Coronavirus

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, rammieib said:

70,000 confirmed cases of students with it in USA. Zero deaths. 
 

 

Awkward

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/college-student-dies-covid.html

[Eddie]

29 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Awkward

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/college-student-dies-covid.html

That article also mentions that, as well as 130K cases on college campuses, there had been 70 or more deaths from COVID-19, although it does state that they were staff, ancillary workers etc.

The problem has always been the impact that those who contract the disease can't control who they give it to, especially if they are asymptomatic - and even more so if they are unaware they have it.

[RamNut]

12 hours ago, Albert said:

In countries where they really were all in it together, and were led by leaders who could at least pretend to be competent for more than 5 minutes, the lockdowns effectively controlled the virus, and life is largely back to normal. 

As long as there is movement of people there will be infection. The virus is now so widespread that the threat will not go away. There cannot be a permanent “back to normal“ until science provides some answers.  This needs a global engineered solution. Until then we have to try to control the rate of infection. As far as I am concerned this is not for the benefit of the nhs but to minimise the risk to the health of everyone including the elderly, the vulnerable, the overweight, front line workers, care staff, cleaners, shop keepers etc.   

Lockdown provides a temporary application of the brake. Freedom of movement presses down on the accelerator.
We need to achieve an appropriate balance between personal liberty on the one hand, and social and economic paralysis on the other. but whatever measures we adopt, we only buy time before we inevitably inhale our own personal dosage.

full lockdown was marked by idiotic police action - shaming Isolated dog walkers; stopping lone individuals from sitting on a park bench; stopping cars to quiz people on whether their journey was essential; checking people’s shopping bags to decide whether their purchases were essential. It just showed how quickly the police can demonstrate their own institutional stupidity. 

the first peak in the uk was also marked by the scandalous decision to discharge patients into care homes. There have been so many lies told to cover the tracks. A rule was created that said any patient who no longer required hospital level care HAD TO BE discharged within 2 hours irrespective of whether they carried the virus. These weren’t people who we didn’t realise were infected. On the checklist for assessing suitability for discharge, the final question states “does the patient test positive for coronavirus? and states....this is for administrative purposes only and makes no difference to the decision on whether to discharge. How callous is that? There were even wings in care homes which were official Covid wards.  I’m delighted that Amnesty International have produced a damning report, but it makes no difference. No government minister is sacked or resigns. No-one is charged or held to account for the greatest ever case of corporate manslaughter. 

there was also a message put out by government that masks and face coverings were ineffective protection. This was to prevent public demand from exhausting the limited supplies of available masks for health workers and front line staff. It lead to the Local authority H+S numpties bizarrely refusing to sanction and approve orders for ppe for ‘ordinary’ workers who were going into care homes to mend doors, service boilers or test fire alarms etc. Now we are all told to wear masks. In fact we will be fined if we don’t. Such is the slippery world of political spin. 

At first there was no viable testing system but once we began to feel confident that the prevalence of the virus was rare amongst us, the restrictions were relaxed and we began to re-open schools, shops, bars and restaurants. there was bound to be a rising rate of infection.

Once the summer came and restrictions on movement were relaxed even more, there was going to be a second wave. We all knew what was coming. We all collectively accepted the inevitable consequence of a second wave in exchange for opening our doors, getting in our cars, and stepping out. We await the second tsunami.

So it makes no sense to blame the students, the drinkers, the shaggers, or the eater-outers. We must all take responsibility for our own collective action.
We have changed our behaviour. We socially distance. We track and trace (Don’t laugh) . We wear our flimsy masks. But we must surely know that this is tantamount to King Canute commanding the sea to retreat.

We will all get infected in the end.  That is unless Or until science provides the answer first. Which it surely will.
This is our USP as a species. Despite our stupidity we can actually be quite clever. We will find a solution. Of course we will only share the solution with those who will pay for the privilege. And there will be fake and harmful remedies peddled too. Our other defining Characteristic as a species is our criminal greed and callous disregard for our fellow travellers. I’m alright Jack is the fundamental human creed whether bulk buying, scamming the elderly and the vulnerable, or milking a pandemic for financial gain.

