School reopening!

[NIK]

So which part are you not certain about?  Do you doubt there is a virus or is it the fact that it has spread to a number of countries and is affecting alot of people?

Yes, obviously there is a virus. However there have been plenty of other viruses in the RECENT past which have been equally as deadly and haven’t caused anything like this amount of hysteria.
Read recently that you have a 1 in 2 million chance of dying from it. Then again the figures vary by the hour.
What I do know is that the numpties still jumping into the road rather than walk past someone on the pavement have a far greater chance of being ploughed over by a vehicle than they have of catching something in the second it takes to pass someone in the street.

[willie loman]

So which part are you not certain about?  Do you doubt there is a virus or is it the fact that it has spread to a number of countries and is affecting alot of people?

I think you know exactly what nik meant, and there are quite a few people in the country who share his views, though not in this curious enclave of off topic, who want us in lock down forever.

[GingerNuts]

Yes, obviously there is a virus. However there have been plenty of other viruses in the RECENT past which have been equally as deadly and haven’t caused anything like this amount of hysteria.
Read recently that you have a 1 in 2 million chance of dying from it. Then again the figures vary by the hour.
What I do know is that the numpties still jumping into the road rather than walk past someone on the pavement have a far greater chance of being ploughed over by a vehicle than they have of catching something in the second it takes to pass someone in the street.

1 in 2 million means if eveyone in the UK had the virus 34 would die. We're already a long way beyond that.

[willie loman]

1 in 2 million means if eveyone in the UK had the virus 34 would die. We're already a long way beyond that.

I think the figure most usually quoted is .01% of the population will die, no doubt some anorak will come on and quote some figures and reports blah blah, that they feel justify our being in lockdown for much of the year,

[NIK]

I think the power has gone to Hancock’s head.

[GingerNuts]

I think the figure most usually quoted is .01% of the population will die, no doubt some anorak will come on and quote some figures and reports blah blah, that they feel justify our being in lockdown for much of the year,

Where is that figure usually quoted? It would equate to around 6,800 deaths in the UK if everyone had had the virus.

There have been far more deaths and nowhere near 100% of the population have had the virus.

[Adoniron]

The death rate is nearer 0.06% compared to 0.01% for flu.

[willie loman]

If you google what are the chances of dying from covid, there will be plenty of articles, but one thing is clear, and has been for months, it poses very little risk to anyone under sixty,

[RedKettle]

Yes, obviously there is a virus. However there have been plenty of other viruses in the RECENT past which have been equally as deadly and haven’t caused anything like this amount of hysteria.
Read recently that you have a 1 in 2 million chance of dying from it. Then again the figures vary by the hour.
What I do know is that the numpties still jumping into the road rather than walk past someone on the pavement have a far greater chance of being ploughed over by a vehicle than they have of catching something in the second it takes to pass someone in the street.

OK but to be pedantic the definition of pandemic (which you led by saying was apparent) has nothing to do with how severe the consequences of the virus are on people.

There is a pandemic - whether we are dealing with it in the best way is of course a subject to debate.

I suspect that like me if you actually caught it your odds would be considerably worse that 1 in 2 million.

[RedKettle]

If you google what are the chances of dying from covid, there will be plenty of articles, but one thing is clear, and has been for months, it poses very little risk to anyone under sixty,

I will tell that to my fit friend who is early 40's and was given a 25% chance at one point.  He did survive but even now, months later, cannot return to work.

[willie loman]

OK but to be pedantic the definition of pandemic (which you led by saying was apparent) has nothing to do with how severe the consequences of the virus are on people.

There is a pandemic - whether we are dealing with it in the best way is of course a subject to debate.

I suspect that like me if you actually caught it your odds would be considerably worse that 1 in 2 million.

The whole point is that we have reacted as if the consequences of the pandemic were going to be catastrophic,its lockdown that has proved to be catastrophic.

[willie loman]

I will tell that to my fit friend who is early 40's and was given a 25% chance at one point.  He did survive but even now, months later, cannot return to work.

and your point is? We all know that a few thousand people under 60 have been affected, we cant base national policy on that, we are inflicting appalling damage on britain for no real reason.

[Doc Holliday]

Here we go again. 

It is important to distinguish between a case fatality rate and a population mortality rate.

