Coronavirus

[Gone]

[Gone]

9 hours ago, Albert said:

This is a second wave, and it's already looking bigger than the first. You'll see people who don't understand basic maths suggesting 'but it's only cases, no deaths', but it takes time for the disease to kill people, usually around 2 weeks. Weekly deaths are already on the rise, and within the next month we'll likely see that spike, unfortunately.

I was told this in this forum a month ago, it’s hasn’t happened, I was told the same again two weeks ago, it has happened. Too many internet scientists scaremongering and creating mass hysteria. Shell announcing 9000 job losses today, that’s what we should be scared off, the wheels are coming off, but as long as the >.007% are ok ?? 

[Albert]

9 hours ago, Norman said:

Ah, the good old lab conditions. The place where all the factors that actually go on in the world do not matter. 

Even if we agreed it is somewhere between 70 and 95 percent, I would say that would change the statistics somewhat. 

Yes, it would increase the number of overall cases. Given we already know that a large fraction of infections are asymptomatic, and this is already built into other studies, etc, it's not a huge deal. 

What it might impact however is the issue of missed deaths as discussed on prior pages. ie false negatives may have lead to some of the misattributed deaths in the excess deaths data. 

  

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

That was a nod back to participants of the old politics thread in which austerity causing deaths was bandied around from time to time.

 

I think you are downplaying the effects of international lockdowns the results of which we are only just starting to see;

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-economy-recession-unemployment-disaster/

 

Austerity did cause deaths, and in a way that was measurable, it was part of the whole trade off. 

As noted, strong, early lockdowns lead to economic recovery, as has been seen in many areas. It's this half and half nonsense that causes issues. 

  

13 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I was told this in this forum a month ago, it’s hasn’t happened, I was told the same again two weeks ago, it has happened. Too many internet scientists scaremongering and creating mass hysteria. Shell announcing 9000 job losses today, that’s what we should be scared off, the wheels are coming off, but as long as the >.007% are ok ?? 

As noted, the evidence from elsewhere is that the best hope of avoiding further damage is getting the situation back under control through lockdowns, and improving test protocols and contact tracing. If that can be achieved, the UK may be able to join others in the 'new normal' within months. Opening up to save the economy is like opening the doors in a fire; seems like a great idea until you know what you're actually doing. 

As to "I was told the same again two weeks ago", it depends on what you were told really. Deaths are very much up already, and very quickly get out of control, that's the whole problem. It went from ~30 per day to hundreds per day in the space of just 7 days back in March. 7 days after that it was around that 500+ mark. We can but hope that history isn't repeating itself. 

[Albert]

27 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I'm not sure why you're looking back to the 'example scenario' each day. It's clearly an uncontrolled scenario, and there are controls. The expectation is that it would be less under such conditions. Equally, day by day counts are a poor measure anyhow, and you'd be better off for an exponential system to do this as a log plot. 

[GboroRam]

Better than expected economic performance. Still disastrous, but an improvement on what was expected.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/slump-for-uk-economy-during-lockdown-not-as-bad-as-first-feared/ar-BB19ywhL?ocid=msedgntp

"The British economy shrank by less than first feared during the depths of the COVID-19 lockdown, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Wednesday."

"Despite the slight upward revision, the slump still marks the worst quarterly performance since 1955 and confirmed the worst UK recession in modern history."

[G STAR RAM]

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

What it might impact however is the issue of missed deaths as discussed on prior pages. ie false negatives may have lead to some of the misattributed deaths in the excess deaths data. 

I've seen you repeat this several times but you have nothing to back the claim up. Repeating it as nauseum isnt going to make people believe it. To do that you are going to have to disprove their theory that the other excess deaths are not down to the side effects of the lockdown 

As noted, the evidence from elsewhere is that the best hope of avoiding further damage is getting the situation back under control through lockdowns, and improving test protocols and contact tracing. If that can be achieved, the UK may be able to join others in the 'new normal' within months. Opening up to save the economy is like opening the doors in a fire; seems like a great idea until you know what you're actually doing. 

You're measuring success at a point in time. The effects of further lockdowns will play out over years, not just the next week or two.

You also seem to assume that we all want to join others in the 'new norm', well personally I don't because I think the old norm is what we should be looking at.

