Coronavirus

[alexxxxx]

8 minutes ago, Andicis said:

What I wonder is why our deaths are so much higher than the rest of Europe. Is it that we're a more unhealthy population? Have we had a lot more cases but due to lack of testing we have no idea the real number of covid 19 cases we've had? Possibly it's spread around older generations here more than other countries?

Our NHS hasn't been overwhelmed, so us having a much higher number of deaths doesn't really make sense, unless people think that the staff in our hospitals are worse (which I absolutely don't agree with)

I think it is a case of not implementing social distancing early enough. If we had done at the same time as Italy we may have had a much better outcome.

We may even have had the opportunity to reopen earlier. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I think it is a case of not implementing social distancing early enough. If we had done at the same time as Italy we may have had a much better outcome.

We may even have had the opportunity to reopen earlier. 

Germany 166k cases only 7k deaths

UK 190k cases with 28k deaths

Social distancing may explain why have more cases but there does not seem to be a correlation between cases and deaths.

[Andicis]

8 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I think it is a case of not implementing social distancing early enough. If we had done at the same time as Italy we may have had a much better outcome.

We may even have had the opportunity to reopen earlier. 

But that would just be about infections? Which in turn of course would be around deaths, but if we have had a lot more infections than the rest of Europe, are we not less likely to be at risk of a second wave?

[King Kevin]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Germany 166k cases only 7k deaths

UK 190k cases with 28k deaths

Social distancing may explain why have more cases but there does not seem to be a correlation between cases and deaths.

Not sure if it's true or not but there is an article today suggesting Germany has been under reporting .

[alexxxxx]

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Germany 166k cases only 7k deaths

UK 190k cases with 28k deaths

Social distancing may explain why have more cases but there does not seem to be a correlation between cases and deaths.

Cases are going to be more unreliable than deaths as a measure id have thought. Our testing regime was abysmal at the beginning of the crisis hence there are probably many who had it who have since recovered and never were tested. 

German numbers seem very low in comparison to UK, NL and Belgium. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Cases are going to be more unreliable than deaths as a measure id have thought. Our testing regime was abysmal at the beginning of the crisis hence there are probably many who had it who have since recovered and never were tested. 

German numbers seem very low in comparison to UK, NL and Belgium. 

The only thing I can think of is that it's because our tests were only being done on people in hospital, but I have no idea who Germany were testing.

If you apply Germanys mortality rate to the UK it would indicate over 650,000 people have been infected.

[GboroRam]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

The only thing I can think of is that it's because our tests were only being done on people in hospital, but I have no idea who Germany were testing.

If you apply Germanys mortality rate to the UK it would indicate over 650,000 people have been infected.

And it's possible that's where we managed to go wrong. If Germany have tested the general population and only found the same number of people sick as walked through the door at UK hospitals, we need to understand their methodology in keeping the infection rate so low. I suspect it's down to their more methodical approach vs the UK's slow lockdown and lack of testing the general public.

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

And it's possible that's where we managed to go wrong. If Germany have tested the general population and only found the same number of people sick as walked through the door at UK hospitals, we need to understand their methodology in keeping the infection rate so low. I suspect it's down to their more methodical approach vs the UK's slow lockdown and lack of testing the general public.

Well there is also the fact that London is a global hub and miles bigger than any German city. It's much harder to keep infection rate lower in London, with the amount of world travelers that visit or just stop over there on the way to somewhere else, but also with the population density down there. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

And it's possible that's where we managed to go wrong. If Germany have tested the general population and only found the same number of people sick as walked through the door at UK hospitals, we need to understand their methodology in keeping the infection rate so low. I suspect it's down to their more methodical approach vs the UK's slow lockdown and lack of testing the general public.

Germany locked down at the same time as us.

[rammieib]

47 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Germany 166k cases only 7k deaths

UK 190k cases with 28k deaths

Social distancing may explain why have more cases but there does not seem to be a correlation between cases and deaths.

I’m confident our infected cases are a lot higher. Somewhere in the 500k to 1 million range.

I am now significantly more of the opinion that Germany’s test test test led to better isolation/control and therefore significantly less people catching it. My colleague in Germany had minor symptoms one day, phoned the docs, test the next day, negative two days later. In the UK you couldn’t get a test until you were in hospital and even now you can only get a test if you don’t work from home.

So conclusion, Germany did better at stopping the spread and this their case count is more accurate.

Of course, having the manufacturing companies on hand to make these test kits kind of helps!!!

