Coronavirus

[GboroRam]

Why is counting so hard? You'd think that it would get quite high priority. It's fairly important. 

[maxjam]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Why is counting so hard? You'd think that it would get quite high priority. It's fairly important. 

Because its not all being done by the Government;

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-more-than-12000-new-cases-announced-after-technical-issue-increases-figure-12089368

We have seen that private testing and university testing has been carried out, and it is still not clear how these results (both positive and negative) are being routed into the DHSC (Department of Health and Social Care) system.

Whilst 12k positive tests seems a lot and 'is the highest recorded in the UK but it should also be remembered that community testing was extremely limited during the worst of the first wave in April.'

Also on Saturday, the government reported 49 deaths of people who had tested positive for the virus during the previous 28 days.

Hopefully the vulnerable are still shielding and its passing through the younger generation (over 750 at Northumberland University alone for example.)

[uttoxram75]

Seems like i could watch a match inside at a Vue Cinema or attend a concert at the Royal Albert Hall but can't attend a football match.

I've read stuff about this on twatter but cant be bothered to research it as im too busy trying to measure Rooneys free kick v Norwich against the one v Stoke last season - unbelievable Jeff....

Someone, somewhere, is seriously taking the pish.

 

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Hopefully the vulnerable are still shielding and its passing through the younger generation (over 750 at Northumberland University alone for example.)

At the current rate of infection, I shall have to shelter for the next 23 years.

Perfectly reasonable.

[Albert]

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

The lead up to the lockdown is a critical period.  There was an argument that we could have shutdown a few weeks earlier but the virus was being spread through the country and around the world from Christmas.  Literally no country would have, or indeed did, enter a lockdown at such an early date.

So, what you're arguing is that the UK, with less travel to the epicentre, had a greater risk profile? Australia had confirmed cases prior to the UK, as well as the greater risk profile, as discussed, yet effectively dealt with that in the end. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Because it is a critical period in which the virus spread throughout the population.  Ignoring this time frame in an attempt to improve your argument doesn't prevent it from being fact.

I didn't ignore this period, and the bigger point is that Australia, etc have shown that it's possible to wrest control back even after the spread gets out of control. See Victoria. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

No it wasn't.  As noted, the UK is a global hub with many more people passing through it than Australia.  Australia may have had more directly travelling from Wuhan than the UK but we had far, far more travelling from other areas at a point in time when the virus was already spreading around the world.

Today I learned 'the rest of the World' was a bigger concern than Wuhan in January and February. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Not far greater?!?  Its the virtually double, literally millions of people more. Arguing its not a far greater number is now starting to get silly.  Per capita plays no role in this twice as many people are passing through the country each of whom having the potential to be carrying the virus.

Per capita figure plays a role at two points here, the first being about the risk profile and the other one being about the cost of effectively shutting down your airline industry, something you effectively argued the UK simply couldn't do as it was too big. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Furthermore, as noted, significant numbers of visitors to the UK come from the EU (and the US) which make up 5 of the top 10 worst effected countries by covid.  Playing down that fact to suit your argument is imo ridiculous.

CBA anymore, I find your reasoning to be extremely blinkered, wilfully ignoring arguments that don't fit your narrative.  As the repetitive back and forth has begun again I'll leave it here.  Hopefully I won't be accused of running from an argument because of repeating a tired, defeated argument again.

This is entirely something of the UK's own design at this point, at least how you're arguing it. As noted, if you're comfortable with arguing 'well, we've got to let them in', then there's a major source of why the UK is losing this fight. 

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Because its not all being done by the Government;

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-more-than-12000-new-cases-announced-after-technical-issue-increases-figure-12089368

We have seen that private testing and university testing has been carried out, and it is still not clear how these results (both positive and negative) are being routed into the DHSC (Department of Health and Social Care) system.

Whilst 12k positive tests seems a lot and 'is the highest recorded in the UK but it should also be remembered that community testing was extremely limited during the worst of the first wave in April.'

Also on Saturday, the government reported 49 deaths of people who had tested positive for the virus during the previous 28 days.

Hopefully the vulnerable are still shielding and its passing through the younger generation (over 750 at Northumberland University alone for example.)

This highlights another facet of why the UK has done so poorly, particularly in the first wave. 

Countries that have done well had strong testing protocols right from the start, the UK is only starting to get towards those higher standards now. This does make this second wave look comparatively bigger than it likely is, of course, but it does underline the bumbling effort the UK's government has put together to this point. 

