Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

That they wouldn't have died from if it wasn't for the virus. Or if they were wearing M&S underwear. Or were from Krypton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

 

That they wouldn't have died from if it wasn't for the virus. Or if they were wearing M&S underwear. Or were from Krypton.

Christ alive, grandad, I can't even be bothered to award you a Luc Pickard face palm for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jools said:

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

The pre existing condition point is not one I think is particularly persuasive in terms of reviewing the “government’s actions” imo. As mentioned earlier, it’s about avoiding hospitals becoming overwhelmed. Doesn’t really matter who is dying - it’s about making sure there aren’t so many dying that hospitals can’t give everyone a fighting chance and other essential health services collapse as well.

Where it is relevant is in determining how we move forward. The deaths are overwhelmingly in the 60 plus age group (and I imagine if you broke it down further, more would be 70 plus than 60-69). Seems blindingly obvious therefore that the best way to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed isn’t to stop 20 year olds going to work or kids from going to school, but to stop people 70 plus, especially those with pre existing conditions, from (to use a current government buzz phrase) “mingling”. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jools said:

Christ alive, grandad, I can't even be bothered to award you a Luc Pickard face palm for that.

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

It’s not all about the economy in fairness. Longest waiting time for routine cancer checks ever. Longest waits for non-emergency operations ever. No (at one point, now I think there are some, albeit limited) face to face GP appointments. There will, no doubt, be 40 year olds who could have received potentially life saving early cancer treatment but will die because their screenings were delayed 6 months or more due to lockdown - when they look at the stats Jools has put up you wonder whether they think their life was worth sacrificing to protect the “old people” as you call them.

Again, it’s why it comes down to avoiding hospitals being overwhelmed, not choosing which diseases and illnesses are more “worthy” of lockdown. People do and will die. It isn’t a case of making sure no “old people” ever die from covid ever again. It’s a case of making sure everyone (young and old) can access treatment when they need it. People will still die, but they’ll have the best chance of not dying that we can give them. Edit: that’s also why ‘lockdowns’ and restrictions shouldn’t be dismissed by “youngsters” - keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed is in everyone’s interests. But equally, if the hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed we shouldn’t be imposing restrictions solely to avoid covid full stop.

Edited by Aggy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

But equally, if the hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed we shouldn’t be imposing restrictions solely to avoid covid full stop.

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

I'm old myself, gramps, and I've worked right the way through the virus -- I'm in the business of care homes and none of my residents or staff have tested positive -- My homes have been sent tests monthly and the government support package has in my opinion been way too generous -- I'm considering sending monies back.

So, no, I'm not saying screw old people and neither am I saying screw people with pre existing conditions -- I'm obviously following government guidelines, but I will question the latter and all the so-called experts when factual data such as that I supplied via the NHS presents itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aggy said:

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

However other than “infections are going up and therefore deaths must have to follow in a few weeks”, without any evidence for that (other than that it happened previously when there were literally no measures in place other than being asked to wash your hands after having a wee) there hasn’t been any real stats or evidence supporting the idea that stricter lockdowns or “circuit breaks” are needed next week to avoid healthcare systems being overwhelmed.... 

 

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

Sorry if I was confusing thinking you were comparing flu to Covid. I accept you aren't. It's a bad comparison on so many fronts.

Equally - doing very little will eventually result in a similar or even greater number of deaths as before - yes more in the over 60s but not exclusively so and the collapse / overwhelming of our entire health system (doctors and even young nurses get it and die as well as before). Possibly it is a calculation / a price worth paying in the 'survival' of the nation that we have to accept. Women and children first. I do not accept we are at that juncture. 

The defence in some quarters to this seems to be that the disease is somehow less fatal, less severe or some sort of not really understood herd immunity or cross immunity (that seems to have gone awol at present hence the ramping of cases). All of these I call wishful thinking, hoping for the best (as before) or it won't be me'. 

Given that we know how this played out before and little has changed then extreme caution is the order of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Sorry if I was confusing thinking you were comparing flu to Covid. I accept you aren't. It's a bad comparison on so many fronts.

Equally - doing very little will eventually result in a similar or even greater number of deaths as before - yes more in the over 60s but not exclusively so and the collapse / overwhelming of our entire health system (doctors and even young nurses get it and die as well as before). Possibly it is a calculation / a price worth paying in the 'survival' of the nation that we have to accept. Women and children first. I do not accept we are at that juncture. 

The defence in some quarters to this seems to be that the disease is somehow less fatal, less severe or some sort of not really understood herd immunity or cross immunity (that seems to have gone awol at present hence the ramping of cases). All of these I call wishful thinking, hoping for the best (as before) or it won't be me'. 