Let's say a particular disease kills 50% of those who contract it then the case fatality rate is 50%. If however only 100 people a year contract this disease then the annual mortality rate is almost zero.

For Covid by next January we will be able to produce an annual mortality rate by dividing the total number of deaths attributed to Covid by the total population.

The case fatality rate requires you to know how many people have contracted the disease. This is much more difficult as we know there are more people who have had had it than positive test results.

Currently the best way is to look at serological surveys for the presence of antibodies. For the UK this suggests that maybe around 10% of the population have antibodies. This is still not going to be an accurate figure. The case fatality rate is therefore likely to be between 0.6% to 0.8% but we still do not know enough about the virus to say for certain?

[willie loman]

Here we go again. 

It is important to distinguish between a case fatality rate and a population mortality rate.

Let's say a particular disease kills 50% of those who contract it then the case fatality rate is 50%. If however only 100 people a year contract this disease then the annual mortality rate is almost zero.

For Covid by next January we will be able to produce an annual mortality rate by dividing the total number of deaths attributed to Covid by the total population.

The case fatality rate requires you to know how many people have contracted the disease. This is much more difficult as we know there are more people who have had had it than positive test results.

Currently the best way is to look at serological surveys for the presence of antibodies. For the UK this suggests that maybe around 10% of the population have antibodies. This is still not going to be an accurate figure. The case fatality rate is therefore likely to be between 0.6% to 0.8% but we still do not know enough about the virus to say for certain?

Here we go again indeed, we know enough about the virus and mortality rates,, to make a mature judgement about whether we should still be terrified, or should be living a semi normal life, thats all that bothers non geniuses like me, and the rest of the population.

[Doc Holliday]

Here we go again indeed, we know enough about the virus and mortality rates,, to make a mature judgement about whether we should still be terrified, or should be living a semi normal life, thats all that bothers non geniuses like me, and the rest of the population.

Are you not living a semi normal life?

[winkywanky]

Here we go again indeed, we know enough about the virus and mortality rates,, to make a mature judgement about whether we should still be terrified, or should be living a semi normal life, thats all that bothers non geniuses like me, and the rest of the population.

We are making mature judgements (despite Boris frequently looking unconvincing  ).

We're treading a fine line between getting back to as much normality as possible, and preventing a second wave. You simply do not understand, and have never understood, that if it really kicks off then all hell could break loose. Especially with winter coming, when respiratory diseases always proliferate more freely. This Autumn and beyond is the critical time to be vigilant.

And your persistent assertion that pretty well no-one under 60 dies becomes meaningless when so many people would catch it, that vulnerable people will inevitably catch it, with the inevitable consequences. We've been through this before: around 50% of the UK population are either over 60 or have underlying health conditions. They live in houses with other people, they work with them, they are 50% of society, you simply cannot say 'make everyone who's vulnerable stay at home'. It's completely impractical and simply wouldn't work.

You're also neglecting to mention the fact that many people who don't die, have long-lasting and sometimes permanent effects which will impact the rest of their lives. Organ damage, a reduction in lung capacity which will never come back.

A vaccine will come at some point and then we can get on top of the virus. But at the moment we're treading on eggshells, and for a very good reason.

[winkywanky]

Are you not living a semi normal life?

Do his posts suggest this?

Is he semi-normal, full stop? 

(I love you really willie xx  )

[willie loman]

We are making mature judgements (despite Boris frequently looking unconvincing  ).

We're treading a fine line between getting back to as much normality as possible, and preventing a second wave. You simply do not understand, and have never understood, that if it really kicks off then all hell could break loose. Especially with winter coming, when respiratory diseases always proliferate more freely. This Autumn and beyond is the critical time to be vigilant.

And your persistent assertion that pretty well no-one under 60 dies becomes meaningless when so many people would catch it, that vulnerable people will inevitably catch it, with the inevitable consequences. We've been through this before: around 50% of the UK population are either over 60 or have underlying health conditions. They live in houses with other people, they work with them, they are 50% of society, you simply cannot say 'make everyone who's vulnerable stay at home'. It's completely impractical and simply wouldn't work.

You're also neglecting to mention the fact that many people who don't die, have long-lasting and sometimes permanent effects which will impact the rest of their lives. Organ damage, a reduction in lung capacity which will never come back.