[Albert]

Hospital figures aren't looking great:

Seems the downturn was a blip. We can also compare the log version:

So, it does indeed seem we're still in the growth phase for hospital admissions. Let's hope this trend doesn't continue. 

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

Today I learned 'the rest of the World' was a bigger concern than Wuhan in January and February.

Well they do say you learn something every day. Gratz ?

From an earlier post;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734

Coronavirus was brought into the UK on at least 1,300 separate occasions, a major analysis of the genetics of the virus shows.

The analysis also finds China, where the pandemic started, had a negligible impact on cases in the UK.

 

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

Per capita figure plays a role at two points here, the first being about the risk profile and the other one being about the cost of effectively shutting down your airline industry, something you effectively argued the UK simply couldn't do as it was too big.

'Lies, damn lies and statistics' a well known phrase that enables you to use statistics to prove just about anything so lets use some of my own... Australian cities are some of the largest but least densely populated in the world;

https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/

Australia’s most populous city, Sydney, is 43rd in terms of the size of its urban footprint, at 2,037 square kilometres. It is also the country’s most dense, with 1,900 people per square kilometre, although internationally it ranks among the least densely populated cities in the world at 955.

That puts it about 95th on the list of English districts;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density

I'm not actually 100% sure of the point you're actually trying to make with your per capita argument tbh.  In simple terms the UK has twice as many people moving through it and landing in higher density areas giving the virus and increased chance to be passed on.

 

55 minutes ago, Albert said:

This is entirely something of the UK's own design at this point, at least how you're arguing it. As noted, if you're comfortable with arguing 'well, we've got to let them in', then there's a major source of why the UK is losing this fight. 

I have said repeatedly that individual countries have their own unique problems.  The UK is a world hub for both business and tourism.  During our lockdown our national debt surged to 100.5% of GDP and over £2tn.  Our economy (80% of it) more than any other in Europe relies upon our service industry being open for business so yes, ultimately we have got to let them in otherwise we won't be able to eat nevermind have an NHS to treat anything. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/fivefactsabouttheukservicesector/2016-09-29

We simply can't afford to keep locking everything down, we have to get the economy moving which means managing risk - which to be fair has been a mixed bag, although not all of that is the Governments fault.

[Albert]

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Well they do say you learn something every day. Gratz ?

From an earlier post;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734

Coronavirus was brought into the UK on at least 1,300 separate occasions, a major analysis of the genetics of the virus shows.

The analysis also finds China, where the pandemic started, had a negligible impact on cases in the UK.

Interesting stuff, but not surprising, nor inconsistent with my point. 

This might explain why the pandemic really kicked off later in the UK than did in Australia, which Australia's first wave mostly coming in March, while the UKs was April through May. This, however, is the whole point. The pandemic was driven by cases which were entering the UK later, they had more time than Australia to act, yet Australia someone still did better on that front. That is, the UK got a headstart, and still lost the race. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

'Lies, damn lies and statistics' a well known phrase that enables you to use statistics to prove just about anything so lets use some of my own... Australian cities are some of the largest but least densely populated in the world;

https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/

Australia’s most populous city, Sydney, is 43rd in terms of the size of its urban footprint, at 2,037 square kilometres. It is also the country’s most dense, with 1,900 people per square kilometre, although internationally it ranks among the least densely populated cities in the world at 955.

That puts it about 95th on the list of English districts;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density

This is largely an artefact of how Australian cities are reported. Because they aren't they own administrative regions, there is no real boundary as a sense, so it just becomes purely a moot point about what you call 'the city'. You highlight this issue beautifully by listing districts in the UK by population density, which would be the equivalent of listing council areas by population density in Australia. Just taking Sydney for example, the centre would be 14th, Waverley 15th, North Sydney 16th, etc. All denser than anything outside of London in the UK. 

Even with this in mind, the point is moot, as far denser population regions, like in Taiwan, and Vietnam, were successful despite this as well. This is just you sniping at random points. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm not actually 100% sure of the point you're actually trying to make with your per capita argument tbh.  In simple terms the UK has twice as many people moving through it and landing in higher density areas giving the virus and increased chance to be passed on.