So where does all that leave us? Simply treading water and buying time.

We probably don’t really care whether the young have caught the disease as long as they keep it to themselves. We have already demonstrated that we don’t give a toss about the elderly and the vulnerable. It’s every man for himself buying time for himself. Those who want to walk your dogs, go walk your dogs. Those that want to meet up for sex, get at it. Those who want to hug their parents or their grand kids, please feel free. As long as we all accept responsibility for the fact that freedom = increased risk.
If my elderly and vulnerable  parent becomes infected by the daily carer who catches the disease by going out for a pub meal, or catching the bus, or doing it doggy style after a bottle of wine, I have to accept that this is ultimately probably inevitable despite the ppe, the hand wash, and every other futile gesture. 

but let’s buy that time.
Let’s at least delay the onset of our own demise and continue to live in hope.
For everyone there is a virus particle with our name on it until such time as a vaccine exists, or an anti-body treatment changes the game and rewrites the rules in our favour.

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Awkward

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/college-student-dies-covid.html

Whilst awkward and obviously devastating for the family according to this article, despite 200k deaths in the US less than 100 have been on the under 20 age bracket;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-children-deaths/2020/09/25/9df39bf4-fdad-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html

Furthermore, and again according to the article, last year flu killed 188 17 and below ?

I'll agree with what @Eddie says, its not so much the young that are getting it but those who they may pass it on to, however, I have argued in this thread that we need to learn to live with the virus (masks, hand washing, etc) rather than hide from it. 

The vast majority should be living, learning and earning whilst the vulnerable should continue to shield - sucks for them, but they would be shielding regardless.   For example, according to this BBC article;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54433305

More than three quarters (77%) of all those who died 'with covid' were aged 75 or over and 43% were aged 85 or over.  Lockdowns are shutting down the economy when the vast majority of those dying no longer work in it.

[maxjam]

Interesting study from Edinburgh University;

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-full-lockdown-left-country-more-vulnerable-to-another-wave-covid-19-study-suggests-12098766

key points;

- The full lockdown may have left the UK more vulnerable to another wave of the coronavirus epidemic.

- Suggests that short-term lockdowns could result in more people dying with coronavirus.

- Prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term

- The final death toll from COVID-19 depends largely on the age of those infected and not the overall number of cases.

"Perhaps the key lesson that should be drawn from this study is the warning that if we allow short-term thinking to dictate our response to COVID-19 then we may not make the best decisions for minimising the public health burden over the longer term."

Sums up this governments response imo.

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

As long as there is movement of people there will be infection. The virus is now so widespread that the threat will not go away. There cannot be a permanent “back to normal“ until science provides some answers.  This needs a global engineered solution. Until then we have to try to control the rate of infection. As far as I am concerned this is not for the benefit of the nhs but to minimise the risk to the health of everyone including the elderly, the vulnerable, the overweight, front line workers, care staff, cleaners, shop keepers etc.   

You say this, but there are countries which have effective control of the virus. It's not a hypothetical. There have been no local infections in the state I'm in for over 60 days, where there was a cluster of less than 6, prior to which it was 100 days without a local case. It's not completely normal, there are still some precautions to prevent new clusters burning wild when they come, but life is for the most part back to normal, and this isn't the only place. 

You're not incorrect to suggest it's about the health of everyone, but the point about the NHS does indeed remain valid. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Lockdown provides a temporary application of the brake. Freedom of movement presses down on the accelerator.
We need to achieve an appropriate balance between personal liberty on the one hand, and social and economic paralysis on the other. but whatever measures we adopt, we only buy time before we inevitably inhale our own personal dosage.

Again, it's not a hypothetical to have no cases for prolongued periods of time. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

full lockdown was marked by idiotic police action - shaming Isolated dog walkers; stopping lone individuals from sitting on a park bench; stopping cars to quiz people on whether their journey was essential; checking people’s shopping bags to decide whether their purchases were essential. It just showed how quickly the police can demonstrate their own institutional stupidity. 

