Corona Virus main thread

[Badger 2,405]

26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The graphs are for deaths. Its the new cases that will show the progress of the virus. 

 

Not if they change the number and frequency of the tests. If you test more people you are likely to get more positive results, but (hopefully) a lower percentage of positive tests.

It is also very difficult to compare internationally as there are different testing practices/ quantities. I think deaths per thousand is probably the best comparative and even this does not take into account the relative effectiveness of the health services.

[Surfer 1,547]

On flattening the curve. 

I like to think of it as a limbo dance. We need to get some as yet unknown % of the population under that bar. And if we all rush at the bar at once we’ll knock it off. The bar is ICU capacity.

So slowing down the rush does not change the number of people going under that bar, except that we may be able to raise the bar a bit in the meantime, we may have more treatment options , and we will still be able to help those with other illnesses that also need medical attention - including UCU beds. 
 

As for the economy / how do we pay for this: we need people to go back to work; but for that we need a reliable test to show Infection /recovery. 

[CANARYKING 634]

563 dead in a day, goodness  knows what the total will be

[Badger 2,405]

22 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Best I could find Badger:

 

Thanks DDJ - very interesting. 

France and Germany seem to have mandatory insurance schemes but in the top table it seems to be counted as government spending. I wonder how that works?

Bottom line is that we seem towards the bottom of comparable countries, which I suspected was the case. Really surprised at the top table saying the US govt spends a higher proportion of GDP than we do for the NHS?

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

Useful website spreadsheet containing data updated everyday:

COVID-19 Figures

OTBC

[ricardo 7,336]

very comprehensive DDJ.👍

[Mark .Y. 351]

36 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Useful and hopefully confirms what we already guess.

A tough lock down will help stop the virus spreading but there's a 10 to 14 day delay  - but it's a long haul.

Even after that the actual number of new cases may not fall but plateau. Even no 'new' cases doesn't mean it's gone away (China)

Yes, I feel that there is a 7-10 day period after the peak where the cases drop, but not by massive amounts. After that, they do start to drop quickly over the next 7-10 day period as the virus has nowhere to go.

Then you hit a period of where you see, maybe, around 50 new cases a day.............. which is when the difficult decisions start 😐

   

[Mark .Y. 351]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not if they change the number and frequency of the tests. If you test more people you are likely to get more positive results, but (hopefully) a lower percentage of positive tests.

It is also very difficult to compare internationally as there are different testing practices/ quantities. I think deaths per thousand is probably the best comparative and even this does not take into account the relative effectiveness of the health services.

I htink the relative effectiveness of the health services has had a huge impact on the  death rates in Italy and Spain. Despite both these countries being considered as having good health services, they have been totally overwhelmed and I suspect, that very sadly, there will be a huge amount of stories after this along the lines of people being left in corridors and dieing there because of lack of ventilators, medical care etc

 

[Aggy 748]

46 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree that you can't have loads of kit sitting around "for every possible pandemic that might ever arise" although having adequate stocks of PPE would be a start and probably applicable to many pandemics. Having recognised our inability to be fully prepared, it becomes all the more necessary for the govt. to respond quickly to anything that arises.

My particular concern is that I agree with the criticism of Jeremy Hunt and the Lancet amongst others that the govt responded to slowly to the information that was emerging from China. I am still not clear whether you think this is the case or not?

You’re probably not clear whether I think that’s the case or not because I haven’t answered that question, despite you misquoting two posts trying to suggest I have.

In actual response to the question, my overarching response is - well we don’t really know, and I’m not going to get drawn into a slanging match about it (or pretending that I know the government should “definitely” have done x, y or z)  until we know a lot more. 
 

Edit: what I would say is that hindsight is a wonderful thing and I can’t remember Jeremy Hunt crowing on about it back in January.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Aggy

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Edit: what I would say is that hindsight is a wonderful thing and I can’t remember Jeremy Hunt crowing on about it back in January.

He did criticise the govt's actions about a week before the U turn. The Lancet was running a campaign from January asking for immediate actions. The govt was slow to respond, I don't think that there is much room for doubt about that. The consequence is lack of protective equipment and a slow rate of testing.

As for pleading ignorance, I don't think that you have to know a great deal to understand that it is unfair to ask NHS and care staff to risk their lives because they are having to operate without PPE. 

[Aggy 748]

12 minutes ago, Badger said:

As for pleading ignorance, I don't think that you have to know a great deal to understand that it is unfair to ask NHS and care staff to risk their lives because they are having to operate without PPE. 

I presume you were making this argument six months ago? Or do you think coronavirus is the only infectious disease that exists?

Edited April 1, 2020 by Aggy

[Surfer 1,547]

2 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Useful website spreadsheet containing data updated everyday:

COVID-19 Figures

OTBC

With all due respect to the saying “ there are lies, damn lies, and statistics” 

What is most worrying about that is 44% of the recent tests are positive, and 8% mortality rate of those implies overall risk is just shy of 4% or 2.5 million if of equal risk over 65 million people.