As noted, Sydney has a similar density to much of London, and doing the same analysis on Melbourne shows similar. The bigger point though is the one from before in that the UK was better placed in terms of time to deal with the outbreak, but didn't, unlike Australia which had more links to the original epicentre. The point with the per capita figures is largely that Australia relies more on its airline industry than the UK, but still took measures to close the borders, including internally, to control the spread. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I have said repeatedly that individual countries have their own unique problems.  The UK is a world hub for both business and tourism.  During our lockdown our national debt surged to 100.5% of GDP and over £2tn.  Our economy (80% of it) more than any other in Europe relies upon our service industry being open for business so yes, ultimately we have got to let them in otherwise we won't be able to eat nevermind have an NHS to treat anything. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/fivefactsabouttheukservicesector/2016-09-29

We simply can't afford to keep locking everything down, we have to get the economy moving which means managing risk - which to be fair has been a mixed bag, although not all of that is the Governments fault.

Which is exactly why the UK should have locked down harder and earlier, as they wouldn't need to remain in lockdown. The UK couldn't afford all this faffing about, but that's really what has characterised their response, as shown. The irony is that in the name of 'protecting the economy', the UK has trampled it. 

[Eddie]

We could see what was happening elsewhere two or three weeks in advance of encountering the same problems here - and failed to take advantage of that window of opportunity.

We could see that clamping down worked, but we decided against following suit until the disease reached the same level here.

[maxjam]

7 hours ago, Albert said:

Interesting stuff, but not surprising, nor inconsistent with my point.

So, happy to brush off the factors that disagree with your narrative?

 

7 hours ago, Albert said:

Interesting stuff, but not surprising, nor inconsistent with my point. This might explain why the pandemic really kicked off later in the UK than did in Australia, which Australia's first wave mostly coming in March, while the UKs was April through May. This, however, is the whole point. The pandemic was driven by cases which were entering the UK later, they had more time than Australia to act, yet Australia someone still did better on that front. That is, the UK got a headstart, and still lost the race.

Although it is a valid point and the UK did start doing something;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coronavirus-a-timeline-of-how-britain-went-from-low-risk-to-an-unprecedented-national-shutdown/ar-BB11vUn8

We started screening arrivals from Wuhan during mid January.  No one had the means to test for covid back then, let alone the infrastructure to mass test millions of people entering the country each day, especially from our EU neighbours and the US which turned out to be 5 of the top 10 covid hotspots in the world.

 

7 hours ago, Albert said:

This is largely an artefact of how Australian cities are reported. Because they aren't they own administrative regions, there is no real boundary as a sense, so it just becomes purely a moot point about what you call 'the city'. You highlight this issue beautifully by listing districts in the UK by population density, which would be the equivalent of listing council areas by population density in Australia. Just taking Sydney for example, the centre would be 14th, Waverley 15th, North Sydney 16th, etc. All denser than anything outside of London in the UK. 

Even with this in mind, the point is moot, as far denser population regions, like in Taiwan, and Vietnam, were successful despite this as well. This is just you sniping at random points.

Admittedly I did post a list of regions because I was emphasising the point about using statistics to further your own argument.  The is a valid point however in that no Australian cities would figure in the top 10 of UK most densely populated cities.

It is a valid point however in that the UK has the better part of 1m people passing through it every single day mixing in densely populated areas.  A country like Vietnam for example had less that 20m in 2019.

 

7 hours ago, Albert said:

As noted, Sydney has a similar density to much of London, and doing the same analysis on Melbourne shows similar. The bigger point though is the one from before in that the UK was better placed in terms of time to deal with the outbreak, but didn't, unlike Australia which had more links to the original epicentre. The point with the per capita figures is largely that Australia relies more on its airline industry than the UK, but still took measures to close the borders, including internally, to control the spread.

As noted, Australia may have had more direct links to China, approximately double the UKs links - although this number is relatively small with the difference numbering in the hundreds of thousands.  

The UK however had tens of millions of more direct links to the top 5 covid hotspots in the world at a time when mass testing was impossible and the numbers of deaths were tiny.  Literally no country locked down their economies so early and there would have been mass outcry from their populations if they had.

Australia is also a vastly different country to the UK internally.  The UKs population is condensed on a small island, once people are on it, it is hard to stop them moving about especially when a number of cities and town have basically merged into one.  You can be several days drive away from another town in Australia, if you stop internal flights you stop significantly more of the populations mobility.

 

7 hours ago, Albert said:

Which is exactly why the UK should have locked down harder and earlier, as they wouldn't need to remain in lockdown. The UK couldn't afford all this faffing about, but that's really what has characterised their response, as shown. The irony is that in the name of 'protecting the economy', the UK has trampled it. 

We could have locked down a few weeks earlier but it was more or less in line with other countries.  To stop a significant outbreak we would have had to have shut down far earlier and remained in lockdown far longer - something that the Government chose not to do on both financial and mental health grounds.

