Leaderboard

Is our society that sick and self centred that it wants to dishonour the lives of everyone, especially NHS staff who have died by risking other lives to play out football matches for half a dozen clubs?

This season and next should be postponed until we can get back to normal It isn’t a difficult decision

Well it certainly isn't simple. Any attempt to draw comparisons at this stage is hugely problematic and riddled with error, if you do have the answers give Chris Whitty a call. Have a read of this if you want to begin to grasp some of the difficulties. Coronavirus deaths: how does Britain compare with other countries? David Spiegelhalter It’s tempting to try to construct a league table, but we’ll have to wait months, if not years, for the true picture • Coronavirus latest updates • See all our coronavirus coverage Thu 30 Apr 2020 14.56 BSTLast modified on Thu 30 Apr 2020 18.00 BST Shares 302 Comments 837 On 29 April, Dominic Raab reveals the coronavirus death toll rose by nearly 5,000 after including non-hospital deaths for the first time. Photograph: Pippa Fowles/10 Downing Street/AFP via Getty Images At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer said he had added up a total of 27,241 coronavirus deaths so far, leaving the UK “possibly on track to have the worst death rate in Europe”. Is he right? Unfortunately, measuring the impact of the virus is a fiendishly complex task. It’s nothing like keeping score in a game. Starmer, as a lawyer, would know that we have to define our terms carefully. And so, assuming we want to make a comparison based on death rates, we first need to decide what a death rate is. You would think it would be easy for a bean-counting statistician to count deaths – the one certain thing (apart from taxes). But it is remarkably difficult. I have stopped taking much notice of the number given out at the daily press conferences, as it is only based on reports from hospitals, oscillates wildly around weekends, and recently included deaths that occurred a month ago. And this week the number of UK deaths jumped up by nearly 5,000 to 26,097 in one day – rather close to Starmer’s count – by retrospectively including non-hospital deaths that had tested positive for the virus. But even this is too low, as it does not include the many deaths of people who were not tested. The Office for National Statistics data on death registrations is the last word, although inevitably delayed by around 10 days, and these figures would be expected to take the current total to significantly more than 30,000. But we should be very cautious in comparing even this uncertain total with those of other countries. Every country has different ways of recording Covid-19 deaths: the large number of deaths in care homes have not featured in Spain’s statistics – which, like the UK’s require a positive test result. The numbers may be useful for looking at trends, but they are not reliable indicators for comparing the absolute levels. If we were naive enough to take the counts at face value, the new figures propelled the UK past France and Spain into second place in Europe behind Italy, which is not encouraging because we are behind Italy in terms of what stage of the epidemic we are at. A more equitable metric might be Covid-19 deaths per million. Ignoring tiny countries, our current score of 388 puts us third, behind Belgium (632) and Italy (452). People are not so interested in the numbers themselves – they want to say why they are so high and ascribe blame But these are still deeply unreliable numbers, as it is not clear if we should just be looking at Covid-19-labelled deaths anyway. The effects of seasonal flu are not based on tests or death certificates, but at looking at the total number of deaths over the winter, seeing how many extra there are than a baseline, allowing for climate, and assuming these excess deaths were linked to flu. On average, over the last 10 years this has come to about 8,000 flu-related deaths, rising to 26,400 in 2017-2018 and 28,300 in 2014-15. Coronavirus: the week explained - sign up for our email newsletter Read more Many feel that excess deaths give a truer picture of the impact of an epidemic. The latest ONS figures reveal that in the week ending 17 April, the week after Easter, around 22,500 deaths were registered in England and Wales, compared with an average of around 10,500 a week at this time of year. Nearly 9,000 of these had Covid-19 on their death certificate, but that leaves 3,000 extra deaths – more than 400 a day – essentially unaccounted for. Many of these will be indirect effects from the disrupted health service: routine treatments have been largely abandoned, A&E attendances and non-Covid-19 hospital admissions have plummeted. Advertisement But, of course, people are not so interested in the numbers themselves – they want to say why they are so high, and ascribe blame. But if it’s difficult to rank this country, it’s even trickier to give reasons for our position. Covid-19 mainly harms the elderly, with the average age of deaths above 80, and its fatality rate doubles every seven years as a person ages. Italy’s population is elderly (it has a median age of 47), while Ireland’s is much younger (a median age of 37), so we would expect different effects. And Covid-19 is a disease of crowded areas – New York is rather different from Reykjavik. An obsessive comparison is being made between Norway and Sweden: Sweden’s more relaxed social distancing policies may or may not have been instrumental in their current death rate being 233 per million, compared with Norway’s 38. Even – if we can imagine it – we reach some sort of stable situation, will we ever know the direct and indirect health effects of the epidemic, taking into account reduced road accidents, the benefits of reduced pollution, the effects of recession and so on? Many studies will try to disentangle all these, but my cold, statistical approach is to wait until the end of the year, and the years after that, when we can count the excess deaths. Until then, this grim contest won’t produce any league tables we can rely on. • David Spiegelhalter is a statistician and professor of the public understanding of risk

