WHEN'S IT ALL GONNA OPEN??

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If admin didn't work weekends there would be no figures at all, would there?

I did say 'may'. Let me rephrase it for you.     I  am certain many admin staff work Monday to Friday  which explains why not all results are reported in good time .

Look at the statistics to date . There is a dip at weekends and a peak at the start of the week.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by MartynG

[matty40s]

Ah, yes  forgot the virus doesnt transmit at weekends..

[churchward]

55 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If admin didn't work weekends there would be no figures at all, would there?

I would have assumed you had more imagination and realisation of reality than you are showing.  You are just being obtuse now. 

52 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Ah, yes  forgot the virus doesnt transmit at weekends..

That is just being silly, no one has suggested that unless you seriously are?

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, churchward said:

But still, never leave a possible opportunity for a snide remark to pass us by huh?

Still living in that glass house up the hill, I see  

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

A lower infection figure (tested negative) might also indicate that a large percentage of those randomly tested have already had the virus and built up immunity.

It "might", is not really a reason for hope is it? It "might not", and "probably doesn't", are equally qualified alternatives.

 

A lower infection figure indicates "a lower infection figure", which is actually another "No Sh1t Sherlock" moment, given the massive increase in daily testing, (whether that be 80,000 or 120,000). 

[Cheshire cat]

Going back to London transport our neighbours son works for the Met police and reports that the underground is running with full length trains which allows social distancing but the railway companies have taken the opportunity to shorten their trains. Someone will need to have a word if we are expecting people to return to work.

[churchward]

24 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Still living in that glass house up the hill, I see  

You have no idea about where I live or indeed the irony of your comment.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, churchward said:

 

That is just being silly, no one has suggested that unless you seriously are?

Well, actually, you only have to wait for 2 hours for the next Trump press conference, I will see if I can slip it into his speech.

[Richard10002]

4 hours ago, churchward said:

You have no idea about where I live or indeed the irony of your comment.

Let me explain... It's got nothing to do with where you actually live  although, as a matter of interest, I do know the area that you live in quite well.

 

No idea what you mean by the irony of my comment... I wasn't the one accusing someone of snide remarks.They are a regular feature in your postings  

[Richard10002]

4 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

Going back to London transport our neighbours son works for the Met police and reports that the underground is running with full length trains which allows social distancing but the railway companies have taken the opportunity to shorten their trains. Someone will need to have a word if we are expecting people to return to work.

The BBC say that they have seen a draft of a government document which says that they are not going to be requiring 2m social distancing for people at work.

 

I am wondering if they are happy that there is plenty of capacity in the NHS for a few more hospital admissions, so they are going to relax conditions in order to increase infections, so that we reach herd immunity sooner. They may have said that they don't have a strategy of herd immunity, but this is a government that gave you Brexit, and that has been lying through its teeth since the start of this thing.

 

On 23rd January Matt Hancock stood up in parliament and said that we were well prepared for a pandemic - "Well Prepared - My Arse!!"  and he has been feeding us BS ever since.

[Rambling Boater]

8 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

It "might", is not really a reason for hope is it? It "might not", and "probably doesn't", are equally qualified alternatives.

 

A lower infection figure indicates "a lower infection figure", which is actually another "No Sh1t Sherlock" moment, given the massive increase in daily testing, (whether that be 80,000 or 120,000). 

A Negative test result doesn't just indicate there is no current infection, it also indicates someone who has had the virus and already built up immunity (if my understanding is correct?).

 

The problem is that there is no way to work out which without also taking the antibody test.

 

My hope is that a large percentage of our population have built up immunity by now, the 80,000/120,000 random virus tests however don't really give much of a clue on that.

 

The positive results do help manage and track the virus though. I hope that helps Watson.

 

 

[George and Dragon]

3 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

A Negative test result doesn't just indicate there is no current infection, it also indicates someone who has had the virus and already built up immunity (if my understanding is correct?).

 

The problem is that there is no way to work out which without also taking the antibody test.

 

My hope is that a large percentage of our population have built up immunity by now, the 80,000/120,000 random virus tests however don't really give much of a clue on that.

 

The positive results do help manage and track the virus though. I hope that helps Watson.

 

 

A negative test isn't much use then? As Lady G said earlier, there will be some false negative tests from the home testing kits because the swab has to be shoved further into the throat and nose than many will be comfortable with.

 

The antibody test would show who was currently immune and therefore safe to travel/ work/ boat etc. 

 

My feeling is that most of the population hasn't yet had the virus, most of us outside major cities probably haven't even come into contact with someone who has.

