Corona please read very important

[LCHappy]

There must be an easy way to settle this, has the number of deaths gone up or down compared to last year and the year before?

 

[bonusmedia]

Has it been wrong, or are the death figures wrong? People are dying, and those deaths are being attributed to CV, when it isn't the cause of death. That would explain the difference.



Why hasn't a standardised system been implemented? It's ridiculous that a so-called global pandemic that has shut down half the world has so much ambiguity surrounding it. One way to cause confusion and fear is to carry on the ambiguity.



Oh I think it does. What does that paragraph mean to you?

When I read this:
(individuals with at least one respiratory specimen that tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19 at a state or local laboratory)

That says to me: Individuals with at least one respiratory specimen that tested positive for the virus that CAUSES covid-19 at a state or local laboratory.

Causes covid-19? That would be coronavirus then would it? Of which there are many. And anyone who's got, had, or getting a cold will test positive for coronavirus.

Apart from that...(probably because of the high number of false positives from the test) aren't there 4 tests done to confirm covid-19? So one positive test, is only a fraction of the way to an actual positive test. I'd say that a 'presumptive positive' is exactly what it sounds like. I don't see how you could interpret what you posted any differently.

And these presumptive cases, are counted as confirmed cases - if that makes sense to you...jeez. That's like getting 2 numbers on the lottery and saying you won the jackpot. It's total BS and the only possible reason for it is to cause fear. End of.

Tell you what, why don't you devise a standardized system that's practical to implement immediately in 195 different countries and get them all to agree. Problem solved.

"And anyone who's got, had, or getting a cold will test positive for coronavirus."
I would ask you for evidence if I thought there was any chance whatsoever you'd have any.

 

[bonusmedia]

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2...sinformation-think-like-a-science-journalist/

 

[Murray]

There must be an easy way to settle this, has the number of deaths gone up or down compared to last year and the year before?

https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/corona-please-read-very-important.166956/page-28#post-628167

The numbers this month probably wont show much

The numbers next month might

But the numbers for the total year or next two years might balance out to looking more ordinary if* the majority of people passing away are those who older in bad health to begin with

 

[LCHappy]

I found some weekly ones

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...landandwalesprovisional/weekending20march2020

Only up until March the 20th, but yes you are 100% right. Probably won't show anything for a few weeks at least.

But the numbers for the total year or next two years might balance out to looking more ordinary if* the majority of people passing away are those who older in bad health to begin with

But wouldn't that be what people are saying, why are we closing down the economy if these people were likely to go anyway? Take away the media and few would know any difference. Crazy random deaths of reasonably healthy people has always happened.

If the numbers stay reasonably the same, we have to open it all back up asap. I'd rather take my chances with the virus than be 100% sure of starving to death.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Tell you what, why don't you devise a standardized system that's practical to implement immediately in 195 different countries and get them all to agree. Problem solved.

A directive from the WHO. Done.

 

[LCHappy]

How many can argue with the data on this site? I don't believe a site with this much evidence being displayed is lying.

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

I think we (UK Gov) have it all wrong. Looking more and more like a complete over reaction.

"A politician from northern Italy asks, for example, „how is it possible that Covid patients from Brescia are transported to Germany, while in the nearby Verona two thirds of intensive care beds are empty?"

If that is true, this isn't a misunderstanding, it has to be being done to deliberately mislead people.

 

[BREWSTERS]

It's a good site that...gets updated throughout the day.

One very telling thing that they point out is when the Italian media said '50 doctors have died with CV' and published a list...when people started pulling them up for it because many of these are old retired doctors (up to about 96yo in one case), and including peadiactric doctors and psychiatrists...the media removed the ages of those doctors from the article. Sensationalism.

 

[Edwin]

A directive from the WHO. Done.

Unfortunately, the UK government doesn't pay nearly enough attention to what the WHO says. To all our costs!

The FT have done a fantastic job of compiling detailed stats (including the below). The map shows how different countries around the world have implemented lockdown. Keep an eye on the blue of the UK, that lingers... and lingers... and lingers...

