Coronavirus

[Winstonm]

The president is correct that in the U.S. we have turned the corner - unfortunately, we should have turned left but instead went right.

[pilowsky]

There is something so fundamentally different about Australia, Britain and America that for people that have not lived and worked extensively in the three countries for any period of time find it hard to understand.

Perhaps this image will help. I took this photo while walking the poodles today - a small black one and a heavier white one with a tinge of orange.

People always compliment me on the dogs. I explain that I call one Trump and the other Obama because the white one is fat and stupid. Even in one of the most conservative suburbs in Australia this always gets a knowing laugh.

The children are playing cricket. The local council just installed a drop-in pitch - for free. There is a small audience out of sight on the left sitting on the grass. They clap politely now and then. Nothing unusual.

I was once taken to Wrigley Field to see the Cubs that was different.

 

Once when I collected three Senior academics from Dartmouth Medical school at Sydney airport in my car to drive them back to the University, I asked them to do up their seatbelts.

The three of them, white males, looked at me in surprise - they absolutely could not believe it when I told them that I could not start the car until they did because it was illegal to drive in Australia if everyone was not wearing seatbelts.

 

Americans seem to me to have no concept of doing something to ensure that the entire community benefits.

Australians have universal health cover. We have to wear seat belts because if there is an accident and someone is injured then everyone in Australia contributes to the care of that person and to the welfare of them and their family.

It is unfair not to do a small thing like wearing a seatbelt to mitigate the risk.

 

This why it is so hard for Australians to grasp why Americans faff about and complain about masks and social distancing. It just seems so stupid. 'Normal' people take care of each other. In the USA that contract does not exist.

 

We jointly ensure that everyone can be educated through to the level of a college education without crippling loans.

Everyone can access the same health care as each other: no charge.

If you lose your job you can access reasonable support.

When you retire, you will be looked after.

Drugs are affordable.

Sure, bad things do happen, our government is not perfect. One in one hundred year catastrophe's continue to happen every bloody year and they still don't have a system in place to watch out for them.

Some people still want more than they're entitled to.

 

BUT

 

There is a community responsibility. There is a social contract.

 

That's what 'socialised medicine' looks like. That's what a successful first world country looks like.

It's not a bad thing.

 

http://i.imgur.com/Iom2zgP.jpg

[y66]

The power of mask mandates

 

They’re restrictive, tedious and hotly contested, but since the early days of the pandemic we’ve known masks to be an efficient and cost-effective way to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

 

And they’re even better, it turns out, when you oblige people to wear them.

 

Take Kansas, where a real-world experiment in face coverings emerged this summer. In early July, Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, issued a statewide mask order, but was forced to let counties opt out of it under a law limiting her emergency management powers.

 

Only 20 of the state’s 105 counties enforced the order, which required residents to wear masks in public. Those 20 counties saw half as many new coronavirus infections as the counties that did not have the mandate in place, according to a new study from the University of Kansas.

 

Cellphone-tracking data from the University of Maryland showed no differences in how often people left home in the counties with or without mask mandates, so it seemed likely that the masks made the difference.

 

Experts say it’s part of a countrywide trend: Localities that impose mask mandates often see fewer cases, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths and lower test-positivity rates than nearby localities that do not.

 

Other studies have turned up similar results in Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. A recently published report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a 75 percent drop in coronavirus cases in Arizona less than a month after mask-wearing became enforced and bars and gyms were shuttered.

[Cyberyeti]

Another article I came across suggesting the new UK lockdown is based on poor modeling https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/the-innacuracoes-in-the-sage-models/?fbclid=IwAR3JdZzm3Fypm3WjZttx1SucBQtToC5bdn0bAa6abLf41pW9bRJjbzCRxo4 interested in hearing comments.

[hrothgar]

Another article I came across suggesting the new UK lockdown is based on poor modeling https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/the-innacuracoes-in-the-sage-models/?fbclid=IwAR3JdZzm3Fypm3WjZttx1SucBQtToC5bdn0bAa6abLf41pW9bRJjbzCRxo4 interested in hearing comments.

 

I think that you are mentally ill and are desperately grasping at straws...

 

Most of what you have posted in the past has been nonsense and I see little reason to pay attention to your latest idiocy.

