Coronavirus

[BriggRam]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Because while they have the beds, they don't have the staff to manage them.

Fair 1 ?

[alexxxxx]

Does appear that perhaps numbers of new cases are levelling off a bit. Hopefully these new restrictions will get the rate to start falling. Can't see how they'll fall quickly, though. 

[FindernRam]

18 hours ago, Archied said:

Ok I’m going to be generous with the numbers here , if I told you last year that a new virus was going to come about that 97 % of people survive and most with very little problems / symptoms would you have told me we need to close down the world quick smart and destroy people’s lives ,families and the very fabric of life we live?     Would you duck

So 3% die. In a population of 65 million thats nearly 2 million. If I said 2 million are going to die, lets still go out and get drunk, you'd be happy with that?

[GboroRam]

10 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

So 3% die. In a population of 65 million thats nearly 2 million. If I said 2 million are going to die, lets still go out and get drunk, you'd be happy with that?

They decided to make up lower numbers. Why they didn't just say 100% survive, and the whole problem goes away?

[Archied]

14 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

So 3% die. In a population of 65 million thats nearly 2 million. If I said 2 million are going to die, lets still go out and get drunk, you'd be happy with that?

See there you go with extremes , who said go out and get drunk?

the only thing I see is this gov lurching about like a drunken sailor,

[Boycie]

Had my second test of the year yesterday at 11.30am.

Got my all clear at 9.50pm the same night.

Now thats a impressive turn around time. 
credit where credits due.

[G STAR RAM]

10 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Without double checking, we're above 55k deaths and an estimated 10-15% of the population have had the virus. Based on those numbers  we'd be looking at about 370-550k total deaths if we let it burn through the entire country unrestricted- equivalent to a 0.55-0.8% fatality rate. However, those figures are based on current health care conditions. Without lockdown restrictions, we'd exceed surge capacity in hospitals in just over a month. That fatality rate will therefore increase by an unknown amount. Decisions on which people to save and which to let die will then have to be made.

Just trying to get my head around the figures.

So year to date deaths are 55k are over the 55 year average.

53k deaths had Covid 19 mentioned on the death certificate. 

A report last week said there were 27k excess deaths in private homes that were not Covid related.

Over 20k excess deaths in care homes.

The numbers do just not add up.

[Stive Pesley]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just trying to get my head around the figures.

So year to date deaths are 55k are over the 55 year average.

53k deaths had Covid 19 mentioned on the death certificate. 

A report last week said there were 27k excess deaths in private homes that were not Covid related.

Over 20k excess deaths in care homes.

The numbers do just not add up.

you might just be cherry-picking numbers that don't add up, just so you can say they don't add up?

You can't, as a layman, just take headline numbers, ignore the details and the methodologies involved, and start making generalised assumptions to fit what you want to believe. Social media is full of mugs doing this. Best ignored. Or alternatively direct your energies into an Open University degree in epedemiology

 

 

[ketteringram]

39 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Had my second test of the year yesterday at 11.30am.

Got my all clear at 9.50pm the same night.

Now thats a impressive turn around time. 
credit where credits due.

Just curious. Are you getting tested due to having symptoms? And then testing negative?

[jimmyp]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just trying to get my head around the figures.

So year to date deaths are 55k are over the 55 year average.

53k deaths had Covid 19 mentioned on the death certificate. 

A report last week said there were 27k excess deaths in private homes that were not Covid related.

Over 20k excess deaths in care homes.

The numbers do just not add up.

We have witnessed a very large re-distribution of deaths between locations. Lots of people have died in private homes and care homes that would normally be in hospital when they died. In most cases they were expected to die though. 

We should look at the overall excess deaths. Then we should look at how many of those excess deaths were because of covid-19.

 

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-week-ending-16-Oct-2020.html

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/deathsinprivatehomesenglandandwales

 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

 Or alternatively direct your energies into an Open University degree in epedemiology

What good would that do?  Professor Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University regularly gets talked down on here.  By football fans.

[jimmyp]

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

What good would that do?  Professor Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University regularly gets talked down on here.  By football fans.

Did she state that the purpose of her report was to get scientists talking and debating possible alternative methods of dealing with covid-19, rather than offering a credible solution? 

It was the media and other scientists that were trying to pedal it as a solution.

She openly admits she doesn’t have all the answers.

Its sad that people have reacted the way they have to her and dismissed all aspects of her argument.

She is missing a lot of very important answers in order for her suggestions to work though. 

[G STAR RAM]

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

you might just be cherry-picking numbers that don't add up, just so you can say they don't add up?

You can't, as a layman, just take headline numbers, ignore the details and the methodologies involved, and start making generalised assumptions to fit what you want to believe. Social media is full of mugs doing this. Best ignored. Or alternatively direct your energies into an Open University degree in epedemiology

So unless peoples opinion agree with yours they are not allowed to ask questions?

Surely by providing answers to questions it helps educated people who are taking a misguided view and helps get them on board with the official narrative?

I welcome your valued response which I am sure will be fully backed up by all of the official figures.

[Stive Pesley]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So unless peoples opinion agree with yours they are not allowed to ask questions?

Surely by providing answers to questions it helps educated people who are taking a misguided view and helps get them on board with the official narrative?

I welcome your valued response which I am sure will be fully backed up by all of the official figures.

No - I simply recognise that understanding and interpreting the huge amounts of data being generated and presented is way beyond me, and indeed as @maxjampoints out - even difficult for qualified epedemiologists

So I'll leave it to the experts and let them guide the response thanks. Cherry-picking data to try and prove "what I reckon is happening" is a fools game

I know they won't always get it right, and i know that they may well be subject to external forces.

But crucially, no matter how much I suspect that- complaining about it on a football forum will change absolutely nothing (other than your blood pressure)

[maxjam]

12 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Did she state that the purpose of her report was to get scientists talking and debating possible alternative methods of dealing with covid-19, rather than offering a credible solution? 

It was the media and other scientists that were trying to pedal it as a solution.

She openly admits she doesn’t have all the answers.

Its sad that people have reacted the way they have to her and dismissed all aspects of her argument.

She is missing a lot of very important answers in order for her suggestions to work though. 

Exactly, the whole thing has become very political.

There are clearly multiple ways to interpret the statistics and the Government should encourage open debate to find the best path out of the situation - but we keep being force fed doomsday statistics and being told their is 'no alternative'.

[jimmyp]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Exactly, the whole thing has become very political.

There are clearly multiple ways to interpret the statistics and the Government should encourage open debate to find the best path out of the situation - but we keep being force fed doomsday statistics and being told their is 'no alternative'.

Do we have a current viable alternative? 

Hospital admissions if they continue the way they are will lead to a very bad situation. 

How else can we reduce the r to prevent hospital admissions. 

Social distancing on its own quite clearly isn’t efficient enough (due to lack of compliance possibly). How do we increase compliance and provide people with the ability to socially distance in all situations without a lockdown?

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Do we have a current viable alternative? 

Hospital admissions if they continue the way they are will lead to a very bad situation. 

How else can we reduce the r to prevent hospital admissions. 

Social distancing on its own quite clearly isn’t efficient enough (due to lack of compliance possibly). How do we increase compliance and provide people with the ability to socially distance in all situations without a lockdown?

Not getting drawn into a debate again, I've already gone over my opinions numerous times in previous weeks.

We clearly need to change strategy however as this lockdown will achieve nothing, especially if it does end on Dec 2nd or whenever it is - a few Christmas parties later and we'll be back to where we are in January.

[Cardinal]

It seems to me in some cases decisions have been made and then data has been found to support that decision rather than the other way round. Or data has been incorrectly interpreted leading to random decisions . I have no examples to give as don't have the time to find them. Call it a gut feel. 

I find the interpretation of data always fascinating. I direct you to an excellent website - https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. This shows how you can draw any random conclusion using data. 

For example using the below it would suggest that by spending more on science, space and technology the number of suicides by hanging, etc goes up. Therefore the conclusion would be to prevent suicides the US needs to stop spending on science, space and tech. 

 

 

Aware this is an extreme example but is it possible that this sort of thing is happening on some level with COVID? I don't know myself. Just an interesting consideration I think. 

[G STAR RAM]

22 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

So I'll leave it to the experts and let them guide the response reponse.

Which ones?

[jimmyp]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Not getting drawn into a debate again, I've already gone over my opinions numerous times in previous weeks.

We clearly need to change strategy however as this lockdown will achieve nothing, especially if it does end on Dec 2nd or whenever it is - a few Christmas parties later and we'll be back to where we are in January.

Yeah sorry I wasn’t looking for a debate either to be honest. 

Even if the restrictions only reduce the r slightly it will help the NHS through the start of winter.

I do suspect restrictions will be increased during the new lockdown. 

Let’s hope the new quick testing makes a difference with logistics from the military, rather than relying so much on the private sector.