Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

EjjixwHXYAEtIP6?format=jpg&name=large

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Genie
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 by Stevo985
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â