I don't hugely care about crowds at this point. I just want my 9 month old son to see his grandparents, or to pop round and see a friend. Heck, I'm even in the weird place of missing my office and having a separation between my work life and family life. Spending 8-9 hours a day sat in my kitchen isn't doing wonders for me. The idea of not being able to physically interact with another person for what would be about 4 months by the end of June is depressing to me.

All this bingoing! 🤣 Keep 'em coming everyone. I'll be back Friday evening from my HOUSE. 😂

Footballers ( I appreciate not the same death rate as ) to become the modern day gladiators putting theirs and more so in this instance their families lives at risk ? A lot of people such as Carers will be saying mmmmm not enough tests for us and our residents yet footballers and their wider circle can have as many tests as they want. If they want to look good why pay for and donate millions of tests and PPE equipment to this sector ? It relates to us as well, we are told we cannot wear masks as that will mean we take them from key workers, yet footballers ? well they can have as many million as they want. Football could have come out of this as great, instead of that the EPL ( not the players ) will come out of this with a reputation that won’t be shaken off for a decade. Invest in what the likes of Watford are doing, not playing football for a few people’s entertainment.

UEFA and EPL becoming increasingly isolated on a restart. In my mind players shouldn't be allowed to resume training until it is safe to so and the country has relaxed restrictions for all low risk people. The inference is footballers and all the support crew would be given priority testing compared to other cohorts. This would be a disgrace. The UK has the 2nd worst death rate in Europe and one of the highest in the world. This is not the time to be playing football whatever the format.

Therein lies our problem. If our goverment had come out and held their hands up and admitted some of their mistakes it'd be probably appreciated. As it is they are still obfuscating, changing numbers, getting compliant journalists to pretend nothing is going on and even getting their MPs to join in on pile-ons to journalists that are asking too many questions. As I've said before, if the government wants everyone on side then they have to start treating people with respect and not like mugs.

The early history of the virus, back in January / February time, was a time when many had left China to travel to other countries of the world, taking the virus with them, to Northern Italy for one example as we all know to well. Then from Italy others took the virus to most EU nations and beyond and so on and so forth. This brings up yet another point as to why for example some nations in Europe seem more affected than others. Its been well documented concerning different health care systems...over and over and over again...and to lockdowns...if they happened to early or to late...once again repeated over and over. But those early days...how many tourists in Northern Italy caught the virus, brought it home to their home nations and thus started the spread in their countries? This is just unknown, but this unknown factor could be another of key importance in how the original spread happened in Europe and if it played a part in making some nations affected more badly than others. In anycase, that this pandemic is far from over means comparing nations to each other is like giving 200 people a massive jigsaw puzzle each and asking them to complete it...but knowing that the giver of the jigsaw tossed away a few pieces from each puzzle.

Carragher is a ****, though.

Yes, to put it bluntly the vulnerable population will have already moved on.

