Off Topic Coronavirus

[Stroller]

It was the wrong use of wording. I was watching a film while typing. I should have said we as a country might get away with less than 20k deaths. Others will try and say different but that’s what I meant.

This is what you said....

I also don’t buy into this 20k amount being good and anything over the government will burn in hell. People forget the death toll in 2015 was 28k ( I believe). What if the final figure is 19,999 would the government be hero’s? Said before the are in a lose/lose situation..... however I have this sneaky feeling they might get away with this (if that’s the right thing to say).

All about the government, not the country.

Don't try and weasel your way out of this one, hold your hands up.

 

[kiwiqpr]

Today brings the fifth death
The third from the rest home
33 other cases connected to the rest home including 18 staff

19 new cases
1349 in total
546 have recovered

15 in hospital
1 in icu

 

[kiwiqpr]

In other virus news we have had our first arson at a cell tower and the supermarket cougher has broken his bail conditions and has been remanded until May 19th
Ha ha

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Well word it differently then! They’ve been elected & trying to to there best for the nation

They planned for far, far more of us to die until it turned out that wasn’t a terribly popular idea.

 

[NigsyHoops]

I’m really beginning to wonder how accurate the figures are of deaths FROM Covid are.
Am I right in saying deaths at home or in care homes aren’t counted ?
And even if they are, how many of these are actually COVID related and how many are from other things.

As an example, I spoke to my friend who’s mum died recently in a care home and her death was put on the certificate as COVID......but NO TEST WAS DONE , however some residents in the home had been tested as positive so I’m led to believe.
Therefore how can this be proven ? From the symptoms explained to me, it could more likely of been Sepsis, which kills far more elders.

Just makes me curious and a bit sceptical of the figures being muted.

Staines, I don't bother with these graphs as I think they are a load of *ollocks. Accountants say 'don't worry about these figures, I can move them around etc and make them look better'.

 

[rangercol]

The figure of 20k deaths being a ‘good result’ didn’t come from the politicians, it came from Vallance. That’s why some of us are interested in it. Why would I be interested in what Hancock or Raab think, or Starmer or Sturgeon for that matter, they are no more expert than me? If the government is honest in ‘following scientific advice’ and this figure comes from its chief scientific adviser, then it’s relevant. They have set the benchmark, the target, not me.

And if you think this is the same as a bad year for flu, can you explain why the country is in economic and social shutdown and we have daily press briefings about it?

No, to be honest, I can't explain that.
Most of these arguments will only be settled years down the line imo.

Maybe the final "toll" won't be as high as the worst 'normal' flu years. Then what's the answer to your question?

The one difference I suppose is that with Covid, the NHS would be swamped because of the rate of infection.

 

[NigsyHoops]

Perhaps someone on here can come up with a hilarious meme featuring those damn do gooders, Geldof and Bono.......Anyone ?

Don't get me going with those 2 *ankers.

 

[rangercol]

This is what you said....

I also don’t buy into this 20k amount being good and anything over the government will burn in hell. People forget the death toll in 2015 was 28k ( I believe). What if the final figure is 19,999 would the government be hero’s? Said before the are in a lose/lose situation..... however I have this sneaky feeling they might get away with this (if that’s the right thing to say).

All about the government, not the country.

Don't try and weasel your way out of this one, hold your hands up.

Give it a rest.

Ellers explained.
We all type stuff incorrectly or ill thought out, especially in the early hours after possibly consumung some alcohol.

No need for this thread to turn into a slanging match.

 

[NigsyHoops]

Sadly I would entertain you But like the election you are wrong... actually you are wrong most times.

Here we go again.

 

[ELLERS]

Give it a rest.

Ellers explained.
We all type stuff incorrectly or ill thought out, especially in the early hours after possibly consumung some alcohol.

No need for this thread to turn into a slanging match.

Thanks, Col but I expected it. It's just political point-scoring. The minions will be along shortly to join in. But I don't I'm old enough and ugly enough to take their rubbish.

 

[Staines R's]

‘Infamy, infamy....they’ve all got it in for me’.......

 

[YorkshireHoopster]

Serves

Surely again, without being tested for this disease then it must be deemed unreliable. Rita down the road feels unwell and says she THINKS she's got it. I had contact with Rita (i squeezed her bum) so I might have it. Unless someone has actually been confirmed with a test, then got the all clear and is back amongst the public, then what use is it?? The truth is, it all comes back around to testing or lack of it.

Serves you right squeezing her bum without her consent.

 

[sb_73]

That's something that I still question.

No, to be honest, I can't explain that.
Most of these arguments will only be settled years down the line imo.

Maybe the final "toll" won't be as high as the worst 'normal' flu years. Then what's the answer to your question?

The one difference I suppose is that with Covid, the NHS would be swamped because of the rate of infection.

I think Col’s last line is the key. I have two GPs as neighbours and friends. They say they are not at the front line (yet) of this, but they are both visibly exhausted (when I see them from a safe distance). They are dreading a few weeks time as they start to see the follow up to hospitalised people in primary care. Every day we see testimony from doctors and nurses on TV, not just here but all around the world, saying that they have never seen anything like this. It might be the rate of infection, it’s must be that the rate of hospitalisation is much higher and that the number of cases are concentrated into a shorter period. Also the ratio of hospitalisation to deaths must be higher - for COVID its one death for every ten hospitalisations in this country. Who says flu is the right comparator? Could be sepsis is more appropriate, or something else.

