Generic Virus Thread

[KHV]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Well they tried to close it and it had a reprieve for a few years.

Whether that is still the case, not so sure.

Had to work an evening in Newport recently, it was exactly how everyone imagines it.

I remember being in a pub in Newport by the bridge over the river. One of the weirdest and most trying places I have ever had a drink in!

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

F*ckin love their songs. 

Name a more romantic song than “You know I loves You”. I’ll wait. 

[jackbauer24]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Have you managed to look at/find out for us the 'most experts who can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates' and the associated data, yet?

I'm going to get in trouble for this as I can never get my tablet to link properly (!) but the BBC article says this;

"Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash.

It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors such declining living standards and poorer health care."

I believe we're talking a decline far bigger than that now? But I'm not an expert and more than willing to be questioned on stuff and be happy to say I don't know and am not qualified to answer. My issue is many aren't. Some on here are so steadfast in their view they get almost insulted by being questioned

[Seat68]

9 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm going to get in trouble for this as I can never get my tablet to link properly (!) but the BBC article says this;

"Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash.

It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors such declining living standards and poorer health care."

I believe we're talking a decline far bigger than that now? But I'm not an expert and more than willing to be questioned on stuff and be happy to say I don't know and am not qualified to answer. My issue is many aren't. Some on here are so steadfast in their view they get almost insulted by being questioned

Seriously. This lockdown is robbing me of a precious 3 months. What the hell are we doing in our houses lets get out there. 

[jackbauer24]

8 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Seriously. This lockdown is robbing me of a precious 3 months. What the hell are we doing in our houses lets get out there. 

Again, funny or not, there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway. By and large. So all these deaths are being robbed of their extra 3 months. And that is a horrible. But if you look at even 100,000 people losing three months of their life due to Covid the above statement suggestions EVERYONE loses 3 months, millions. It is far more complex than most are willing to think about.

[bannedfromHandV]

40 minutes ago, KHV said:

I remember being in a pub in Newport by the bridge over the river. One of the weirdest and most trying places I have ever had a drink in!

Riverside Tavern by any chance?

Was there live music, good chance if so.

[snowychap]

34 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm going to get in trouble for this as I can never get my tablet to link properly (!) but the BBC article says this;

"Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash.

It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors such declining living standards and poorer health care."

The University of Bristol researchers' paper referred to in this 16th April BBC article is, I believe, the same article used as the basis for The Times article to which Portes was responding in the piece that I linked to in my first response to your post earlier today.

I even quoted the first paragraph of his piece which quoted The Times referring to the research paper from these people at Bristol University usding much the same wording as part of the BBC article:

7 hours ago, snowychap said:

Here's a Portes article in response to similar claims (and I've highlighted a particular point in there that it's about our responses to economic crises that matter for things like life-expectancy)

Quote

Is the cure worse than the disease? The Times claimed today: “If the coronavirus lockdown leads to a fall in GDP of more than 6.4% more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus.” It’s hard to know where to start with this nonsense. It’s based on a paper currently under review at a journal entitled Nanotechnology Perceptions, which simply assumes that a fall in GDP translates mechanically and directly into a fall in life expectancy.

 

I believe the researcher is a professor of risk management and there have been numerous responses to the articles produced on the back of the research (such as the one above from Portes) or to the paper itself, such as the twitter thread beginning with the tweet below:

If this part of a BBC article is what you have to show us that 'most experts who can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates' then it doesn't amount to a loot or very good data.

Getting off this particular bit of apparently sketchy research, please go and take a look at the webinar I also linked to in that earlier post and watch it for the few minutes around the 18m30s mark where Deaton explains that it is likely that overall mortality will decline and not increase because what has been found in many papers, many places, many times [is] that all-cause mortality falls in recessions (as per the slide entitled 'Analogy with deaths from Coronavirus').

Link is here:

Quote

On Monday, April 13 at 12:30 PM ET, Nobel Laureate Sir Angus Deaton joined the Princeton Bendheim Center for Finance for a seminar on the implications of COVID-19 for inequality and “deaths of despair.”

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Again, funny or not, there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway. By and large. So all these deaths are being robbed of their extra 3 months. And that is a horrible. But if you look at even 100,000 people losing three months of their life due to Covid the above statement suggestions EVERYONE loses 3 months, millions. It is far more complex than most are willing to think about.

Look, if the next virus that comes around shortens your life, but not anyone in my family, I’ll happily explore this theory further.

I do get that if the country is poorer then perhaps the NHS will have less money in the future and so perhaps we will die younger. I get that theory. By that same logic, if you are worried about that, campaign for fairer tax, campaign to get rid of junk food, campaign to slow down traffic and ban diesel. Ban use of AGA cookers.

There are a thousand ways the younger and fitter can extend their lives if they wish to. Sacrificing the elderly and the sick shouldn’t really be one of them. Not in polite society.