A vaccine will come at some point and then we can get on top of the virus. But at the moment we're treading on eggshells, and for a very good reason.

You have never understood that all hell will not break loose, the price we are paying is grotesque, lockdown while effective in stopping economic life, is virtually symbolic when it comes to stopping covo, very few people in the entire country have genuinely been in lock down, disagree with that if it makes you feel happy.

[winkywanky]

You have never understood that all hell will not break loose, the price we are paying is grotesque, lockdown while effective in stopping economic life, is virtually symbolic when it comes to stopping covo, very few people in the entire country have genuinely been in lock down, disagree with that if it makes you feel happy.

I know you'll never agree with me. That's fair enough.

But what you have to understand willie, is that pretty well no country in the world agrees with you. Every country in the world with a remotely sane leadership is desperate to keep a lid on Covid and keep the R rate below one or thereabouts.

Your assertion that very few people have been in Lockdown...well if they haven't what are you complaining about? I can't win, you're arguing against yourself   

[willie loman]

I know you'll never agree with me. That's fair enough.

But what you have to understand willie, is that pretty well no country in the world agrees with you. Every country in the world with a remotely sane leadership is desperate to keep a lid on Covid and keep the R rate below one or thereabouts.

Your assertion that very few people have been in Lockdown...well if they haven't what are you complaining about? I can't win, you're arguing against yourself   

You fully understand what i mean, people are off work etc, but are still out and about , sometimes they observe social distancing most times they dont, they wear masks, but rarely change them, public transport has been running throughout lockdown, people went to the shops every day during lockdown just to have something to do, it may be too much to say that lockdown has been a complete farce, but it was never true lockdown, and its has been de facto abandoned for months now, yet we are still not back at work.

[willie loman]

I know you'll never agree with me. That's fair enough.

But what you have to understand willie, is that pretty well no country in the world agrees with you. Every country in the world with a remotely sane leadership is desperate to keep a lid on Covid and keep the R rate below one or thereabouts.

Your assertion that very few people have been in Lockdown...well if they haven't what are you complaining about? I can't win, you're arguing against yourself   

From day one of lockdown there have been plenty of serious people, from all disciplines who have argued against it, though you seem not to have taken any notice of their arguments, we have created a waste-land, and some are still claiming it was the only way.

[winkywanky]

You fully understand what i mean, people are off work etc, but are still out and about , sometimes they observe social distancing most times they dont, they wear masks, but rarely change them, public transport has been running throughout lockdown, people went to the shops every day during lockdown just to have something to do, it may be too much to say that lockdown has been a complete farce, but it was never true lockdown, and its has been de facto abandoned for months now, yet we are still not back at work.

So you're saying you were right all along because Lockdown never really happened?     

[king tarzan]

I think the power has gone to Hancock’s head.

He is a good dude

[winkywanky]

He's a nice guy, but you can see the cogs going around as he talks.

That never inspires confidence  .

[king tarzan]

He's a nice guy, but you can see the cogs going around as he talks.

That never inspires confidence  .

agree with you on that 

[willie loman]

So you're saying you were right all along because Lockdown never really happened?     

Cant admit you called it wrong can you?

[NIK]

Regarding figures, didn’t they knock something like 10,000 off the death numbers a few weeks ago because they reassessed how they calculated them or some such bollocks?
Must admit I haven’t been following it closely, but it was certainly about 42000 at one point, then miraculously became 30 odd thousand.
Of course statistics don’t lie, do they? 

[Digby232]

My friends wife was diagnosed with lung cancer just before lockdown. Treatment was postponed due to covid. Now she’s gone back and it’s too late. Diagnosed now as stage 4 lung cancer. Another death due to lockdown.

[winkywanky]

Cant admit you called it wrong can you?

No, because I didn't. I still think you're wrong.

Not that it necesarily proves anything in itself, but you'd be in a small minority with your opinions on this.

[LLPunting]

My friends wife was diagnosed with lung cancer just before lockdown. Treatment was postponed due to covid. Now she’s gone back and it’s too late. Diagnosed now as stage 4 lung cancer. Another death due to lockdown.

Very sorry to hear this.   
Any idea what stage it was at before lockdown?  Did they only just get round to starting up cancer treatments again or was she stuck in the backlog they've been trying to clear?