[cherdano]

Another article I came across suggesting the new UK lockdown is based on poor modeling https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/the-innacuracoes-in-the-sage-models/?fbclid=IwAR3JdZzm3Fypm3WjZttx1SucBQtToC5bdn0bAa6abLf41pW9bRJjbzCRxo4 interested in hearing comments.

The article certainly makes valid points (well, we are close to 300 deaths/day than 200 deaths/day, but I guess if you are "rofessor of Evidence-Based Medicine" you can't be bothered to be moderately precise about numbers when that gets into the way of your anti-lockdown message). But it's all besides the point. For some reason the current UK government keeps trying to be the smartest person in the room, and rely on the fanciest modeling that is projecting number of deaths with great certainty into the far future.

 

But just a simple careful look at all the numbers would have revealed to anyone with a modest amount of common sense that we are on a dangerous trajectory and have to urgently do more. We are at ~300 deaths day. Hospital admissions were doubling about every two weeks. In the NW, hospitals are basically at capacity. Every measure you take takes at least a week to have an effect on cases, about two weeks on hospital admissions, and about 3-4 weeks on deaths. Unless Boris wanted to be "PM of more than 1000 covid deaths/day in TWO waves" he had to act now.

 

Now I could be convinced that shutting retails is overdoing it a little bit. But the bigger issue is that yet again, this UK government acted way too late.

 

I guess the basic problem is that when you build your government on a lie ("We WILL do Brexit and it WILL BE GREAT") and make everyone sign up to that lie, you have by definition kicked common sense out of the room. That's why they can only get their backbenchers on board with such ridiculous projections of 4000 deaths/day by Mid November (or claiming they know NOW in which area hospitals will be overwhelmed by Christmas).

[Cyberyeti]

I think that you are mentally ill and are desperately grasping at straws...

 

Most of what you have posted in the past has been nonsense and I see little reason to pay attention to your latest idiocy.

 

I think you are just extremely rude. The new lockdown makes absolutely ZERO difference to me, I have been effectively observing the new restrictions for the best part of 8 months because I can't afford to get the virus.

 

Also to Cherdano - I think the 200/day may be just for England not UK wide as these restictions only apply to England.

[cherdano]

 

Also to Cherdano - I think the 200/day may be just for England not UK wide as these restictions only apply to England.

Wrong.

[Zelandakh]

Also to Cherdano - I think the 200/day may be just for England not UK wide as these restrictions only apply to England.

In case it helps, daily and rolling figures for the UK.

[Cyberyeti]

In case it helps, daily and rolling figures for the UK.

 

Missing the point I was making, it's 200/day in England, the remainder are in Scotland, Wales and NI. Since the restrictions only apply to England, the UK figures are not as relevant to making that decision. The UK figures broken down by country are in a link in the article.

[Zelandakh]

Missing the point I was making, it's 200/day in England, the remainder are in Scotland, Wales and NI. Since the restrictions only apply to England, the UK figures are not as relevant to making that decision. The UK figures broken down by country are in a link in the article.

You can get the breakdown by individual nation here. The last full day reported was Eng 278; Sco 24; Wal 13; NI 11; Total 326, which represents a doubling from the previous week's figures in England and Scotland and more or less no change for Wales and NI (141; 11; 16; 6; 174).

[Cyberyeti]

You can get the breakdown by individual nation here. The last full day reported was Eng 278; Sco 24; Wal 13; NI 11; Total 326, which represents a doubling from the previous week's figures in England and Scotland and more or less no change for Wales and NI (141; 11; 16; 6; 174).

 

Why does this bear no resemblance to what's in the link in the article to the official goivt figures ? where the highest recent number shown is 204 in England (+52 in the rest of the UK)

 

https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

 

OK, worked it out, you're looking at the second graph, I'm looking at the first, both are reasonable, I'm not sure which they were referring to.

[cherdano]

Missing the point I was making, it's 200/day in England, the remainder are in Scotland, Wales and NI. Since the restrictions only apply to England, the UK figures are not as relevant to making that decision. The UK figures broken down by country are in a link in the article.

You know, I thought hrothgar's attack on you above was really uncalled for. But you do make it really hard to be sympathetic to you.

 

So you made a simple clear error. The article you cited discusses projections of number of deaths for the entire UK. (Which you could have found out by looking at the heading of the first graph in the article you linked to.) It doesn't talk about deaths in England only.

