Generic Virus Thread

[HanoiVillan]

25 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s explaining the concept of ‘excess deaths’ which is the way all pandemics are measured. To see how deadly a virus is you don’t look at the number of people who have died, you look at how many more people have died than usual. Those ‘extra’ deaths are referred to as ‘excess deaths’. 

I can see what you are saying regarding the wording and it is clumsy. The final sentence quoted can be interpreted in a very dark way, but I took it to mean that a proportion of the quoted number of virus deaths would likely overlap with the usual 500,000 annual deaths on a venn diagram, not saying that all of the Covid deaths would have just died at some point anyway so no big deal. I do suspect that a number of people would not have considered the concept of this overlap and instead considered all the reported deaths from the virus to be in addition to the usual mortality rate, hence the need for these sorts of questions to be asked by journalists.   

The problem with basic explanations is that they can sometimes be more misleading than they are illuminating though. His claim was that there would be 'significant overlap' between coronavirus victims and 'those at risk of dying anyway during the course of the year':

There's two layers of non-specific words here, in 'significant overlap' and 'at risk of dying', but the overall impression to the general public is likely to be that we are talking about a much larger proportion than the reality seems to be.

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

**** obedient.

But I am happy to co-operate.

Absolutely. It is, in modern parlance, about 'bringing people with you'. About consensus, about getting people to do the right thing.

Sure, there will be plenty of people who won't and won't ever want to co-operate and they're the **** everyone needs to remember in future.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

99% of us have been as obedient (or co-operative as @chrisp65 rightly put it) as we have been asked to be. This has always been a soft lock down in comparison to a lot of countries. 

In fairness the odd knob head flouting lock down rules to hold a house party or sunbathe on the beach dwindles into total insignificance in comparison to the government allowing, in fact actively encouraging,  250,000 people to attend Cheltenham at the same time as Northern Italy was locking down

The government went into this ill prepared. That same government was then led by a PM who took pretty much the whole of February off and when he re emerged in March gave it the big un about shaking the hands of coronavirus patients. The government then locked down too late and has been playing catch up ever since. 

Sorry I am not having this diverting blame to the public. This Government have blood on their hands but I am sure enough people, and enough of the media, will turn a blind eye whilst they frantically try to wipe it off or rub it onto someone else. In fact it seems some are already helping them to do so.

I'm conflicted, Mark.

I agree with the criticism of the government reponse but I disagree with the '99%' of the public line. I think it's a significant proportion of the public who have, if not 'flouted' regulations, at least been indifferent to them. There is a significant number of people who think that these regulations are things to get round like they were a tax code or rules on acceptable school clothing. That wasn't helped by, amongst other things, the PM's utterly blasé attitude in the early days (exemplified by the 'shaking hands' stuff), but it can't be solely explained away by that.

I'm not diverting blame on to the public. I'm suggesting that the government and others bear their share and that the people who fail to follow, understand or, even, care about the regulations and restrictions that were enacted, also bear a corresponding share.

I won't go on to muddy this further by expounding upon the media commentary of those piping a particular tune (Pearson, Young, &c.)

 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

From that article:

I helped pay for that, as did all of us paying the license fee. 'In short' can stay on Twitter thanks. How is this even newsworthy ffs?

Who cares about the old people?

Me. I care about the old people and the way they are spoken about. 

As I said in a previous post about the same journalist some pages back it's clumsy wording at best.

(At worst it's pro government reductionist propaganda)

And it very much reads as if "they" means everyone who is dying from coronavirus. 

There will of course be an overlap. We know that. But the implications from that and others that all or most of these people would have died anyway pisses me off

(and, again, they're missing the point that this is WITH the lockdown in place)

[markavfc40]

25 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm conflicted, Mark.

I agree with the criticism of the government reponse but I disagree with the '99%' of the public line. I think it's a significant proportion of the public who have, if not 'flouted' regulations, at least been indifferent to them. There is a significant number of people who think that these regulations are things to get round like they were a tax code or rules on acceptable school clothing. That wasn't helped by, amongst other things, the PM's utterly blasé attitude in the early days (exemplified by the 'shaking hands' stuff), but it can't be solely explained away by that.

I'm not diverting blame on to the public. I'm suggesting that the government and others bear their share and that the people who fail to follow, understand or, even, care about the regulations and restrictions that were enacted, also bear a corresponding share.

I won't go on to muddy this further by expounding upon the media commentary of those piping a particular tune (Pearson, Young, &c.)

 

Vast majority of the deaths we have had stem from those who got it pre lock down. The lock down measures have worked in fairness as they have taken the infection rate down from a R value of 3 down to between 0.6 and 0.9.

I guess we could debate about how significant a number of people have been flouting the lock down rules but I don't think it has been a significant enough number that it has made much of a difference in terms of how well/quickly we have got the infection rate down.

The lock down has been effective it is the fact we locked down too late that has led to so many deaths.