This is a separate problem, but does speak to a larger issue in society. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

the first peak in the uk was also marked by the scandalous decision to discharge patients into care homes. There have been so many lies told to cover the tracks. A rule was created that said any patient who no longer required hospital level care HAD TO BE discharged within 2 hours irrespective of whether they carried the virus. These weren’t people who we didn’t realise were infected. On the checklist for assessing suitability for discharge, the final question states “does the patient test positive for coronavirus? and states....this is for administrative purposes only and makes no difference to the decision on whether to discharge. How callous is that? There were even wings in care homes which were official Covid wards.  I’m delighted that Amnesty International have produced a damning report, but it makes no difference. No government minister is sacked or resigns. No-one is charged or held to account for the greatest ever case of corporate manslaughter. 

Keep bringing it up, it's not the sort of thing that should be allowed to fade to the sands of time. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

there was also a message put out by government that masks and face coverings were ineffective protection. This was to prevent public demand from exhausting the limited supplies of available masks for health workers and front line staff. It lead to the Local authority H+S numpties bizarrely refusing to sanction and approve orders for ppe for ‘ordinary’ workers who were going into care homes to mend doors, service boilers or test fire alarms etc. Now we are all told to wear masks. In fact we will be fined if we don’t. Such is the slippery world of political spin. 

I'm still surprised many countries tried that line, given they surely knew it would backfire later. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

At first there was no viable testing system but once we began to feel confident that the prevalence of the virus was rare amongst us, the restrictions were relaxed and we began to re-open schools, shops, bars and restaurants. there was bound to be a rising rate of infection.

Again, places that have had major outbreaks, but gone on to get control of the virus, are a real thing, they are no hypothetical, this was not inevitable. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Once the summer came and restrictions on movement were relaxed even more, there was going to be a second wave. We all knew what was coming. We all collectively accepted the inevitable consequence of a second wave in exchange for opening our doors, getting in our cars, and stepping out. We await the second tsunami.

You can say that now, but I've read a lot of people going on about how there would be no such second wave. 

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

So it makes no sense to blame the students, the drinkers, the shaggers, or the eater-outers. We must all take responsibility for our own collective action.
We have changed our behaviour. We socially distance. We track and trace (Don’t laugh) . We wear our flimsy masks. But we must surely know that this is tantamount to King Canute commanding the sea to retreat.

We will all get infected in the end.  That is unless Or until science provides the answer first. Which it surely will.
This is our USP as a species. Despite our stupidity we can actually be quite clever. We will find a solution. Of course we will only share the solution with those who will pay for the privilege. And there will be fake and harmful remedies peddled too. Our other defining Characteristic as a species is our criminal greed and callous disregard for our fellow travellers. I’m alright Jack is the fundamental human creed whether bulk buying, scamming the elderly and the vulnerable, or milking a pandemic for financial gain.

So where does all that leave us? Simply treading water and buying time.

We probably don’t really care whether the young have caught the disease as long as they keep it to themselves. We have already demonstrated that we don’t give a toss about the elderly and the vulnerable. It’s every man for himself buying time for himself. Those who want to walk your dogs, go walk your dogs. Those that want to meet up for sex, get at it. Those who want to hug their parents or their grand kids, please feel free. As long as we all accept responsibility for the fact that freedom = increased risk.
If my elderly and vulnerable  parent becomes infected by the daily carer who catches the disease by going out for a pub meal, or catching the bus, or doing it doggy style after a bottle of wine, I have to accept that this is ultimately probably inevitable despite the ppe, the hand wash, and every other futile gesture. 

but let’s buy that time.
Let’s at least delay the onset of our own demise and continue to live in hope.
For everyone there is a virus particle with our name on it until such time as a vaccine exists, or an anti-body treatment changes the game and rewrites the rules in our favour.

I'm amazed that anyone would be so resigned to something that is not a given. Control is possible, the question in the UK is whether they exists to the will to trust that the government is competent enough to achieve it. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Interesting study from Edinburgh University;

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-full-lockdown-left-country-more-vulnerable-to-another-wave-covid-19-study-suggests-12098766

key points;

- The full lockdown may have left the UK more vulnerable to another wave of the coronavirus epidemic.

