Generic Virus Thread

[tonyh29]

 

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

I'm going to murder my children. (After 2 weeks shut inside with them)

saw My neighbour yesterday and she asked how my wife was , I said she’s in the garden ... my neighbour said , oh I can’t see her .. I said “you need to dig down a few feet “

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

My point is, you didn't even notice that 'hammering away at the disgraceful failure to provide adequate PPE and testing' is literally what they've been doing, and it's not a surprise, because very few people are paying any attention to what the opposition are doing. In a Westminster system, the opposition are powerless to do much more than question the government in Parliament, and since Parliament is barely even open at this point it's no surprise that the meaningful political action is happening between the media and different parts of the government.

We seem to be having different conversations, or talking at cross purposes. I said , in response to (I think) Stefan's worry that if the oppo criticised the gov't they'd be accused of politicising the virus, that my view was criticising the disgraceful lack of PPE and Testing for NHS staff would not be seen as politicising. That's all I said.

For some reason you seem to have inferred something different from my post, HV. I have no idea what or why. Yes, I quite agree that from time to time Starmer, Corbyn in his letter, and a few others have mentioned it that I've seen. But mostly Labour is not making a big song and dance about it. This is in part because they have for 3 months+ been effectively out of the loop with a lame duck leader and an elongated process to pick a new one. In part because the media are focusing on virus death tolls and so on. I'm not having a go at them for it, it is what it is.

Once they get a proper leader and maybe a bit more attention and (sadly) if the gov't continue to reap the consequences of their incompetence, then Labour will be in a position to really hammer home what I said (I don't want it to have to be said, I'd rather the medics were protected). And people will not think of it as politicising if they do it remotely sensitively. "doctors and nurses have died because of lack of PPE and testing contributed to them catching the virus while treating people. It is utterly unacceptable that they are not protected. It is shameful that they are unable to work, because they've caught it, at work. It's not party political, it's simple basics of a duty of care to medical and other staff working for the Gov't, life saving.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Not just rudderless, clueless. 

They need to try and reconnect with their ‘red wall’ heartlands that the Tories took last time. 

Instead they fill twitter with nonsense about justice for women with penises, Palestine and veganism, endlessly agreeing with each other before getting killed at election time.

Labour has frankly disappeared up its own arse, completely divorced from the things most people care about but fanatically devoted to causes they don’t. Most people are important, if you ever want to win an election, get power and do stuff.

Instead, Labour is the only thing keeping the Tories in power. 

I think that was the case. I'm hopeful a new leader will change that. The tories are in power for the foreseeable, now. Labour's not keeping them in power any more. We're past that point, sadly.

[LondonLax]

19 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Not even that necessarily. It could be they died of whatever causes would have killed them. They just happened to have Covid19 at the time. It's entirely possible someone with cancer who was asymptomatic with Covid19 died and was still counted in those numbers.

Or someone who was hit by a car and killed but also happened to have had a mild case of the virus. They will count as a COVID-19 case ending in death and be added to the stats.

The counterpoint to that is that the lockdown will naturally alter the stats for how people die compared with a usual year. There are likely going to be less people hit by cars or killed on construction sites but more suicides and domestic violence murders for example. 

Unravelling all of this to arrive at some useful data is going to be a massive undertaking.

[LondonLax]

25 minutes ago, wilko154 said:

So I guess the real question is how many people in the UK are currently dying?

Did 1500 people die today as would be the average? Or did 1500 + 569 die, meaning a total of 2069 deaths being out of the ordinary.

The BBC article I posted a few pages back tries to come to some sort of understanding on this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51979654?fbclid=IwAR0yiwoQHJbMpT4hIqXZ-LGvCY3vgxPRCE-QERk4dYQtuLIspGqOTqMsdlI

[snowychap]

32 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

.. how many people are dying BECAUSE of Covid19 and how many are dying WITH Covid19.

And on the other side of things how many might die/might have died because of Covid19 without also having Covid19 (as a result of resources not being available, for instance)?

[DCJonah]

33 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Or someone who was hit by a car and killed but also happened to have had a mild case of the virus. They will count as a COVID-19 case ending in death and be added to the stats.

The counterpoint to that is that the lockdown will naturally alter the stats for how people die compared with a usual year. There are likely going to be less people hit by cars or killed on construction sites but more suicides and domestic violence murders for example. 