 

[Sir Nibble]

1 minute ago, George and Dragon said:

A negative test isn't much use then? As Lady G said earlier, there will be some false negative tests from the home testing kits because the swab has to be shoved further into the throat and nose than many will be comfortable with.

 

The antibody test would show who was currently immune and therefore safe to travel/ work/ boat etc. 

 

My feeling is that most of the population hasn't yet had the virus, most of us outside major cities probably haven't even come into contact with someone who has.

 

Indeed. There's a lot of succulent fresh meat out there for the virus if restrictions are lifted too soon.

[mayalld]

15 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If admin didn't work weekends there would be no figures at all, would there?

 

Some admin work weekends, some don't.

 

You do know that "The NHS" isn't actually a single organisation don't you?

 

Different NHS Trusts will do different things.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

Some admin work weekends, some don't.

 

You do know that "The NHS" isn't actually a single organisation don't you?

 

Different NHS Trusts will do different things.

On previous weekend the figures dropped by a small percentage, this particular weekend it has dropped by 45,000,(122,000 to 76,0000) call me suspicious if you like but these figures are supposed to the the daily testing figure, not some one off 'achievement. I have to say I have been caught up in scams such as this in both public and private sector jobs. A PI (performance indicator) is set, everything else is dropped to achieve it and once that has been done, everything returns to normality and the PI is then forgotten about. 

[Mike Todd]

The so-called Immunity Passport plan seems to me fraught with unintended consequences. If it is used to restrict those who may return to work, at least in higher risk contexts like hospitality, then anyone who has been keeping closely to the lockdown guidelines will not have gained immunity and so cannot work, however strapped for income they may be. yet those who flouted the rules, perhaps enough to get low level doses of the virus over a period that generates some antibodies will be rewarded for illegality. This will be all the more divisive if the furlough payments come to an abrupt end.

 

The consequence could well be a realisation that for all of us, life cannot return to any semblance of normality without having gained immunity which, at the present - and for some it is about to become a really urgent issue - then the scheme could well precipitate people into actively seeking the disease in order to get over it and gain their treasured Immunity Passport. 

 

Does anyone ever think through these ideas or is it just another chancer trying to sell kit to a gullible government? (Like bleach to a president?)

[Detling]

10 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I am wondering if they are happy that there is plenty of capacity in the NHS for a few more hospital admissions, so they are going to relax conditions in order to increase infections, so that we reach herd immunity sooner.

That has been the plan from day one but the rate of spread and ICU requirements almost outstripped the NHS. Italy did suffer the  storm of the health services being swamped and may well have a political price to pay in the north. Now we have the nightingale hospitals and the admission numbers are going down, once the NHS has eventually got some PPE, the government may well test the water by easing the lockdown and watching the numbers.  To be honest there is probably no other way to get back to normal. NZ and Austrailia may have eliminated the virus but are now cut off from the world and there seems to be no end in sight to that situation.

Vaccine?  Covid19 is a relative of the common cold, how long have we been looking for a vaccine for that. We still have no vaccine for AIDS or EBOLA just treatments.

 

The 'deaths due to Covid19' numbers distort a lot of things, Unfortunately for older members of society some 1 to 2 thousand die every week, now many have Covid19 as a factor on the death certificate, so are included in the figures, but was the virus the cause or just incidental.  There are people with cancer and other illness that are not getting treated, or  treatment has been delayed, how many of those have died or will do so as a result, but they are not Covid19 fatalities. We presumably have had lower road fatalities during the lockdown.

Hindsight comparing 2020 total deaths to the long term average will give a clue to the reality, but I expect 2021 to be lower than the average. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Detling

[LadyG]

On 28/04/2020 at 09:39, Tonka said:

If people go back to work too early what message does that send to the families of the 20,000 people that have died. People need to stop being selfish. We should go back when it is safe.

It will not be safe as you term it this year, this is a worldwide killer disease, just Imagine living in a third world country without proper sanitation or plentiful clean water. 

The disease is still localised within the UK, Where I am now, for example, I can isolate without difficulty, but a month ago I was trapped inside my boat due to behaviours of close neighbours, any lockdown easing would have made things worse for me, personally, now I will be unaffected.

The risk element in life can never be eliminated. The risk of catching this particular disease is mainly dependant on the actions of individuals, but many do not understand how to prevent the spread. When key workers are exposed, some will inevitably catch it, partly through their own actions but mainly due to the bringing together of groups of people, which greatly increases cross contamination.