(If all you see below is a static image then you'll need to visit the FT site at https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest to view the animated graphic.)

PS There's a whole bunch of other data available at the above link too.

 

[Murray]

Keep an eye on the blue of the UK, that lingers... and lingers... and lingers...

Isn't what mattered the amount of cases and spread? in terms of timing

We could have put the country on lockdown very early, had very few cases, then when everyone comes out of lockdown it would have exploded

The numbers next month might

I've lost track of dates, meant March numbers probably wont look anything too bad but Aprils could

 

[Edwin]

Isn't what mattered the amount of cases and spread? in terms of timing

We could have put the country on lockdown very early, had very few cases, then when everyone comes out of lockdown it would have exploded

Why? I mean that as a genuine question, not argumentatively.

We live on an island. Suddenly that's a big plus. If everyone is locked down - I mean a draconian lockdown, much tighter than now - then within a couple of weeks or so the virus will die out here because it has literally nowhere to go.

Then you test everyone entering the country by every route, while people already in the UK can resume their on-hold lives. Maybe even clamp down on tourism in some way that makes it extremely unattractive to visit the UK for a few months while the rest of the world weathers the worst of the pandemic. In parallel, support the heck out of businesses connected to tourism so that they will be there for the future.

(Of course you'd have to curtail outbound tourism too, but needs must.)

There's no reason for the virus to flare up again in a big way with the above steps.

It still wouldn't be "life as normal" but it would be much much closer than the current situation, and safer too.

 

[Murray]

We live on an island. Suddenly that's a big plus. If everyone is locked down - I mean a draconian lockdown, much tighter than now - then within a couple of weeks or so the virus will die out here because it has literally nowhere to go.

Then you test everyone entering the country by every route, while people already in the UK can resume their on-hold lives.

Well if that's possible certainly,

I'm thinking from the perspective that we can slow it down but not stop it

We could test people on arrival but what about their baggage if it can live on certain surfaces for days; could test clear but then get it from handling belongings they just bought for their trip

I suppose we could quarantine people for two weeks after they arrive but how feasible is that? would we need to do that until a vaccine is produced

Just seems like a wildfire that can be managed but not prevented

 

[diablo]

Why? I mean that as a genuine question, not argumentatively.

We live on an island. Suddenly that's a big plus. If everyone is locked down - I mean a draconian lockdown, much tighter than now - then within a couple of weeks or so the virus will die out here because it has literally nowhere to go.

Then you test everyone entering the country by every route, while people already in the UK can resume their on-hold lives. Maybe even clamp down on tourism in some way that makes it extremely unattractive to visit the UK for a few months while the rest of the world weathers the worst of the pandemic. In parallel, support the heck out of businesses connected to tourism so that they will be there for the future.

(Of course you'd have to curtail outbound tourism too, but needs must.)

There's no reason for the virus to flare up again in a big way with the above steps.

It still wouldn't be "life as normal" but it would be much much closer than the current situation, and safer too.

Something along these lines would work, at least in theory.

 

[Edwin]

There are no good paths forward.

But it's worth considering what the cost of near zero tourism (inbound/outbound) would be compared to the cost of the current course of action (in terms of level of bailout required, jobs lost, and indeed lives lost too).

As I say, the virus can't survive forever if it's starved of places to go. Sure, it can survive days on surfaces and 2-3 weeks inside people. But after that, it dies. So if there's no new input of virus, there's nothing to spread.

BTW, some countries are quarantining people for 2 weeks on arrival. But they're doing that after cutting down virtually all flights. So it's mainly their citizens overseas being brought home. Passengers are put in airport hotels or similar, and not allowed to leave until they've been free of symptoms for a "safe" period of time.

Meanwhile, we are still not doing anything (as far as I'm aware) with inbound passengers, bar asking them nicely to self-isolate if they show coronavirus symptoms.

 

[diablo]

Unfortunately, the UK government doesn't pay nearly enough attention to what the WHO says. To all our costs!...