Edited April 30, 2020 by markavfc40

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Vast majority of the deaths we have had stem from those who got it pre lock down. The lock down measures have worked in fairness as they have taken the infection rate down from a R value of 3 down to between 0.6 and 0.9.

I guess we could debate about how significant a number of people have been flouting the lock down rules but I don't think it has been a significant enough number that it has made much of a difference in terms of how well/quickly we have got the infection rate down.

The lock down has been effective it is the fact we locked down too late that has led to so many deaths.

Except the point of the reduction of the R value is to get enough people to follow the instructions.

What you do by saying '99% of the public' is allow those that ignore the regulations to hide behind the result of the majority following them.

Whilst, in terms of results, that might work, in terms of the ethics of the individuals who haven't, didn't and still won't give two shits about the regulations (because they're too young, 'they've had it', they're old enough anyway, they 'saw out the war') it doesn't wash.

The government are responsible for a lot but they are not responsible for individuals and groups upon whom their influence would have been negligible anyway.

Edited April 30, 2020 by snowychap

[wedge]

I'm a (currently furloughed) sales manager in a car dealership that is part of a wider group of 13 dealerships. Our group managing director called me yesterday to say that two of our dealerships had letters to indicate we'd be reopening showrooms (service and parts depts. were allowed to remain open for service/MOT/repair work for key workers providing they have the ability to follow govt. guidelines etc but sales depts had to close as understandably deemed non-essential) on Monday May 11. He was fairly vague about the letters but it just made me wonder where has this come from? From watching today's government briefing, and keeping tabs on the figures and headlines if anything it seems more likely that when the next lockdown review on May 7 comes around there is more likely to be an extension of the lockdown coupled with options on how we'll start to lift certain restrictions providing the 'R' rate falls below 1 and all the other criteria is met. Therefore a May 11 return for me seems a tad presumptuous and soon?

 

Surely the government aren't sending letters out to businesses when the mantra in the briefings and media is, understandably, that we need to see how it pans out over the coming weeks?

[HanoiVillan]

What would we say about a newspaper in another country that published this rubbish?

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What would we say about a newspaper in another country that published this rubbish?

 

[Genie]

Hard hitting piece on ITV news about the awful situation in Brazil and a leader who says “so what”. What I noticed in the coverage was the people walking around and going to the shops wearing masks... where are ours? Boris said they would be useful. If the people in the favelas of Brazil can get hold of them why can’t we get them? I haven’t seen them for sale anywhere. 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Boris said they would be useful.

Other than people might hear what he says, what does that matter?

'Boris' knows **** all.

[Genie]

Just now, snowychap said:

Other than people might hear what he says, what does that matter?

'Boris' knows **** all.

In general I’d agree, but it seems like the rest of the world are wearing them but they are like gold dust here.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

When Johnson was born on the slopes of Mt Paekdu, a thousand rainbows were seen in the skies.

[terrytini]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

And creating the care home death camp network

Yes, very much this. 
I nearly called them that the other day and decided some might find it too much...but that is exactly what they are.

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

In general I’d agree, but it seems like the rest of the world are wearing them but they are like gold dust here.

No, no, no. There’s plenty, you must be doing it wrong or lying.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

When Johnson was born on the slopes of Mt Paekdu, a thousand rainbows were seen in the skies.

There's an application for a  ghost writing job for Pearson.

[LakotaDakota]

8 minutes ago, Genie said:

In general I’d agree, but it seems like the rest of the world are wearing them but they are like gold dust here.

You can get them but they aren't cheap. Even the crappy disposable ones are at least £30 for 50, (If you have a b&m shop near you some of those have boxes for £30 & they are selling smaller bundles of 20 for £15) most places selling them for £50+. I do actually buy masks from time to time as part of my job and the same company i have used for over 10 years now are charging nearly £60 inc vat for the cheaper version of the box of 50 masks they usually sell for £6. If you want a mask that is actually any use for anything you will be paying £10+ per mask if you can find them

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What would we say about a newspaper in another country that published this rubbish?

 

 

They do say, that at the one end of a Boris rainbow is the Russia Report and at the other end, the mystery person that paid for his February pandemic holiday.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

There's an application for a  ghost writing job for Pearson.

Main reason to be happy he's fit and out of hospital now is that she hasn't got an excuse to write any more columns about his 'naked vulnerability'.

[Genie]

8 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

You can get them but they aren't cheap. Even the crappy disposable ones are at least £30 for 50, (If you have a b&m shop near you some of those have boxes for £30 & they are selling smaller bundles of 20 for £15) most places selling them for £50+. I do actually buy masks from time to time as part of my job and the same company i have used for over 10 years now are charging nearly £60 inc vat for the cheaper version of the box of 50 masks they usually sell for £6. If you want a mask that is actually any use for anything you will be paying £10+ per mask if you can find them

I hope someone is keeping track of these companies profiteering from the crisis.