Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Long John Baldy said:

Look at Spain, yip cases soaring but, this'll blow your mind, no rise in deaths and the hospitals are not drowning in people needing treatment, never mind ICU.

The highlighted bit, you, as usual, look on the worst case scenario yet there is no proof to back this up.

I'm not sure what's happening but I am sure it's nowhere near the results we seen in March/April. 

Not happening yet is a key expression here. 

Spain average daily deaths first week in July - 7

Spain average daily deaths last seven days - 48

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

Hey @bazil85, all cause mortality in Sweden this year now at the same level as 2015. At currently trend, all cause mortality in Sweden this year could well end up the second lowest in the past 6 years.

This despite COVID and despite no lockdown.

Meanwhile, Scotland tops the table for the highest all cause mortality in 2020 in Western Europe. 

60728106-692F-422F-B057-E52764FF2A53.jpeg

Been discussed with you dozens of times why Sweden isn't a like for like comparison with Scotland or the UK. There's 100s of other countries out there and the evidence still points to lockdown being the right call. Imagine how many more people wold have died in the UK without one and how many people in Sweden would have been saved when you look at the death numbers of some of the nations around them. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lugton said:

My self employed business was shut down on Wednesday and I can't open till this Monday coming. so zero income in that period.

I was told over the phone that via track and trace that I was within 2 metres of somebody that was positive on 31st August. 

So I've been shut down because of a grassing cnut. I am fit and healthy.

So isolation for 5 days. It would haven 14 days but it's been backdated from 31st August.

Scandalous

That's a pretty poor attitude, you could have it and not be aware. This action may save lives which should be priority one for all of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I would have some respect for your opinion if you were personally affected by all this.
Instead, you're just another smug bastard comfortably sitting with a wage packet coming in each month without a care in the world.
The difference between us is that if you come back here in a few weeks and tell us you've been made redundant due to covid and you can't even get a job packing shelves because for every vacancy 3000 people are applying, and that you haven't got enough money to get through until your universal credit kicks in, I won't sit here taking visible pleasure in your difficulties. Unlike you are doing right now. You are a plastic leftie.
You know nothing about me.

Oh and you didn't answer my question.

I've expressed sympathy for many people affected by this. You only have sympathy for those like you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, antrin said:

That's meaningless, especially despite your unfounded assertions about him/her.

Surely every person in the UK is "personally affected by all this".

Disagree, Oakster has shown multiple times his concerns sit mainly (if not completely) with people economically impacted by this virus. With little concern for the health side. He's even on record saying "all" restrictions should have been lifted a few months back. Imagine the s**t show we'd be in right now if that had happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

Deary me. He wasn’t misquoted at all.

I’ve watched it. He says “the test just now is a bit rubbish”.

Whether that be for Boris’ moonbeam scheme or whether it be for lockdown policy makes no difference. It’s “a bit rubbish” for exactly the reason I’ve been highlighting for weeks - where the prevalence is as low as it is just now, the sensitivity of the test means that most positives are false positives. 
 

That same “rubbish” test and it’s false positives is currently driving lockdown policy.

If it’s rubbish for moonshine testing then it’s rubbish for lockdown policy. 
 

You really should know what you are talking about before replying to my posts. 

I do know what I'm talking about. He said that the present test is not appropriate for "monshine" testing because it does not give a result within minutes which would be a sine qua non for the moonshine project. It is still useful for present purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Leitch on Radio Scotland 2 minutes ago said that he was misquoted. What he actually said was that our present virus tests are not adequate for Boris's  "moonshot" testing plan.
You really should get your facts straight before posting.
Happens a lot, they don't show the question and the whole reply. So you get nunbnuts salivating all over a headline grabbing quote.

Seen it for film reviews where the advertising use a part of a review to make it look like that the critic recommends it, when they were actually slating it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antrin said:

Surely every person in the UK is "personally affected by all this".

To anywhere near the same extent?

Of course not. Some are bringing in a nice comfy salary, not having to worry about where the next pay check is coming from and with no idea of the real world millions of others have to live in. Their smug, self righteous, armchair socialist opinions are of less merit than the millions of those who are struggling to work out how to put food on their table.

My comment is perfectly reasonable. The likes of TPAK thingy and bazil would be singing a different tune if they had lost their jobs and nobody will persuade me otherwise.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

You are an idiot.

Using the first week in July, when the cases were still low, after 2 months of low cases, is an absurd figure to use.

They, Spain, have had a high number of case, over 2,500, for almost 2 MONTHS with very little, in comparison to the same numbers of deaths back in April.

As I said, I don;t know what but it is clear, to anyone with any sense, that the affects are NOT the same as early on in this mess.

 

It's amazing how short some peoples memories are. If you think there's no risk to the numbers going through the roof again or them becoming "same as early on" fine but the virus hasn't gone away. 

