in the next couple of years anyway'0 -
Quick Google shows average length of stay in residential homes as 27 months and in nursing homes just under 12 months.rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Also, this will skew the average a large amount upwards as wellkingstongraham said:
That's right - to get an idea of proportion of people who died with multiple long term conditions.Jeremy.89 said:
Looking through the data it appears the deaths they've used for the study are Italian...rick_chasey said:I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
Anyway...
I think for those in care homes, life expectation would be lower, and I don't know what overlap there would be with the high multiple long term conditions.
0 -
Basic knowledge? But I agree on reading it seems to make one rather large unwarranted assumption.0
-
So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.1 -
Bit of a news flash for you Rick. Brexit would have had some economic effect bit to claim it is equivalent to shutting down most of the service sector is taking the proverbial.rick_chasey said:
You were happy to trash the economy in the name of some vague sovereignty, so forgive me if I don't take you seriously.coopster_the_1st said:
So everyone is comfortable to trash the economy as long as they are economically comfortable? Look how their view changes when they are not ecomonically comfortable!pangolin said:
Well of course he wouldn't, what an odd question.coopster_the_1st said:
I wonder if you would be saying that if you knew you were going to lose your job in June.rick_chasey said:
Hand on heart, I am less stressed and healthier than I have been in absolutely ages.Stevo_666 said:
Wise advice for some regulars on this threadcoopster_the_1st said:Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22
Cycling every day (in the garden), lost a stone, work is going really well, lot of time with the family.0 -
This is a ****ing weird threadfocuszing723 said:Christ! Where are the resident dome mongers giving the thread a bit of balance!?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Agree.morstar said:So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...
Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...
The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.
If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.
Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.
There is unfortunately no easy or harm free way through this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sure.john80 said:
Bit of a news flash for you Rick. Brexit would have had some economic effect bit to claim it is equivalent to shutting down most of the service sector is taking the proverbial.rick_chasey said:
You were happy to trash the economy in the name of some vague sovereignty, so forgive me if I don't take you seriously.coopster_the_1st said:
So everyone is comfortable to trash the economy as long as they are economically comfortable? Look how their view changes when they are not ecomonically comfortable!pangolin said:
Well of course he wouldn't, what an odd question.coopster_the_1st said:
I wonder if you would be saying that if you knew you were going to lose your job in June.rick_chasey said:
Hand on heart, I am less stressed and healthier than I have been in absolutely ages.Stevo_666 said:
Wise advice for some regulars on this threadcoopster_the_1st said:Dogbert makes a good point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-04-22
Cycling every day (in the garden), lost a stone, work is going really well, lot of time with the family.
You entirely understand the point, too.0 -
That is a lot shorter than I'd have guessed.Stevo_666 said:
Quick Google shows average length of stay in residential homes as 27 months and in nursing homes just under 12 months.rjsterry said:
Seeing as we have a forum member working in that sector, I wonder what @mrfpb thinks.coopster_the_1st said:
This is at odds with the view of the person whose model our governmnet are following.kingstongraham said:After adjusting for multiple underlying long term conditions, average number of years of life lost per death estimated in this study to be more than a decade.
To be clear about the adjustments that are made here: "The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and years for people with ≥6)."
He said two thrids of those dying would have died in the next 6 months.
Also, by their nature, very few in a care home live for more than a couple of years(those in there will have already have been there some time already). How does this correlate with your view that the FT was correct with the number of care home deaths?
Both my grandmothers ended up in nursing homes. One was there for eight years, the other has been in one for seven years and is still going.0 -
That's not strictly true - but anyway.coopster_the_1st said:
Also, this will skew the average a large amount upwards as wellkingstongraham said:
That's right - to get an idea of proportion of people who died with multiple long term conditions.Jeremy.89 said:
Looking through the data it appears the deaths they've used for the study are Italian...rick_chasey said:I am probably making this up but surely the lot that would have died anyway are disproportionately represented in the non-recorded covid death catagory?
If places like care homes were only asked to start recording covid deaths in the middle of April...
Anyway...
I think for those in care homes, life expectation would be lower, and I don't know what overlap there would be with the high multiple long term conditions.
This is interesting: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-070
