Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, ricardo said:

Take it up with the Coronavirus Dashboard, its their figure. Its the seven day totals, sorry if that wasn't clear.

image.png.fd49b684bc9583e31f1656e9cadb1b9c.png

Thanks R, didn't realise the 2.5% referred to the 7 day rolling average. Good news, anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t normally come on here anymore but just to let you know Pfizer is 92 % effective. Boris making a statement to the Nation tonight.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Well b back said:

Don’t normally come on here anymore but just to let you know Pfizer is 92 % effective. Boris making a statement to the Nation tonight.

I shall remain sceptical until VW gives it the O.K.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I shall remain sceptical until VW gives it the O.K.😉

Well said 😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2020 at 21:35, Creative Midfielder said:

Don't disagree with any of that but equally nothing there negates the plain facts that effective leadership and competent governance in the examples I quoted produced a markedly different and better outcome than would have otherwise been the case, and indeed was the case in most other countries.

If you still don't believe me then look at Australia who have all the same advantages as you outline for N.Z., arguably more in some respects, but whose low calibre government managed to produce a far worse outcome.

Must admit that I'm a bit puzzled as to why the notion that a government's actions (or inactions) in a national crisis have an impact on the outcomes is in any way contentious, I always thought that was rather the point about government and why we go to all the trouble and expense of electing them?

Nope.  Government is not to blame but those people who openly defy covid restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

Agreed - even more evidence that the pale lump of lard was bounced into this ridiculous second Lockdown by projections that were wildly diverse and hyped up madly by the media (Radio Five Live for example) who were positively demanding action by banging on about 'up to 4000 deaths a day' and 'the NHS will be overwhelmed by x date in x city'. Whilst we pretty much had to lockdown in March through Government inaction  earlier, the Government should have fought tooth and nail to have avoided this one. They succumbed to Tweedledee and  Tweedledum though and now we are seeing through the inconsistencies of ........'the science'. You know the sort that said a few months ago that............'there is no evidence that wearing masks helps at all' (Jenny Harries and JVT). Even at the infamous SAGE meeting of September 21st where they called for the so called two week circuit breaker, there was (apparently) a note at the bottom of the minutes which read..........'the evidence base into the effectiveness and harms of these interventions is generally weak'. Surely any Government worth its salt would have latched onto that and widened its scope of  'scientific evidence'?? 

With the eulogising over Uncle Joe now likely to diminish somewhat this week ahead, attention will turn back to this 'second wave' and if (hopefully) infections continue to plateau / fall  with hospitalizations not that far behind, serious questions need to be asked as to how Hand **** and the odious Gove effectively teamed up with 'the science' to beat a timid PM into submission.      

Labour criticised Boris for not following scientific advice over the 'circuit-breaker'.  HMG cannot win whatever they do in lefty eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I shall remain sceptical until VW gives it the O.K.😉

"If you tossed a coin 94 times and it came up heads 86 times, you would be pretty certain that the coin was biased. This is the statistical equivalent of what Pfizer has seen in their data — almost all the infections belonged to the group who had been given the control rather than the vaccine. They have thrown heads 86 times, and it can’t be chance."

Odds look pretty good Ricardo 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

"If you tossed a coin 94 times and it came up heads 86 times, you would be pretty certain that the coin was biased. This is the statistical equivalent of what Pfizer has seen in their data — almost all the infections belonged to the group who had been given the control rather than the vaccine. They have thrown heads 86 times, and it can’t be chance."

Odds look pretty good Ricardo 😉

Fair enough. Where do I join the queue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Fair enough. Where do I join the queue?

"Vaccine priority groups: interim advice

Based on the information provided, the committee agreed that it was not possible to come to a firm position on priority groups at this time. This provisional prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccines is based on preliminary information on the vaccines in development, and provisional timelines for vaccine availability, and is subject to change. This advice assumes availability of a vaccine which is safe and effective in all age groups and has a moderate impact on transmission.

The committee strongly agree that a simple age-based programme will likely result in faster delivery and better uptake in those at the highest risk.

Whether health and social care workers should be prioritised above, alongside, or below, persons at highest risk from COVID-19 would depend on the characteristics of the vaccines when they become available and the epidemiology of disease at the time of delivery.

This interim ranking of priorities is a combination of clinical risk stratification and an age-based approach, which should optimise both targeting and deliverability. A provisional ranking of prioritisation for persons at-risk is set out below:

  1. older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers1
  2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers1
  3. all those 75 years of age and over
  4. all those 70 years of age and over
  5. all those 65 years of age and over
  6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
  7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
  8. all those 60 years of age and over
  9. all those 55 years of age and over
  10. all those 50 years of age and over
  11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)2

The prioritisation could change substantially if the first available vaccines were not considered suitable for, or effective in, older adults"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

277k  tests 

21350 - 194        7days ago  18950  14 days ago  20890

Fairly stable numbers now. Expect increases Tuesday and Wed as more weekend totals are added in.

 

Inpatients  12949 numbers not updated since Nov 5th

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European.

Italy         32614 - 331

France    38619 - 270    down nearly 50k since yesterday, not sure how they do this in France. Huge differences day to day.