So that shows how badly we need more tests and to understand the tests that have already been given. As no politician or actor who has publicly said they have COVID-19 has been hospitalized yet a 4% projection is wrong. 
 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Surfer
Corrected 40 to 4 and 25 to 2.5

[Crafty Canary 495]

I would be amazed when this is all over if there isn’t an increase in income tax rates of 1 or 2% ring fenced for the NHS. 

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, Crafty Canary said:

I would be amazed when this is all over if there isn’t an increase in income tax rates of 1 or 2% ring fenced for the NHS. 

I'd be amazed if Johnson, Rees-Mogg, IDS etc adopt a strategy whereby the wealthy tax dodgers are taxed properly so as to not need an extra burden put on business.

Maybe they could follow the EU and have a serious chase of these tax dodgers, and perhaps stop the big companies shifting their profits around so as to avoid paying tax in the country where those profits were generated.

But then a quick look at who has been funding Johnson will tell what will actually happen

Edited April 1, 2020 by Bill

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

probably no slower than everybody else

I'm not sure that this is the case. 

Nor am I aware that the shortage of PPE is as intense elsewhere in Europe. 

[Badger 2,405]

23 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I presume you were making this argument six months ago? Or do you think coronavirus is the only infectious disease that exists?

 

23 minutes ago, Aggy said:

35 minutes ago, Badger said:

As for pleading ignorance, I don't think that you have to know a great deal to understand that it is unfair to ask NHS and care staff to risk their lives because they are having to operate without PPE. 

I presume you were making this argument six months ago? Or do you think coronavirus is the only infectious disease that exists?

Of course not x 2! But it doesn't take others six months to source PPE, which you seem to think is perfectly OK. 

There were experts advising the govt of the need to act in January which it chose to ignore. You don't seem to worry about this at all: I find this difficult to comprehend.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Badger
Added sentence

[Surfer 1,547]

Re Masks - which is cropping up now. 
 

Surgical masks are not designed to protect the wearer.... they are designed to protect everyone else from the wearer. 

So will they stop YOU from getting a viral disease - not directly by filtration no. But if you have a viral infection they will help you not infect others by sneezing on them. This is why Asians wear masks in flu season. To protect others. And bowing not shaking hands helps out too. 
 

To filter out viral particles you need proper tight fitting and dense filtration masks - N95 style - the fact there is a shortage of both types is a major scandal that must  be resolved. 
 

[T 190]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Thanks DDJ - very interesting. 

France and Germany seem to have mandatory insurance schemes but in the top table it seems to be counted as government spending. I wonder how that works?

Bottom line is that we seem towards the bottom of comparable countries, which I suspected was the case. Really surprised at the top table saying the US govt spends a higher proportion of GDP than we do for the NHS?

The percentage of GDP is the most relevant. Heathcare in the US is horrendously expensive. I’ve seen the figures in medical businesses and the NHS is one of the most efficient at purchasing and the US is the worst as they just past the cost in v expensive healthcare insurance. 

[Aggy 748]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

t it doesn't take others six months to source PPE, which you seem to think is perfectly OK. 

 

Source for this claim? You’re very good at quoting random things and saying they mean something completely different to what they actually say!

[Mark .Y. 351]

44 minutes ago, Surfer said:

With all due respect to the saying “ there are lies, damn lies, and statistics” 

What is most worrying about that is 44% of the recent tests are positive, and 8% mortality rate of those implies overall risk is just shy of 4% or 2.5 million if of equal risk over 65 million people.

So that shows how badly we need more tests and to understand the tests that have already been given. As no politician or actor who has publicly said they have COVID-19 has been hospitalized yet a 40% projection is wrong. 
 

 

 

I think the vast majority of our tests are being done on people who have symptoms or are front-line workers, hence the positive result percentage is very very high

[Pugin 601]

The week following 11th April will prove to be a critical time. That is when the NHS expect to hit peak ICU admissions as from that point we hope to see the effect of social distancing. We need the upward curve to flatten / plateau at that point. The NHS is gearing to have sufficient ICU capacity to cope with the projected figures from 11th April.

If ICU requirement continues to escalate in the week following 11th April either additional measures will have to be introduced or we shall have to expect avoidable fatalities. I understand why gearing up ICUs is the current priority rather than testing. Testing will be the priority once we have achieved a plateau. 

[Bill 1,788]

25 minutes ago, Badger said:

But it doesn't take others six months to source PPE, which you seem to think is perfectly OK.

posted 20 mins after my comment of

"the usual method is to make up stuff you have not said and reply to that (see Aggy above)"..............." claims that are intended to appear 'universally acknowledged' "

nothing in AGGY's post could be construed as Tadger's comment states, albeit that comment says that it 'seems' as such

of course it is mere coincidence that similarly minded bigots use this ploy

all coincidence

of course it is 🤔

[Essjayess 307]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

First increase in 3 days for new cases. Just as statistics give a bit of hope, a new day dims that hope. The number of deaths is  alarming but unfortunately will tell us nothing about how the virus is continuing to spread.