But when someone points out that error, you just keep digging yourself in deeper.

 

Also, it does not make sense to look at the last few days of the first graph on https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/deaths/ . That shows the number of days YESTERDAY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPORTED TODAY. But of course some deaths take a few days to get reported.

 

But I guess I shouldn't criticise you too harshly for that. Your esteemed "Professor of Evidence-based medicine" seems to have made the same mistake - that's the only way I can make sense of the brown line in the "MRC models & observed outcomes" chart in this article.

 

Meanwhile, hospitals in the NW are full, and admissions are still growing exponentially. And today, 397 covid-19 deaths were reported.

[Cyberyeti]

You know, I thought hrothgar's attack on you above was really uncalled for. But you do make it really hard to be sympathetic to you.

 

So you made a simple clear error. The article you cited discusses projections of number of deaths for the entire UK. (Which you could have found out by looking at the heading of the first graph in the article you linked to.) It doesn't talk about deaths in England only.

But when someone points out that error, you just keep digging yourself in deeper.

 

Also, it does not make sense to look at the last few days of the first graph on https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/deaths/ . That shows the number of days YESTERDAY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPORTED TODAY. But of course some deaths take a few days to get reported.

 

But I guess I shouldn't criticise you too harshly for that. Your esteemed "Professor of Evidence-based medicine" seems to have made the same mistake - that's the only way I can make sense of the brown line in the "MRC models & observed outcomes" chart in this article.

 

Meanwhile, hospitals in the NW are full, and admissions are still growing exponentially. And today, 397 covid-19 deaths were reported.

 

OK, mea culpa, but if you'd pointed out the heading first time rather than just saying "you're wrong" that would have helped.

 

I ignored the last few days of the first graph where it dropped off.

 

Yup the NW needs to be locked down, my area does not and my fear is that public cooperation will be lost here. I will stay compliant with the new lockdown rules because that's what I've been doing for 8 months. I go to 3 places only, the doctor, the supermarket and to visit a friend who has had a lockdown induced breakdown, which we do outside on the heath appropriately distanced.

 

From what I can gather, there are basically only any number of cases here at the university (which came to light when they recently made mass testing available to students) and a poultry processing plant at the other end of the county.

 

I'd love to know what fraction of the 397 deaths are actually OF covid rather than WITH covid.

[Zelandakh]

I'd love to know what fraction of the 397 deaths are actually OF covid rather than WITH covid.

What precisely is the distinction you are trying to draw here? If I run an asbestos company and for any employees that die, I go to court and say "S(h)e died of a respiratory disease with asbestos, not from asbestos", how sympathetic do you think the judge will be? In the UK, covid death certificates will often list more than one cause. The figures indicate certificates where covid is mentioned but it does not have to be the sole cause to be included, and rightly so.

[cherdano]

 

I'd love to know what fraction of the 397 deaths are actually OF covid rather than WITH covid.

Since you'd "love to know", maybe you could do some steps to find out? E.g. you could find out how total excess mortality in the UK in the first wave compared to the official count of daily deaths of those who had tested positive?

Oh, I apologise, since you'd "love to know" I am sure you have done that already, and have realised that in the first wave, excess deaths were quite a bit higher? Moreover, their timing matched the covid deaths, not lockdown decisions, so you probably know that these excess deaths were caused by covid, not lockdown.

 

So I guess you are just wondering whether it's 95% who died OF covid or 99%? Meanwhile, you probably also know that so far, excess deaths have tracked reported covid deaths much more closely - just as you'd expect with much more widespread testing? Right?

 

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

[Cyberyeti]

Since you'd "love to know", maybe you could do some steps to find out? E.g. you could find out how total excess mortality in the UK in the first wave compared to the official count of daily deaths of those who had tested positive?

Oh, I apologise, since you'd "love to know" I am sure you have done that already, and have realised that in the first wave, excess deaths were quite a bit higher? Moreover, their timing matched the covid deaths, not lockdown decisions, so you probably know that these excess deaths were caused by covid, not lockdown.

 

So I guess you are just wondering whether it's 95% who died OF covid or 99%? Meanwhile, you probably also know that so far, excess deaths have tracked reported covid deaths much more closely - just as you'd expect with much more widespread testing? Right?

 

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

 

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive. The excess deaths are complicated, because they were running negative for a while after the first wave, so I'm not sure whether you can do them properly for a short period.

