Coronavirus

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

Weird choice to quote mine

I agree and apologise I actually shouldn’t of quoted you. I don’t want to engage in a tit for tat marathon again. I don’t agree or believe in lockdowns or the value of them, that’s my argument in a nutshell nothing else, no evidence, science or citations behind my views. 

 

[angieram]

Interesting that the areas in the South East and London going into tier two have the highest R rates, according to the latest figures.

Whereas the R rate is coming down elsewhere, where we are going into tier 3.

We always seem to be about a fortnight behind the science with our decisions.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not really Coronavirus virus related but don't be fooled into think the collapse of the Arcadia Group is down to coronavirus, it really is just the final nail in the coffin.

That crook and his family have run it into the ground whilst siphoning of large amounts to their tax haven.

Of course coupled with the fact that nobody gets off their arse to go shopping anymore.

It will be interesting to see how many people bemoaning the job losses will change their shopping habits when things return to normal.

Yeah I know, I work with a few of their businesses and they have been in trouble for awhile. Lockdown certainly has not helped though.

[Andicis]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

What we do know is that the UK has managed to achieve the worst of both World in pretty much every department imaginable. 

Yeah, we're definitely in agreement here. 

 

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

Equally, Sweden has still been hit harder than their neighbours on pretty much every metric. Consider Sweden (Q2: -8.3%, Q3: +4.3%) then Denmark (Q2: -6.8%, Q3: +4.9%). So this notion that being open would cause it to tank less doesn't even work on direct comparison that well. 

I see what you're saying, it's entirely fair to draw comparisons with neighbours in this instance, however I feel to really draw conclusions we need to see a few more quarters of data. 

 

19 minutes ago, Albert said:

Both examples have been hit hard economically, but the big question is what happens in the coming months. 

The US, compared to most, seems to have bounced back pretty well economically. The pandemic isn't yet over, so we can't say for sure, but compared to other nations they have performed comparatively well economically. 

[Angry Ram]

27 minutes ago, Albert said:

The stats can't say 'whatever you want them to', it's not how they work. I get it's one of those talking points that's been pushed by anti-academic types across the Western World, but like computers, stats show what they say on the tin. The issue is people trying to cover up what the tin says. 

If you draw 5 games on the bounce, are you unbeaten in 5 or not won in 5. That’s a stat that can say whatever you want.

 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

If you draw 5 games on the bounce, are you unbeaten in 5 or not won in 5. That’s a stat that can say whatever you want.

 

That's kind of my point, it's not the stat that's saying something, it's the framing that people are giving it. The stat says exactly what it says, the team has drawn 5 games in a row. 

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Yeah, we're definitely in agreement here. 

This is the thing, I completely understand the frustration, the UK's response has been abysmal. 

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I see what you're saying, it's entirely fair to draw comparisons with neighbours in this instance, however I feel to really draw conclusions we need to see a few more quarters of data. 

Agreed, we won't know the full story of the economic picture until this is all over. The big point is, however, that while the view is that not locking down should have short term benefits for Sweden, it hasn't. I'd suggest if they locked down, their figures would be worse than they are, but I'd also argue the infection load has also had a significant impact, hence Denmark's comparative performance over that period. Again though, a few more quarters will give us more to discuss. 

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The US, compared to most, seems to have bounced back pretty well economically. The pandemic isn't yet over, so we can't say for sure, but compared to other nations they have performed comparatively well economically. 

Depends on how you define comparatively well. The US is a complicated one to analyse in terms of GDP, as each state operates, in many ways, as it's own country. Each have taken their own approach to dealing with the virus, and while the US opened earlier, their case loads are now looking horrendous. A state by state look at GDP after another quarter or so will be able to tell us a lot about their choices though. 

23 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I agree and apologise I actually shouldn’t of quoted you. I don’t want to engage in a tit for tat marathon again. I don’t agree or believe in lockdowns or the value of them, that’s my argument in a nutshell nothing else, no evidence, science or citations behind my views. 

 

Fair enough. 

[Carl Sagan]

4 minutes ago, angieram said:

Interesting that the areas in the South East and London going into tier two have the highest R rates, according to the latest figures.

Whereas the R rate is coming down elsewhere, where we are going into tier 3.

We always seem to be about a fortnight behind the science with our decisions.

