Jump to content

coronavirus


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Data from Johns Hopkins via BBC as ever.

Have we turned the corner this time?

Using 7-day moving average to smooth the spikes.

962891327_dailymortality15-4-20.thumb.png.c92bb93117bbd4606123592cdc04ca43.png

Today will tell with the statistics. The one you really need to pay attention to is the infection rate as the death count follows that by around 2 weeks.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

⚠️ Warning ⚠️ light-hearted post! 

Most of my friends are setting themselves silly physical challenges (running a marathon round the garden etc) during these strange times... 

I’ve done something else... bake a chocolate cake. And this is the result... (yes - that’s two sponges that haven’t risen!). C- at best... 

?

E9107A9E-C2C1-40A1-A5B1-C5064362BA4E.jpeg

If you can afford Crueset jazz for your plethora of wooden spoons, buy some decent pop!

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ckn said:

Today will tell with the statistics. The one you really need to pay attention to is the infection rate as the death count follows that by around 2 weeks.

Similar pattern really?

Just with Germany further up the scale because they've done much more testing to reveal more cases.

2012537349_DailyCases15-4-20.thumb.png.cc0b0105d2375e6aa27729467d89f7eb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our testing capacity increases to 100,000 by the end of the month (stop laughing), then our cases may actually rise as we pick up more mild cases or nurses and care workers being tested more regularly. Hospital admissions might be the best to go on but even that's not a guaranteed indicator as the threshold for admissions could change.

All things considered, if we don't see a big rise today then i'll be happy that we're at the peak or thereabouts. How long it takes to fall significantly and whether we'll get any more waves is another matter. I'm much more optimistic than I was a week or two ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear fellow TRL members, this obviously won't apply to you as you're too intelligent as evidenced by your choice of this forum for your rugby fandom. BUT, don't take chloroquine without a NHS doctor specifically prescribing it to you or telling you that you can. Another non-COVID patient from our area in A&E today where it has caused serious side effects.

I know you're scared but poisoning yourself isn't the answer.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ckn said:

Dear fellow TRL members, this obviously won't apply to you as you're too intelligent as evidenced by your choice of this forum for your rugby fandom. BUT, don't take chloroquine without a NHS doctor specifically prescribing it to you or telling you that you can. Another non-COVID patient from our area in A&E today where it has caused serious side effects.

I know you're scared but poisoning yourself isn't the answer.

Rubbish , Donald said it was fine ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ckn said:

Dear fellow TRL members, this obviously won't apply to you as you're too intelligent as evidenced by your choice of this forum for your rugby fandom. BUT, don't take chloroquine without a NHS doctor specifically prescribing it to you or telling you that you can. Another non-COVID patient from our area in A&E today where it has caused serious side effects.

I know you're scared but poisoning yourself isn't the answer.

And just to add that currently there is absolutely no reliable evidence that it is of any benefit whatsoever either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a diversion from talking about what is and isn't happening here, more on the situation in France.

 

The chloroquine story originated, it seems, in Marseilles where the good doctor Didier Raoult became the pandemic rock star

https://www.ft.com/content/679024aa-d70a-49df-9c77-e4d9967c0f2d

The French govt took a lot of flack for not  taking this seriously ( https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/04/06/thousands-sign-french-call-for--chloroquine-in-virus-fight.html) and my contacts in Vichy are talking of a cover up!

Long used as treatment for malaria and other ailments, chloroquine derivatives are being touted as a miracle cure in the fight against the worsening coronavirus pandemic. But the resulting surge in demand at French pharmacies has alarmed experts who warn against overhyping unproven medicines until large-scale clinical tests are carried out. 

https://www.france24.com/en/20200326-let-hospitals-decide-experts-warn-as-chloroquine-hype-triggers-rush-on-pharmacies

https://www.france24.com/en/20200329-french-expert-says-second-study-shows-malaria-drug-helps-fight-coronavirus

Macron has been to see him, too.

Professor Didier Raoult met Macron at his specialised infectious diseases hospital in Marseille, in a visit that was not announced in advance, the French presidency said.

"The president wants to take into account all the tests and studies, including those of professor Raoult. It is not for him (Macron) to settle the debate, this must be done by scientists," added the official.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20200410/macron-holds-surprise-meeting-with-french-doctor-behind-chloroquine-study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but feel as though the numbers are being kept below 1000 intentionally. 

I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to include the care home numbers when we are on our way down and there is a buffer below that 1000 mark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I can't help but feel as though the numbers are being kept below 1000 intentionally. 

I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to include the care home numbers when we are on our way down and there is a buffer below that 1000 mark. 

Dangerously close to political. Happy to take advice from the moderators on this one, however...

I don't know who to believe, but saying that,  I am not remotely interested in conspiracy theories. I don't (perhaps naively) see what the government has to gain from announcing lower hospital deaths than actual. After all, the stick they are getting as a result of ONS data, on lag, would just come back and bite them anyway. 

If they were genuinely into fiddling numbers, you could even argue that it it in the interest of the government to announce larger death figures this week to reinforce the importance of maintaining a lockdown for a further few weeks.