Unravelling all of this to arrive at some useful data is going to be a massive undertaking.

Is that true? 

That seems a crazy thing to do

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Is that true? 

That seems a crazy thing to do

Anyone who carries the virus at the time of death has that information listed on their death certificate. Hence why it is so difficult to understand how many people are dying from the virus and how many people dying just happen to also have the virus.

Edit: Just on my crude car crash example though. What if the car crash victim needed to be rushed to hospital and was put into ICU on oxygen? Maybe having a mild case of the virus did then alter their chance of survival? We’re not going to know though. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by LondonLax

[bannedfromHandV]

I think as has already been raised previously, a fairly simple way of looking at the data would be to compare the daily deaths with the average for the same dates over the last 5-10 years.

That in itself won't super accurate as I'm sure vehicle related deaths etc are down heavily but at least it might give some better indication.

[Chindie]

I would need very surprised if a coroner looked at someone who had been killed in a car accident and would note anywhere of any relevance that they had the virus. They may record it as a statement of fact of the circumstances/health of the individual, but if the thing that killed you was your brain going from 70 to 0 within a second and head smashing through the steering wheel, it's not really relevant whether you had the virus or not.

And anyone collating the stats that's noting that as a death relevant to Covid-19 is an idiot. It's only relevant insofar as being able to measure the spread.

Whereas if the disease is contributing to a death, that would absolutely be noted and counted, as it's relevant to that death.

[sne]

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Anyone who carries the virus at the time of death has that information listed on their death certificate. Hence why it is so difficult to understand how many people are dying from the virus and how many people dying just happen to also have the virus.

Edit: Just on my crude car crash example though. What if the car crash victim needed to be rushed to hospital and was put into ICU on oxygen? Maybe having a mild case of the virus did then alter their chance of survival? We’re not going to know though. 

In this scenario, will we still be able to loan Januzaj?

[LondonLax]

23 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I think as has already been raised previously, a fairly simple way of looking at the data would be to compare the daily deaths with the average for the same dates over the last 5-10 years.

That in itself won't super accurate as I'm sure vehicle related deaths etc are down heavily but at least it might give some better indication.

EuroMOMO is a data source for mortality rates by country by week in Europe. 

https://www.euromomo.eu/outputs/map.html

The spikes in winter flu deaths in 16/17, 17/18 and 18/19 are much larger than deaths this winter and up to this point in the year.

You would have to assume that green line will spike at some point in the next few months but with a lockdown altering everything it will be difficult to know how to interpret it. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by LondonLax

[Kingman]

16 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Can you share this (apologies if you have previously)

I Use these mate, 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 

Been around 45% ratio per 4 days, We are now just starting to go on a vertical line for 2/3 weeks that will be the equivalent of having 2/3 plane crashes every day.

This time next week will start getting horrific for the NHS.  Est circa 60k cases Sun/Mon 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Kingman

[LondonLax]

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I would need very surprised if a coroner looked at someone who had been killed in a car accident and would note anywhere of any relevance that they had the virus. They may record it as a statement of fact of the circumstances/health of the individual, but if the thing that killed you was your brain going from 70 to 0 within a second and head smashing through the steering wheel, it's not really relevant whether you had the virus or not.

And anyone collating the stats that's noting that as a death relevant to Covid-19 is an idiot. It's only relevant insofar as being able to measure the spread.

Whereas if the disease is contributing to a death, that would absolutely be noted and counted, as it's relevant to that death.

Exactly, and that is the problem that is occurring. 

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I think as has already been raised previously, a fairly simple way of looking at the data would be to compare the daily deaths with the average for the same dates over the last 5-10 years.

It may be 'fairly simple' but what exactly is it telling anyone?

10645 registered deaths in England and Wales in wk 12 2020 v an average of 10573 registered deaths for the same week over the previous 5 years* tells us pretty much nothing other than the bare numbers of registered deaths in the week.

*As per ONS:

Quote

The provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales...

 

 

[snowychap]

 

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

29 minutes ago, Chindie said:

And anyone collating the stats that's noting that as a death relevant to Covid-19 is an idiot. It's only relevant insofar as being able to measure the spread.

Exactly, and that is the problem that is occurring. 

