Coronavirus

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Today's numbers down to 413 from a surprising 813 yesterday.

I see Italy have had a very low number today, 260.

That's the area we, IMO, should be in consistently BEFORE considering any changes to the current lockdown, which hasn't been as stringent as Italy or Spain. 

Seems most Sunday’s see a fair dip, probably more reporting than anything else. This coming week will be interesting to reflect progress but available data certainly suggests lockdown has flattened the curve. 

[Leatherface]

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Seems most Sunday’s see a fair dip, probably more reporting than anything else. This coming week will be interesting to reflect progress but available data certainly suggests lockdown has flattened the curve. 

Is it, aye!

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Seems most Sunday’s see a fair dip, probably more reporting than anything else. This coming week will be interesting to reflect progress but available data certainly suggests lockdown has flattened the curve. 

The numbers have levelled out, been saying that, despite a few wallopers saying otherwise, for over a week.

The daily numbers are secondary to the overall numbers, what's not reported for the weekend will be included in the days that follow.

My concern is there's no real signs of it dropping in any great numbers.

Hence my concern about exit strategies and opening things up.

The great British public could well be the reason numbers aren't dropping, along with a less strict lockdown policy than other countries. 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by faraway saint

[antrin]

Is Hiram ok?

 

the Swiss Doctor...

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

///has updated again.

April 25.

 

Loads more  interesting/useful contradictory comment and graphs to copy and paste into this forum for lazy Buddies to criticise...  

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

Is Hiram ok?

 

the Swiss Doctor...

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

///has updated again.

April 25.

 

Loads more  interesting/useful contradictory comment and graphs to copy and paste into this forum for lazy Buddies to criticise...  

TBH there's that many reports from "scientists" or "experts" who produce such varied views it's hard to really change anyone's opinion.

As we all know, you can find what you search for on "tinternet".

Not quite sure what you're trying to say about "lazy Buddies"? 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

The numbers have levelled out, been saying that, despite a few wallopers saying otherwise, for over a week.

The daily numbers are secondary to the overall numbers, what's not reported for the weekend will be included in the days that follow.

My concern is there's no real signs of it dropping in any great numbers.

Hence my concern about exit strategies and opening things up.

The great British public could well be the reason numbers aren't dropping, along with a less strict lockdown policy than other countries. 

 

I think there are quite big issues with death figures as a parameter anyway giving reporting.

[StanleySaint]

Indeed, watched the chief scientific officer say that the NHS was well used to providing their information on a daily basis, if that is the case there should be no weekend fluctuation, and as we have seen before some days have included some poor souls who died almost 2 weeks before their demise was recorded by said NHS system. The stats around this have been mismanaged from day 1.

[faraway saint]

25 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:

Indeed, watched the chief scientific officer say that the NHS was well used to providing their information on a daily basis, if that is the case there should be no weekend fluctuation, and as we have seen before some days have included some poor souls who died almost 2 weeks before their demise was recorded by said NHS system. The stats around this have been mismanaged from day 1.

I'm not convinced the numbers have been mismanaged at all.

The process has been fairly steady, taking into account the NHS, like most organisations, has it's fair share of incompetent employees. 

In saying that I do believe that the CAUSE of death has been grossly overstated. 

[smcc]

Ultimately the number of deaths will only be known when the figures of deaths registered are published. Remember that that the published deaths occurring in hospital figures should be available on a day to day basis while deaths in the community may not be registered for up to to 5 days in England and 8 days in Scotland.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Worth bearing in mind whenever anyone claims Sweden lack of lockdown has been successful.

Sweden's death rate is 214 per million population.

Norway's is 37 per million.
Denmark's is 72 per million.
Germany's is 71 per million.
UK's is 305 per million.

[faraway saint]

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Worth bearing in mind whenever anyone claims Sweden lack of lockdown has been successful.

Sweden's death rate is 214 per million population.

Norway's is 37 per million.
Denmark's is 72 per million.
Germany's is 71 per million.
UK's is 305 per million.

For some balance, and I'm not convinced by Swedens approach, other countries who have had a severe lockdown have the following numbers..............

Spain 496 per million

Italy 441 per million

France 350 per million. 

PS Sweden's rate is 217 per million, not 214. 

Denmark is 73, not 72.

Edited April 27, 2020 by faraway saint

[FTOF]

There's no way of proving that the Lockdown has had a positive effect on reducing the effects of the virus or not, as we don't have a negative control to compare it against.

The probability is that the Lockdown overall has had a positive effect on reducing deaths caused by the virus, but that's in conjunction with other factors like better overall hygiene practice and social distancing.

However, as has been mentioned by several health officials, there seems likely to be significant cost also, both in the short term (with unexplained death numbers above the norm)  and a likely increase in death form non viral related deaths further down the line.

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

There's no way of proving that the Lockdown has had a positive effect on reducing the effects of the virus or not, as we don't have a negative control to compare it against.
The probability is that the Lockdown overall has had a positive effect on reducing deaths caused by the virus, but that's in conjunction with other factors like better overall hygiene practice and social distancing.
However, as has been mentioned by several health officials, there seems likely to be significant cost also, both in the short term (with unexplained death numbers above the norm)  and a likely increase in death form non viral related deaths further down the line.
 

Surely the comparison for lockdown is Sweden where they haven't went into lockdown but are practising social distancing and hand hygiene?