They are extremely respected scientists and we are lucky to have so many working for this country right now. Our technical people undoubtedly committed and accurate unlike a lot of other countries.

An exellent simulation that shows population densities which explains why the covid 19 cases are where they are in greater numbers. http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2020/04/population-density-in-europe.html

Best info I could find on that kind of thing is this guy from Italy :

It's a really smart move for Starmer. The mood of the country is behind the lockdown and the government strategy in general and those newspapers and journalists that take a contrarian view are on very low approval ratings. If Starmer attacks the government too strongly he will be accused of using the current pandemic to score political brownie points and that will not go down well in the country at this point in time. What people really want now is what you highlight, VW. Responsible Leadership. So Starmer has to appear statesman-like. He needs to get out on the front line visiting hospitals, care homes, be seen talking to the emergency services personnel, and out-Boris Boris. He has the advantage that he can do all of this and not be held accountable for the things that go wrong. If he's really smart, he won't criticise but he can let the people he meets do the talking for him. But he has to be careful and not setup situations like the BBC Panorama programme that just interviewed Labour Party activists. He will be found out if he tries to engineer situations. But go out, be visible, and be statesman-like and he can't lose.

Both deaths at a relatively early age. Trevor Cherry can be read in most of the media, but I found this report on MR's life quite interesting https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/laliga/michael-robinson-dead-obituary-liverpool-icon-laliga-legend-spanish-football-loses-its-voice-a4426666.html

Should they go ahead with this stupid and totally reckless idea, I will lobby the local Labour Party to persuade Starmer to oppose and hopefully prevent. I am truly getting more disgusted by the day and to be honest I would be happy for us to be relegated away from the toxic atmosphere of the EPL.

Why do people engage with Bill? He is a wind-up merchant and promotes this by adopting a persona in which: 1. He is always right and all knowing. 2. Anyone who contradicts him is a liar. 3. If more than one person contradicts him they are the same person using multiple user names. 4. when events prove unequivocally that he is wrong he disappears as was the case with Brexit. I have blocked him and have no intention of wasting my time with him in future. 🙂

If we ever meet, I will buy you a platter of crustacean treats, coated in golden breadcrumb. This is the first time I've ever agreed with you.

Is it because we're not French?

Whilst I agree with you that overall 'success' will ultimately be evaluated over a much longer period and indeed some aspects of success (e.g. limiting the economic damage) we can't even begin to evaluate yet. Nevertheless the focus at the moment all over the world is primarily on preserving lives and I really still don't understand why you are so reluctant to make judgements about the current situation. We (and hopefully the various governments themselves) are trying to evaluate not just minor differences in not especially reliable statistics but why differing countries' strategies and actions have produced very tangible differences in outcomes. If you believe it is not possible to make such judgements at the moment then I don't understand how you expect the strategies going forward to adapt and improve, especially as we all attempt to move out of the lockdown in various ways and at varying speeds. Surely it's just plain common sense to try to assess what has worked well, what hasn't gone well and what might work well in the future, and that necessitates making judgements imperfect though they may turn out to be in the final analysis. That is certainly what governments have to do and I would suggest that on a much smaller scale that is what most of us do regularly in our working lives. I would love to be in a position where I delayed making a decision about a problem until I had a perfect understanding of the problem itself and the potential solutions but in the real world you have often have to make a decision based on your current knowledge and experience and naturally you get judged on the quality and outcome of your decisions.

“The reality is” **proceeds to make a statement about what has “clearly happened” based on personal bias** as I said before, you can tell who on this thread has a scientific background and who hasn’t.

Its sick that anyone should be contemplating playing EPL football atm.

I cannot see the public wearing it. If there is still even the slightest measure of incarceration or subjugation and football carries on its own greedy way, then I can envisage big protests.

The negotiations haven't taken place so whatever your RWNJ says in the film is b0lloxs.

But then he wouldn't be saying this would he? I remember Neville being shut down by the host on Sky after Spurs fans racially abused one of the Chelsea players - I trust GN to say it like it is.