I'm not sure what is the case with the daily Dept for Health figures but this is from the ONS bulletin (which is going to be lagging behind, obviously):

Quote

Because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, our regular weekly deaths release now provides a separate breakdown of the numbers of deaths involving COVID-19. That is, where COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, including in combination with other health conditions. If a death mentions COVID-19, it will not always be the main cause of death, it will sometimes be a contributary factor. This new bulletin summarises the latest weekly information and will be updated each week during the pandemic.

Also:

Quote

Figures in this report are derived from the formal process of death registration and may include cases where the doctor completing the death certificate diagnosed possible cases of COVID-19, for example, where this was based on relevant symptoms but no test for the virus was conducted. Our figures also include any deaths that occur outside hospital.

And as per my post above, the figures are only for England & Wales because that's the ONS's legal remit.

[LondonLax]

 

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

I'm not sure what is the case with the daily Dept for Health figures but this is from the ONS bulletin (which is going to be lagging behind, obviously):

Also:

And as per my post above, the figures are only for England & Wales because that's the ONS's legal remit.

Part of the issue is that there is no global standardised method for reporting. There is an article in the Economist today that states that some Italian regions have been underreporting numbers whereby if a person died at home and was not formally tested at hospital they have not been included in the data.

Quote

L’Eco di Bergamo, a newspaper, has obtained data from 82 localities in Italy’s Bergamo province. In March these places had 2,420 more deaths than in March 2019. Just 1,140, less than half of the increase, were attributed to covid-19. “The data is the tip of the iceberg,” Giorgio Gori, the mayor of Bergamo’s capital, told L’Eco. “Too many victims are not included in the reports because they die at home.”

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/04/covid-19s-death-toll-appears-higher-than-official-figures-suggest

Each country records this in their own way so these ‘league tables’ of deaths become very difficult to make useful sense of. 

[HanoiVillan]

45 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I would need very surprised if a coroner looked at someone who had been killed in a car accident and would note anywhere of any relevance that they had the virus. They may record it as a statement of fact of the circumstances/health of the individual, but if the thing that killed you was your brain going from 70 to 0 within a second and head smashing through the steering wheel, it's not really relevant whether you had the virus or not.

And anyone collating the stats that's noting that as a death relevant to Covid-19 is an idiot. It's only relevant insofar as being able to measure the spread.

Whereas if the disease is contributing to a death, that would absolutely be noted and counted, as it's relevant to that death.

Yes. Hospitals actually have to *test* people to find out if they have the rona. I doubt they're looking at someone who has just been under an 18-wheeler and then spending a precious test to find out if they also have the virus (unless it is somehow essential for treatment, I guess). If they are so symptomatic that it is clear they both got hit by a truck *and* have the virus, well, then maybe it is the virus that helps kill them, and then it makes sense to record it as such.

[snowychap]

Grauniad:

Quote

The independent brewer BrewDog is considering reformulating hand sanitiser made at its distillery in Aberdeenshire after it was turned down by a local hospital because it did not meet medical standards.

The firm said last month it would be giving away its 'punk sanitiser' free to charities and to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, but a donation of thousands of bottles was turned down by the hospital.

While the sanitiser is 68% alcohol, well above the 60% minimum recommended by the Health and Safety Executive in the UK, it does not meet more stringent requirements for a medical environment, which requires more than 90% alcohol.

A spokesman for NHS Grampian, which includes the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, said: “We are very grateful for the offer from many local businesses, including BrewDog, to support the NHS at this time.

“Our supplies and equipment have to reach clinical standards before they can be put into use in healthcare settings and we have worked closely with the team at BrewDog to overcome some of these technical issues. This has been a really successful collaboration with the BrewDog team and we look forward to getting the gel fully operational in health and care settings right across Grampian. We at no time ‘rejected’ the offer, we instead chose to work together on finding a solution.”

...rest on link

 

[wazzap24]

What’s the VT moral stance on ordering ‘non-essential’ items online for home delivery? 

Twitter seems split 50/50 between - it’s helping keep some people in work and parts of the economy going, or anybody who orders anything that isn’t food/medicine is a mass murdering scumbag? 
 

I’ve ordered quite a bit of stuff recently, majority essential, but a fair amount that isn’t.