I don’t have a figure for a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ death toll, I just note that 20k has been set by the key government adviser as ‘good’ and I am wondering what he would define as ‘bad’, meaning that the measures taken have failed. Because we need to know this in order to learn, and we need to learn because this is going to happen again. At the moment we seem to be tracking towards something significantly higher than 20k, but given that figures of 500k and 250k have been bandied about (also by people who are apparently government advisors), 50k is not necessarily a sign that the strategy has failed.

We can argue about the response of the government, other governments or the ****ing useless WHO (wet markets are open again in Wuhan, but the WHO rep on the wireless just now refused to criticise China in particular), but it seems to me we have to take frontline health workers seriously.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

‘Infamy, infamy....they’ve all got it in for me’.......

No political point scoring please.

Unless it’s against Labour, of course.

Protect the emperor at all costs.

 

[Stroller]

Thanks, Col but I expected it. It's just political point-scoring. The minions will be along shortly to join in. But I don't I'm old enough and ugly enough to take their rubbish.

The political element comes from you, Ellers.

 

[YorkshireHoopster]

I've been struggling for some time with two questions relating to testing to which I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet:

1 If you are tested and it's negative why does that mean all of a sudden that it is safe for you to return to normal life? I would have thought that simply means you are still at risk. My stepbrother eventually got a negative result after 15 days and having recovered. He's not convinced but has gone back to work to risk his life again or be blamed for using ppe incorrectly.
2 If you are tested and it is positive why the assumption that you can go about your normal life after a period of time? I thought the second question is easier- we don't know and everything we are being advised to do is simply based on assumption but until we get a reliable antibody test it seems to me you might as well flip a coin in deciding what you have or want to do. In the USA they can play Russian Roulette with all the guns they've bought .

It's probably been raised before elsewhere but if so it must have passed me by.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

I think Col’s last line is the key. I have two GPs as neighbours and friends. They say they are not at the front line (yet) of this, but they are both visibly exhausted (when I see them from a safe distance). They are dreading a few weeks time as they start to see the follow up to hospitalised people in primary care. Every day we see testimony from doctors and nurses on TV, not just here but all around the world, saying that they have never seen anything like this. It might be the rate of infection, it’s must be that the rate of hospitalisation is much higher and that the number of cases are concentrated into a shorter period. Also the ratio of hospitalisation to deaths must be higher - for COVID its one death for every ten hospitalisations in this country.

I don’t have a figure for a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ death toll, I just note that 20k has been set by the key government adviser as ‘good’ and I am wondering what he would define as ‘bad’, meaning that the measures taken have failed. Because we need to know this in order to learn, and we need to learn because this is going to happen again. At the moment we seem to be tracking towards something significantly higher than 20k, but given that figures of 500k and 250k have been bandied about (also by people who are apparently government advisors), 50k is not necessarily a sign that the strategy has failed.

We can argue about the response of the government, other governments or the ****ing useless WHO (wet markets are open again in Wuhan, but the WHO rep on the wireless just now refused to criticise China in particular), but it seems to me we have to take frontline health workers seriously.

We aren’t getting people to hospital quickly enough as far as I can see (VIPs excepted). You have to be in a really bad way to not get told to stay at home which isn’t the same as some other wealthy European countries who we mustn’t compare ourselves to. That’s a problem.

We’ve got pretty much a media blackout now in hospitals. I’ve got no idea how well the new temporary hospitals are holding up but like you from the few people I know who are working at the coal face daily it sounds awful.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Personally, I’m no longer going to put much stock in the daily figures. What do we know/don’t know?

- the U.K. daily deaths reported only seem to be those in hospital, but with an occasional ‘catch-up’ of an aggregate of unreliable figures from elsewhere.

- we don’t know how many died ‘with’ and how many died ‘of’, which I think is still important.

- each country appears to record their respective figures in a different way, so plotted together on a graph is not exactly like-for-like.

- we still are not testing anywhere near enough and there’s insufficient data on who’s being tested and why.

- we don’t have up to date figures on the overall U.K. daily death rates and how they compare to previous years - if they’re up, are they sufficiently up to warrant crashing the economy? Are deaths from other causes down over the same period?

As has been said above, we only have the frontline reports to show us how seriously doctors and nurses are taking this - which shouldn’t be ignored, of course - but are the current actions disproportionate to the issue?

Fuctifino.

 

[bobmid]

I dont think any countries death statistics are entirely true, ours, we know arent true to non hospitalised deaths unaccounted for. If I heard correctly, they are not testing/finding out the deaths of non hospitalised victims. We are as guilty as anyone for cooking the books if that's the case.

 

[bobmid]

Thanks, Col but I expected it. It's just political point-scoring. The minions will be along shortly to join in. But I don't I'm old enough and ugly enough to take their rubbish.

It's not political point scoring in my opinion. Starmer did a superb interview the other day stating as much. It's about questioning decisions, dealing with the problems and trying to find as quick a solution to them as possible.
People wont suddenly flock to another party due to this situation and the way it's been handled. What people want is a bit of honesty, clarity and transparancy. Why is it so difficult for the government to just apologise to the public or more importantly the NHS staff for their cock ups or misleading statements. They dont set a great example for others to follow in their behaviour.