It's crazy that people on here think they know so much better than governments and the advice they're being given. Do you really think it's a case someones went "Listen Nikki, there's next to no risk, virus is pretty much gone, we're all good to go, get everything opened"

and she's went 

"Jesus, six people, two households max, stop all further repoening"🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

Tell that to the Spanish, fact, and the Italians, fact not some doomsday scenario that you seem to revel in. 

The point was on "all" restrictions being lifted, something that hasn't happened in Spain or Italy. Good effort but you've simply failed to grasp the point. 

9 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

Nice deflection ya Muppet. 🤡

Not deflection in the slightest, it backs up my view on the pandemic. So many people now starting to brush it off and not considering the risk is very much still alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
To anywhere near the same extent?
Of course not. Some are bringing in a nice comfy salary, not having to worry about where the next pay check is coming from and with no idea of the real world millions of others have to live in. Their smug, self righteous, armchair socialist opinions are of less merit than the millions of those who are struggling to work out how to put food on their table.
My comment is perfectly reasonable. The likes of TPAK thingy and bazil would be singing a different tune if they had lost their jobs and nobody will persuade me otherwise.

Quite the meltdown - I'm telling you my opinion of someone who I know next to nothing about and no one will persuade me otherwise.
Quite how any of this fits with your "peer reviewed" approach to life is anyone's guess [emoji1787]

Your socialism only extends to those self employed who were helped out by government like yourself.

I would ask you for an example of where I am being smug or self righteous however as I am still waiting on you showing where Sturgeon shit down businesses yesterday, I won't hold my breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting paper in JAMA. It appears that young people don't all get away with minimal symptoms.

September 10, 2020

Young adults hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced substantial rates of adverse outcomes

By Denise Baez

NEW YORK -- September 10, 2020 -- A study of 3,222 young adults aged 18 to 34 years who were hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed that 21% required intensive care, 10% required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7% died.

“This in-hospital mortality rate is lower than that reported for older adults with COVID-19, but approximately double that of young adults with acute myocardial infarction,” noted Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

For the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers analysed data from a hospital-based, all-payer database that included 1,030 US hospitals and health care systems. Among 780,969 adults discharged between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, a total of 3,222 were non-pregnant young adults (admitted to 419 hospitals). Of the patients, 57.6% were male, 57.0% were Black or Hispanic, 36.8% were obese, 24.5% were morbidly obese, 18.2% had diabetes, and 16.1% had hypertension.

“Morbid obesity, hypertension, and diabetes were common and associated with greater risks of adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Young adults with more than 1 of these conditions faced risks comparable with those observed in middle-aged adults without them.”

Patients who were morbidly obese had more than double the odds of death or mechanical ventilation compared with patients who were not obese (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-3.12; P < .001). Patients with hypertension also had the increased risk (aOR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.79-3.12; P < .001).

Of the patients who required mechanical ventilation (n = 331) or died (n = 88), 140 (41%) were morbidly obese.

Vasopressors or inotropes were used for 217 (7%) patients, central venous catheters for 283 (9%), and arterial catheters for 192 (6%). The median length of stay was 4 days. Among those who survived hospitalisation, 99 (3%) were discharged to a post-acute care facility.

The authors noted that COVID-19 diagnosis and comorbidities were identified using ICD-10 codes, which may be subject to misclassification. However, “given the sharply rising rates of COVID-19 infection in young adults, these findings underscore the importance of infection prevention measures in this age group,” they concluded.

SOURCE: JAMA Internal Medicine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Happens a lot, they don't show the question and the whole reply. So you get nunbnuts salivating all over a headline grabbing quote.

Seen it for film reviews where the advertising use a part of a review to make it look like that the critic recommends it, when they were actually slating it.

“Seen it”? 😂

Have you figured out the difference between “your” and “you’re” yet? 😂

You really are stupid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, smcc said:

Interesting paper in JAMA. It appears that young people don't all get away with minimal symptoms.

September 10, 2020

Young adults hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced substantial rates of adverse outcomes

By Denise Baez

NEW YORK -- September 10, 2020 -- A study of 3,222 young adults aged 18 to 34 years who were hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed that 21% required intensive care, 10% required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7% died.

“This in-hospital mortality rate is lower than that reported for older adults with COVID-19, but approximately double that of young adults with acute myocardial infarction,” noted Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

For the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers analysed data from a hospital-based, all-payer database that included 1,030 US hospitals and health care systems. Among 780,969 adults discharged between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, a total of 3,222 were non-pregnant young adults (admitted to 419 hospitals). Of the patients, 57.6% were male, 57.0% were Black or Hispanic, 36.8% were obese, 24.5% were morbidly obese, 18.2% had diabetes, and 16.1% had hypertension.