Sorry KG but thats just not so, yesterdays  new cases were a record high, just as todays are a record high. Those that think our new cases will stop increasing in the next few days will only correct for one reason..the daily testing increase is not keeping pace with the daily new cases increase. The new cases is likely to keep rising for  quite a few weeks more im afraid.

Just checked, yesterdays was slightly lower so i correct myself there..but the general trend is still ever upwards.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Essjayess

[Van wink 2,994]

38 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Re Masks - which is cropping up now. 
 

Surgical masks are not designed to protect the wearer.... they are designed to protect everyone else from the wearer. 

So will they stop YOU from getting a viral disease - not directly by filtration no. But if you have a viral infection they will help you not infect others by sneezing on them. This is why Asians wear masks in flu season. To protect others. And bowing not shaking hands helps out too. 
 

To filter out viral particles you need proper tight fitting and dense filtration masks - N95 style - the fact there is a shortage of both types is a major scandal that must  be resolved. 
 

Thats correct, its no coincidence that we see populations in the Far East wearing facemarks after their experience with SARS.

There are quite a few, and some on here, who have no grasp of this.

[Aggy 748]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

The graph for Europe (number 1) show a flattening of new cases in Italy happening about now (maybe in a week or two).

Do we (perhaps @Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man) know how well the lockdown has been observed in Italy? The impression I get is that it is probably not being observed as well as it now is in the Uk. If that’s the case, then presumably we’d ‘flatten out’ a bit quicker?

[Essjayess 307]

Locally...Norfolk new cases +32 to 180, deaths +7 to 25.    Thats 14 deaths in 2 days.

Suffolk 125 cases.

[sonyc 5,484]

@Aggy, looking at BBC news (just now) they have had a slight relaxation (children allowed to go out with a parent) from today. Plus there has been unease at the strict lockdown reported. Wacky will know best. But the graphs show a broad correlation across all European countries. With very slight variances.

Edited April 1, 2020 by sonyc

[Badger 2,405]

57 minutes ago, Aggy said:

1 hour ago, Badger said:

it doesn't take others six months to source PPE, which you seem to think is perfectly OK. 

 

Source for this claim? You’re very good at quoting random things and saying they mean something completely different to what they actually say!

No I don't have a source for it! I would have thought that it was pretty obvious to most people that it does not take six months to obtain PPE! 

[Van wink 2,994]

I suspect some of the probelm with testing may be around our desire to have assurance about the chemicals and apparatus used for tests, the CMO has spoken repeatedly about the risks from erroneous test results, but maybe we need to be just a bit more flexible on the standards.

"The introduction of mass testing for coronavirus is being hampered by health officials enforcing strict rules around what chemical brands and suppliers can be used to produce the tests, scientists warn.

Procedures drawn up by the NHS describe the precise chemicals and equipment that must be used to test patients, but with specific reagents in short supply, senior researchers argue that the UK must find alternatives to avoid more delays.

The government has fallen short of its own targets to increase testing and only 2,000 of about half a million NHS frontline workers have now been tested for the virus. On Wednesday, NHS England directed all trusts to lift the 15% cap on staff testing and use all their spare testing capacity.

But Prof Nicola Stonehouse, a molecular virologist at Leeds University, said that efforts to scale up coronavirus testing were being frustrated by over-reliance on specified reagents, enzymes and other chemicals.

“It is holding things up,” Stonehouse said. “If we could get over this, we could get the testing centres up and running so much faster and that’s got to be a good thing.

“The NHS have very specific requirements and there is good reason for that. It makes sure that standards are maintained. But there are alternatives. They need to be optimised and validated, but you can fast track that if you have enough people. It wouldn’t take a lot of time.”

[Bill 1,788]

11 minutes ago, sonyc said:

@Aggy, looking at BBC news (just now) they have had a slight relaxation (children allowed to go out with a parent) from today. Plus there has been unease at the strict lockdown reported. Wacky will know best. But the graphs show a broad correlation As stated the gradual easing of movement will sall European countries. With very slight variances.

As I previously stated the relaxation will begin far sooner than most thought. Much as how cannabis was de-criminalised so with activity become less stringent.

Smoke a joint in your house and you will not be bothered. Walk up to a plod in the street and blow it into his/her face and you will most likely be nicked.

Folk just need to exercise caution/common sense. Wandering about in hgroups  is almost a direct flaunting of advice and could lead to others ignoring the advice to avoid risking spreading the virus. As sai I spoke with a couple of coppers yesterday eve when they were sat in the van. Happy to make that my only venture, shopping #/outdoor exercise, observe Aldi's regulations do what millions of others are doingsit it out.

It is all about the medical services being given the chance to get control of dealing with this. It won't stop the deaths but it woll slow down the rate so it's a case of whether my visit to aunt flo is more important or the NHS (and other services) not being hindered where possible.