 

Details on my area https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/norwich-coronavirus-cases-fall-to-lowest-level-since-early-october-1-6914592 the lockdown makes no sense here.

[Zelandakh]

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive.

It sounds like what you are looking for is contained in the third graph, deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate. Guess what, the total number of deaths for England in this category is 51844, as opposed to 41748 for the death within 28 days of a positive test data. In other words, the number of people actually dying from complications arising from covid exceeds the number dying after a recent a positive test. That is obvious to those of us that have looked at the year-on-year mortality numbers but it is nice that the official figures at least top their hat to some of that under-reporting. The numbers for patients dying from an unrelated incident after a positive covid test is negligible compared to the numbers dying from covid-related complications without a test within 28 days. So yes, you are right to question the official figures; but not because they are too low but rather the opposite.

[cherdano]

Not at all, if you test positive and 3 weeks later are run down by a bus, that's a covid death on the statistics with the way they're calculated as I understand it because you tested positive within 28 days of death, ditto if you had cancer and only days to live when you tested positive.

Yup. And I guess you think that 15% of all those who test positive get run over by a bus within 3 weeks? Stop writing such obvious nonsense, there is a reason I wrote "95% or 99%" not "100".

 

The excess deaths are complicated, because they were running negative for a while after the first wave, so I'm not sure whether you can do them properly for a short period.

Yup, that's why you should leave this to people who understand how to analyse such numbers. E.g. you can look for Chris Giles from the Financial Times on twitter. He is good on this, spends time with this, and doesnt' have an agenda.

 

Details on my area https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/norwich-coronavirus-cases-fall-to-lowest-level-since-early-october-1-6914592 the lockdown makes no sense here.

90.3/100000 in seven days is still very high, it'd only be a matter of time until you need a lockdown with no further restrictions. You can't aim for R=1 with this disease.

[cherdano]

I was wrong about one thing though:

Or maybe you were just asking a rhetorical question, in order to try to make a point without committing to a false statement?

Obviously CY doesn't care committing to false statements, and recommitting to them, over and over again.

 

At some point others will start wondering where are all these false statements are coming from...

[hrothgar]

I was wrong about one thing though:

 

Obviously CY doesn't care committing to false statements, and recommitting to them, over and over again.

 

At some point others will start wondering where are all these false statements are coming from...

 

Will start?

 

Did you pay attention back when he was claiming that no one believed that that this was airborne?

[Cyberyeti]

90.3/100000 in seven days is still very high, it'd only be a matter of time until you need a lockdown with no further restrictions. You can't aim for R=1 with this disease.

 

And coming DOWN fast in tier 1, it's only that bad because UEA had a problem they hadn't picked up until recently, then they made mass testing available to students whether symptomatic or not, discovered they had an issue and dealt with it.

 

Yup, that's why you should leave this to people who understand how to analyse such numbers. E.g. you can look for Chris Giles from the Financial Times on twitter. He is good on this, spends time with this, and doesnt' have an agenda.

 

I have a statistics degree and everything I know screams you shouldn't be doing this. I find his analysis extremely unconvincing, we know from the first wave that a lot of people died a couple of months ahead of when they'd have died anyway, so the excess deaths came down again (admittedly not by that much).

 

To hrothgar: "Did you pay attention back when he was claiming that no one believed that that this was airborne?"

 

It was said many times early on in the pandemic by a load of virologists I listened to that the virus transmitted by attaching to largish water droplets and didn't aerosol. That opinion didn't change for quite a while. The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

[hrothgar]

 

It was said many times early on in the pandemic by a load of virologists I listened to that the virus transmitted by attaching to largish water droplets and didn't aerosol. That opinion didn't change for quite a while. The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

 

 

You live in an echo chamber populated by idiots and you are too mentally challenged to appreciate this fact

[Winstonm]

The politicians here and govt scientists said the biggest risk was coughing, sneezing, shouting and singing for that reason. This has turned out not to be the case.

Shouting and singing are only an increased risk with aerosols, are they not? Shouting and singing are only forms of loud talking - not the same category as sneezing and coughing.

[cherdano]

492 deaths in the UK today, cases keep rising. I hope Henaghan is proud to have warned of the dangers of a implementing a lockdown based on unconvincing data.