Coronavirus

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Previously, it was a death at any point after testing positive. Logic dictates that everyone will eventually die (no time limit) so we'd be looking at a minimum of 600,000 deaths in the future. Obviously, a limit had to be set.

The expected number of deaths from the people who have tested positive even over a longer period is quite low. Equally, people won't keep testing positive forever, so this view of 'it'll just include all deaths' is unfounded on a very basic level. 

Going with the current figure of ~635,000 cases, even if we included up to three months instead, the number you'd expect to die 'with Covid' from other causes would be ~1400. Of course, the 28 days figure is a blunt hammer to approximate a long period for someone after infection, and most people are free of the disease within a few weeks. The number of other deaths expected under the 28 day method is ~440. 

The issue is, people who die of Covid tend to have a severe case, and these go longer, some of which last longer than 28 days. A famous example of this was Herman Cain, who was diagnosed on 29 June 2020, and died on 30 July 2020 of the disease. He would not be counted by the UK method, and this is why the UK's figures dropped so dramatically after the change. 

Given that the number of excess deaths is not only higher than the official count, but that these excess deaths track almost perfectly with the official Covid figures in terms of trends, it's not hard to see where the concern comes from. 

16 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If it's commonly used across countries, then a direct comparison can be made.

There was this in May, where most countries were using the no time limit method, but I'm sure they changed the method since.

A BBC article in August when we made the change: "The 28 days is widely used in many countries and England is now the same as the rest of the UK".

Ah, so it makes it consistent with the rest of the UK, but no reference to the rest of Europe. So to answer my question, no, you were mistaken, and this is not how it's done in the rest of Europe, it's just an internal UK thing. This, hence, implies that it is not consistent with numbers from elsewhere, which is the concern I raised. 

[ariotofmyown]

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Totally agree with this, do you have any confidence that we will have those things in place if we lockdown again? Otherwise the lockdowns are pissing in the wind and do more damage 

We've had 6 or 7 months since the first lockdown and haven't been able to get those things in place yet, so seems little chance if we carry on down the same path.

We're left with the choice now of another long lockdown and screw the economy, or keep things open and have loads of deaths.

Populists make decisions on what they think will make them look best, so they, and us, are screwed either way. It they were running as business, they would be sacked by now.

I think we need an emergency national government, with extra representation from large urban areas. They could produce a plan and explain the rational behind the decisions.

If we have to have another lockdown, they should explain what they are going to implement so we don't have to have another one.

If they can produce a plan that doesn't require a lockdown but prevents loads of deaths and gets us out of this hole, they can explain the rational behind this too.

We are currently rudderless and the plan is to hope things just magically get better.

[Uptherams]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd argue that with 1m passing through the country everyday, implementing proper border controls would cause insufferable delays to getting in/out and kill a large part of the economy.  There is also the post lockdown issue of covid being spread more easily inside - and therefore schools/universities/work places.

I'd agree that the lockdown worked as a short term fix, but another one would be pretty pointless, unless there is a vaccine it will just push what we're seeing now back a few weeks and people will rebel - especially during the cold, dark winter months and over Christmas. 

Exactly. Lockdown wouldn't be tolerated. I'd be out protesting everyday and so would hundreds of thousands of others. Millions every week. 

[ariotofmyown]

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd argue that with 1m passing through the country everyday, implementing proper border controls would cause insufferable delays to getting in/out and kill a large part of the economy.  There is also the post lockdown issue of covid being spread more easily inside - and therefore schools/universities/work places.

I'd agree that the lockdown worked as a short term fix, but another one would be pretty pointless, unless there is a vaccine it will just push what we're seeing now back a few weeks and people will rebel - especially during the cold, dark winter months and over Christmas. 

Are there still 1m people passing through the country though, surely much smaller now? If we don't get things sorted, no one will want to come here again.

Other countries seem to have success with quick testing at airports. We are literally doing nothing except suggesting 14 days quarantine, based on some national average infection rates that don't seem to be able to differentiate between capital cities and islands. 

[ariotofmyown]

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

Exactly. Lockdown wouldn't be tolerated. I'd be out protesting everyday and so would hundreds of thousands of others. Millions every week. 

What was that about British people not being the brightest?

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd argue that with 1m passing through the country everyday, implementing proper border controls would cause insufferable delays to getting in/out and kill a large part of the economy.  There is also the post lockdown issue of covid being spread more easily inside - and therefore schools/universities/work places.

Source on 1 million passing through the UK everyday these days? In fact, source on this ever being the case. From the data I can find, even last year the total international traffic in and out was less than 1 million per day. If fact, the aggregate total of all traffic, including domestic, was only 820k per day. That was before the pandemic though. 