One of the things about all this is the amount of conflicting information. I think because it's what statisticians would call "bad data" but we seem to be relying on it to inform decisions. And as you say, we seem to be relying on old bad data! 

There seems negligible evidence that lockdown works anyway. The London Evening Standard reporting tonight that there are big falls in positive test counts in 24 (out of the 32) London boroughs. The city's average is apparently 155 cases per 100,000 and the hospitals remain fairly empty. And if we look at excess deaths here, they've tracked reasonably well below the 5 year average since mid-May.

Source: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--covid-19--deaths

Basically the country, like most others, had a very bad 10 weeks from March to mid-May, but since then nothing particularly unusual has happened. Hospitals are always at risk of being overrun from respiratory illness as  we head into winter.

(same sourse). I weep for the country if I think about what's happending. We'll be paying for it in deaths (from other things) and a huge loss of national income for many years to come. Whole thing is so depressing. 

[Andicis]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

This is the thing, I completely understand the frustration, the UK's response has been abysmal. 

I don't even know how we've managed to reach the worst of both worlds, but here we are. 

 

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Agreed, we won't know the full story of the economic picture until this is all over. The big point is, however, that while the view is that not locking down should have short term benefits for Sweden, it hasn't. I'd suggest if they locked down, their figures would be worse than they are, but I'd also argue the infection load has also had a significant impact, hence Denmark's comparative performance over that period. Again though, a few more quarters will give us more to discuss. 

Whilst Sweden's GDP may have decreased more than Denmark, it's likely they won't be saddled with the debt of many of the neighbouring countries due to not locking down, hence not furloughing workers. This may help them recover from the pandemic faster, but not have an immediate impact. Only time will tell though. 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Depends on how you define comparatively well. The US is a complicated one to analyse in terms of GDP, as each state operates, in many ways, as it's own country. Each have taken their own approach to dealing with the virus, and while the US opened earlier, their case loads are now looking horrendous. A state by state look at GDP after another quarter or so will be able to tell us a lot about their choices though. 

The thing is, with countries like Sweden whilst they weren't locked down, they had a lot of change of behaviour. The USA is a bit of an outlier as there are a lot of hardliners that wouldn't change behaviour regardless, which could have quite some impact. You're right though, the state by state approach will not be able to be understood until after.

[Albert]

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I don't even know how we've managed to reach the worst of both worlds, but here we are. 

Cultivating a two sided debate, then not listening to either say at all, ending up with a weird compromise that doesn't satisfy either in theory or practice. 

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Whilst Sweden's GDP may have decreased more than Denmark, it's likely they won't be saddled with the debt of many of the neighbouring countries due to not locking down, hence not furloughing workers. This may help them recover from the pandemic faster, but not have an immediate impact. Only time will tell though. 

They haven't 'locked down', but they have very harsh restrictions in place now. We'll see what the long term impacts of this is. 

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The thing is, with countries like Sweden whilst they weren't locked down, they had a lot of change of behaviour. The USA is a bit of an outlier as there are a lot of hardliners that wouldn't change behaviour regardless, which could have quite some impact. You're right though, the state by state approach will not be able to be understood until after.

The USA may well end up being the best way to analyse these kinds of responses to a pandemic once this is all over. Will make for interesting reading. 

16 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

One of the things about all this is the amount of conflicting information. I think because it's what statisticians would call "bad data" but we seem to be relying on it to inform decisions. And as you say, we seem to be relying on old bad data! 

There seems negligible evidence that lockdown works anyway. The London Evening Standard reporting tonight that there are big falls in positive test counts in 24 (out of the 32) London boroughs. The city's average is apparently 155 cases per 100,000 and the hospitals remain fairly empty. And if we look at excess deaths here, they've tracked reasonably well below the 5 year average since mid-May.

You say 'negligible evidence', yet the evidence is very clear, and has been for months. In the UK alone, both lockdowns have seen strong declines in infection rate, this coming the expected time after implementation of between 1-2 incubation periods. 

Data from elsewhere supports this. There is absolutely no question that lockdowns are effective, the question is if they are the best way of achieving this effect. 

16 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Source: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--covid-19--deaths

Basically the country, like most others, had a very bad 10 weeks from March to mid-May, but since then nothing particularly unusual has happened. Hospitals are always at risk of being overrun from respiratory illness as  we head into winter.

(same sourse). I weep for the country if I think about what's happending. We'll be paying for it in deaths (from other things) and a huge loss of national income for many years to come. Whole thing is so depressing. 

The point with excess deaths is that they're down for virtually every other cause at the moment, as most other seasonal diseases are being suppressed by the restrictions in place. That said, the concern with rising death tolls is what they say about what's coming next, not about what has already happened. Without the lockdowns, the UK was on track for several thousand deaths a day by this point. 

Anyhow, let's consider the data. The hospital admissions data is a good measure of the number of people actually getting sick from the disease, and going straight for the log plot, which should be straight for periods of exponential growth:

The gold line is the tiered system's introduction, the red line is the start of the lockdown proper, while the purple line is the fit for the data in September and October. The end of the trend is readily apparent following the tiered system, while we're starting to see the trend reverse after the full lockdown. They worked. Following the purple trend, you'd expect over 6000 admissions per day at this current trend, and that would have been risky for the NHS. 

All those avoidable deaths, from a disease that is far from running its course, I agree, we should weep for the country. Let's hope somehow the government can navigate a way out of the mess they've created. 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

One of the things about all this is the amount of conflicting information. I think because it's what statisticians would call "bad data" but we seem to be relying on it to inform decisions. And as you say, we seem to be relying on old bad data! 

There seems negligible evidence that lockdown works anyway. The London Evening Standard reporting tonight that there are big falls in positive test counts in 24 (out of the 32) London boroughs. The city's average is apparently 155 cases per 100,000 and the hospitals remain fairly empty. And if we look at excess deaths here, they've tracked reasonably well below the 5 year average since mid-May.

Source: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--covid-19--deaths

Basically the country, like most others, had a very bad 10 weeks from March to mid-May, but since then nothing particularly unusual has happened. Hospitals are always at risk of being overrun from respiratory illness as  we head into winter.

(same sourse). I weep for the country if I think about what's happending. We'll be paying for it in deaths (from other things) and a huge loss of national income for many years to come. Whole thing is so depressing. 

Some theories on why London has faired better than other places:

London has a much higher proportion of people who have moved to there, hence there is a lower proportion of people in closer family groups. So less household transmission than areas with more closer knit communities.

Average age of Londoners is probably lower than other areas, so less risk of death.

It's warmer and drier in London so nicer to meet up outdoors in the Autumn.

People are possibly more compliant with rules in London as they feel more at risk with many more people around.

Perhaps a higher % of jobs in London are a) able to be done at home and b) as a higher % of workers in London use public transport than other areas, firms were more likely to allow home working.

I'm sure I see a lower % of obese people in London/South East than in other towns around the country, probably linked to poverty. I imagine unemployment rate is lower in London than struggling towns in other areas.

All guesswork though.

[alexxxxx]

3 hours ago, angieram said:

Interesting that the areas in the South East and London going into tier two have the highest R rates, according to the latest figures.

Whereas the R rate is coming down elsewhere, where we are going into tier 3.

We always seem to be about a fortnight behind the science with our decisions.

The R value is always a bit out of date. If you look at the ONS infection survey data you’ll see it’s dropping in London alongside other regions..

[Archied]

5 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Some theories on why London has faired better than other places:

London has a much higher proportion of people who have moved to there, hence there is a lower proportion of people in closer family groups. So less household transmission than areas with more closer knit communities.

Average age of Londoners is probably lower than other areas, so less risk of death.

It's warmer and drier in London so nicer to meet up outdoors in the Autumn.

People are possibly more compliant with rules in London as they feel more at risk with many more people around.

Perhaps a higher % of jobs in London are a) able to be done at home and b) as a higher % of workers in London use public transport than other areas, firms were more likely to allow home working.

I'm sure I see a lower % of obese people in London/South East than in other towns around the country, probably linked to poverty. I imagine unemployment rate is lower in London than struggling towns in other areas.

All guesswork though.