- Suggests that short-term lockdowns could result in more people dying with coronavirus.

- Prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term

- The final death toll from COVID-19 depends largely on the age of those infected and not the overall number of cases.

"Perhaps the key lesson that should be drawn from this study is the warning that if we allow short-term thinking to dictate our response to COVID-19 then we may not make the best decisions for minimising the public health burden over the longer term."

Sums up this governments response imo.

Pretty much spot on with the quote. Keep in mind, when they reference death tolls, etc, they're working on the assumption that the pandemic ends through herd immunity, and assumes that one way or another, the absolute floor for total deaths is 200k in the UK alone. 

The full text of the article is freely available: Link

The article in question isn't quite what it seems. It's basically just them reaffirming Imperial College London's work from March, using data available then, to see how effective their model actually was. It's more of a modelling excercise than anything else (hence it was conducted by Astrophysicists, rather than epidemiologists). Conclusions were broadly drawn from this. That work assumed that long term suppression of the virus was not something that could be achieved, and this, hence, followings from that assumption. For that reason, you should be cautious of extrapolating the findings too far. 

The key point they raise regarding deaths however is that they can be pushed back, even under the above assumption. If a vaccine is anywhere on the horizon, you can, in effect, picture it as being a case of any of those 200k+ deaths that can be pushed back to beyond when we have the vaccine are indeed savable. There exists, however, the risk that spreading it out for that long risks vulnerable populations that could otherwise be 'locked away' in a let it burn scenario. Whether or not this is a real risk, or an artefact of the assumptions built into the behaviour of the agents in the model, is something that is open for discussion. 

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Pretty much spot on with the quote. Keep in mind, when they reference death tolls, etc, they're working on the assumption that the pandemic ends through herd immunity, and assumes that one way or another, the absolute floor for total deaths is 200k in the UK alone. 

The full text of the article is freely available: Link

The article in question isn't quite what it seems. It's basically just them reaffirming Imperial College London's work from March, using data available then, to see how effective their model actually was. It's more of a modelling excercise than anything else (hence it was conducted by Astrophysicists, rather than epidemiologists). Conclusions were broadly drawn from this. That work assumed that long term suppression of the virus was not something that could be achieved, and this, hence, followings from that assumption. For that reason, you should be cautious of extrapolating the findings too far. 

The key point they raise regarding deaths however is that they can be pushed back, even under the above assumption. If a vaccine is anywhere on the horizon, you can, in effect, picture it as being a case of any of those 200k+ deaths that can be pushed back to beyond when we have the vaccine are indeed savable. There exists, however, the risk that spreading it out for that long risks vulnerable populations that could otherwise be 'locked away' in a let it burn scenario. Whether or not this is a real risk, or an artefact of the assumptions built into the behaviour of the agents in the model, is something that is open for discussion. 

Delaying infections until we have a vaccine is a noble cause, but what long term damage do we accrue in the meantime?  Furthermore, will a vaccine ever arrive?  And if one does - and btw I'm not the only one with concerns about a fast-tracked vaccine - only approx half the UK will be getting it anyway, certainly at the beginning which could lead to another year of restrictions;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/covid-19-vaccine-alone-wont-defeat-spread-of-virus-report-warns

[Gritstone Ram]

16 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

To protect the less than 1% ? ?‍♂️ You might be alright with somebody kicking it earlier than they might have ordinarily, I’m not and don’t mind doing my bit to contribute to their safety.

Are you likely to lose your job, house or livelihood?

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Awkward

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/college-student-dies-covid.html

How many students die without Covid?

[Pearl Ram]

Sorry me owd, not getting involved with this thread any longer, stay safe. UTR. ?

[rammieib]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

Awkward

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/college-student-dies-covid.html

Awkward but correct until September 29th.
 

Ok shall I tell you how many students die from alcohol related injuries every year ... 1800. Source https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

But well done you for finding the article about the one off death instead of the 1800 off who die. We don’t seem to be banning alcohol though do we to 18-24 year olds?

Problem is we live in a society now where until something becomes the absolute norm, the one offs get reported. Hundreds of thousands die every year on the Turkey/Syria border but that’s the norm so we don’t report on it.