It goes without saying really but “project restart” will be an absolute disaster for one reason or another.

That's a good reply, and ultimately it is very difficult to disagree with such truisms. My point was simple, and I am surprised you are baffled by it - perhaps I'm not good at explaining myself. I'll try again. My point was simply that it's far too early to make any sort of judgement about why outbreaks have differed so radically between countries, even ones that seem similar socially and culturally, when we know so little, and the figures we do have are sketchy as best. Certainly, it's misleading to make these sort of comparisons with any real level of certainty. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to measure "success" over a longer time period; what is not to say that European countries who locked down early will continue to suffer with outbreaks later on, which hampers them massively economically and causes extreme hardship and excess deaths? And that's before we even consider the Swedish approach...

Far fewer types of people who are liable to die from the disease i.e. much smaller elderly population with underlying health issues. The younger the population average the fewer the deaths there will be.

This whole situation is so complex and people without scientific mindsets are clearly finding it difficult to grasp some concepts, that’s why the government shows videos like the one in the briefing today with graphics to explain the R value. To oversimplify is to panic because you lack understanding. I will just say again don’t trust politicians but trust scientists like Patrick Valance and Chris Whitty. They have our best interests at heart.

Germany announcing further lifting of restrictions contrary to earlier comments from some. Religious services, public attractions and playgrounds will open soon with distancing.

There’s no way it’s as simple as that. Lockdown and social distancing works well in containing the virus but it still doesn’t explain massive regional differences. I believe there are all sorts of social factors like population density and cultural “closeness” if you like but I believe there is a genetic link to this. I think certain genetic makeups are more susceptible to immune response which I believe is a common attribute virus’. It appears to be disproportionately hitting men over women for example.

So R0 = the rate at which people are infected (the 'effective contact' rate ) x the average duration of the infectious period. So yes you can work put R0 if you know the other values. (Or, you could work out one of the other values if you know R0 and the other) Example, I have a disease that infects on average 10 people a day and lasts 10 days then R0 = 10x10. (Good luck managing that!) . R0 is largely theoretical though as it relates only to the population mixing freely and assumes no one has the thing yet. As soon as neither apply we need to talk about R or R(eff) or something similar and the 'force of infection' (ie then rate at which susceptible people come down with the lurgy) R0 is relevant still though as this determines the level of immunity that we need to achieve together back to normal and see the thing still in decline. This threshold is expressed as QC = 1- 1/R0. If R0 = 3 then QC = 0.66. So at over 66% immune the thing will have no where to go and will slowly go.away (assuming we dont have children or immigration)

I’m glad it’s looking pretty promising, my brother in law is a toxicologist and worked for a massive company now is a consultant, he’s the one who told me about vaccines which move to human trials will also have a production run alongside it. Great news on the 40 million if that’s correct.....I’m confident that they know more than being allowed out in the press, as it might mean some people will relax on the current lockdown thinking things will be OK. 👍

Yes that is the way BBC explains it. Ro is your natural spread without restrictions say at the start which is c.3. The R is the actual number people are currently infecting with restrictions say 0.8. As long as R is below 1 the number of new infections is going down becasue as you get better (or die) each person will infect less than one person. The graph in the BBC report on R is perhaps confusing as it is showing the cumulative number of cases whcih will still go up as long R is greater than 0 but the number of active cases will go down if R is below 1. Encourageingly both Germany and Denmark are reporting R is currently still below 1 with current gradual lifting of restrictions. S Korea even more encouraging that they have stopped local spread with restrictions and track, trace, isolate and now have limited restrictions showing you can get back close to normality in a few months.

Two things wrong with that: Firstly in the UK the subsidies for wind are only a fraction of those needed to build new nuclear capacity but since both this current and the previous Tory governments apparently have problems even with simple arithmetic we are still sinking billions into subsidising nuclear capacity. Secondly the Westminister government has, for many years, blocked the use of on-shore wind which would produce even cheaper power than the off-shore wind which itself is continually reducing costs. As ALOS above has pointed out other European governments are not as stupid as our own, and I'm pretty sure that an independent Scotland would also do a much better job of governing itself than the w@nkers at Westminister .