An extended lockdown would also not prevent 'second waves' however as covid is now all around the world and we are an international hub.  At some point we had to open back up and therefore risk reinfection. 

Unlike earlier in the year however the data now shows that the young and healthy are largely immune, if we can shield the elderly and vulnerable life should be able to return to 'normal' for the majority. 

Of course we have to protect the economy, there is always a risk management trade off with everything.  We simply can't run up even greater debts whilst we wait for a vaccine that may or may not arrive.

[TimRam]

Other countries don't have the mindset of ignoring guidlines and gathering in large crowds getting out of their heads. Because of this I think the uk will be the centre of covid for a long time in Europe.

[GboroRam]

8 hours ago, Albert said:

Hospital figures aren't looking great:

Seems the downturn was a blip. We can also compare the log version:

So, it does indeed seem we're still in the growth phase for hospital admissions. Let's hope this trend doesn't continue. 

Those graphs are crying out for a what-if scenario showing doubling every 7 days. Call it a prediction and write it off. I'll add some laugh emojis to help ridicule it a bit if you want? 

Yes, I'm obviously pleased that a disease with potential to kill or cause long term health problems is on the rise in the country I live in, before the usual suspects start pointing fingers and throwing accusations. Nothing brings me greater satisfaction than a health crisis ? 

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, TimRam said:

Other countries don't have the mindset of ignoring guidlines and gathering in large crowds getting out of their heads. Because of this I think the uk will be the centre of covid for a long time in Europe.

Agreed - and its one of my more nebulous 'other factors' that some people seem to want to ignore.  Some countries populations are more compliant than others and more willing to follow Government edicts.

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, TimRam said:

Other countries don't have the mindset of ignoring guidlines and gathering in large crowds getting out of their heads. Because of this I think the uk will be the centre of covid for a long time in Europe.

That's why our muddled, confused approach didn't work. No real clarity. Even now its confused. Is it eat out to help out or drink up and duck off? 

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

That's why our muddled, confused approach didn't work. No real clarity. Even now its confused. Is it eat out to help out or drink up and duck off? 

Its both - eat out to help out, but drink up and duck off before 10pm ?

[maxjam]

Mumble, mumble, financial consequences, mutter, mutter...

 

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Mumble, mumble, financial consequences of botching lockdown, mutter, mutter...

 

FTFY

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

So, happy to brush off the factors that disagree with your narrative?

The point is that I explicitly didn't 'brush off the factors' at all, and I explained why they are not only consistent with my point, but actually supportive of it. That is, the UK's infections not coming from China, as well as the later first wave, are suggestive of the key point, that the UK had more time than Australia to prepare and plan. That is, Australia had a higher risk profile, and dealt with it more effectively. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Although it is a valid point and the UK did start doing something;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coronavirus-a-timeline-of-how-britain-went-from-low-risk-to-an-unprecedented-national-shutdown/ar-BB11vUn8

We started screening arrivals from Wuhan during mid January.  No one had the means to test for covid back then, let alone the infrastructure to mass test millions of people entering the country each day, especially from our EU neighbours and the US which turned out to be 5 of the top 10 covid hotspots in the world.

Again, you're conflating my point, about the early days, with what happened later. Australia already had their outbreak largely under control by the time Europe became an epicentre. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Admittedly I did post a list of regions because I was emphasising the point about using statistics to further your own argument.  The is a valid point however in that no Australian cities would figure in the top 10 of UK most densely populated cities.

This is false, as discussed. The areas of Sydney listed were denser than any part of any city in England, except for London. Melbourne has a similar density profile. Again, as discussed, what you're doing here is showing a misunderstanding of the difference in what the statistics are measuring. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It is a valid point however in that the UK has the better part of 1m people passing through it every single day mixing in densely populated areas.  A country like Vietnam for example had less that 20m in 2019.

As noted, Australia had a lot of air traffic prior to the pandemic, as previously discussed. This included direct traffic from not just China, but Wuhan. Given that air traffic fell off a cliff globally as this pandemic has progressed, you're basically hammering a point that is moot. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

As noted, Australia may have had more direct links to China, approximately double the UKs links - although this number is relatively small with the difference numbering in the hundreds of thousands.  

The UK however had tens of millions of more direct links to the top 5 covid hotspots in the world at a time when mass testing was impossible and the numbers of deaths were tiny.  Literally no country locked down their economies so early and there would have been mass outcry from their populations if they had.

