The big Coronavirus thread

1…6263656768…1347

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    Of the 260 new deaths, 246 were in England, with patients aged between 33 and 100 years old.

    All of them had underlying health conditions except 13 people, who were aged 63 and over.

    There is very much a commonality to all these deaths
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Still pre-lockdown at the moment so hopefully things will improve in a week or so but I suspect I'm being overly optimistic!
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    We are still following Italy. Same point (15 days ago), Italy had 1016.

    Buckle up indeed.
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    Of the 260 new deaths, 246 were in England, with patients aged between 33 and 100 years old.

    All of them had underlying health conditions except 13 people, who were aged 63 and over.

    There is very much a commonality to all these deaths
    Underlying health conditions covers a wide range though.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Jeremy.89 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    Of the 260 new deaths, 246 were in England, with patients aged between 33 and 100 years old.

    All of them had underlying health conditions except 13 people, who were aged 63 and over.

    There is very much a commonality to all these deaths
    Underlying health conditions covers a wide range though.
    Yeah, I’d fit that description with asthma but unless there is something unforeseen in the pipeline, I’d be considered healthy.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    morstar said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    Of the 260 new deaths, 246 were in England, with patients aged between 33 and 100 years old.

    All of them had underlying health conditions except 13 people, who were aged 63 and over.

    There is very much a commonality to all these deaths
    Underlying health conditions covers a wide range though.
    Yeah, I’d fit that description with asthma but unless there is something unforeseen in the pipeline, I’d be considered healthy.
    Ditto.
    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: 17,172
    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    First.Aspect said:

    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?

    I agree with your logic
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    Still pre-lockdown at the moment so hopefully things will improve in a week or so but I suspect I'm being overly optimistic!


    Based upon France we are about 3 weeks off peak
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.

    With a proviso that I read it on mailonline we are only counting people who die of it is hospital. Not sure what other countries are doing so not sure how comparable the numbers are.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    surrey_commuter said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.

    With a proviso that I read it on mailonline we are only counting people who die of it is hospital. Not sure what other countries are doing so not sure how comparable the numbers are.
    Of it or with it? An important distinction.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    shortfall said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.

    With a proviso that I read it on mailonline we are only counting people who die of it is hospital. Not sure what other countries are doing so not sure how comparable the numbers are.
    Of it or with it? An important distinction.
    Really? Given that it is interstitial pneumonia arising from the infection that actually kills most of the victims, splitting hairs over whether it was the infection or the underlying condition that inhibited their ability to fight it off seems somewhat academic.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • sampangolin
    sampangolin Posts: 9
    Sure, he was hit by a lorry at 80mph, but don't forget he did have diabetes which he was managing with medication.

    So what was the cause of death?

    Hmm not sure, put down something about the lorry thing.

    Are you sure? Seems a bit misleading to me.
    sam
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    The guy in the Lorry not managing his diabetes?
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?

    I agree with your logic
    Yes, ditto to all of that. Have been wondering the same about regions.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU

    Interview with an expert who has treated people in South Korea. A country who is dealing with the situation well, mainly because they have already been exposed to Sars and Mers.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,330
    Looking around the regions via the BBC News website there could be a reason for Scotland being so low.
    Edinburgh's Princes Street.


    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.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    Jeremy.89 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.
    Of the 260 new deaths, 246 were in England, with patients aged between 33 and 100 years old.

    All of them had underlying health conditions except 13 people, who were aged 63 and over.

    There is very much a commonality to all these deaths
    Underlying health conditions covers a wide range though.
    Likely to be significant however otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned. A quick Google shows that these are usually fairly serious conditions in their own right:
    https://patient.info/news-and-features/covid-19-coronavirus-what-is-an-underlying-health-condition

    Quote: "An underlying health condition is a chronic or long-term illness, which in turn weakens the immune system.

    This refers to a medical problem that is usually chronic or significant, and which usually requires long-term treatment"
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    morstar said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?

    I agree with your logic
    Yes, ditto to all of that. Have been wondering the same about regions.
    It will also give us a view of a parallel world where London was locked down sooner
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    morstar said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?

    I agree with your logic
    Yes, ditto to all of that. Have been wondering the same about regions.
    My local health board apparently has the worst rates outside of London but I'm not sure if that is per head or absolute terms. I know it accounts for nearly half of all confirmed cases in Wales but only has around 20% of the population. We only have two 'proper' hospitals within the area and two local hospitals.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    rjsterry said:

    shortfall said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    tailwindhome said:

    tailwindhome said:

    UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.


    Today's figure is 1019

    Buckle up.