As to "I was told the same again two weeks ago", it depends on what you were told really. Deaths are very much up already, and very quickly get out of control, that's the whole problem. It went from ~30 per day to hundreds per day in the space of just 7 days back in March. 7 days after that it was around that 500+ mark. We can but hope that history isn't repeating itself. 

Hospitalisations didnt even get out of control during the first wave, not even close.

 

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure why you're looking back to the 'example scenario' each day. It's clearly an uncontrolled scenario, and there are controls. The expectation is that it would be less under such conditions. Equally, day by day counts are a poor measure anyhow, and you'd be better off for an exponential system to do this as a log plot. 

And we had controls in place already before which would raise the question why the experts are even talking about what would happen under uncontrolled conditions.

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

And we had controls in place already before which would raise the question why the experts are even talking about what would happen under uncontrolled conditions.

To emphasise the risk of rolling back restrictions further? 

[Uptherams]

Boris and Hancock out ??

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

To emphasise the risk of rolling back restrictions further? 

But there was no plan to roll back restrictions further, other than letting fans back to spectator sports.

If they are looking to reverse actions that are leading to increase in cases then I would think they would be looking at the mandatory wearing of masks, as that seemed to coincide with cases going back up.

Things seemed to be ticking along nicely with just social distancing measures.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But there was no plan to roll back restrictions further, other than letting fans back to spectator sports.

If they are looking to reverse actions that are leading to increase in cases then I would think they would be looking at the mandatory wearing of masks, as that seemed to coincide with cases going back up.

Things seemed to be ticking along nicely with just social distancing measures.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that wearing masks, a well established method for reducing spread, is a cause of this second wave? 

[Uptherams]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Please continue to post these. Even if the blue starts to cover more red. ?

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Are you honestly trying to suggest that wearing masks, a well established method for reducing spread, is a cause of this second wave? 

No just suggesting that it may have led to a relaxation of social distancing.

Of course you could show me a graph that shows the reduction in spread and therefore falling cases since mask wearing was introduced to back up your statement?

[Albert]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

No just suggesting that it may have led to a relaxation of social distancing.

Of course you could show me a graph that shows the reduction in spread and therefore falling cases since mask wearing was introduced to back up your statement?

You're asking for some weirdly noisy data. Wouldn't you prefer actual research in masks, and points about how they've been used elsewhere? 

[Gone]

26 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

And we had controls in place already before which would raise the question why the experts are even talking about what would happen under uncontrolled conditions.

They worked well didn’t they 

[alexxxxx]

48 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure why you're looking back to the 'example scenario' each day. It's clearly an uncontrolled scenario, and there are controls. The expectation is that it would be less under such conditions. Equally, day by day counts are a poor measure anyhow, and you'd be better off for an exponential system to do this as a log plot. 

This graph also doesn't use the right data, you need to look at the data by specimen date rather than announced.. It doesn't look as jumpy when you look at that data. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

You're asking for some weirdly noisy data. Wouldn't you prefer actual research in masks, and points about how they've been used elsewhere? 

Not really, I wouldnt waste time further researching something that has been tried and has not led to cases going down, that would seem pointless and a waste of resources.

[RamNut]

9 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

I’m coffin with laughter. 

It’s called corpsing. 

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

This graph also doesn't use the right data, you need to look at the data by specimen date rather than announced.. It doesn't look as jumpy when you look at that data. 

Even then, you expect 'lumps' in such data in any case. 

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not really, I wouldnt waste time further researching something that has been tried and has not led to cases going down, that would seem pointless and a waste of resources.

So, what you're suggesting is that if measures don't, on their own, solve a problem, they're worthless, despite other evidence? 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, what you're suggesting is that if measures don't, on their own, solve a problem, they're worthless, despite other evidence? 

No not really, but if they contribute to things that lead to cases rising then common sense would say not to rely on them.

Pretty much like closing pubs at 10pm, if it's going to lead to people congregating on streets or having house parties then it kind of defeats the object.

[Albert]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No not really, but if they contribute to things that lead to cases rising then common sense would say not to rely on them.

Pretty much like closing pubs at 10pm, if it's going to lead to people congregating on streets or having house parties then it kind of defeats the object.

Except you don't have any reason to suggest that it's lead to cases rising. This is the old 'if vaccines cause autism, then we should be skeptical of taking them' line. 

If the issue is people being poorly behaved, then target the behaviour.