Ignoring the incompetence of Government advisories re NHS priorities throughout lockdown, I'm still waiting for the revelations about why critical care was so badly curtailed if not stopped to make way for all the CoVID provisioning.  It can't have just been down to PPE shortages or the need to nab as many beds as possible for anticipated spikes in admissions.

[Digby232]

They just got round to starting up treatment again and by time they started too late to do any good.

[RedKettle]

Regarding figures, didn’t they knock something like 10,000 off the death numbers a few weeks ago because they reassessed how they calculated them or some such bollocks?
Must admit I haven’t been following it closely, but it was certainly about 42000 at one point, then miraculously became 30 odd thousand.
Of course statistics don’t lie, do they? 

Yes they moved to the generally accepted measure and excluded those who died more than 28 days after a test. It is a technical change and does not impact on the assessment of Government performance that will be based on excess deaths not covid deaths. That captures deaths caused by lockdown.

[RedKettle]

The whole point is that we have reacted as if the consequences of the pandemic were going to be catastrophic,its lockdown that has proved to be catastrophic.

But the pandemic would have been catastrophic without action having been taken. Personally I think with hindsight the lockdown will be shown to have been unnecessarily severe however given the information at the time I think it was a reasonable choice.

[Wadebridge]

Nearly 3,000 new infections recorded by the UK according to yesterday's (Sunday's) released Covid statistics. Not quite but almost, I think the figure was 2,976.
The week before last it was just over 1,000. About 1,200 or thereabouts.
And the schools have been open precisely one week.
Coincidence?

[Digby232]

More tests you do more positives you’ll get. Hospital admissions are down as are deaths. Should have just isolated the vulnerable from the start and perhaps closed borders. We’re an island so easy to do. Not fuck up everyone’s life for years to come. We could have paid the vulnerable to stay home for months . Still cheaper than furlough half the country for months. School in my area start today  but can’t go in till 8.30. Cars blocking roads now waiting. So that’s going to be s nice smooth social distanced entry!! Every step of the process is another fuck up.

[Digby232]

Why are all the local lockdowns in midlands or north. ? Lifestyle ?

[Wadebridge]

Why are all the local lockdowns in midlands or north. ? Lifestyle ?

They're not all are they? Wasn't Luton under local lockdown, or had some kind of restrictions imposed, recently.

[winkywanky]

Nearly 3,000 new infections recorded by the UK according to yesterday's (Sunday's) released Covid statistics. Not quite but almost, I think the figure was 2,976.
The week before last it was just over 1,000. About 1,200 or thereabouts.
And the schools have been open precisely one week.
Coincidence?

Almost certainly yes. There's always a lag in these results so even if there were a big upturn in numbers in schools you wouldn't be seeing it this quickly.

And if there were a link, it would be reported on. Because we don't live in Russia.

[winkywanky]

Why are all the local lockdowns in midlands or north. ? Lifestyle ?

From what I can make out a large part of it is to do with 'communities within communities', like the Bangladeshi communities in those areas for instance.

There's a large amount of households containing a lot of multigenerational individuals, and there hasn't perhaps been the social distancing between households within their own community.

Also there are still many who either don't have English as a first language, or they don't look outwards for their social cues, they look inwards. They might feel like they need to stick together to stay safe, when infact as soon as one person becomes infected it will go around like wildfire.

To that you can start adding young adults from any background who are increasingly fed up with the whole thing and just want to get pissed/get their rocks off/go to a rave/go to a party/whatever.

[Wadebridge]

Should have just isolated the vulnerable from the start and perhaps closed borders. We’re an island so easy to do. Not fuck up everyone’s life for years to come. We could have paid the vulnerable to stay home for months . Still cheaper than furlough half the country for months. School in my area start today  but can’t go in till 8.30. Cars blocking roads now waiting. So that’s going to be s nice smooth social distanced entry!! Every step of the process is another fuck up.

Totally agree with you about the monumental cluster fuck.
Yet another example illustrating how politicians in their elite Westminster bubble do not understand, and have no inkling about, the day to day issues in ordinary people's lives.
The LibDums once spoke about implementing a 'citizens assembly' to decide on outcomes that were resulting in 'stalemate' amongst politicians. Which at the time I thought was a bad idea.
But I have to say that a 'citizens assembly' deciding on common sense decisions probably would come up with some better, and more workable, ideas than the government has had lately. It certainly couldn't deliver any worse.