Yep your right ,all guesswork 

areas of london have massive multi generational households crammed in

age ? Would like to see the stats there but age/ deaths = r number ?
weather ? Minimal at best , it’s raining cats and dogs down here and has been for a while , bloody cold too , not enough difference for everybody to be out with picnic baskets

even with restrictions,have you seen public transport here ,,, it’s crammed

for all the idea that london streets are paved with gold and yes there are very rich people here but there is real poverty here too in big numbers

on obese I would like to see figures but again ,, r number?
I know 2 people who have tested positive and none of them have been more than bad flu I’ll ( only saying what I see as earlier poster),,for a pandemic where people are dropping like flies I find that a little strange 

 

[Archied]

Ok I’m gonna try ( pointlessly i know ) to put my perspective 

as a species we have become so arrogant that we think we can eradicate death , we live longer than ever and that’s great but we can’t and won’t eradicate death

as someone who has suffered some real tragedy in life that I wouldn’t wish on anyone I can tell you life is for living and every day we have with our loved ones is precious, it’s fragile and can never be brought back when it’s gone,

for all of you like Eddie or my ages or young too ,you do not know what tomorrow holds 

we are losing sight of this for a virus that kills 1% of people who catch it and we all will catch it at some point , of that I’m pretty sure 

now if this was something that was killing 30% ( random number I know ) of people and people were dropping like flies then yes I get it but it’s not , it ranks with and often below lots of thing out there that kill us and have been killing us for years,

we really need to lose the arrogance and get real , our families and friends are living and die ing around us alone and in fear without human contact , wouldn’t even be quite as bad if we were learning lessons or we believed for one second that after this the nhs would be built up and properly funded for the future , it won’t , you know it and I know it , 6 months on it will be scrabbling for money and our government will be telling us we can’t afford to put the money in,

eddie ( anybody) you really don’t know how long you or your loved ones will be around ( COVID or not) so grab every moment you can living and loving with them , yes be sensible , make it as safe as you can but by god bloody live ,it doesn’t come back

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok I’m gonna try ( pointlessly i know ) to put my perspective 

as a species we have become so arrogant that we think we can eradicate death , we live longer than ever and that’s great but we can’t and won’t eradicate death

as someone who has suffered some real tragedy in life that I wouldn’t wish on anyone I can tell you life is for living and every day we have with our loved ones is precious, it’s fragile and can never be brought back when it’s gone,

for all of you like Eddie or my ages or young too ,you do not know what tomorrow holds 

we are losing sight of this for a virus that kills 1% of people who catch it and we all will catch it at some point , of that I’m pretty sure 

now if this was something that was killing 30% ( random number I know ) of people and people were dropping like flies then yes I get it but it’s not , it ranks with and often below lots of thing out there that kill us and have been killing us for years,

we really need to lose the arrogance and get real , our families and friends are living and die ing around us alone and in fear without human contact , wouldn’t even be quite as bad if we were learning lessons or we believed for one second that after this the nhs would be built up and properly funded for the future , it won’t , you know it and I know it , 6 months on it will be scrabbling for money and our government will be telling us we can’t afford to put the money in,

eddie ( anybody) you really don’t know how long you or your loved ones will be around ( COVID or not) so grab every moment you can living and loving with them , yes be sensible , make it as safe as you can but by god bloody live ,it doesn’t come back

Great post, I’ve said it a few times  we’ve been pushed by the MSM and government into being so scared of dying we’ve forgotten how to live. 

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok I’m gonna try ( pointlessly i know ) to put my perspective 

as a species we have become so arrogant that we think we can eradicate death , we live longer than ever and that’s great but we can’t and won’t eradicate death

as someone who has suffered some real tragedy in life that I wouldn’t wish on anyone I can tell you life is for living and every day we have with our loved ones is precious, it’s fragile and can never be brought back when it’s gone,

for all of you like Eddie or my ages or young too ,you do not know what tomorrow holds 

we are losing sight of this for a virus that kills 1% of people who catch it and we all will catch it at some point , of that I’m pretty sure 

now if this was something that was killing 30% ( random number I know ) of people and people were dropping like flies then yes I get it but it’s not , it ranks with and often below lots of thing out there that kill us and have been killing us for years,

we really need to lose the arrogance and get real , our families and friends are living and die ing around us alone and in fear without human contact , wouldn’t even be quite as bad if we were learning lessons or we believed for one second that after this the nhs would be built up and properly funded for the future , it won’t , you know it and I know it , 6 months on it will be scrabbling for money and our government will be telling us we can’t afford to put the money in,

eddie ( anybody) you really don’t know how long you or your loved ones will be around ( COVID or not) so grab every moment you can living and loving with them , yes be sensible , make it as safe as you can but by god bloody live ,it doesn’t come back

While the number of deaths at the end of this is something we should be trying to keep down, it's not the primary concern of the restrictions for many, just the least abstract of the threats posed, hence the one people tend to focus on first. Deaths shouldn't just be accepted when they are preventable, but at the same time, deaths can be caused by secondary impacts too. 