It would probably be the most tory thing you could probably dream up. You die now, so I don’t have to change my lifestyle later.

**** that.

[sharkyvilla]

54 minutes ago, brommy said:

I appreciate the humorous element but I assume everyone knows today’s figure is recorded deaths in the 24 hours up to 17:00 on Saturday. Hopefully the 482 figure is a genuine reduction and not just a weekend admin issue. 

Just noted the UK figure for hospital deaths up to 17:00 on Saturday was 596, not 482 (perhaps this was the England total?) as reported earlier in this thread. Point still stands regarding reduction vs weekend admin.

It is still a fair bit lower than last weekend which had bank holidays either side of it and I remember several us saying we expected big spikes towards the latter half of the week which didnt really come thankfully.  Again, fingers crossed that we have reached the plateau stage of the deaths in hospitals at least.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway

Which is rather overlooking the fact that any death would happen anyway, whatever the cause. She died of a car crash at 27 - she would have died anyway, however far into the future - whether from old age, or from a heart attack at 40 or from...

The whole point is for people to live as long as possible. If we take the attitude "well they would have died anyway, then that leads to "why bother with hospitals" and so on. It's mad.  

[Jareth]

21 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Again, funny or not, there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway. By and large. So all these deaths are being robbed of their extra 3 months. 

Yeah that's just kinda not correct. 

[Wezbid]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

They should make a point (like China) of donating stocks to England. 

Adequate stock doesn't mean they have an insane amount stock-piled to stop England getting them. If they donated to the English NHS then I'd imagine they'd pretty quickly be down to not enough themselves 

[jackbauer24]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Which is rather overlooking the fact that any death would happen anyway, whatever the cause. She died of a car crash at 27 - she would have died anyway, however far into the future - whether from old age, or from a heart attack at 40 or from...

The whole point is for people to live as long as possible. If we take the attitude "well they would have died anyway, then that leads to "why bother with hospitals" and so on. It's mad.  

We can all go to nth degree. Why do we remain open during flu season? According to Public Health England 17,00 people die annually from Flu. Are these lives not important? There is always a calculation as to what warrants intervention and what doesn't. Clearly if we were talking about saving 20,000+ healthy people years on their life it is a different calculation to saving 20,000 people a few extra months. It's naïve to suggest that isn't how the world works. It also works on a microlevel when you consider quality of life.

And before anyone suggests I am likening flu to covid, that is not the case. Clearly it is far more contagious and far more deadly with a lot more unknown. What I'm saying is there has to be calculations.

What is your calculation? You're happpy with 17000 dying from flu as you don't shout for lockdown over winter. So what's the number you find acceptable?  

[Wezbid]

31 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Again, funny or not, there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway. By and large. So all these deaths are being robbed of their extra 3 months. And that is a horrible. But if you look at even 100,000 people losing three months of their life due to Covid the above statement suggestions EVERYONE loses 3 months, millions. It is far more complex than most are willing to think about.

Yeah, they all would have been dead in May, June, July anyway. 

Do you honestly believe that?! 

[markavfc40]

Death figures throughout this have always been lower of a Sunday and the start of the week and then seem to go up again on the Tuesday or Wednesday. I'd imagine we are looking at daily announced hospital deaths being between high 500's and low 700's over the next week. That will then put us on around 20-21k hospital deaths by the end of next week with likely around 10k deaths in care homes/community.  

Vallance said on the 17th March under 20k deaths would be a good outcome. With us likely to be on 30k deaths in hospital/care homes/community by the end of next week with many more likely to come should we assume that 50%+ over what was considered a good outcome is getting on for a poor outcome. 

[Jareth]

5 minutes ago, Wezbid said:

Adequate stock doesn't mean they have an insane amount stock-piled to stop England getting them. If they donated to the English NHS then I'd imagine they'd pretty quickly be down to not enough themselves 

I was being flippant!

[sharkyvilla]

God they've wheeled out this wet-wipe today.

[jackbauer24]

I'm checking out of this thread! Only time will tell what was what, what was right and what was wrong. What could have been done and what was unnecessary. I don't quite understand the vitriol towards people asking questions that don't follow the masses but it's kind of society I suppose. None of us are experts.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm checking out of this thread! Only time will tell what was what, what was right and what was wrong. What could have been done and what was unnecessary. I don't quite understand the vitriol towards people asking questions that don't follow the masses but it's kind of society I suppose. None of us are experts.

No dude, stay, it's important to chat about it all - sharp corrections are just that - doesn't mean you can't contribute. Quite right that nobody is an expert.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm checking out of this thread! Only time will tell what was what, what was right and what was wrong. What could have been done and what was unnecessary. I don't quite understand the vitriol towards people asking questions that don't follow the masses but it's kind of society I suppose. None of us are experts.

Its because you're ignoring facts to make your argument. If you can't accept death totals as fact, the rest of your argument is pointless