Spain      no update

Germany  14026 - 70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Local.

Looks past peak now.

image.thumb.png.cb7a8ef4a9c105b3e3fc8e10d66a272a.png

Thought the same where we are Ricardo but it has shot up a lot in last 3 days. West Yorks hospitals now have higher numbers of Covid patients than in April and all other operations have been suspended (across Leeds, Wakefield too).

Keep it out of Norfolk. You don't want to have this level of worry and concern (for months now).

 

IMG_20201109_182709.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Thought the same where we are Ricardo but it has shot up a lot in last 3 days. West Yorks hospitals now have higher numbers of Covid patients than in April and all other operations have been suspended (across Leeds, Wakefield too).

Keep it out of Norfolk. You don't want to have this level of worry and concern (for months now).

 

 

 

Yes, Yorks still a problem area but stable or down in many others.

image.png.148a2757f1277d9102c2bffb5650c0b5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Yes, Yorks still a problem area but stable or down in many others

☹️....many parts of the UK are so different. Poverty, health inequalities, wealth, opportunity, employment etc etc are SO unequal. The North often comes out badly in most comparisons (look at the indices of deprivation for example). Life isn't fair or equal I know that. Yet, this tempers many articles shown on here. It's easy to be positive when things are not affected in the same way (where we live. It's not in our lived experience. We tend not to hear about people dying from it as much).

As stated a few times on here, where you live and one's lived experience doesn't half influence a cautious view!

Edited by sonyc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sonyc said:

☹️....many parts of the UK are so different. Poverty, health inequalities, wealth, opportunity, employment etc etc are SO unequal. The North often comes out badly in most comparisons (look at the indices of deprivation for example). Life isn't fair or equal I know that. Yet, this tempers many articles shown on here. It's easy to be positive when things are not affected in the same way (where we live. It's not in our lived experience. We tend not to hear about people dying from it as much).

As stated a few times on here, where you live and one's lived experience doesn't half influence a cautious view!

Going back up in the midlands as well sorry to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paul moy said:

Nope.  Government is not to blame but those people who openly defy covid restrictions. 

That may be your opinion but I'm afraid the facts clearly tell a totally different story, and just remind me again how many people openly defied the covid restrictions during the first lockdown - no need to mention Cummings and the Tory MPs, we know about them but clearly there weren't responsible on their own for us having the worst excess death toll in Europe (and the world although Trump ran us close).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Creative Midfielder said:

That may be your opinion but I'm afraid the facts clearly tell a totally different story, and just remind me again how many people openly defied the covid restrictions during the first lockdown - no need to mention Cummings and the Tory MPs, we know about them but clearly they weren't responsible on their own for us having the worst excess death toll in Europe (and the world although Trump ran us close).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a while since excess deaths was discussed here.  The FT doesn't seem to report them anymore so the next best source is probably the economist. Data is a bit out of date as it is pre second wave but gives an idea

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

 

In short, latinos have suffered the most (but I imagine  their flu season  was in our summer and came after the virus became established)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't often comment on this farce, but I have a bit of a theorem. All that we have been fed is a nonsense. Lockdowns do not appear to be the solution. How much have the government spent on furlough to "protect" us from covid? Billions/trillions of pounds? If they had not shut down every business in the country and instead continued to accrue taxpayer money via salary and hourly wage, and invested that money into the NHS, surely that would be a better option than running the country into massive debt because we have to pay a majority of the country £2K a month to stay at home? 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Well b back said:

Going back up in the midlands as well sorry to say.

ITV
“Here is an overview of the latest case rates in each region of England, including the areas with the highest and lowest numbers.

In all instances, the figures are for the week ending November 4 and have been calculated by PA using data published by Public Health England.

– North-west England

The highest rates of new cases of Covid-19 continue to be in north-west England.

Oldham is top of the list, with 779.4 cases per 100,000 people, up from the previous week’s figure of 696.7.

Blackburn with Darwen is second (726.1) and Wigan is third (626.2), though the rate has fallen in both these areas week-on-week.

Overall, rates have dropped across most of the region (28 of the 39 local authorities), including all six areas in the Liverpool City Region and seven of the 10 areas in Greater Manchester.

The lowest rate in the region is for South Lakeland, which is currently on 161.8, up slightly from 152.3.

 

HEALTH Coronavirus Regions (PA Graphics)Credit: PA Graphics

– Yorkshire & the Humber

This region has the highest rates in England outside the North West.

Rates are up in all but four of its 21 local authority areas – the exceptions being Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield and York.

Hull is top, with 629.8 cases per 100,000 people: a sharp rise from 358.0.

North East Lincolnshire has also seen a big jump, up from 396.7 to 605.4.

Ryedale has the lowest rate: 124.6, up from 97.5.

 

HEALTH Coronavirus Regions (PA Graphics)Credit: PA Graphics

– North-east England

Rates have also increased across much of north-east England, with only one area – Stockton-on-Tees – currently recording a drop.

This is a reversal of the trend seven days ago, when two-thirds of the 12 local authority areas in the North East were recording a drop in case rates.