WHO, in common with all organisations, are not infallible.

 

[newguy]

Why? I mean that as a genuine question, not argumentatively.

We live on an island. Suddenly that's a big plus. If everyone is locked down - I mean a draconian lockdown, much tighter than now - then within a couple of weeks or so the virus will die out here because it has literally nowhere to go.

Then you test everyone entering the country by every route, while people already in the UK can resume their on-hold lives. Maybe even clamp down on tourism in some way that makes it extremely unattractive to visit the UK for a few months while the rest of the world weathers the worst of the pandemic. In parallel, support the heck out of businesses connected to tourism so that they will be there for the future.

(Of course you'd have to curtail outbound tourism too, but needs must.)

There's no reason for the virus to flare up again in a big way with the above steps.

It still wouldn't be "life as normal" but it would be much much closer than the current situation, and safer too.

I'd thought along similar lines myself, as technically if we'd battened down the hatched very early, we might have been able to stop the spread here completely. The problem is though, that as it becomes more and more prevalent elsewhere, unless you totally stop all tourism for say a year+ it's all but impossible to keep out - since we know how contagious it becomes once someone has it, and also that the tests do not pick up every case. Even if we closed things off for a year, all it takes is a handful of people to come in, as happened with those coming back from Italy, and suddenly we're on the same trajectory.

As you say I don't think there are any easy choices here. I think the most realistic hope in the medium term is that a treatment is found to be somewhat effective, making the virus less potent for those in vulnerable groups. As much as I hope a vaccine appears, I think this will have already worked its way through half of the population before it sees the light of day. If we can do our best to protect the vulnerable and elderly during that time, it may well peter out, with healthier people getting it and developing immunity for 'hopefully' a significant period of time.

 

[diablo]

... Even if we closed things off for a year, all it takes is a handful of people to come in, as happened with those coming back from Italy, and suddenly we're on the same trajectory.

Italy wasn't testing those coming in at that time.

 

[newguy]

Italy wasn't testing those coming in at that time.

I meant, that the virus appeared to be effectively seeded here from several people coming from the UK after visiting Italy. I'm just giving an example really of how the wider the spread of this is, the harder it is to keep people out. We didn't test those people, but these tests are not 100%, and all it takes really is for a handful of people to go undetected and then you have a similar eventual outcome.

I do appreciate the testing plays an important role though. Developments such as this rapid test can certainly help us in this fight: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co...be-deployed-at-addenbrookes-hospital-9105140/ Really it's the asymptomatic people that are the wildcard though, as they go under the radar and spread the virus to others.

 

[diablo]

I meant, that the virus appeared to be effectively seeded here from several people coming from the UK after visiting Italy. I'm just giving an example really of how the wider the spread of this is, the harder it is to keep people out. We didn't test those people, but these tests are not 100%, and all it takes really is for a handful of people to go undetected and then you have a similar eventual outcome.

I do appreciate the testing plays an important role though. Developments such as this rapid test can certainly help us in this fight: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co...be-deployed-at-addenbrookes-hospital-9105140/ Really it's the asymptomatic people that are the wildcard though, as they go under the radar and spread the virus to others.

Sorry, have re-read your post. I should have said UK wasn't testing those coming from Italy at the time.

You could always quarantine all those coming to the UK so no need to rely on testing.

But I take your point, it only takes someone infected to get in (illegal immigrants in lorry, for example) for all that effort to be undone.

That's why I said earlier Edwin's idea would work in theory. Practice might be a very different matter.

 

[Murray]

The whole world would have had to have agreed to be cautious, can't have some countries doing it and others not

Imagine all of Europe being super cautious for 6 months, meanwhile it's working it's way slowly through another continent and as soon as we open back up oh.. back to where we started

Seems like we're going through a controlled burn

Slow it down, let it take 6 months going through the majority of the population instead of 2 so people can get suitable medical care if they need it

Then in a few months things can get back to more normal rather than a 2 year lockdown