WHEN'S IT ALL GONNA OPEN??

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, mayalld said:

Well, if you look at todays graphs, which include care homes, the deaths ARE declining. Not as fast as if you exclude care homes, but the are still coming down.

Sorry but you are wrong! just like the 4.3k that were added yesterday a load more will be added when the ONS catches up, more than likely it will be a couple of hundred give or take? I am not being uncaring here, every one of these deaths is a disaster and should not be happening, but they are and trying to say that the numbers are falling when the reality is they arnt is downplaying the situation 

[Ianws]

36 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Of course it is.  Everything about Coronavirus is vague.  It's too new, and scientists are still gathering data.

But neither the article or post reflect that,

[mayalld]

8 hours ago, peterboat said:

Sorry but you are wrong! just like the 4.3k that were added yesterday a load more will be added when the ONS catches up, more than likely it will be a couple of hundred give or take? I am not being uncaring here, every one of these deaths is a disaster and should not be happening, but they are and trying to say that the numbers are falling when the reality is they arnt is downplaying the situation 

Sorry, but did you actually LOOK at the graph including care homes?

 

There is a steady but slow downward trend, that expands back before the "need to catch up" period in all settings, and quite a pronounced downward trend if we exclude care homes.

 

[Momac]

The lockdown has flattened the curve  and that could be ruined if restrictions are relaxed too soon.

Next government review is a week away - we may have a different picture by then.

 

 

[peterboat]

57 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Sorry, but did you actually LOOK at the graph including care homes?

 

There is a steady but slow downward trend, that expands back before the "need to catch up" period in all settings, and quite a pronounced downward trend if we exclude care homes.

 

It can take days to get all the deaths in for care homes and others so it will be after the weekend,  the ONS have said this and the Guardian reported it yesterday 

[GUMPY]

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It can take days to get all the deaths in for care homes and others so it will be after the weekend,  the ONS have said this and the Guardian reported it yesterday 

Guardian ? Isn't that full of lefty propaganda and fake news ? 

 

[mrsmelly]

5 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Guardian ? Isn't that full of lefty propaganda and fake news ? 

 

It certainly is. Complete nonsense for the gulible and minority.

[Machpoint005]

52 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

It certainly is. Complete nonsense for the gulible and minority.

 

But it isn't owned by expatriate Tory-supporting squillionaires!

 

 

[Mike Todd]

23 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Unless the care home staff are locked-up within the care home it could just as easily be transmitted in to the community as from any other source.

 

No problem in keeping the Care Home figures separate from the NHS figures, but where do 'others' (Hospice, Home, etc etc) fit in ?

The big issue for many people is the way the Government appeared to ignore any deaths outside of the NHS and in effect reducing the figures by 35%-40% to show how well we were doing.

When it was picked up and they were questioned, their answer was 'its too difficult to get the figures', but it seems that fairly quickly the figures have now become available on a daily basis.

I have not yet seen the actual basis for this. Of course, it is possible to publish the data daily using what has always been available but that does not instantly make it useful.

 

The issue has been the difference in reporting mechanisms for the different contexts. Those looking for the earliest possible signs of improvement should stick to the existing hospital data as that has a very quick response time (although it now seems not as quick as once thought, given the very evident 'weekend' effects)

 

Unless there is a new reporting stream for care homes and other places, including places of normal residence, then the lag in data is significant, without a complex process of adjusting all data to the date of death rather that of report and not reporting any data until a sufficient time lapse to allow 95% (or whatever) to have come through.

 

People who say 'just give us the real data' have never been involved in a data collection exercise, or at least one done to some degree of rigorous standard.

 

The population of care homes is relatively finite (and has reduced over the past decade) and at present rates the infection and death rates will drop to zero before very long. I doubt if many people are being admitted right now, certainly voluntarily! There is also confusion in some minds between what were once residential care homes and those  that were nursing homes. Those in residential homes are potentially being deprived of liberty on a scale that most of us would exercise a degree of push back (!)

 

The change in the funding for care home places means that over the past decade or perhaps two if you are really political about it, means that a very high proportion are frail and very vulnerable. Not like back in late 1960's/early 1970's when the typical age of admission was around 18 months after retirement at 65.

[peterboat]

36 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

But it isn't owned by expatriate Tory-supporting squillionaires!

 

 

It's on my Google feed with others so I can see a more accurate view Ian

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have not yet seen the actual basis for this. Of course, it is possible to publish the data daily using what has always been available but that does not instantly make it useful.

The graph shown last night showed the comparison NHS deaths.

A second (new) graph showed all deaths broken down on a daily basis since (I think it was) the End of March, and were broken down into 

 

Total Deaths

NHS deaths

Care home deaths

Hospice deaths

Home deaths

Place not known deaths

 

The figures were 'right up to date' to yesterday and it was said that this graph would be updated and available daily, so, it would appear that there is some new data collecting system.