    With a proviso that I read it on mailonline we are only counting people who die of it is hospital. Not sure what other countries are doing so not sure how comparable the numbers are.
    Of it or with it? An important distinction.
    Really? Given that it is interstitial pneumonia arising from the infection that actually kills most of the victims, splitting hairs over whether it was the infection or the underlying condition that inhibited their ability to fight it off seems somewhat academic.
    The point being that if they already have a serious illness that is likely to kill them in the near future, then recording them as dying OF covid19 purely because it's in their system is misleading and skews policy.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,377
    Pross said:

    morstar said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There is something about presenting a death as being associated with "underlying health conditions" which seems to me to give false comfort. It almost says, "they were a bit crook anyway."

    The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear that "underlying health conditions" covers lots of people who are perfectly well, or who we would expect to be with us for a great deal longer.

    --------

    Does anyone have anything up do date about regional changes across the UK? Is there any hope for the regions that the although the measures have been put in place slightly too late to stop a sharp rise in London, they will catch the curve earlier elsewhere?

    The numbers in Scotland are still about half those in England, per capita - and I'm guessing that the numbers in England are significantly skewed by London/SE and Birmingham.

    Do we think that the lockdown will be proportionally more effective in other areas as a result of it coming at the same time? Or is this wishful thinking?

    I agree with your logic
    Yes, ditto to all of that. Have been wondering the same about regions.
    My local health board apparently has the worst rates outside of London but I'm not sure if that is per head or absolute terms. I know it accounts for nearly half of all confirmed cases in Wales but only has around 20% of the population. We only have two 'proper' hospitals within the area and two local hospitals.

    At the moment, I am still taking a little comfort in the tally for the South West... the number of deaths is yet to surge... but I realise that that follows some way after the peak of infections, and that peak, in turn, lags some way behind isolation. The last thing we need is any complacency, and I'm assuming that I might be carrying it, and I don't want to pass it on if I am.

    "Latest coronavirus figures have revealed there have been 28 new cases in the Devon County Council area, two in Torbay and seven in Plymouth. It follows an announcement today that one more person confirmed to have the COVID-19 coronavirus has sadly died in Devon. No new deaths have been reported in Plymouth, the rest of Devon, or Cornwall. The death, the third at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, was announced this afternoon. It is the ninth in Devon so far. Along with the three deaths in Exeter - there have been three at Torbay Hospital and three at Derriford Hospital."

    But I get little comfort out of the "28 new cases", as so few people are being tested.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    I'm not sure how true it is but I was told on a First Aid course that there is only actually something like 3 or 4 actual causes if death and that anything else is a contributory factor. Even if that's not the case I assume Covid-19 won't be a cause of death, as RJ says it pneumonia that is actually killing people.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    pblakeney said:

    shortfall said:

    pblakeney said:

    Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
    C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
    While that's sinking in.....
    C-19 is twice as deadly as the Spanish Flu.

    Let's just concentrate on the economy so we don't have to contemplate that. 🤔

    Source? I'd like to see the evidence for that claim. Another stat to revisit in a few months? Also, whether you like it or not the economy matters because no economy, no NHS.
    It is all out there. I know because I checked before posting.
    If you are interested you will see. It's not difficult.
    And you are missing the point. Both are completely screwed.
    If you make a claim then surely it's incumbent on you to substantiate it when challenged? Let's take your figures at face value though, what exactly do you think is a likely outcome in terms of mortality in relation to the Spanish Flu?
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited March 2020
    Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-lockdown-is-on-course-to-reduce-total-death-rate-3gn7hfjzk
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    shortfall said:

    Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.

    It's 20000 because of the lockdown.

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    sampangolin said:

    Sure, he was hit by a lorry at 80mph, but don't forget he did have diabetes which he was managing with medication.

    So what was the cause of death?

    Hmm not sure, put down something about the lorry thing.

    Are you sure? Seems a bit misleading to me.

    This is an acknowledged issue with the statistics on Covid-19 - unlike, say, flu, they can't strip out the number of people who would have died anyway, so the numbers are total of anyone who died and also had coronovirus. I also think the chief health officer has said that although there is probably some overlap between the 500k, 250k and 20k numbers that have been thrown around, it might not be that much.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    Still pre-lockdown at the moment so hopefully things will improve in a week or so but I suspect I'm being overly optimistic!


    Based upon France we are about 3 weeks off peak
    First peak...
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    shortfall said:

    Behind a paywall I'm afraid but the bloke whose model scared the government into a lockdown with predictions of 500000 deaths has revised it down to 20000 and now 5700 in less than a week.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-lockdown-is-on-course-to-reduce-total-death-rate-3gn7hfjzk

    This infuriates me. Read the article. People like Ben Shapiro are deliberately misinterpreting it for some reason.

    He is not walking back his previous "do nothing" estimate, he is adapting his current estimate to the changed circumstances. His previous estimate was 250,000 based on the previous course we were on, because we were not "doing nothing".

    It isn't complicated.

    It's good news if he is now right. If he is, they got the timing about right, and fewer people are dying unnecessarily.

Categories