Given that we know how this played out before and little has changed then extreme caution is the order of day.

I’m really not sure how you can say little has changed.

In February and early March the entire prevention strategy was asking people to wash their hands and hum happy birthday.

We didn’t have enough PPE. We didn’t have any experience of how to handle covid. We thought ventilation was the best way of dealing and now we know it isn’t. We didn’t have nightingale hospitals sitting there ready to be used if necessary. We’ve now got all of that (albeit we can always do with more of the ppe!). We’ve got social distancing far more than in Feb/March. We’ve got to wear face masks. We can’t see more than six people and in various places in the country it’s stricter than that. Many people are still working from home that were in the office in March. We haven’t got large public events. You have to sanitise your hands before you go into any public building pretty much.  Do you genuinely think little has changed since March? If so, I’d guess you haven’t left the house since then.
 

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

When will we know its too late? 

The evidence for a massive second wave looks very thin at the moment. In March / April we went from ten deaths a day to over a thousand in less than three weeks. I still don't  see this happening anywhere in Europe. Yes there are very high numbers of poitives in certain countries but with the unreliability of the PCR test the vast majority seem to be detecting small amounts of virus in a largely asymptomatic population.

The hospitalisation has risen a bit but is many orders of magnitude below what it was. By all means lets us follow sensible rules like mask wearing and social distancing but we should refrain from going to panic stations.

 

Edited by ricardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I’m really not sure how you can say little has changed.

In February and early March the entire prevention strategy was asking people to wash their hands and hum happy birthday.

We didn’t have enough PPE. We didn’t have any experience of how to handle covid. We thought ventilation was the best way of dealing and now we know it isn’t. We didn’t have nightingale hospitals sitting there ready to be used if necessary. We’ve now got all of that. We’ve got social distancing far more than in Feb/March. We’ve got to wear face masks. We can’t see more than six people and in various places in the country it’s stricter than that. Many people are still working from home that were in the office in March. We haven’t got large public events. Do you genuinely think little has changed since March? If so, I’d guess you haven’t left the house since then.
 

 

The baseline Aggy is that it is INCREASING - not decreasing - even with these current restrictions. Last rate I saw was a doubling every week but make it 10 days. So if we assume 10K today - that's 20K by first week October and well over 100,000 a day by the end of October. It's March 2020 and all over again and game over.

Need we say more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jools said:

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

Here we go again. You display a startling inability to read and understand the statistics, I suggest you try listening to the officials who provide them. Your claim that, " we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions." is simply wrong. ALL the deaths listed are attributed to the virus. The breakdown simply demonstrates that those with a pre-existing condition are more likely to die if they catch the virus. They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus. It really isn't that hard to read these statistics accurately so do try a bit harder

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The baseline Aggy is that it is INCREASING - not decreasing - even with these current restrictions. Last rate I saw was a doubling every week but make it 10 days. So if we assume 10K today - that's 20K by first week October and well over 100,000 a day by the end of October. It's March 2020 and all over again and game over.

Need we say more.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there. And yes, I would argue you do need to say more if you’re suggesting people’s livelihoods should be put at risk. 

1. Why are we assuming 10k? Figures in Ricardo’s link suggest 3899 today, 4322 yesterday, 3,395 the day before. 

2. On the graph in Ricardo’s link (for consistency), there were 2,919 on 10th September. So in the last ten days there has been an increase of 470 from 2,919 to 3,395 today. Certainly not doubling.

3. Whilst increased testing doesn’t account for all of the new infections, you’ve disregarded any impact from testing whatsoever. Yet as per Ricardo’s other stats on here, the percentage of positive tests being carried out remains around 2 per cent. So are the number of infections increasing as much as you suggest, or are they increasing slightly and we’re just finding out about others that have been there all the time?

4. What evidence is there that infections will continue to double every ten days? As per point 2, that’s already not the case. (And whilst haven’t checked figures for the rest of Europe just now, fairly sure they aren’t doubling every week or ten days either.)

Infections were at a minimal baseline when the increases started, because people hadn’t been allowed to go outside for four months. It is to be expected that infections will increase as people start to mingle. We might see that there’s an early upshot which levels off when we get to a new ‘normal’. Likewise, going into autumn and winter, it will become more widespread and people will struggle to shake it off more as other viruses and bugs are floating around as well. 

The issue isn’t that more people might get infected, the issue is ensuring infections don’t get to the level where hospitalisations swamp the hospitals. What evidence is there that this will happen?