 

 

If the NHS peak was (say) 900 deaths 3 weeks ago and the NHS deaths are now falling away 800 / 700 / 600 but the "care home etc" deaths (which were thought to be quite low 3 weeks ago are now ramping up, then whilst it may not be an accurate figure of the Peak, it would suggest that we still not 'thru' the peak of Total deaths

[alias]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The figures were 'right up to date' to yesterday and it was said that this graph would be updated and available daily, so, it would appear that there is some new data collecting system.

The figures being reported yesterday were the number of care home residents who died after testing positive. Given previous complaints about availability of testing in such locations, one might expect the numbers to increase somewhat once the ONS data based on certificated cause of death catches up.  

[Detling]

The rules have been changed several times now making meaningful interpretation of the numbers almost pointless. Initially, in care homes, only those who had tested positive were counted as Covid deaths, then they changed it to be if someone in the same care home had been tested positive then Covid had to go on the death certificate (usually as a second cause). Now all deaths are lumped together to avoid trying to find the cause of the gap between expected normal year deaths, and the the current death,s where if you took Covid out of the total there was still a bulge of some 2000 per week which could not be explained. When you try to monitor things all good scientists are told you can only change one thing at once otherwise you do not know the cause of any change. This is not possible in real life, but changing reporting methods in the middle of the monitoring period will definately screw any interpretation.

 

We still have the large extra capacity in the Nightingale hospitals built at high cost and almost unused, wondering if the government have a plan where the number of cases is allowed to increase slightly/slowly using these facilities? I know they are trying to clear some hospitals of all Covid patients so that routine treatments can occur there as normal, albeit the patients may be some distance from their home.

[Machpoint005]

3 minutes ago, Detling said:

The rules have been changed several times now making meaningful interpretation of the numbers almost pointless. Initially, in care homes, only those who had tested positive were counted as Covid deaths, then they changed it to be if someone in the same care home had been tested positive then Covid had to go on the death certificate (usually as a second cause). Now all deaths are lumped together to avoid trying to find the cause of the gap between expected normal year deaths, and the the current death,s where if you took Covid out of the total there was still a bulge of some 2000 per week which could not be explained. When you try to monitor things all good scientists are told you can only change one thing at once otherwise you do not know the cause of any change. This is not possible in real life, but changing reporting methods in the middle of the monitoring period will definately screw any interpretation.

 

We still have the large extra capacity in the Nightingale hospitals built at high cost and almost unused, wondering if the government have a plan where the number of cases is allowed to increase slightly/slowly using these facilities? I know they are trying to clear some hospitals of all Covid patients so that routine treatments can occur there as normal, albeit the patients may be some distance from their home.

 

There have been changes in the rules for death certificates, and only one competent medical person* has to sign now (previously two doctors).

 

 

 

* Not necessarily a doctor!

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

There have been changes in the rules for death certificates, and only one competent medical person* has to sign now (previously two doctors).

 

 

 

* Not necessarily a doctor!

That seems very much a retrograde step from last year's reforms!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-death-certification-process/an-overview-of-the-death-certification-reforms

 

In Scotland, it is still a doctor, two if cremation is contemplated. It needs at least a qualified paramedic to pronounce life extinct, and a post mortem is usually required if the deceased isn't being treated by a doctor or the death is unexpected. In the current situation, if Covid 19 is a suspected cause, then a post mortem isn't required in circumatances when it previously would have been.  Not sure if that distorts the reported Covid 19 stats any!

[cuthound]

18 hours ago, Ianws said:

It doesn’t meet the criteria for a SMART target.

 

specific - yes

measurable - probably

achievable - we will have to see

sometimes the A stands for agreed- if that’s with the people doing the tests, then I don’t know if they have agreed that’s a target they could meet, they might have. 

relevant - yes

timed - apparently not

 

You almost got it right.

 

S = Specific

M = Measurable

A = Agreed (so your boss can't  just impose one on you)

R = Realistic (and therefore achievable)

T = Timebound

 

Unfortunately when I was working I either had to agree these with my boss or with my direct reports.

 

 

[churchward]

2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

There have been changes in the rules for death certificates, and only one competent medical person* has to sign now (previously two doctors).

 

 

 

* Not necessarily a doctor!

please submit a link to these changes in regulations.

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

That seems very much a retrograde step from last year's reforms!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-death-certification-process/an-overview-of-the-death-certification-reforms

 

In Scotland, it is still a doctor, two if cremation is contemplated. It needs at least a qualified paramedic to pronounce life extinct, and a post mortem is usually required if the deceased isn't being treated by a doctor or the death is unexpected. In the current situation, if Covid 19 is a suspected cause, then a post mortem isn't required in circumatances when it previously would have been.  Not sure if that distorts the reported Covid 19 stats any!