Given how much you rely on this point, it would be good to get something backing it. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd agree that the lockdown worked as a short term fix, but another one would be pretty pointless, unless there is a vaccine it will just push what we're seeing now back a few weeks and people will rebel - especially during the cold, dark winter months and over Christmas. 

Do you think that an out of control pandemic over Christmas is better? 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Are there still 1m people passing through the country though, surely much smaller now? If we don't get things sorted, no one will want to come here again.

Other countries seem to have success with quick testing at airports. We are literally doing nothing except suggesting 14 days quarantine, based on some national average infection rates that don't seem to be able to differentiate between capital cities and islands. 

Of course not, but we've added 20% to our national debt and its continuing to rise.

Airport testing should have been a priority but we can look forwards to it coming soon (tm)

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/oct/01/airport-covid-testing-could-start-within-weeks-says-heathrow-chief

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Source on 1 million passing through the UK everyday these days? In fact, source on this ever being the case. From the data I can find, even last year the total international traffic in and out was less than 1 million per day. If fact, the aggregate total of all traffic, including domestic, was only 820k per day. That was before the pandemic though. 

Given how much you rely on this point, it would be good to get something backing it. 

I was on a flight last week. Normally it would be a full flight, 30 rows with 6 seats, you're looking at a minimum of 150 people on board. There were less than 30. Take off all the cancelled flights, you've reduced the footfall by 80-90% I'd imagine.

[ariotofmyown]

Why we are in a mess #1922:

The papers, particularly the Tory-leaning ones, are carrying reports this morning saying that Boris Johnson is considering introducing a short lockdown in England - even though a government sourced briefed journalists last night that Sir Keir Starmer was a “shameless opportunist” when he advocated exactly that.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

The expected number of deaths from the people who have tested positive even over a longer period is quite low. Equally, people won't keep testing positive forever, so this view of 'it'll just include all deaths' is unfounded on a very basic level. 

Exactly, the expected number. But the previous method was anyone who had tested positive. That includes people who had been ran over by cars the day after testing positive, or someone dying from a heart attack 50 years from now.

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Going with the current figure of ~635,000 cases, even if we included up to three months instead, the number you'd expect to die 'with Covid' from other causes would be ~1400. Of course, the 28 days figure is a blunt hammer to approximate a long period for someone after infection, and most people are free of the disease within a few weeks. The number of other deaths expected under the 28 day method is ~440. 

The issue is, people who die of Covid tend to have a severe case, and these go longer, some of which last longer than 28 days. A famous example of this was Herman Cain, who was diagnosed on 29 June 2020, and died on 30 July 2020 of the disease. He would not be counted by the UK method, and this is why the UK's figures dropped so dramatically after the change. 

Given that the number of excess deaths is not only higher than the official count, but that these excess deaths track almost perfectly with the official Covid figures in terms of trends, it's not hard to see where the concern comes from. 

What often gets ignored is that we monitor deaths under two different methods. The first is the commonly known 28 days, but the second is 60 days plus anyone with Covid on the death certificate. 43,018 for the first method, 57,690 for the second.

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Ah, so it makes it consistent with the rest of the UK, but no reference to the rest of Europe. So to answer my question, no, you were mistaken, and this is not how it's done in the rest of Europe, it's just an internal UK thing. This, hence, implies that it is not consistent with numbers from elsewhere, which is the concern I raised. 

Did you miss the "many countries" bit? I find it hard to believe that's a reference to Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland given the rest of the sentence.

[Gone]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Maybe we could have been a bit more tough on the lockdown, don't you think?

May:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53190209

June:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-lockdown.html

No pictures of the protestors? 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Of course not, but we've added 20% to our national debt and its continuing to rise.

Airport testing should have been a priority but we can look forwards to it coming soon (tm)

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/oct/01/airport-covid-testing-could-start-within-weeks-says-heathrow-chief

So, when pressed on backing your data, you've just launched into discussing national debt? 

The best way to get the debt under control is to control the virus and open the economy properly, as discussed. 

Anyhow, I got curious and looked it myself. Heathrow releases data on monthly passengers (here), and from this we can see that while from April-September 2019 they got 236,403 passengers per day, over the same period this year they only got 23,767. Note that this includes all passengers, not just international arrivals. Similar would be seen elsewhere.  

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Exactly, the expected number. But the previous method was anyone who had tested positive. That includes people who had been ran over by cars the day after testing positive, or someone dying from a heart attack 50 years from now.