One Government advisor drives North whilst having the virus and it’s the biggest thing ever. 
 

So the first student dieing, apparently with no under lying cause, and therefore it’s going to be reported about.

 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

As long as there is movement of people there will be infection. The virus is now so widespread that the threat will not go away. There cannot be a permanent “back to normal“ until science provides some answers.  This needs a global engineered solution. Until then we have to try to control the rate of infection. As far as I am concerned this is not for the benefit of the nhs but to minimise the risk to the health of everyone including the elderly, the vulnerable, the overweight, front line workers, care staff, cleaners, shop keepers etc.   

Lockdown provides a temporary application of the brake. Freedom of movement presses down on the accelerator.
We need to achieve an appropriate balance between personal liberty on the one hand, and social and economic paralysis on the other. but whatever measures we adopt, we only buy time before we inevitably inhale our own personal dosage.

full lockdown was marked by idiotic police action - shaming Isolated dog walkers; stopping lone individuals from sitting on a park bench; stopping cars to quiz people on whether their journey was essential; checking people’s shopping bags to decide whether their purchases were essential. It just showed how quickly the police can demonstrate their own institutional stupidity. 

the first peak in the uk was also marked by the scandalous decision to discharge patients into care homes. There have been so many lies told to cover the tracks. A rule was created that said any patient who no longer required hospital level care HAD TO BE discharged within 2 hours irrespective of whether they carried the virus. These weren’t people who we didn’t realise were infected. On the checklist for assessing suitability for discharge, the final question states “does the patient test positive for coronavirus? and states....this is for administrative purposes only and makes no difference to the decision on whether to discharge. How callous is that? There were even wings in care homes which were official Covid wards.  I’m delighted that Amnesty International have produced a damning report, but it makes no difference. No government minister is sacked or resigns. No-one is charged or held to account for the greatest ever case of corporate manslaughter. 

there was also a message put out by government that masks and face coverings were ineffective protection. This was to prevent public demand from exhausting the limited supplies of available masks for health workers and front line staff. It lead to the Local authority H+S numpties bizarrely refusing to sanction and approve orders for ppe for ‘ordinary’ workers who were going into care homes to mend doors, service boilers or test fire alarms etc. Now we are all told to wear masks. In fact we will be fined if we don’t. Such is the slippery world of political spin. 

At first there was no viable testing system but once we began to feel confident that the prevalence of the virus was rare amongst us, the restrictions were relaxed and we began to re-open schools, shops, bars and restaurants. there was bound to be a rising rate of infection.

Once the summer came and restrictions on movement were relaxed even more, there was going to be a second wave. We all knew what was coming. We all collectively accepted the inevitable consequence of a second wave in exchange for opening our doors, getting in our cars, and stepping out. We await the second tsunami.

So it makes no sense to blame the students, the drinkers, the shaggers, or the eater-outers. We must all take responsibility for our own collective action.
We have changed our behaviour. We socially distance. We track and trace (Don’t laugh) . We wear our flimsy masks. But we must surely know that this is tantamount to King Canute commanding the sea to retreat.

We will all get infected in the end.  That is unless Or until science provides the answer first. Which it surely will.
This is our USP as a species. Despite our stupidity we can actually be quite clever. We will find a solution. Of course we will only share the solution with those who will pay for the privilege. And there will be fake and harmful remedies peddled too. Our other defining Characteristic as a species is our criminal greed and callous disregard for our fellow travellers. I’m alright Jack is the fundamental human creed whether bulk buying, scamming the elderly and the vulnerable, or milking a pandemic for financial gain.

So where does all that leave us? Simply treading water and buying time.