I don't know, but then I am not one of those armchair pundits who thinks that ever was, or will be, a simple answer to tackling such a crisis. (not referring to anyone in particular on here, btw, just the social media moguls who appear to have nothing better to do)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Dangerously close to political. Happy to take advice from the moderators on this one, however...

I don't know who to believe, but saying that,  I am not remotely interested in conspiracy theories. I don't (perhaps naively) see what the government has to gain from announcing lower hospital deaths than actual. After all, the stick they are getting as a result of ONS data, on lag, would just come back and bite them anyway. 

If they were genuinely into fiddling numbers, you could even argue that it it in the interest of the government to announce larger death figures this week to reinforce the importance of maintaining a lockdown for a further few weeks.

I don't know, but then I am not one of those armchair pundits who thinks that ever was, or will be, a simple answer to tackling such a crisis. (not referring to anyone in particular on here, btw, just the social media moguls who appear to have nothing better to do)

My personal view is that they aren't fiddling the figures but what we're seeing is the consequence of having to join up a system that doesn't usually need joining up and certainly not so quickly or with so much pressure riding on it.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something totally out of my knowledge-base, but do other countries have organisations similar to the ONS? (I assume they must have) and do they compile the death data in the same way as in the UK? How closely are they linked/funded/sponsored by the respective governments and how much of a lag do they have on their own data? Are similar calls being made/concerns being raised of other governments around the accuracy of reporting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My personal view is that they aren't fiddling the figures but what we're seeing is the consequence of having to join up a system that doesn't usually need joining up and certainly not so quickly or with so much pressure riding on it.

That's my 'hope' I guess, although it is not a great position to be in. I've asked another question just now that perhaps begins to tease out where we might be falling short in reporting terms. 

I would not be surprised if, had the figures been reported with more clarity, transparency and timeliness (in line with ONS data) for all deaths, rather than just hospital deaths, a fair few of those wielding the axe on the current leadership may have been somewhat, if not totally pacified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Dangerously close to political. Happy to take advice from the moderators on this one, however...

I don't know who to believe, but saying that,  I am not remotely interested in conspiracy theories. I don't (perhaps naively) see what the government has to gain from announcing lower hospital deaths than actual. After all, the stick they are getting as a result of ONS data, on lag, would just come back and bite them anyway. 

If they were genuinely into fiddling numbers, you could even argue that it it in the interest of the government to announce larger death figures this week to reinforce the importance of maintaining a lockdown for a further few weeks.

I don't know, but then I am not one of those armchair pundits who thinks that ever was, or will be, a simple answer to tackling such a crisis. (not referring to anyone in particular on here, btw, just the social media moguls who appear to have nothing better to do)

 

45 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My personal view is that they aren't fiddling the figures but what we're seeing is the consequence of having to join up a system that doesn't usually need joining up and certainly not so quickly or with so much pressure riding on it.

 

41 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

That's my 'hope' I guess, although it is not a great position to be in. I've asked another question just now that perhaps begins to tease out where we might be falling short in reporting terms. 

I would not be surprised if, had the figures been reported with more clarity, transparency and timeliness (in line with ONS data) for all deaths, rather than just hospital deaths, a fair few of those wielding the axe on the current leadership may have been somewhat, if not totally pacified. 

Happy for this to go to the political thread, I must admit to flicking between the two and sometimes forget which I am on!

NE, on your first point that they would want to quote a higher number, if this is true, they could do so, they actually have a higher number, and they don't quote it in their press conferences that are quoted everywhere. They normally just answer the question on this that the ONS numbers are online and transparent, yet never actually use them themselves. They are clearly happier quoting that lower number. They also use  the excuse that they are using international standards, yet France include care homes, so there is precedent for using the ONS number. 

The way the numbers are recorded and reported means they aren't a reflection of when deaths occur in the daily summary, it is when the admin is done (I don't mean that to sound as cold as it does). The numbers would be very easy to manipulate, and even this morning, Hancock was shown on live TV being happy to lie about numbers (claiming he didn't commit to 25k tests by now), so they do not et any benefit of the doubt I am afraid. 

Last week, the numbers escalated quickly and the coverage changed to much more negative and challenging. Those increases stopped very very abruptly. It will be interesting to see whether our tail is longer than others as that would be a sign of manipulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It will be interesting to see whether our tail is longer than others as that would be a sign of manipulation. 

I think the acid test for those of us who want to use figures only to highlight where they are beginning to improve will come in the fashion you suggest over the coming days. I've seen a chart elsewhere that suggests that there is around a 5 day lag in English hospital deaths, to the extent that yesterday's figures only accounted for 150-200 deaths the day before. The rest were catch up figures. 

We won't be able to hide behind the tail, and I would think that this would make the government go for a longer lockdown if they are attempting to suppress numbers. Again, I would say, there is no point in the government doing that as the ONS statistics are always on their tails. Most people aren't that thick, but perhaps there's enough of them to be fooled! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pre-messaging before today's briefing makes it look like it's being put as a "three weeks but really don't think at the end of that three weeks we're going back to anything like normal".

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The pre-messaging before today's briefing makes it look like it's being put as a "three weeks but really don't think at the end of that three weeks we're going back to anything like normal".

And let's face it, that's pretty much what everyone is/was expecting. The unknown is just how long it will take to get back to the old normal. I can't stand that term 'new normal' already! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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.