The latest figures show Gateshead has the highest rate, up from 367.7 to 401.9.

Northumberland has the lowest rate in the region: 217.7, up from 191.0.

– East Midlands

For much of the summer, Leicester was the area with the highest rate in the East Midlands.

Then it was Nottingham, when students returned for the start of the university term.

Now it is Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire, where the rate is currently 482.7 cases per 100,000 people, up from 353.3.

Leicester’s rate is also rising once again, up from 354.0 to 411.0.

Of the 40 areas across the region, just 12 recorded a week-on-week drop in the latest set of figures.

Corby currently has the lowest rate: 96.9, up slightly from 84.5.

– West Midlands

A total of 26 of the 30 areas in the West Midlands showed a rise in case rates in the latest figures.

The four exceptions are Cannock Chase, Malvern Hills, Rugby and Warwick.

South Staffordshire continues to have the highest rate in the region: 465.2, up from 430.5.

Herefordshire has the lowest: 92.3, up from 84.0.

– London

The picture in London is mixed.

Rates remain lower here than many other regions of England, and there are slightly more areas recording a fall (18) than a rise (14).

Havering currently has the highest rate: 249.3 cases per 100,000 people, up from 185.7.

Bromley has the lowest: 98.1, down from 119.8.

Hammersmith & Fulham has seen its rate drop by nearly a third, from 222.0 to 152.3.

 

HEALTH Coronavirus Regions (PA Graphics)Credit: PA Graphics

– South-west England

Case rates are rising across most of south-west England, with only six of the 29 local authority areas currently showing a fall.

Bristol continues to have the highest rate in the region: 410.0, up very slightly on 408.3 in the previous week.

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly has the lowest: 58.6, up from 51.6.

– South-east England

Most areas in the South East (54 out of 67) are seeing their case rates rise, though levels are lower than much of England and only six areas have a rate that is currently above 200.

Swale has the highest rate: 239.9, up from 179.2.

Hastings has the lowest rate: 31.3, down from 56.1.

This is also the lowest rate for any area in England.

– Eastern England

Apart from Luton, where the rate is currently up from 189.2 to 255.3, every area in eastern England is recording a rate below 200.

Most areas (29 of 45) showed an increase in the latest figures, however.

The lowest rate in the region is North Norfolk: 45.8, up from 24.8.”

  •  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're for lockdowns

You are for the world economic forum

You are for a world of big corporations

You are for a world of centralised control.

You are not protecting the NHS, you are privatising the NHS

The main stream media is owned, selected truths and agenda following is all that it reports.

Parliament is not democracy anymore, where is the challenge, there is none other than a few libertarians.

If you are for lockdown you are against market traders, small businesses and the self employed, where is labour, these are the working classes!

The fear **** has been strong but if you don't watch alternative media then that is all you will know.

This is CONVID 1984 and you have fallen for it, it's a corporate con, a big government con, a control grab.

Wake up England, they are lying to you

The masks don't work, 7 studies that prove that

Lockdown does not work, 10 studies that prove that.

Flu added to covid and the figures are normal for the time of year.

Our covid guru' s have shares in the vaccine companies

They lie and lie 4000 deaths a day!!! Not even the USA got that.

When are you people going to take of your political glasses, take off your fear glasses and smell the coffee

They divided us on purpose

We argue whilst they take control

Big corporations and big government, what an absolutely deadly combination.

This is the Technocracy and it is the cause of all that we have experienced in the last 10 years and more.

Your choice is between freedom and slavery , lockdown is slavery. 

IS THIS THE LEGACY YOU WANT TO LEAVE TO THE KIDS?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2020 at 14:37, Teemu’s right foot said:

Isn’t that exactly what they have signed up to do? Treat the sick and dying? I don’t want to go to war so I won’t sign up for the army....

I have read your quote many times and every time hope I have read it wrong and you are not saying they signed up to it, get on with it, you are there to treat the sick and dying, so I hope I am wrong.

Just for the record though as at today 682 frontline health workers have died in the U.K. from Covid. These include receptionists, carers and cleaners, who definitely did not sign up to it. Nurses and doctors are being transferred in from the military and in the remembrance service Saturday night one of them said ‘ I served in Afghanistan and compared to this the horrors I saw there are nothing ‘. 
Anybody dealing with the effects of Covid are and will be International heroes and heroines. Here are 4 of their stories, read about the nurses daughter who took her mums scarf. If as I hope I have misread your comments then this you can treat as a story of what these people are going through. If you really meant they are just doing their job, then I will leave you to consider your response.

Wether you believe Covid exists or not or wether we should or shouldn’t lock down or even wether this data is right or wrong, then that’s down to all our personal opinion. Our Nurses though are putting their lives on hold and at risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54877668

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

234k  tests 

20412 - 532       7days ago  20018   14 days ago  22885

As expected deaths increase today  as under reported weekend totals are added in. Will be similar tomorrow.

 

Inpatients  13617  up 658 since last update on Nov 5th

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European.

Italy         25271 - 356

France    20155 - 548  

Spain     18340 - 170

Germany  16465 - 152

Edited by ricardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...