Well, yes and no. It is just statistics really. R0 is a measure of how quickly something is spreading. Increasing contacts will naturally increase R0, the speed of transmission. So the R0 is dependent on population density if contact frequency is. Does that make sense?

Yes, especially if we look over a longer period of time into the future. We might see that over the course of the next couple of years the death rate balances itself out, especially if we develop a vaccine or treatment in the next 10-12 months. Many of those who are dying now from covid are those most likely to die of something else in the next year or two. The risk to otherwise healthy younger people seems fairly low. So we might see a decrease in elderly people dying of other things (because covid has - still tragically - accelerated their deaths) without a massive increase in deaths of younger less at risk people. That‘s where things such as the Spanish flu, Ebola etc are so much worse, because they kill/killed younger healthier people as well. Still tragic to have anyone dying if it could have been delayed or avoided for longer, and it’s the sort of thing we won’t know until some time in the future, but hopefully when we look back in five years time it won’t have been as bad as we fear/feared.

Yes I think that would be logical as we could not really have a grievance. However, if the championship is not going to finish then I don't see why the premier league should do so and I agree I don't see why clubs like us should agree to some contrived neutral venue solution that places our players at risk in order to hand leeds and west brom a route into the prem without kicking another ball. I know the reason they will still be tempted to do so is the money but frankly for the clubs at the bottom removal of the threat of relegation is probably worth more to them than the immediate loss they would suffer.

These R numbers are an educated guess so I wouldn't get overly worked up by the second decimal point. If it's less than 1 it's in decline and will go away if this continues long enough. Exactly 1 and its stable. On average one peraon comes down with it, passes it in to exactly one more and then recovers Over 1 and it's growing. 0.99 and it's technically in decline but it'll take a hell of a long time to leave the system.

My point was clouded by bad explanation, I realise we cannot be offered inducement, but future financing could make acceptance of an undesirable decision easier. I also tire of the what ifs, but then find myself discussing possibilities, crazy iknow, with so many unknowns and variations of outcome. An unholy clusterfcuk is what it is and seems somewhat crass that the while footy thing hasn't been shutdown until it is really safe for the general population to go about its business. Once we are really on top, albeit with precautions. Then footy becomes an option

The issue there, as has been discussed before, is that the season won't be very interesting as Liverpool will have won the league before it started and a lot of clubs will be playing dead rubbers from October onwards. Sky wouldn't fancy paying for a season of mostly exhibition matches, I'm sure.

Not true. Best to look at local officaila souces as always.Per RKI today the rate of new infections is still declining with current lifting of restrictions . Latest R is 0.75. There is Govt talk of extendings existing restrictiions by another week to 10 May. Opening up schools with distancing is recommended. Immunity passes not recommnded given dont know extent and duration of immunity. Opening offices with distancing is being worked on but home office will continue to be the norm. Economy expected to start to recover in Q4 and a fuller recovery in 21. Personnally I expect the weather also has an impact as well as the restrictions as impacts the amount of people out and about

In the file cabinet with the Russian, Arcuri, Vote Leave and other sundry reports. Don't forget the one that said we don't have enough stocks should an epidemic or pandemic occur.

So that will all be put right by sitting in your armchair watching it on the tellybox ?

Each to their own but I don't believe in blocking people, let them have their say, its only an Internet Forum after all. People have different views on all sorts of subjects. It would be boring if they didn't.

Indie selections....(imagine turning on for 20 minutes listening to John Peel in the mid 80s)

The whole thrust has been that we delayed lockdown because the expert advice had been influenced by Cummings who was pushing for a policy of herd immunity. If he has influenced the advice according to this piece it was in a way which was the complete opposite. Whether he should be present at the meetings is a separate issue, but this article would seem to take the wind out of at least one of sticks being used to beat the government.