As noted, the number of links to Europe is largely irrelevant, as raising the point about the European epicentres implies that you're already discussing a period later in the timeline, and tacitly admitting the key point, which is that Australia, with less time, managed to manage the risks more effectively. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Australia is also a vastly different country to the UK internally.  The UKs population is condensed on a small island, once people are on it, it is hard to stop them moving about especially when a number of cities and town have basically merged into one.  You can be several days drive away from another town in Australia, if you stop internal flights you stop significantly more of the populations mobility.

You're partly right, but Australia, as you've noted through the statistics earlier, does have a lot of urban areas that just kind of merge into one another, particularly along the east coast. Whilst it's true that stopping flights will cut a lot of travel between capital cities, it doesn't stop the regular traffic between these larger urban areas, which are heavily interconnected. 

Also, don't underestimate how much people drive across the country in Australia. Driving to Perth from anywhere is rare, but a lot of people prefer driving from Adelaide to Melbourne, Sydney to Melbourne, etc to flying. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We could have locked down a few weeks earlier but it was more or less in line with other countries.  To stop a significant outbreak we would have had to have shut down far earlier and remained in lockdown far longer - something that the Government chose not to do on both financial and mental health grounds.

As noted, countries that went into lockdown earlier ended up having shorter lockdowns. This is consistent with what you're expect given the modelling. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

An extended lockdown would also not prevent 'second waves' however as covid is now all around the world and we are an international hub.  At some point we had to open back up and therefore risk reinfection. 

As noted, this concept of being an 'international hub' is something of the UK's choice, and could be ended for the public good if needed. It's interesting you value that above ending restrictions otherwise. 

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Unlike earlier in the year however the data now shows that the young and healthy are largely immune, if we can shield the elderly and vulnerable life should be able to return to 'normal' for the majority. 

Of course we have to protect the economy, there is always a risk management trade off with everything.  We simply can't run up even greater debts whilst we wait for a vaccine that may or may not arrive.

Data from as early as February suggested that people who were young and healthy rarely got as sick, and did not die at as high a rate, but it's a outright lies to suggest that they're 'immune' or that 'the data now shows' such. In fact, the data over the last 6 months is painting a picture of young people being at more risk than initially though, particularly for longer term concerns. If effect, you're pushing a talking point from February-March, and one that is no longer really supported. 

As noted, the best way to save the economy is to end restrictions, but this can only be done in a way that doesn't risk even further harm to it by controlling the outbreak. We've discussed how this can be done effectively. 

[maxjam]

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

The point is that I explicitly didn't 'brush off the factors' at all, and I explained why they are not only consistent with my point, but actually supportive of it. That is, the UK's infections not coming from China, as well as the later first wave, are suggestive of the key point, that the UK had more time than Australia to prepare and plan. That is, Australia had a higher risk profile, and dealt with it more effectively.

The first confirmed covid case in Australia was late Jan, the same time as the UK.  As noted, we were screening flights from Wuhan but lacked the capacity to screen literally millions of people arriving from what turned out to be the 5 of the top 10 covid hotspots in the world.

 

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted, Australia had a lot of air traffic prior to the pandemic, as previously discussed. This included direct traffic from not just China, but Wuhan. Given that air traffic fell off a cliff globally as this pandemic has progressed, you're basically hammering a point that is moot. 
 

As noted, the UK had significantly more, millions more, prior to the pandemic from what turned out to be 5 of the top 10 covid hotspots in the world.  Covid didn't just magically travel to those countries and remain there, it continued to move around the world.

Also as noted the difference in the number of passengers travelling from China to Australia was tiny in comparison to the number of passengers we received from hotspot countries.

 

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted, the number of links to Europe is largely irrelevant, as raising the point about the European epicentres implies that you're already discussing a period later in the timeline, and tacitly admitting the key point, which is that Australia, with less time, managed to manage the risks more effectively.

I am talking about the period from Jan - Mar, a point in time when we were screening flights from China but didn't have the infrastructure to test the millions of people arriving from the not 'largely irrelevant' EU and US hotspots.

Australia may have handled covid more effectively but in terms of travel alone has significantly less to deal with than the UK and therefore better placed to begin with.

 

I could go on with the rest of your post debating population densities, international hubs, shutting down our service driven economy, etc but as noted, you seem to enjoy dismissing critical factors that don't fit your narrative.  You seem to be stuck in your narrative as do I, so its better left.  Continuing this conversation any further will simply result in it becoming tedious and annoying other readers of this thread.