“Morbid obesity, hypertension, and diabetes were common and associated with greater risks of adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Young adults with more than 1 of these conditions faced risks comparable with those observed in middle-aged adults without them.”

Patients who were morbidly obese had more than double the odds of death or mechanical ventilation compared with patients who were not obese (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-3.12; P < .001). Patients with hypertension also had the increased risk (aOR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.79-3.12; P < .001).

Of the patients who required mechanical ventilation (n = 331) or died (n = 88), 140 (41%) were morbidly obese.

Vasopressors or inotropes were used for 217 (7%) patients, central venous catheters for 283 (9%), and arterial catheters for 192 (6%). The median length of stay was 4 days. Among those who survived hospitalisation, 99 (3%) were discharged to a post-acute care facility.

The authors noted that COVID-19 diagnosis and comorbidities were identified using ICD-10 codes, which may be subject to misclassification. However, “given the sharply rising rates of COVID-19 infection in young adults, these findings underscore the importance of infection prevention measures in this age group,” they concluded.

SOURCE: JAMA Internal Medicine

Who said they did?

Each year, millions of children get sick with seasonal flu; thousands of children are hospitalized and some children die from flu," the CDC says. In the 2017-2018 season, there were a total of 185 child deaths in the US associated with the flu, and 110 the year before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smcc said:

I do know what I'm talking about. He said that the present test is not appropriate for "monshine" testing because it does not give a result within minutes which would be a sine qua non for the moonshine project. It is still useful for present purposes.

Deary me. You’re really making yourself look foolish now.

Here’s the quote. I’ve watched it and this what he said:

“Now, the test just now is bit rubbish.

“It is positive if it finds live virus or remnants of dead virus. It can't tell the difference.

“So you could still be shedding virus six weeks after you've had the infection and still get a positive test, and you're not infectious.

“So the test we have just now is a bit rubbish, 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smcc said:

Interesting paper in JAMA. It appears that young people don't all get away with minimal symptoms.

September 10, 2020

Young adults hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced substantial rates of adverse outcomes

By Denise Baez

NEW YORK -- September 10, 2020 -- A study of 3,222 young adults aged 18 to 34 years who were hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed that 21% required intensive care, 10% required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7% died.

“This in-hospital mortality rate is lower than that reported for older adults with COVID-19, but approximately double that of young adults with acute myocardial infarction,” noted Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

For the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers analysed data from a hospital-based, all-payer database that included 1,030 US hospitals and health care systems. Among 780,969 adults discharged between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, a total of 3,222 were non-pregnant young adults (admitted to 419 hospitals). Of the patients, 57.6% were male, 57.0% were Black or Hispanic, 36.8% were obese, 24.5% were morbidly obese, 18.2% had diabetes, and 16.1% had hypertension.

“Morbid obesity, hypertension, and diabetes were common and associated with greater risks of adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Young adults with more than 1 of these conditions faced risks comparable with those observed in middle-aged adults without them.”

Patients who were morbidly obese had more than double the odds of death or mechanical ventilation compared with patients who were not obese (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-3.12; P < .001). Patients with hypertension also had the increased risk (aOR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.79-3.12; P < .001).

Of the patients who required mechanical ventilation (n = 331) or died (n = 88), 140 (41%) were morbidly obese.

Vasopressors or inotropes were used for 217 (7%) patients, central venous catheters for 283 (9%), and arterial catheters for 192 (6%). The median length of stay was 4 days. Among those who survived hospitalisation, 99 (3%) were discharged to a post-acute care facility.

The authors noted that COVID-19 diagnosis and comorbidities were identified using ICD-10 codes, which may be subject to misclassification. However, “given the sharply rising rates of COVID-19 infection in young adults, these findings underscore the importance of infection prevention measures in this age group,” they concluded.

SOURCE: JAMA Internal Medicine

It's not that they were young that is important.

It's that about half of those who required hospitalisation or died were morbidly obese. Many of the others had hypertension or diabetes. It doesn't say how many perfectly healthy young people required hospitalisation or died. I suspect if they had dug that information out there wouldn't have been much of a story.

There's nothing new here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smcc said:

I do know what I'm talking about. He said that the present test is not appropriate for "monshine" testing because it does not give a result within minutes which would be a sine qua non for the moonshine project. It is still useful for present purposes.

I'll take you at face value that you do know what you are talking about so I assume you'll hopefully also accept that the biggest problem with the tests is that it can't tell the difference between a live and contagious virus and a long dead one and therefore the false positive rate will inevitably be very high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I'll take you at face value that you do know what you are talking about so I assume you'll hopefully also accept that the biggest problem with the tests is that it can't tell the difference between a live and contagious virus and a long dead one and therefore the false positive rate will inevitably be very high.

Which is exactly why Jason Leitch said it was a bit rubbish 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...