As noted, that would be a tiny fraction of the total Covid deaths. They wiped off around 5000 deaths, yet you'd only expect a few hundred would have died of other causes during the period of time. Equally, as noted, there's no need to put a clock on it at all. Cause of death should be the primary driver of what is considered a 'Covid death', and even if you go for something as blunt as 'tested positive/negative' as the determiner, people do indeed test negative post infection. To reiterate, the number who would die 'with Covid' is expected to be small compared to the total count, as shown. 

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

What often gets ignored is that we monitor deaths under two different methods. The first is the commonly known 28 days, but the second is 60 days plus anyone with Covid on the death certificate. 43,018 for the first method, 57,690 for the second.

Even the second is below the excess deaths, however. 

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Did you miss the "many countries" bit? I find it hard to believe that's a reference to Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland given the rest of the sentence.

'Many countries' is a meaningless phrase without reference to any of those countries. You said it was a 'commonly used rule across most countries, certainly across Europe', yet now you can't provide any outside the UK. 

[Cardinal]

. 

 

[Stive Pesley]

46 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd agree that the lockdown worked as a short term fix, but another one would be pretty pointless, unless there is a vaccine it will just push what we're seeing now back a few weeks and people will rebel - especially during the cold, dark winter months and over Christmas

Agree - another full 3 month lockdown as we had in April-June would be pointless unless there was a clear plan as to why we were doing it, and what would be different/better at the end of it. People would quite rigtly be unhappy, and I'm sure that plenty would take to the streets. It would certainly keep the army busy (and Boris might even get to use his water cannon)

I think local lockdowns are doomed (I've already heard friends from Nottingham saying they will just go to Derby for a night out instead - is that against the rules or not?)

2-3 week circuit breakers over school holidays are the happy medium - but again, only if there is a plan to use that time wisely taking active measures to improve the situation

 

 

[GboroRam]

25 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

No pictures of the protestors? 

A bit more mask adherence, but I'd still say there was little adherence to the rules.

[maxjam]

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, when pressed on backing your data, you've just launched into discussing national debt? 

The best way to get the debt under control is to control the virus and open the economy properly, as discussed. 

Anyhow, I got curious and looked it myself. Heathrow releases data on monthly passengers (here), and from this we can see that while from April-September 2019 they got 236,403 passengers per day, over the same period this year they only got 23,767. Note that this includes all passengers, not just international arrivals. Similar would be seen elsewhere.  

CBA to put the effort into replying to you tbh, but here goes anyway.

During an earlier conversation with you I quoted 330m passing through uk airports every year, the link is probably 10s of pages back now.  Add to that other forms of travel into and out of the country - you're looking at the best part of 1m people passing through the UK every day, which is what I originally said, shortened to 1m as I have to keep repeating myself cos I'm lazy.

Of course the numbers of travel are down now, massively, which has added to our spiralling debt which is the crux of my argument - lockdowns are unsustainable long term.  We either learn to live with the virus and keep the economy moving or keep having lockdowns and watch as everything slowly falls apart.

The UKs economy is over 80% service sector based, of which the air industry contributes significantly.  Furthermore, more Brits travel abroad than any other nation.  We simply can't afford to remain locked down without doing more damage to our economy than most other nations;

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-travellers-iata-world-air-transport-statistics-a9029366.html

FWIW ignoring future posts will not be seen as running from a 'tired and defeated' argument, I'm just not interested in discussing this point any further.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Whether it's people enjoying their morning constitutional (by the million, on the beach) or marching through London - it doesn't matter. My comment was that we could have been more tough on lockdown. I presume you're agreeing with me by using BLM as your example? Or are you saying we don't need to lock down and the BLM marches weren't being unreasonably risky with regards to public health?

We were under lockdown.

A blind eye was turned to the BLM marches yet there was huge condemnation for people heading to the beach.

If these events didnt lead to a rise in cases then I'm not sure why we would have needed a tougher lockdown?

[Wolfie]

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I think local lockdowns are doomed (I've already heard friends from Nottingham saying they will just go to Derby for a night out instead - is that against the rules or not?)

 

The guidance is that people in highest risk areas shouldn't travel in & out without good reason but your post illustrates exactly the stupid & selfish behaviour that means the authorities don't stand a chance to control this thing.

OK, just realised that Nottm isn't in the highest risk group but the stupid/selfish thing still stands

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

We were under lockdown.

A blind eye was turned to the BLM marches yet there was huge condemnation for people heading to the beach.

If these events didnt lead to a rise in cases then I'm not sure why we would have needed a tougher lockdown?

Er, either lockdowns work (which going to the beach or protesting on the street have contributed) or they don't (so you can't be complaining about BLM). Which one is it, as it seems like you'd like to say we shouldn't be locking down at the same time as condemning the BLM protesters as being irresponsible?