An uncontrolled novel disease, which is spreading like wildfire, and sending many to the hospital, with only a developing understanding of its long term complications isn't something you can just ignore. The impact on the health system alone of letting it burn would be devastating for the country long term, the risk of cascading failure with the numbers that were being seen isn't small, particularly as more staff are put out of action. 

All of these concerns have been done to death on here, of course. Still, let's summarise the key ones:

- 400k+ deaths

- NHS collapsing, leading to deaths from other causes. 

- Economic impacts of a large fraction of the workforce not being able to work at once.

- Economic impacts of consumer confidence being destroyed in that environment. 

- Long term health impacts of the disease, which are still being studied, but have been shown to occur in even young, healthy people who were asymptomatic. 

- Long term costs of cleaning up the above points. 

Any of the points above should be enough to understand why letting it burn isn't acceptable. There's wanting to live your life, but there's also being the idea of delayed gratification. Being patient, and dealing with this situation like adults, will see the country through to the other side in a better position. Most children by the age of 5 can delay gratification to some extent. 

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

While the number of deaths at the end of this is something we should be trying to keep down, it's not the primary concern of the restrictions for many, just the least abstract of the threats posed, hence the one people tend to focus on first. Deaths shouldn't just be accepted when they are preventable, but at the same time, deaths can be caused by secondary impacts too. 

An uncontrolled novel disease, which is spreading like wildfire, and sending many to the hospital, with only a developing understanding of its long term complications isn't something you can just ignore. The impact on the health system alone of letting it burn would be devastating for the country long term, the risk of cascading failure with the numbers that were being seen isn't small, particularly as more staff are put out of action. 

All of these concerns have been done to death on here, of course. Still, let's summarise the key ones:

- 400k+ deaths

- NHS collapsing, leading to deaths from other causes. 

- Economic impacts of a large fraction of the workforce not being able to work at once.

- Economic impacts of consumer confidence being destroyed in that environment. 

- Long term health impacts of the disease, which are still being studied, but have been shown to occur in even young, healthy people who were asymptomatic. 

- Long term costs of cleaning up the above points. 

Any of the points above should be enough to understand why letting it burn isn't acceptable. There's wanting to live your life, but there's also being the idea of delayed gratification. Being patient, and dealing with this situation like adults, will see the country through to the other side in a better position. Most children by the age of 5 can delay gratification to some extent. 

I knew you would be on with a massive long post of stats and number crushing, we are humans not stats and numbers for number crunchers,

I should not have replied to this post after yesterday’s experience and warning and this is the last time I will reply to your posts. Will carry on giving my view and reply to others

[Albert]

19 minutes ago, Archied said:

I knew you would be on with a massive long post of stats and number crushing, we are humans not stats and numbers for number crunchers,

If numbers and such are just for the 'number crushers', then I guess your argument doesn't care too much about the economy etc. 

19 minutes ago, Archied said:

I should not have replied to this post after yesterday’s experience and warning and this is the last time I will reply to your posts. Will carry on giving my view and reply to others

Fair enough, each to their own. It's good to see you know when you're wrong. 

[Angry Ram]

29 minutes ago, Archied said:

I knew you would be on with a massive long post of stats and number crushing, we are humans not stats and numbers for number crunchers,

I should not have replied to this post after yesterday’s experience and warning and this is the last time I will reply to your posts. Will carry on giving my view and reply to others

The geezer has Rhino skin just not open to listening to anything. In essence, post 1 is exactly the same as post 301. Preachy at best. Good idea to not respond, can’t be much going on in Australia.

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, Albert said:

Fair enough, each to their own. It's good to see you know when you're wrong. 

Agreed, its a sign of graciousness, something that you clearly lack.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed, its a sign of graciousness, something that you clearly lack.

Says someone still banging on about the idea of just letting it burn, despite all the evidence we've seen against that idea in recent months. 

14 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

The geezer has Rhino skin just not open to listening to anything. In essence, post 1 is exactly the same as post 301. Preachy at best. Good idea to not respond, can’t be much going on in Australia.

You confuse posts being researched with being the same. Maybe if you read them you could tell the difference.