bickster Posted October 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 3, 2020 North South divide? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted October 3, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 I'd need another object for scale, but I reckon they're right that the poster isn't nearly 3m wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 15 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I'd need another object for scale... What about this one from swinging Wales? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 18 hours ago, Genie said: 770 tested positive at Northumbria University That must be some sort of record? Again, I'm thinking... So?! Positive cases mean NOTHING. 770 young adults... 10% have any symtoms. Of those 78, what are the symptoms? How serious are they? Have any needed medical intervention or even hospitalisation? Positive cases, in themself, are irrelevant. We could have 10 million positive cases tomorrow and it is irrelevant if no one is actually ill/ in need of medical intervention. We need to stop looking at cases (90% asymptomatic) as a barometer of our grasp on the virus and start looking at data a bit more analytically. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: We could have 10 million positive cases tomorrow and it is irrelevant if no one is actually ill/ in need of medical intervention. Not quite, because it gets passed on and on to those who are not so healthy or strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 This is like the final victory of the 'crowded-beach-worrier' types. Imagine the thought processes that went into this decision: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 4 hours ago, jackbauer24 said: Again, I'm thinking... So?! Positive cases mean NOTHING. 770 young adults... 10% have any symtoms. Of those 78, what are the symptoms? How serious are they? Have any needed medical intervention or even hospitalisation? Positive cases, in themself, are irrelevant. We could have 10 million positive cases tomorrow and it is irrelevant if no one is actually ill/ in need of medical intervention. We need to stop looking at cases (90% asymptomatic) as a barometer of our grasp on the virus and start looking at data a bit more analytically. If its contained amongst young adults. But there has been an increase in cases amongst older. Hospital numbers are going so are people in ventilator beds and deaths are up so the number of new cases is very relevant. BTW nearly 13,000 new cases today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 19 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: This is like the final victory of the 'crowded-beach-worrier' types. Imagine the thought processes that went into this decision: I hate those **** things! They’ve actually have been around for years and became a silly trend way before COVID. They started off as ‘Winter igloos’ which at least makes some sense, but venues have been putting them up in the summer too. You pay through the nose to sit in what’s basically a bit of plastic with some chairs in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: This HAS to be lies. Surely if this was the case they’d have had zero cases for certain days which would led them to check what was going on with the data source. There’s no way the sheet was full, but still a percentage of the results were calculated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 It's looked like the daily positive test numbers are hopelessly unreliable for quite a while, and this is fairly stark proof. I pity anybody attempting to make sense of where we are at this point, I gave up weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2020 22 minutes ago, Genie said: This HAS to be lies. Surely if this was the case they’d have had zero cases for certain days which would led them to check what was going on with the data source. There’s no way the sheet was full, but still a percentage of the results were calculated. It would have to be an absolutely gigantic spreadsheet for it to reach it's maximum size too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) Quote A government minister has defended a technical glitch that caused almost 16,000 coronavirus cases to go unreported by saying: “We can’t change history.” Public Health England (PHE) said 15,841 daily COVID-19 cases between 25 September and 2 October had been left out of UK tallies. The error has caused a delay in tracking the contacts of people who tested positive. But on Monday, work and pensions secretary Thérèse Coffey insisted: “Largely, test and trace is working very well.” She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m conscious something has gone wrong – we can’t change history, we can only change the future.” She added: “The glitch that’s happened, everybody who had the result received that result and that’s the most important thing of all. “PHE identified the issue, have fixed the problem and are now putting that through the test and trace programme.” In a separate interview with BBC1’s Breakfast programme on Monday, Coffey said she did not know how many potentially infectious contacts of COVID-19 patients were not traced because of the glitch. “I’m afraid I just don’t have that information,” she said. Can people please stop asking Government ministers who’s job it is to accurately report the coronavirus cases what went wrong when they **** it up? They can’t change the past. This is a new low for this bunch of crooks. ”something happened, get over it” Yahoo News Edited October 5, 2020 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 27 minutes ago, Genie said: Can people please stop asking Government ministers who’s job it is to accurately report the coronavirus cases what went wrong when they **** it up? They can’t change the past. This is a new low for this bunch of crooks. ”something happened, get over it” Yahoo News Par for the course. They refuse to be held accountable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 5, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: It would have to be an absolutely gigantic spreadsheet for it to reach it's maximum size too. 1,048,576 rows by 16,384 columns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 I can absolutely believe some clowns decided to handle this in a spreadsheet instead of a database. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 5, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I can absolutely believe some clowns decided to handle this in a spreadsheet instead of a database. Well yes, quite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, bickster said: 1,048,576 rows by 16,384 columns Well yes, but that's just on one tab. You could have multiple tabs if you needed it. For a file to be physically too large it would have to be multiple sheets with that much data on it. If it's even possible, I don't know I guess you'd be limited by the machine that was running it rather than the spreadsheet Edited October 5, 2020 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 5, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Well yes, but that's just on one tab. You could have multiple tabs if you needed it. For a file to be physically too large . I guess you'd be limited by the machine that was running it rather than the spreadsheet If they are storing personal details in a spreadsheet, I wouldn't put it past them to have created a workbook with only one sheet in Or of course the other option is the excuse is utter bollocks and their bollocks has dug a deeper hole than they were trying to fill 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts