The number of tests is more than the number of people isn't it?
Tests. The Guardian article suggested test to people ratio was around 70%. But I have no numbers on what that figure is today.
"As of 9am on 1 April 2020, 152,979 people have been tested, of which 29,474 were confirmed positive."
The gov.uk announcements always count people, not individual tests.
Not what Gove quoted at the weekend though so throw in idle capability as well. Turned out only 9,114 tests had been been carried out on about 6,900 people on Friday – falling to 8,278 tests on 4,908 patients on Saturday Gove defends his over 10,000 comment by retrospectively claiming when he said tests he meant Testing Capability
Don't you ever get bored with burrowing through ministers' statements in a desperate bid to find something you think is a gotcha which proves they are a bunch of lying toads deliberately trying to kill people?
I think the optimism is more that new infections are slowing. They would have a prediction of what will happen under various scenarios in terms of new cases going into the hospitals. They have that data in real time - it's obviously something we don't see.
If I had to guess, I'd imagine that their predictions are telling them that new infections are consistent with a model where they are substantially slowing and can then use that to establish how well the NHS will cope.
Deaths, sadly, are a real lagging indicator. But looking at Italy or Spain, I'd expect that the total number of deaths we see per day between Thursday and Sunday will be, give or take, the number of daily deaths we should expect for a couple of weeks.
The number I'd be tracking above all others is NEW admissions to hospital with suspected Covid-19. Once that starts falling day on day we will be seeing light albeit still very much in the tunnel.
I’d like to see overall deaths compared to average number of deaths on that day
I believe there's normally a lag in recording the total number of deaths so a figure like that would give you a false sense of normality.
It’s true that far fewer people died of flu this winter than normally do though, isn’t it?
"Extinction Rebellion accuse the government of a coronavirus cover up Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling. The group have been attempting to block construction vehicles in in woodlands in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. The campaigners are sitting in treehouses along the route and claim they have been refused food and water. A source close to extinction rebellion told the Telegraph that the government was trying to complete tree felling under the ‘cloak of coronavirus”."
They don't have the direct quote but I guess you're reading a headline designed to make it look sillier? If you're a low-level bureaucrat and your job is to try to get some trees cut down it's not at all implausible that you might say to yourself, "ok, I can get it done now what with everyone preoccupied with coronovirus", and it's not massively paranoid to think somebody may be doing that. But the headline makes it sound like the whole coronovirus thing was a cunning and devious trick to get the trees cut down, which is obviously less plausible.
"Extinction Rebellion accuse the government of a coronavirus cover up Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling. The group have been attempting to block construction vehicles in in woodlands in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. The campaigners are sitting in treehouses along the route and claim they have been refused food and water. A source close to extinction rebellion told the Telegraph that the government was trying to complete tree felling under the ‘cloak of coronavirus”."
What are the facts? Is the government still felling trees? Are they key workers on an essential service or are the mad axemen sitting in self-isolated furlough at home?
The number of tests is more than the number of people isn't it?
Tests. The Guardian article suggested test to people ratio was around 70%. But I have no numbers on what that figure is today.
"As of 9am on 1 April 2020, 152,979 people have been tested, of which 29,474 were confirmed positive."
The gov.uk announcements always count people, not individual tests.
Not what Gove quoted at the weekend though so throw in idle capability as well. Turned out only 9,114 tests had been been carried out on about 6,900 people on Friday – falling to 8,278 tests on 4,908 patients on Saturday Gove defends his over 10,000 comment by retrospectively claiming when he said tests he meant Testing Capability
Don't you ever get bored with burrowing through ministers' statements in a desperate bid to find something you think is a gotcha which proves they are a bunch of lying toads deliberately trying to kill people?
Must make a refreshing change from defending anti-semites.....
"Extinction Rebellion accuse the government of a coronavirus cover up Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling. The group have been attempting to block construction vehicles in in woodlands in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. The campaigners are sitting in treehouses along the route and claim they have been refused food and water. A source close to extinction rebellion told the Telegraph that the government was trying to complete tree felling under the ‘cloak of coronavirus”."
They don't have the direct quote but I guess you're reading a headline designed to make it look sillier? If you're a low-level bureaucrat and your job is to try to get some trees cut down it's not at all implausible that you might say to yourself, "ok, I can get it done now what with everyone preoccupied with coronovirus", and it's not massively paranoid to think somebody may be doing that. But the headline makes it sound like the whole coronovirus thing was a cunning and devious trick to get the trees cut down, which is obviously less plausible.
That 'obviously less plausible' is British understatement at its finest
"Extinction Rebellion accuse the government of a coronavirus cover up Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling. The group have been attempting to block construction vehicles in in woodlands in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. The campaigners are sitting in treehouses along the route and claim they have been refused food and water. A source close to extinction rebellion told the Telegraph that the government was trying to complete tree felling under the ‘cloak of coronavirus”."
They don't have the direct quote but I guess you're reading a headline designed to make it look sillier? If you're a low-level bureaucrat and your job is to try to get some trees cut down it's not at all implausible that you might say to yourself, "ok, I can get it done now what with everyone preoccupied with coronovirus", and it's not massively paranoid to think somebody may be doing that. But the headline makes it sound like the whole coronovirus thing was a cunning and devious trick to get the trees cut down, which is obviously less plausible.
More to the point, I rather like the idea that they think that someone else should provide them with food and water as they sit in their tree-houses.
The number of tests is more than the number of people isn't it?
Tests. The Guardian article suggested test to people ratio was around 70%. But I have no numbers on what that figure is today.
"As of 9am on 1 April 2020, 152,979 people have been tested, of which 29,474 were confirmed positive."
The gov.uk announcements always count people, not individual tests.
Not what Gove quoted at the weekend though so throw in idle capability as well. Turned out only 9,114 tests had been been carried out on about 6,900 people on Friday – falling to 8,278 tests on 4,908 patients on Saturday Gove defends his over 10,000 comment by retrospectively claiming when he said tests he meant Testing Capability
Don't you ever get bored with burrowing through ministers' statements in a desperate bid to find something you think is a gotcha which proves they are a bunch of lying toads deliberately trying to kill people?
You mean that isn't the grand plan, to kill off all the old biddies who vote for us normally?
You mean that isn't the grand plan, to kill off all the old biddies who vote for us normally?
That was last week's loony-left conspiracy theory. They even had a special hashtag for it. It seems to have petered out now, so I guess the penny must eventually have dropped that it would be a bizarre kind of gerrymandering to kill off your own voters.
The number of tests is more than the number of people isn't it?
Tests. The Guardian article suggested test to people ratio was around 70%. But I have no numbers on what that figure is today.
"As of 9am on 1 April 2020, 152,979 people have been tested, of which 29,474 were confirmed positive."
The gov.uk announcements always count people, not individual tests.
Not what Gove quoted at the weekend though so throw in idle capability as well. Turned out only 9,114 tests had been been carried out on about 6,900 people on Friday – falling to 8,278 tests on 4,908 patients on Saturday Gove defends his over 10,000 comment by retrospectively claiming when he said tests he meant Testing Capability
Don't you ever get bored with burrowing through ministers' statements in a desperate bid to find something you think is a gotcha which proves they are a bunch of lying toads deliberately trying to kill people?
You mean that isn't the grand plan, to kill off all the old biddies who vote for us normally?
Obviously the Tories, who read public opinion so well as to win a landslide off the back of an older core vote in December, decided in January to kill off all the oldies and incur massive unpopularity in doing so.
"Extinction Rebellion accuse the government of a coronavirus cover up Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling. The group have been attempting to block construction vehicles in in woodlands in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. The campaigners are sitting in treehouses along the route and claim they have been refused food and water. A source close to extinction rebellion told the Telegraph that the government was trying to complete tree felling under the ‘cloak of coronavirus”."
They don't have the direct quote but I guess you're reading a headline designed to make it look sillier? If you're a low-level bureaucrat and your job is to try to get some trees cut down it's not at all implausible that you might say to yourself, "ok, I can get it done now what with everyone preoccupied with coronovirus", and it's not massively paranoid to think somebody may be doing that. But the headline makes it sound like the whole coronovirus thing was a cunning and devious trick to get the trees cut down, which is obviously less plausible.
More to the point, I rather like the idea that they think that someone else should provide them with food and water as they sit in their tree-houses.
Given all the advocates of Chinese solutions - Chop the trees down with protestors still in them and volunteer the survivors of the attack on the state for re-education at one of the free, all inclusive state sanatoria for mental re-alignment. While there, they can assist our glorious scientists in their world beating efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID19.
Too afraid to read it... is it good news or bad news?
Neither. It's very good news in terms of the number of approaches, and sheer number of programmes being pursued - but even the most advanced of them have only just started dosing test subjects.
The probable timetable for producing an effective vaccine in bulk has not, and will not change (unless someone adopts the radical and risky testing idea I posted details of below).
....Multiple measures would be put in place to ensure that prior to consenting, potential participants fully comprehend the unusual risks involved in the study. After the controlled human challenge model had been set up, vaccines could be evaluated. Volunteers who had not been previously infected would be randomized to receive either the candidate vaccine(s) under investigation, or placebo. After an interval to permit a full immune response to the vaccine, a controlled exposure to SARS-CoV-2 would be administered...
If they are volunteers, including paid volunteers, and are fully informed then yes defiantly allow it.
And for that matter allow testing on volunteers of any drug at any time, should be allowed. at any point in time there will be people who are going to be dying of some illness that somebody is working on a cure for, but the cure will not get passed the regulates until the formation person has died. why should that person not be able to volunteer to be tested on.
This idea of a 'Right to Try' law has some advocates (including me) but has get little attention, perhaps, it is one good thing that may come out of this.
I would be happy to volunteer, I looked at volunteering for the oxford tests but you have to live in or near oxford.
@actuarybyday is a good follow for finding someone who is both used to handling statistics intelligently and explaining them to those who are not.
Except that the ICL scientists didn't say it would peak at X - that it was the most likely case from their projections. Since we are dealing with exponential growth, the error bar is large.
It is not all certain that Peston is screwing up. We have to drill down to find out and u can't be bothered doing that. However Gove definitely is screwing up the government's communication on CV and should be taken off that role.
As an aside in my work from time to time we get into situations where things have gone wrong and we're on the hook. I am happy to go to customers and say, this is the situation, this is what we are doing about it and this what you can now expect and when, we will keep you updated on progress. They may not be happy about the situation but above all they are relieved their issue is being dealt with.
Gove said there was a shortage of reagents and swabs, which was limiting testing Peston went and found there was no shortage of chemical ingredients for reagents. Peston claimed that this meant there was no shortage of reagents.
Guernsey Medical Director (who has set up testing on island in a couple of weeks) said there is a global shortage of reagents.
Which is why the idiots saying Gove was being dishonest were showing their own ignorance borne out of wishful thinking.
Or from experience of Gove lying through his teeth on other occasions? Given the desirability of more trust in these situations, perhaps we'll start demanding standards in public life. This would rule Johnson out from public office which would be a healthy thing.
Anyway there is a limited supply of reagents here in Germany, which is one of the reasons it's not that easy to get tested, and frontline staff are not routinely tested (though will be tested with symptoms - hospitals haven't got enough staff to send people home for 2 weeks).
My wife's hospital has also almost stopped testing people for flu because of a shortage of swabs.
Yep like I said. Ill informed biased idiots making political capital out of their own ignorance. You fit the bill perfectly.
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
Strange sort of depotism that allows morons like Hitchens to spout their mouth off freely.
Reminds me of Orwell's comment on an Oxbridge academic of left wing credentials who write an article on political repression against academics in... early 1930s UK university life. Entitled "Under the Terror"....
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
Extinction Rebellion have staged a protest at the site of HS2 and claim that the government has used coronavirus as a means to cover up HS2 tree felling.
1) I doubt anyone in government cares a jot about HS2 progress at the moment.
2) HS2 has to be a prime candidate for "austerity measures" when all this is over.
Too afraid to read it... is it good news or bad news?
Neither. It's very good news in terms of the number of approaches, and sheer number of programmes being pursued - but even the most advanced of them have only just started dosing test subjects.
The probable timetable for producing an effective vaccine in bulk has not, and will not change (unless someone adopts the radical and risky testing idea I posted details of below).
....Multiple measures would be put in place to ensure that prior to consenting, potential participants fully comprehend the unusual risks involved in the study. After the controlled human challenge model had been set up, vaccines could be evaluated. Volunteers who had not been previously infected would be randomized to receive either the candidate vaccine(s) under investigation, or placebo. After an interval to permit a full immune response to the vaccine, a controlled exposure to SARS-CoV-2 would be administered...
If they are volunteers, including paid volunteers, and are fully informed then yes defiantly allow it.
And for that matter allow testing on volunteers of any drug at any time, should be allowed. at any point in time there will be people who are going to be dying of some illness that somebody is working on a cure for, but the cure will not get passed the regulates until the formation person has died. why should that person not be able to volunteer to be tested on.
This idea of a 'Right to Try' law has some advocates (including me) but has get little attention, perhaps, it is one good thing that may come out of this.
I would be happy to volunteer, I looked at volunteering for the oxford tests but you have to live in or near oxford.
Note would be not just volunteering to test the vaccine, but to be deliberately dosed with the virus afterwards. Defiantly is apt.
It would be interesting to know how many died due to COVID-19 versus how many died with COVID-19.
The next line of attack from the Covid 19 disbelievers...they move from herd, China cover up...to now this nonsense that Covid 19 just kills people who were already dying....
For a long time I wasn't sure that Christopher and Peter were brothers, so great was the imbalance of intellect in Christopher's favour.
Now there's no doubt - one of them was definitely adopted.
I think sibling rivalry explains much of Peter's output. On just about every issue his position is the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would probably have been. It's too striking to be co-incidence.
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
It would be interesting to know how many died due to COVID-19 versus how many died with COVID-19.
The next line of attack from the Covid 19 disbelievers...they move from herd, China cover up...to now this nonsense that Covid 19 just kills people who were already dying....
What idiots! The Italian govt have told us that 1 in 8 were perfectly healthy
For a long time I wasn't sure that Christopher and Peter were brothers, so great was the imbalance of intellect in Christopher's favour.
Now there's no doubt - one of them was definitely adopted.
I think sibling rivalry explains much of Peter's output. On just about every issue his position is the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would probably have been. It's too striking to be co-incidence.
When North Korea finally falls, and we find out that people read and appreciated 1984, under the regime.. I will be raising a glass to the other Hitchens.
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
Kinabalu....do not have discourse with this nonsense....
People are dying because of Covid 19...they might have other ailments or be old....but Covid 19 is the killer
If anyone is still interested in why Germany manages to test vastly more people despite facing the same global shortages of chemicals as the UK, this is a good summary.
It's complicated. Top line summary: Germany is more on the ball than we are. The chemical shortage is part of the mix however
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
Kinabalu....do not have discourse with this nonsense....
People are dying because of Covid 19...they might have other ailments or be old....but Covid 19 is the killer
It is a killer but can also be coincidental.
Lets take the formulation in reverse. Someone has a bad heart, has a heart attack (unrelated to COVID), gets taken to hospital for treatment and catches the virus, fails to recover from their heart attack.
That will be a death with COVID but would have been a death either way.
For a long time I wasn't sure that Christopher and Peter were brothers, so great was the imbalance of intellect in Christopher's favour.
Now there's no doubt - one of them was definitely adopted.
I think sibling rivalry explains much of Peter's output. On just about every issue his position is the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would probably have been. It's too striking to be co-incidence.
When North Korea finally falls, and we find out that people read and appreciated 1984, under the regime.. I will be raising a glass to the other Hitchens.
And when they find these Iraqi WMDs, paaarrrtttaaay!
The only estimate I’ve seen and not able to corroborate it was 10-15% due to and that might be high.
Ah no, I think that % is for those "without underlying conditions", which is not the same as saying that the rest died "with it" rather than "of it". Please see my post at 3.27.
"The US president, Donald Trump, has said the UK’s early approach to tackling the coronavirus outbreak would have been “very catastrophic” if Boris Johnson had not decided to change tack.
Trump suggested the prime minister had looked to “ride out” the virus in an approach that would have caused “a lot of death”.
The criticism appeared to be a reference to the UK government initially following a plan for so-called “herd immunity”. "
For a long time I wasn't sure that Christopher and Peter were brothers, so great was the imbalance of intellect in Christopher's favour.
Now there's no doubt - one of them was definitely adopted.
I think sibling rivalry explains much of Peter's output. On just about every issue his position is the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would probably have been. It's too striking to be co-incidence.
When North Korea finally falls, and we find out that people read and appreciated 1984, under the regime.. I will be raising a glass to the other Hitchens.
And when they find these WMDs, paaarrrtttaaay!
Well, in North Korea's case, we know they have nuclear weapons. The large explosions, which are of the right nature, are a bit of a give away.
Scientific evidence vs info pulled from a spin doctors arse....
It would be interesting to know how many died due to COVID-19 versus how many died with COVID-19.
The next line of attack from the Covid 19 disbelievers...they move from herd, China cover up...to now this nonsense that Covid 19 just kills people who were already dying....
I never said that. In fact if you weren't such a stupid ignorant fool you would have realised the formulation of my question meant the complete opposite.
If COVID 19 only killed people who were already dying then there would be no split.
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
The WHO has (long ago) issued guidelines for that, following them will, practically, not always be easy, or even doable. One main problem will also be that "dying with" will (to varying degrees) very often also be "dying of". In the vast majority of cases it will not be an either or, so the only halfway reliable distinction is between "dying with" and "dying without".
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
"The US president, Donald Trump, has said the UK’s early approach to tackling the coronavirus outbreak would have been “very catastrophic” if Boris Johnson had not decided to change tack.
Trump suggested the prime minister had looked to “ride out” the virus in an approach that would have caused “a lot of death”.
The criticism appeared to be a reference to the UK government initially following a plan for so-called “herd immunity”. "
"The US president, Donald Trump, has said the UK’s early approach to tackling the coronavirus outbreak would have been “very catastrophic” if Boris Johnson had not decided to change tack.
Trump suggested the prime minister had looked to “ride out” the virus in an approach that would have caused “a lot of death”.
The criticism appeared to be a reference to the UK government initially following a plan for so-called “herd immunity”. "
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
Fascinating - not only for the differences (as noted, may be a lot of very mild/asymptomatic carries in 20s-40s) but also for the Iceland distribution a that seems to suggest that the very young (school age) are either not getting infected in great numbers or have shorter duration of infection (so less chance of being tested while infected and having fewer positive tests) rather than merely having milder symptoms.
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
The WHO has (long ago) issued guidelines for that, following them will, practically, not always be easy, or even doable. One main problem will also be that "dying with" will (to varying degrees) very often also be "dying of". In the vast majority of cases it will not be an either or, so the only halfway reliable distinction is between "dying with" and "dying without".
And very often the doctors attending will not know either - even an autopsy may not answer that.
The WHO has (long ago) issued guidelines for that, following them will, practically, not always be easy, or even doable. One main problem will also be that "dying with" will (to varying degrees) very often also be "dying of". In the vast majority of cases it will not be an either or, so the only halfway reliable distinction is between "dying with" and "dying without".
Yes, I think so. You have to drop the "of". Too subjective.
We need to recognise that dissenting views like those of Hitchens' are valuable, even if we completely disagree with them. That's what freedom of speech is all about. It's not about just agreeing with the people you already agree with.
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
Kinabalu....do not have discourse with this nonsense....
People are dying because of Covid 19...they might have other ailments or be old....but Covid 19 is the killer
It is a killer but can also be coincidental.
Lets take the formulation in reverse. Someone has a bad heart, has a heart attack (unrelated to COVID), gets taken to hospital for treatment and catches the virus, fails to recover from their heart attack.
That will be a death with COVID but would have been a death either way.
Indeed, Mr T. When I was originally diagnosed with prostate cancer I was told firmly not to be too alarmed; more men die with it than of it. And, although I'm not back to where I was before radiotherapy all the test results say I'm OK. Secondly, I'm asthmatic. Not very, but I'm aware of it, and, reading the descriptions on here of what it feels like to suffer a bad attack of Covid-19, were I get to a big load of virus I could be in serious trouble; my lungs just don't take in all the air that they should. So, would I have died of Covid-19 or of asthma, perchance exacerbated by Covid-19?
Yes, that would be good to know. Also, I`d like to see a split between those that died with/ without other contributory medical conditions in order to get a better handle on those that died with the virus and those that died of it.
This "dying of" vs "dying with" -
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
The WHO has (long ago) issued guidelines for that, following them will, practically, not always be easy, or even doable. One main problem will also be that "dying with" will (to varying degrees) very often also be "dying of". In the vast majority of cases it will not be an either or, so the only halfway reliable distinction is between "dying with" and "dying without".
And very often the doctors attending will not know either - even an autopsy may not answer that.
And autopsies are obviously a rare luxury in these times of distress.
Death certificates can be interesting. My great-great grandfather died of 'senile decay'.
'Old age' was another old standby. The older and iller you are, the worse the prognosis if you catch Covid-19. You may not have died at that time, had you not not had one or more of the other things.
I'd never thought of myself as being a Covid denier before, Does that mean I'm immune?
Strange sort of depotism that allows morons like Hitchens to spout their mouth off freely.
Ah... that's the clever bit about these despots.
The smart critics of the government, we don't hear from them, right? That must mean that they're being supressed.
Now, idiot critics, like Peter Hitchens, who discredit the whole idea of this being a despotic takeover of democratic government, well we hear from them.
This all actually proves that, instead of Boris Johnson trying to (you know) save lives, this is all just the beginning of a coup that will leave him dictator for life, and us all stripped of our dignity and rights.
10 mins until the 2pm tweet from the DoH to let us know the figures are delayed.
They probably won't, but I hope people try to steer away from making forecasts of civilizational collapse/it'll all be over by Easter on the basis of a single day's data.
Could break the kneejerk barrier of 2k dead today.
How many deaths until you take this seriously?
Weren't you talking about 17 per day a few weeks ago?
It was a mistake to believe the Chinese accounts of fatalities.
I see blame it on China is going to be the new catch all excuse.
The evidence was there after SARS that the Chinese live wild animal markets were a pandemic waiting to happen. China did nothing about it.
Kinabalu....do not have discourse with this nonsense....
People are dying because of Covid 19...they might have other ailments or be old....but Covid 19 is the killer
Yes, I think I'm with you on this. There's little to be gained by attempting some split on a micro level. It's too subjective and also a touch dehumanizing. We must stick with (i) had other conditions or (ii) didn't. Plus age and sex etc.
The meaningful analysis will be macro and in retrospect on the impact of Covid-19 on overall deaths (analysed by age and by cause of death) for the relevant period.
10 mins until the 2pm tweet from the DoH to let us know the figures are delayed.
They probably won't, but I hope people try to steer away from making forecasts of civilizational collapse/it'll all be over by Easter on the basis of a single day's data.
Could break the kneejerk barrier of 2k dead today.
How many deaths until you take this seriously?
Weren't you talking about 17 per day a few weeks ago?
It was a mistake to believe the Chinese accounts of fatalities.
I see blame it on China is going to be the new catch all excuse.
The evidence was there after SARS that the Chinese live wild animal markets were a pandemic waiting to happen. China did nothing about it. Add to that the fact that tried to hide the outbreak from the world in the crucial early stages and are probably lying about it still and I think that blaming China is a fairly rational response.
Doesn't excuse governments mishandling it thereafter of course
It would be interesting to see what these graphs look like on a per capita basis
Well, looking at death rate per million and starting from the day after they reached 1.000 and taking data from worldmeters, here you go:
We have a trio of fairly similar countries at the top - Spain, then Netherlands and Italy (Netherlands is marching very closely with Italy's per capita rate).
Then a clump of other countries (France, ourselves, Switzerland and Sweden.
Germany below that, and Norway at the very bottom (I included Norway because I wanted an easy comparison between Norway's suppression and Sweden's mitigation strategies).
It seems that there is going to be some random testing of the population so we should get some idea of how many people have it and are not shewing symptoms.
What's really annoying about these idiots, is that 5G as it currently exists has very little difference between it and LTE. 5G NR is basically different signalling over the same radio spectrum and type of modulation as LTE networks use.
It's a bit like arguing that TCP and UDP are somehow different in terms of a health risk. Or English versus French.
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
It's a bit like arguing that TCP and UDP are somehow different in terms of a health risk. Or English versus French.
It is simply bonkers.
There might be something in that. Perhaps speaking with a gutteral r increases the risk of the virus getting a foothold. Clearly more research is needed.
Data from Echo of Bergamo on number of deaths in municipal registers for March. You can select the municipality (they have data from 91 of them) from the graph (under "cerca il comune"). Blue column is the number of March 2019 deaths, column in yellow is March 2020's deaths, number in red at the bottom is the official Covid's deaths.
It would be interesting to see what these graphs look like on a per capita basis
Well, looking at death rate per million and starting from the day after they reached 1.000 and taking data from worldmeters, here you go:
We have a trio of fairly similar countries at the top - Spain, then Netherlands and Italy (Netherlands is marching very closely with Italy's per capita rate).
Then a clump of other countries (France, ourselves, Switzerland and Sweden.
Germany below that, and Norway at the very bottom (I included Norway because I wanted an easy comparison between Norway's suppression and Sweden's mitigation strategies).
randomised should be in inverted commas. To get a reliable of estimate of the currently infected population, you need to use properly randomised samples which is very difficult to achieve unless the population is homgenous. Even worse you're taking a snapshot which will be rapidly changing - unless you mean an antibody test?
This is a very interesting comparison. What it probably means is that in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere, including the UK) there are very large numbers of younger, asymptomatic carriers, although interpretation is a bit tricky. (It's well worth reading the replies to the tweet):
Fascinating - not only for the differences (as noted, may be a lot of very mild/asymptomatic carries in 20s-40s) but also for the Iceland distribution a that seems to suggest that the very young (school age) are either not getting infected in great numbers or have shorter duration of infection (so less chance of being tested while infected and having fewer positive tests) rather than merely having milder symptoms.
It also is evidence for why saying Germany was "lucky" in that the age of those infected early on was "younger" is probably wrong. Sure, those infected early on might be younger than when it spreads to much older people who might be travelling less - but the same is going to be more or less true in other places. The younger age profile is also a function of testing more people, not just those with severe symptoms.
If anyone is still interested in why Germany manages to test vastly more people despite facing the same global shortages of chemicals as the UK, this is a good summary.
It's complicated. Top line summary: Germany is more on the ball than we are. The chemical shortage is part of the mix however
I recommend reading the whole thing, but what I take away, (yes because it backs up my pre-held belief LOL) is that the privit secter when involved can and will achieve amazing things very quickly. in the US and here the CDC and Public Heath England, wanted a monopoly, on testing and then could not cope.
The NHS is full of lots of wonderful people who are highly skilled, working exceptionally hard and at the moment brave, but the organisation stretcher is rubbish.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/uk-ministers-accused-of-overstating-scale-of-coronavirus-testing
Sounds legit.
https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1244970591079333888?s=21
And for that matter allow testing on volunteers of any drug at any time, should be allowed. at any point in time there will be people who are going to be dying of some illness that somebody is working on a cure for, but the cure will not get passed the regulates until the formation person has died. why should that person not be able to volunteer to be tested on.
This idea of a 'Right to Try' law has some advocates (including me) but has get little attention, perhaps, it is one good thing that may come out of this.
I would be happy to volunteer, I looked at volunteering for the oxford tests but you have to live in or near oxford.
Now there's no doubt - one of them was definitely adopted.
If you think its people how do you explain the Guardian article? If its tests why call it people in the Gov.uk tweet?!?!!!!
It would need a formulation and I'm not sure how one would do it. For example, a person with a very significant "underlying condition" - let's say a bad heart. They catch the virus, get ill, go into ICU, and fail to make it. They have a fatal coronary just hours after going onto a ventilator. They might not have pulled through regardless but we will never know.
How are we classifying something like that?
(apologies if we don't want to be discussing at this level of detail).
https://twitter.com/alexandreafonso/status/1243557013759700997
2) HS2 has to be a prime candidate for "austerity measures" when all this is over.
Defiantly is apt.
9793 tests have been done today on 9793 people.
Of which XXXX had been tested before on previews days, and the rest YYYY where new people.
The next line of attack from the Covid 19 disbelievers...they move from herd, China cover up...to now this nonsense that Covid 19 just kills people who were already dying....
Is anybody doing a totally random sample of the population (age, sex, ect balanced)
People are dying because of Covid 19...they might have other ailments or be old....but Covid 19 is the killer
It's complicated. Top line summary: Germany is more on the ball than we are. The chemical shortage is part of the mix however
https://reaction.life/why-is-germany-able-to-test-for-coronavirus-so-much-more-than-the-uk/
Or, well, the obvious.
Lets take the formulation in reverse. Someone has a bad heart, has a heart attack (unrelated to COVID), gets taken to hospital for treatment and catches the virus, fails to recover from their heart attack.
That will be a death with COVID but would have been a death either way.
"The US president, Donald Trump, has said the UK’s early approach to tackling the coronavirus outbreak would have been “very catastrophic” if Boris Johnson had not decided to change tack.
Trump suggested the prime minister had looked to “ride out” the virus in an approach that would have caused “a lot of death”.
The criticism appeared to be a reference to the UK government initially following a plan for so-called “herd immunity”. "
Irony is dead.
* not that it’s a significant decline from the tripe they put out before this, to be fair.
Scientific evidence vs info pulled from a spin doctors arse....
If COVID 19 only killed people who were already dying then there would be no split.
One main problem will also be that "dying with" will (to varying degrees) very often also be "dying of". In the vast majority of cases it will not be an either or, so the only halfway reliable distinction is between "dying with" and "dying without".
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Donald-Trump-Toilet-Paper-Novelty/dp/B07BTZZZXQ
Imagine you wake up one morning and find yourself transmogrified into a vulgar, racist, Jaffa orange?
Secondly, I'm asthmatic. Not very, but I'm aware of it, and, reading the descriptions on here of what it feels like to suffer a bad attack of Covid-19, were I get to a big load of virus I could be in serious trouble; my lungs just don't take in all the air that they should.
So, would I have died of Covid-19 or of asthma, perchance exacerbated by Covid-19?
Death certificates can be interesting. My great-great grandfather died of 'senile decay'.
'Old age' was another old standby. The older and iller you are, the worse the prognosis if you catch Covid-19. You may not have died at that time, had you not not had one or more of the other things.
I'd never thought of myself as being a Covid denier before, Does that mean I'm immune?
https://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn/status/1245261539696836608
The smart critics of the government, we don't hear from them, right? That must mean that they're being supressed.
Now, idiot critics, like Peter Hitchens, who discredit the whole idea of this being a despotic takeover of democratic government, well we hear from them.
This all actually proves that, instead of Boris Johnson trying to (you know) save lives, this is all just the beginning of a coup that will leave him dictator for life, and us all stripped of our dignity and rights.
The meaningful analysis will be macro and in retrospect on the impact of Covid-19 on overall deaths (analysed by age and by cause of death) for the relevant period.
We have a trio of fairly similar countries at the top - Spain, then Netherlands and Italy (Netherlands is marching very closely with Italy's per capita rate).
Then a clump of other countries (France, ourselves, Switzerland and Sweden.
Germany below that, and Norway at the very bottom (I included Norway because I wanted an easy comparison between Norway's suppression and Sweden's mitigation strategies).
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1245029539459235843?s=20
It's a bit like arguing that TCP and UDP are somehow different in terms of a health risk. Or English versus French.
It is simply bonkers.
www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/coronavirus-the-real-death-tool-4500-victims-in-one-month-in-the-province-of_1347414_11/
NEW THREAD
randomised should be in inverted commas. To get a reliable of estimate of the currently infected population, you need to use properly randomised samples which is very difficult to achieve unless the population is homgenous. Even worse you're taking a snapshot which will be rapidly changing - unless you mean an antibody test?
We haven't got one of those yet.
I recommend reading the whole thing, but what I take away, (yes because it backs up my pre-held belief LOL) is that the privit secter when involved can and will achieve amazing things very quickly. in the US and here the CDC and Public Heath England, wanted a monopoly, on testing and then could not cope.
The NHS is full of lots of wonderful people who are highly skilled, working exceptionally hard and at the moment brave, but the organisation stretcher is rubbish.