[Wadebridge]

Almost certainly yes. There's always a lag in these results so even if there were a big upturn in numbers in schools you wouldn't be seeing it this quickly.

Well, okay. Maybe.
But don't forget the schools have been back considerably longer than a week in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

And if there were a link, it would be reported on. Because we don't live in Russia.

Hmmm ...  I'm not so sure about that. 
I think our shifty government would be quite capable of suppressing relevant or significant information if it looked like it might jeopardise their aim and ambition to get the country 'back to normal' in time for the anticipated Christmas months spending spree.

[winkywanky]

Well, okay. Maybe.
But don't forget the schools have been back considerably longer than a week in Scotland and Northern Ireland.Hmmm ...  I'm not so sure about that. 
I think our shifty government would be quite capable of suppressing relevant or significant information if it looked like it might jeopardise their aim and ambition to get the country 'back to normal' in time for the anticipated Christmas months spending spree.

That's actually rubbish.

Too many people from the scientific and medical communities are in on the figures from an early stage. And this is a big issue, so the public microscope will be looking out for this.

Unless you think our medical and scientific communities feel they have to lie for their own good, like they do in Russia?

However much you dislike our govt, there is still stuff they can't tamper with because the ramifications would be too severe for them. Like I say, this isn't Russia, and you don't get shot/poisoned/imprisoned for showing them up.

[Digby232]

You lose your career for showing them up so figures are not lied about but professionally manipulated!

[winkywanky]

You lose your career for showing them up so figures are not lied about but professionally manipulated!

Plenty of opportunities for anonymous whistleblowing, which can and does happen.

You really think the UK govt would actually lie about the age group involved in new cases? Nah. It would get out.

There's manipulation, or presentation or obfuscation, but downright, blatant lies? No.

[sparkus]

You lose your career for showing them up so figures are not lied about but professionally manipulated!

Perhaps we could have a review or two from you to assess your competence in measurement?

[Wadebridge]

Plenty of opportunities for anonymous whistleblowing, which can and does happen.
You really think the UK govt would actually lie about the age group involved in new cases? Nah. It would get out.
There's manipulation, or presentation or obfuscation, but downright, blatant lies? No.

Yes! It has already demonstrated that it has lied. The UK's highest ever daily death figure from coronavirus was reported as being 980, sometime back in early April, I believe.
Yet a subsequent corroborated news article that was later released into the public domain stated that there was a period in April where for 20 consecutive days the daily death toll from coronavirus was over 1,000 cases.
At around that time period, on local Facebook groups we were also informed in our local area that a household waste disposal site was being converted into a temporary mortuary. And driving past, there were several white articulated lorries parked up in this uninviting environment with scant data available as to what purpose they were serving there.
And Yes again! They blatantly lied about Track, Trace and Isolate. They said the UK's system was "world-beating". 

[winkywanky]

Yes! It has already demonstrated that it has lied. The UK's highest ever daily death figure from coronavirus was reported as being 980, sometime back in early April, I believe.
Yet a subsequent corroborated news article that was later released into the public domain stated that there was a period in April where for 20 consecutive days the daily death toll from coronavirus was over 1,000 cases.
At around that time period, on local Facebook groups we were also informed in our local area that a household waste disposal site was being converted into a temporary mortuary. And driving past, there were several white articulated lorries parked up in this uninviting environment with scant data available as to what purpose they were serving there.
And Yes again! They blatantly lied about Track, Trace and Isolate. They said the UK's system was "world-beating". 

I can't be bothered to go into that by spending half an hour Googling  .

But we all know there are different ways to measure the numbers and different ways to determine whether someone actually died from Covid, or just probably. And these have evolved.

The 'world-beating' crap is just that, it's a meaningless statement designed to impress the naive or to wind up those (yourself) who actually attach any meaning to it. It's a bit like every time the govt gets flak for not explaining every little detail...use your bloody loaf.

And why are you placing any credence in something on Facebook? FFS  .

As I have suggested earlier, the true picture always emerges, and normally from official sources. If you can't tell the difference between Boris's bluster and reality you might as well give up.