 

It has been observed that there has never been a better time to bump somebody off, say "they had a fever and cough" and get them up the chimney before anybody asks questions.

[George and Dragon]

20 hours ago, LadyG said:

Care homes are staffed by live out staff, lots of them.

Unless they are showering and changing clothes in a dedicated place, they will take infection home with them

Or bring it in with them

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, churchward said:

please submit a link to these changes in regulations.

 

No link, sorry, but straight from the horse's mouth: my elder daughter is a GP. It may well be that the (temporary?) changes have been made, if not hush-hush, then at least sotto voce. I have no idea what the position is in Wales.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

 

It has been observed that there has never been a better time to bump somebody off, say "they had a fever and cough" and get them up the chimney before anybody asks questions.

 

Very much so.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The question that occurs to me is that, even with the enthusiasm for removing some of the restrictions, how much stuff are people actually going to want to do?  Until there is an effective vaccine it is going to be difficult to tempt a lot of people out anyway. Do I have any imminent urge to go into a crowded pub or restaurant or any other hospitality area or  in the forseeable future? no not really. Would I contemplate joining a couple of hundred other people in a crowded airliner all breathing each others air for a few hours? not much chance of that. Am I even particularly keen to travel by bus/train/taxi at the moment? no, not really. Opening up all the shops is fine but if (when) they are going to impose a limit on customers in the shop, it'll mean a whole lot more queuing out on the street, do I want to go to any crowded streets with a load of queues? no not really. The new normal is essentially keeping away from people, whether we like it or not.

 

Until a vaccine is developed, people are going to be naturally wary of doing a whole load of things that we need to do to keep the economy afloat. I would be quite surprised if a load of airlines don't go bust because the new reality is totally counter to their business model. Easyjet, Ryanair, etc all depend on packing as many people on each flight as possible to maintain viability, how are they going to sell that one now? Perhaps Flybe going bust wasn't unlucky, it was just a case of getting in early before the rush.

[dogsarelandseals]

It’s very frustrating seeing people wishing for the lockdown to continue while completely ignoring those who are in dire straits already. Those who are unable to claim furlough payments are living on exceptionally small handouts, rents have not been suspended, and the jobs they had (bars, restaurants etc) no longer exist, and are unlikely to be replaced in the near future. As a student I am extremely lucky that I am able to continue to be self employed, as I receive no loans and am not eligible for universal credit. There is going to be mass homelessness when the restriction on evictions expires, as people have been unable to work, and will not be able to live on what the government provide. So just think about the people who are getting next to nothing and are struggling to keep their head above water, coupled with the maddening lack of information about when this will end. This government treats its citizens like children. It’s frightening. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by dogsarelandseals

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, dogsarelandseals said:

........................coupled with the maddening lack of information about when this will end.

Who knows when it will end ?

 

Maybe you can tell us when the Earth is going to implode so we can prepare !

[dogsarelandseals]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Who knows when it will end ?

 

Maybe you can tell us when the Earth is going to implode so we can prepare !

I was referencing the lockdown 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The question that occurs to me is that, even with the enthusiasm for removing some of the restrictions, how much stuff are people actually going to want to do?  Until there is an effective vaccine it is going to be difficult to tempt a lot of people out anyway. Do I have any imminent urge to go into a crowded pub or restaurant or any other hospitality area or  in the forseeable future? no not really. Would I contemplate joining a couple of hundred other people in a crowded airliner all breathing each others air for a few hours? not much chance of that. Am I even particularly keen to travel by bus/train/taxi at the moment? no, not really. Opening up all the shops is fine but if (when) they are going to impose a limit on customers in the shop, it'll mean a whole lot more queuing out on the street, do I want to go to any crowded streets with a load of queues? no not really. The new normal is essentially keeping away from people, whether we like it or not.

 

Until a vaccine is developed, people are going to be naturally wary of doing a whole load of things that we need to do to keep the economy afloat. I would be quite surprised if a load of airlines don't go bust because the new reality is totally counter to their business model. Easyjet, Ryanair, etc all depend on packing as many people on each flight as possible to maintain viability, how are they going to sell that one now? Perhaps Flybe going bust wasn't unlucky, it was just a case of getting in early before the rush.

^^^^^ this my thoughts and Jaynes thoughts, we are so glad that we havent booked a holiday abroad requiring air travel, or for that matter any form of travel that is with a large amount of people in relative close proximity

2 minutes ago, dogsarelandseals said:

I was referencing the lockdown 

So was Alan he was just using sarcasm