 

[alexxxxx]

18 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Well there is also the fact that London is a global hub and miles bigger than any German city. It's much harder to keep infection rate lower in London, with the amount of world travelers that visit or just stop over there on the way to somewhere else, but also with the population density down there. 

Infection rate is bad here in London, however I think that the feeling that it is a London only problem fueled some of the nearly as bad rates seen in the North West and in West Midlands. The North West is now worse than London.

Anecdotally, I've seen that people haven't quite been as serious with their social distancing in areas outside of London. 

 

[ramesses]

40 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I’m confident our infected cases are a lot higher. Somewhere in the 500k to 1 million range.

I am now significantly more of the opinion that Germany’s test test test led to better isolation/control and therefore significantly less people catching it. My colleague in Germany had minor symptoms one day, phoned the docs, test the next day, negative two days later. In the UK you couldn’t get a test until you were in hospital and even now you can only get a test if you don’t work from home.

So conclusion, Germany did better at stopping the spread and this their case count is more accurate.

Of course, having the manufacturing companies on hand to make these test kits kind of helps!!!

 

My understanding is that if your colleague had had minor symptoms, was tested, and tested positive then he would probably have been personally followed up a week later to check on his progress. He might have been doing fairly well with no sign of an escalation of symptoms. But if at that stage there were early signs of deterioration and he seemed to be on the path of becoming a more severe case then, at that quite early stage, he would have been immediately referred for more specialist hospital treatment. When cases are becoming more severe the various additional medical treatments are more effective the earlier they are given. This leads to a much better chance of survival.

Germany could do this because they started to organise supplies of all the necessary testing kits in January. They could do this because their health service, unlike ours, had plenty of spare capacity. There are probably many more reasons why Germany appears to have dealt better with virus than the UK, but there’s two of them.

[ramit]

Vitamin D is the best defence .  Not surprising at all, really.

This fellow is a retired nurse and has been making informative videos daily since the outbreak began

 

[Rev]

My wife's been given her return to work target day, by the end of May.

2021!

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Well we have had this before christmas or perhaps before but other countries not even brothered with a lockdown at all.

There are very few countries who haven't had some constraint on people's activities - some, like Spain and Italy, clamped down far sooner and far harder than we did. It remains to be seen what is going to happen there as they relax the restrictions - although I think that because they were so hard hit so early, people in general will continue to be careful, respect social distancing, wear face masks to stop themselves spreading the disease as much as possible and - most importantly - wash their hands frequently.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Andicis said:

What I wonder is why our deaths are so much higher than the rest of Europe. Is it that we're a more unhealthy population? Have we had a lot more cases but due to lack of testing we have no idea the real number of covid 19 cases we've had? Possibly it's spread around older generations here more than other countries?

Our NHS hasn't been overwhelmed, so us having a much higher number of deaths doesn't really make sense, unless people think that the staff in our hospitals are worse (which I absolutely don't agree with)

We reacted too slowly, I think, by at least a week, possibly two. There seemed to be an air (at least the impression I was getting) of "Oh well, let's just keep the NHS from being overwhelmed and keep that as our primary target" and putting the economy at least on a par, if not ahead, of lives.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The only thing I can think of is that it's because our tests were only being done on people in hospital, but I have no idea who Germany were testing.

If you apply Germanys mortality rate to the UK it would indicate over 650,000 people have been infected.

A recent statistical study (although based upon a sample size of just a couple of thousand in a highly affected area) seems to indicate that the number of those infected in Germany may be up to ten times that.

Edit: Ten times the stated figure

[Andicis]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

We reacted too slowly, I think, by at least a week, possibly two. There seemed to be an air (at least the impression I was getting) of "Oh well, let's just keep the NHS from being overwhelmed and keep that as our primary target" and putting the economy at least on a par, if not ahead, of lives.

Entirely possible, but that would infer we've had a lot more cases than other countries, would that lower the risk of a second wave if we've had more? 

[Rev]

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

We reacted too slowly, I think, by at least a week, possibly two. There seemed to be an air (at least the impression I was getting) of "Oh well, let's just keep the NHS from being overwhelmed and keep that as our primary target" and putting the economy at least on a par, if not ahead, of lives.

I think the explanation is even simpler.

The government wanted the Cheltenham Festival held. 

Having attended many times, it's as much a networking opportunity for traditional Conservatives and their backers as it is a working class sporting event.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

A recent statistical study (although based upon a sample size of just a couple of thousand in a highly affected area) seems to indicate that the number of those infected in Germany may be up to ten times that.

Edit: Ten times the stated figure

If true that would put the mortality rate at 0.4% and then you would have to be left questioning is then any more deadly than influenza.