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

11 minutes ago, FTOF said:

There's no way of proving that the Lockdown has had a positive effect on reducing the effects of the virus or not, as we don't have a negative control to compare it against.
The probability is that the Lockdown overall has had a positive effect on reducing deaths caused by the virus, but that's in conjunction with other factors like better overall hygiene practice and social distancing.
However, as has been mentioned by several health officials, there seems likely to be significant cost also, both in the short term (with unexplained death numbers above the norm)  and a likely increase in death form non viral related deaths further down the line.
 

Surely the comparison for lockdown is Sweden where they haven't went into lockdown but are practising social distancing and hand hygiene?

See figures below, inconclusive. 

29 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

For some balance, and I'm not convinced by Swedens approach, other countries who have had a severe lockdown have the following numbers..............

Spain 496 per million

Italy 441 per million

France 350 per million. 

PS Sweden's rate is 217 per million, not 214. 

Denmark is 73, not 72.

 

[bazil85]

43 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Worth bearing in mind whenever anyone claims Sweden lack of lockdown has been successful.

Sweden's death rate is 214 per million population.

Norway's is 37 per million.
Denmark's is 72 per million.
Germany's is 71 per million.
UK's is 305 per million.

For me when you factor in the population density in Sweden, which is far fewer per area than the countries with the biggest number (as far as I can tell, open to exceptions). these statistics are just not acceptable. A strategy that hasn't taken reasonable precautions to limit loss of life as the scenario develops. 

[antrin]

12 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

See figures below, inconclusive. 

 

Unlike UK, Sweden has been clear and up-front about its approach to herd immunity. 

 

If you are an easy target for this virus, you will die, sooner rather than later.  That is all.

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

Unlike UK, Sweden has been clear and up-front about its approach to herd immunity. 

 

If you are an easy target for this virus, you will die, sooner rather than later.  That is all.

Not like you to ignore the other evidence.

That's all. 

PS What an absurd statement in bold, very much like you. 

[antrin]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

For me when you factor in the population density in Sweden, which is far fewer per area than the countries with the biggest number (as far as I can tell, open to exceptions). these statistics are just not acceptable. A strategy that hasn't taken reasonable precautions to limit loss of life as the scenario develops. 

I honestly don't think you could effectively limit loss of life.  Delay some perhaps. 

The BIG reason for lockdown was so that the UK's limited resources to confront this virus would suffice and so the austerity-hit NHS would also have a chance of coping when a huge surge of stricken people  sought help - and to leave the NHS free in other respects to continue with business as usual.

If anything, the NHS has over-succeeded in that respect... despite 20000+ deaths.

Hence the empty beds and less people seeking as much help for critical illnesses than is usual.

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

For me when you factor in the population density in Sweden, which is far fewer per area than the countries with the biggest number (as far as I can tell, open to exceptions). these statistics are just not acceptable. A strategy that hasn't taken reasonable precautions to limit loss of life as the scenario develops. 

I only quoted Northern European countries for direct comparison. The most relevant being Norway and Denmark as neighbours of Sweden where similar factors aid comparison.

I've also seen comparison with Sweden and Southern European countries like Greece ( low population density) or Asian countries like South Korea (higher population density?) .

[antrin]

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Not like you to ignore the other evidence.

That's all. 

PS What an absurd statement in bold, very much like you. 

Explain -

 

edit.

No, don't bother. It would be shite with emoticons, anyway.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by antrin

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, antrin said:

I honestly don't think you could effectively limit loss of life.  Delay some perhaps. 

The BIG reason for lockdown was so that the UK's limited resources to confront this virus would suffice and so the austerity-hit NHS would also have a chance of coping when a huge surge of stricken people  sought help - and to leave the NHS free in other respects to continue with business as usual.

If anything, the NHS has over-succeeded in that respect... despite 20000+ deaths.

Hence the empty beds and less people seeking as much help for critical illnesses than is usual.

 

For me I think the flattening out of the curve, social distancing and lock-down has proven effective in what you say regarding the resources. I also feel we could limit loss of life, if we delay the virus enough to not overwhelm the NHS meaning more likely people can get prompt treatment when required/ roll out vaccinations down the line. Sweden have just pretty much went f it to an extent. Not an approach for me. 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I only quoted Northern European countries for direct comparison. The most relevant being Norway and Denmark as neighbours of Sweden where similar factors aid comparison.

I've also seen comparison with Sweden and Southern European countries like Greece ( low population density) or Asian countries like South Korea (higher population density?) .

Yeah I know I'm agreeing with you 👍

[HSS]

17 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

So whaddaya think the top names for 2021 will be?

Is Corona a boys or a gurls name?

Corona Iris for a girl

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

There's no way of proving that the Lockdown has had a positive effect on reducing the effects of the virus or not, as we don't have a negative control to compare it against.
The probability is that the Lockdown overall has had a positive effect on reducing deaths caused by the virus, but that's in conjunction with other factors like better overall hygiene practice and social distancing.
However, as has been mentioned by several health officials, there seems likely to be significant cost also, both in the short term (with unexplained death numbers above the norm)  and a likely increase in death form non viral related deaths further down the line.
 

Surely the comparison for lockdown is Sweden where they haven't went into lockdown but are practising social distancing and hand hygiene?

You can't compare different countries.

How many times does this have to be repeated FFS!

[faraway saint]

27 minutes ago, FTOF said:

You can't compare different countries.

How many times does this have to be repeated FFS!

I would guess about a hundred, and even then it wont suit his agenda.

All in all, wasting your time.