5. We don’t know how many infections there were in early March - you’ve acknowledged yourself that there were certainly a lot more than were reported/identified through the limited testing we had then. So if we don’t know how many infections caused that many deaths, then we don’t know how many new infections is a “safe” amount (an amount that won’t overwhelm healthcare services). 
 

Without being able to say “last time, [200,000] new daily infections was the point where we started to have capacity issues and we’re getting close to that figure or will be soon”, I’m afraid it’s not good enough to be introducing legislation restricting people from leaving their homes without other indicators which might suggest capacity issues are imminent.

At the moment what other indicators suggest health infrastructure capacity issues are imminent?

 

6. You didn’t respond to my previous question - do you genuinely believe little has changed since early March when the only measure in place was being asked to wash your hands?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there. And yes, I would argue you do need to say more if you’re suggesting people’s livelihoods should be put at risk. 

1. Why are we assuming 10k? Figures in Ricardo’s link suggest 3899 today, 4322 yesterday, 3,395 the day before. 

2. On the graph in Ricardo’s link (for consistency), there were 2,919 on 10th September. So in the last ten days there has been an increase of 470 from 2,919 to 3,395 today. Certainly not doubling.

3. Whilst increased testing doesn’t account for all of the new infections, you’ve disregarded any impact from testing whatsoever. Yet as per Ricardo’s other stats on here, the percentage of positive tests being carried out remains around 2 per cent. So are the number of infections increasing as much as you suggest, or are they increasing slightly and we’re just finding out about others that have been there all the time?

4. What evidence is there that infections will continue to double every ten days? As per point 2, that’s already not the case. (And whilst haven’t checked figures for the rest of Europe just now, fairly sure they aren’t doubling every week or ten days either.)

Infections were at a minimal baseline when the increases started, because people hadn’t been allowed to go outside for four months. It is to be expected that infections will increase as people start to mingle. We might see that there’s an early upshot which levels off when we get to a new ‘normal’.

The issue isn’t that more people might get infected, the issue is ensuring infections don’t get to the level where hospitalisations swamp the hospitals. What evidence is there that this will happen?

5. We don’t know how many infections there were in early March - you’ve acknowledged yourself that there were certainly a lot more than we’re reported/identified through the limited testing we had then. So if we don’t know how many infections caused that many deaths, then we don’t know how many new infections is a “safe” amount. 
 

Without being able to say “last time, [200,000] new daily infections was the point where we started to have capacity issues”, I’m afraid it’s not good enough to be introducing legislation restricting people from leaving their homes without other indicators which might suggest capacity issues are imminent.

At the moment what other indicators suggest health infrastructure capacity issues are imminent?

 

6. You didn’t respond to my previous question - do you genuinely believe little has changed since early March when the only measure in place was being asked to wash your hands?

I'm not going to continue this discussion with you as seem intent on believing that in some undefined manner all will be well if we just carry on doing what we're doing else it affect your business.

I would however simply point you to the ONS data, the acknowledged delays and variability, lack of tests where needed in the daily 'test' figures which make it currently of poor quality for real-time interpretation (ZOE by comparison passed 10K today) and the general 'alarm' by the scientists and indeed hospitals (and also the govt.which will act) at what is likely coming - the Brum 'Nightingale' was placed on alert only a day or so ago.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Share this post


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

When will we know its too late? 

The evidence for a massive second wave looks very thin at the moment. In March / April we went from ten deaths a day to over a thousand in less than three weeks. I still don't  see this happening anywhere in Europe. Yes there are very high numbers of poitives in certain countries but with the unreliability of the PCR test the vast majority seem to be detecting small amounts of virus in a largely asymptomatic population.

The hospitalisation has risen a bit but is many orders of magnitude below what it was. By all means lets us follow sensible rules like mask wearing and social distancing but we should refrain from going to panic stations.

 

We are up at 10000 infections a day according to Imperial and numbers rising rapidly, if there was evidence that the virus had weakened I would be less concerned but I don’t see that in any studies. 
All our public health measures if properly adhered to will slow the rate of spread but once the virus gets hold in the community again I’m afraid it will take more drastic action to stop the transmission. The higher the numbers are at that point the harder it will be to get it back under control. I would prefer an ultra cautious  approach as we move into the winter and to take action sooner rather than later.

Edited by Van wink
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm not going to continue this discussion with you as seem intent on believing that in some undefined manner all will be well if we just carry on doing what we're doing else it affect your business.

I would however simply point you to the ONS data, the acknowledged delays and variability, lack of tests where needed in the daily 'test' figures which make it currently of poor quality for real-time interpretation (ZOE by comparison passed 10K today) and the general 'alarm' by the scientists and indeed hospitals (and also the govt.which will act) at what is likely coming - the Brum 'Nightingale' was placed on alert only a day or so ago.

Keep your fingers crossed.

A recurring theme today of people ignoring questions and ‘not continuing the discussion’ when faced with points they don’t like or asked to explain their theories. Perhaps I’ll give the thread a miss for a while.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Here we go again. You display a startling inability to read and understand the statistics, I suggest you try listening to the officials who provide them. Your claim that, " we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions." is simply wrong. ALL the deaths listed are attributed to the virus. The breakdown simply demonstrates that those with a pre-existing condition are more likely to die if they catch the virus. They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus. It really isn't that hard to read these statistics accurately so do try a bit harder

Do you have the source for this? I wasn't aware that there was a filter put to the figures.  

I dont think Jools is correct at all.  Whilst it is true that some of those were quite high up the reaper's list a lot of people with underlying conditions are still quite far from joining the South stand eternal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I live in Bolton. We're the epicentre of the ****storm right now. And I'm not surprised as hardly any ****s wear masks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Well, I live in Bolton. We're the epicentre of the ****storm right now. And I'm not surprised as hardly any ****s wear masks.

Yes, the sad thing is that if the general public generally played along with the current restrictions in word and deed then we'd likely be in a much better position generally. That I suspect is a forlorn hope though so stick not carrot in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Do you have the source for this? I wasn't aware that there was a filter put to the figures.  

I dont think Jools is correct at all.  Whilst it is true that some of those were quite high up the reaper's list a lot of people with underlying conditions are still quite far from joining the South stand eternal.

Not quite sure what you mean by "filter", but the site is the one Fools cut and paste from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Hilariously he doesn't seem to have noticed that the title of the page he pasted is: "Covid-19 daily deaths" and NOT "1,396 Covid-19  deaths and the rest are all due to another cause". They are ALL Covid-19 deaths (even the Government doesn't dispute this).

If you are interested, Radio 4's excellent maths and statistics programme "More or Less" has for many weeks covered the statistics relating to Covid-19. The programme employs genuinely impartial statisticians and scientists to provide analysis, and they are truly enlightening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Jools saying that if you have, for example, asthma and you die in a plane crash the death certificate should say 'asthma' is the cause of death? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Not quite sure what you mean by "filter", but the site is the one Fools cut and paste from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

thanks,  i dont thi k it goes quite as far as you imply (ie that if it were not for covid these people would still be walking around) but it also doesn't go as far as saying anything that supports Jools.

My assessment (based on nothing more than 6 months of interest in the subject) is that in the overwhelming majority of reportrd cases covid was a significant contributory factor.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitty and Valence.

Spoke plainly - told it as it is and tried to put to bed some wishful thinking. No fairy stories or political point scoring.

Clearly a prelude to some significant action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Whitty and Valence.

Spoke plainly - told it as it is and tried to put to bed some wishful thinking. No fairy stories or political point scoring.

Clearly a prelude to some significant action.

It was much needed and fully agree about the wishful thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was a bit odd that they only presented 1 scenario and only the time frame of mid October. Whitty called it a 6 month problem so why not spell out what a 6 month scenario might look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From being limited availability contact tracing shifts coming thick and fast now.

image.thumb.png.87d1d8cb772e9ae7ca7e442771e51ff5.png

Share this post


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

it was a bit odd that they only presented 1 scenario and only the time frame of mid October. Whitty called it a 6 month problem so why not spell out what a 6 month scenario might look like?

They are trying to wake people up to what we could face very quickly if attitudes and behaviours don’t change now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they stated currently 6000 new daily cases. Zoe reports post 10,000 now. 

It was refreshing to hear scientists rather than politicians. I think we will have tighter restrictions nationally or I am unsure how people will take heed of those strong words. Folk on regional TV are reporting a degree of confusion at all the rules and variability. Given those scenario charts, then the messaging needs to be clear and very simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Interesting that they stated currently 6000 new daily cases. Zoe reports post 10,000 now. 

It was refreshing to hear scientists rather than politicians. I think we will have tighter restrictions nationally or I am unsure how people will take heed of those strong words. Folk on regional TV are reporting a degree of confusion at all the rules and variability. Given those scenario charts, then the messaging needs to be clear and very simple.

The message does need to be clear and simple and at a basic and most important level it is, wash your hands, social distance and wear a mask. Understand that you are more at risk indoors than out.

All the other stuff is a messy mismatch and a consequence of poor government policy and messaging, devolved government variation and trying to do things on a regional basis.  Non of that confusion however excuses people from following the basic and most simple advice 

 

  • 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...