We probably don’t really care whether the young have caught the disease as long as they keep it to themselves. We have already demonstrated that we don’t give a toss about the elderly and the vulnerable. It’s every man for himself buying time for himself. Those who want to walk your dogs, go walk your dogs. Those that want to meet up for sex, get at it. Those who want to hug their parents or their grand kids, please feel free. As long as we all accept responsibility for the fact that freedom = increased risk.
If my elderly and vulnerable  parent becomes infected by the daily carer who catches the disease by going out for a pub meal, or catching the bus, or doing it doggy style after a bottle of wine, I have to accept that this is ultimately probably inevitable despite the ppe, the hand wash, and every other futile gesture. 

but let’s buy that time.
Let’s at least delay the onset of our own demise and continue to live in hope.
For everyone there is a virus particle with our name on it until such time as a vaccine exists, or an anti-body treatment changes the game and rewrites the rules in our favour.

Excellent post and beautifully written. 

[maxjam]

Interesting Andrew Neil interview with Professor David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy on Covid-19.

 

 

Key argument why lockdowns are dangerous from 9m45s - 11m45s

[WhiteHorseRam]

@RamNut 's post was great, but is interesting as it shows how philosophical people are about the virus now - although I guess it is different if you have lost somebody to it.

Bit of a grim observation, but  - 

I have thought all along that things would would be/would have been very different if the virus had impacted on the other end of the age range.

Rather than largely elderly and frail people or those with serious underlying issues, it had killed healthy under 10 yr old children.

We would be in a very different place now after 40,000 + little coffins.

[jimmyp]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Interesting Andrew Neil interview with Professor David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy on Covid-19.

 

 

Key argument why lockdowns are dangerous from 9m45s - 11m45s

So to name just a few fairly significant things we need to get sorted. 

We need a fully implemented and working test and trace system. 

We need people to be compliant in observing isolation rules.

We don’t have either, which is exactly why we currently have no choice over being subjected to emergency lockdowns. 

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So to name just a few fairly significant things we need to get sorted. 

We need a fully implemented and working test and trace system. 

We need people to be compliant in observing isolation rules.

We don’t have either, which is exactly why we currently have no choice over being subjected to emergency lockdowns. 

I'd agree that the government have been useless, track and trace etc but I'd also defend the reasons as to why increasingly the public are starting to revolt against lockdowns. 

Regardless, I've always argued the wider and more long term impact of lockdowns which will cripple economies and potentially lead to the deaths of millions around the world - which was summed up far better than I can do in the video.

[jimmyp]

Just now, maxjam said:

I'd agree that the government have been useless, track and trace etc but I'd also defend the reasons as to why increasingly the public are starting to revolt against lockdowns. 

Regardless, I've always argued the wider and more long term impact of lockdowns which will cripple economies and potentially lead to the deaths of millions around the world - which was summed up far better than I can do in the video.

Yes we can defend the many reasons why people are starting to revolt against the lockdowns. None the less though those actions are one of the main reasons as to why we can’t just let it rip as such. Hence we are left with lockdowns. 

Lockdowns aren’t beneficial other than in reducing transmission rates. 

Letting it rip won’t be beneficial given our current circumstances either.

We appear to be stuck until test and trace improves and compliance improves. 

Maybe we need to look at more incentives for those that comply with isolation, both the vulnerable and the working. We should also maybe consider reducing isolation time periods down to 7 days based on the current science. 

 

 

[Guest]

The average age of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales since the start of the epidemic is 82.4 years old

about 6 in every 1000 infections now result in death down from about 30 in every 1000 in June

source ONS

the Chief Medical Officer briefing to  MP’s on the state of the pandemic excluded data on infections in schools and workplaces outside hospitality. MP’s were shown data that included sources for only 58 per cent of infections during the presentation designed to build support to shut down pubs and restaurants in northern England 

source The Times 10/10/20

 

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, Monty said:

The average age of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales since the start of the epidemic is 82.4 years old

about 6 in every 1000 infections now result in death down from about 30 in every 1000 in June

source ONS

the Chief Medical Officer briefing to  MP’s on the state of the pandemic excluded data on infections in schools and workplaces outside hospitality. MP’s were shown data that included sources for only 58 per cent of infections during the presentation designed to build support to shut down pubs and restaurants in northern England 

source The Times 10/10/20

 

Shocking if true but not at all surprising. 

Whitty and Valance, the early stars of the epidemic are quickly becoming the villains. Saving lives from Covid 19 is purely their blinkered view.