Yes a lot of people have died, but they cannot be viewed as martyrs, they were victims of a new killer  disease.

 The government had to weigh up the resources available in the NHS,  the short term economic costs and long term costs. They are still juggling with those parameters. No one wanted this to happen, and no one knows how or when it will end.

Edited May 4, 2020 by LadyG

[Mike Todd]

18 minutes ago, Detling said:

That has been the plan from day one but the rate of spread and ICU requirements almost outstripped the NHS. Italy did suffer the  storm of the health services being swamped and may well have a political price to pay in the north. Now we have the nightingale hospitals and the admission numbers are going down, once the NHS has eventually got some PPE, the government may well test the water by easing the lockdown and watching the numbers.  To be honest there is probably no other way to get back to normal. NZ and Austrailia may have eliminated the virus but are now cut off from the world and there seems to be no end in sight to that situation.

The 'deaths due to Covid19' numbers distort a lot of things, Unfortunately for older members of society some 1 to 2 thousand die every week, now many have Covid19 as a factor on the death certificate, so are included in the figures, but was the virus the cause or just incidental.  There are people with cancer and other illness that are not getting treated, or  treatment has been delayed, how many of those have died or will do so as a result, but they are not Covid19 fatalities. We presumably have had lower road fatalities during the lockdown.

Hindsight comparing 2020 total deaths to the long term average will give a clue to the reality, but I expect 2021 to be lower than the average. 

Hence Prof Whitty's frequent emphasis on All Cause Mortality, for which will will have to wait a while for the stats to emerge.

 

Around 28,952 (2012 data from British Lung Foundation) die in the UK with pneumonia - which used to be called the Old Main's Friend. That is, without effective treatment it is often the final way in which the body breaks down in the context of serious comorbidity. In one sense, the pneumonia caused that person's death but in another sense it was the cancer that led to the pneumonia that was the more significant cause. From a policy point of view this is important as there is much less that can be done about preventing such deaths from pneumonia in these cases than in preventing the cancer in the first place.

 

Of more direct interest to me is the saying that men usually die with prostate cancer rather than from it (My condition is benign, thankfully) A proportion of those who have died from COVID-19 had a high probability of not surviving very long anyway, and might have been a pneumonia or other statistic in more normal times - see Rev Richard Coles s-i-l) As a result, even the All Cause Mortality (ACM) statistic is not without its difficulties in using it meaningfully. Whilst COVID-19 might create a short term increase in ACM time will tell whether an annually smoothed rate is significantly higher. What then are the political and ethical considerations? In any case, if it is higher, how much of the excess is down to COVID-19 or down to our reaction to it (ie lockdown).

 

Can we, should, we seek to prevent all mechanisms which lead to the emergence of such viruses as that which causes COVID-19? The basic mechanisms are those that drive evolution and have led us to where we are, as a human race, as a planet, today. Assuming that we believe that continued evolution is 'a good idea' then we cannot eliminate the possibility for global pandemics in the future. What we may have to accept is that the response to a novel virus (or whatever) should be much higher up our political and ethical agendas and that we may wish to trade rather more of our 'wealth' today for a better tomorrow. (It seems probable that this country was less prepared than it might have been because the costs were not considered 'worth' it) Right now we are not well placed for such a debate as the past few decades have created a climate in which short term trumps long term almost every time.

[George and Dragon]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

On previous weekend the figures dropped by a small percentage, this particular weekend it has dropped by 45,000,(122,000 to 76,0000) call me suspicious if you like but these figures are supposed to the the daily testing figure, not some one off 'achievement. I have to say I have been caught up in scams such as this in both public and private sector jobs. A PI (performance indicator) is set, everything else is dropped to achieve it and once that has been done, everything returns to normality and the PI is then forgotten about. 

I believe Thursday's figure included 40,000 tests that were posted out that day. I wonder how many were held back from earlier in the week to apparently meet the target

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I believe Thursday's figure included 40,000 tests that were posted out that day. I wonder how many were held back from earlier in the week to apparently meet the target

Will those 40,000 get counted again when they do the test.

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

 

 

My feeling is that most of the population hasn't yet had the virus, most of us outside major cities probably haven't even come into contact with someone who has.

 

Living in a little village in Suffolk I think that is very true

[Phil.]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Will those 40,000 get counted again when they do the test.

 

If it helps, of course.

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I believe Thursday's figure included 40,000 tests that were posted out that day. I wonder how many were held back from earlier in the week to apparently meet the target

Part of the role of politicians is to keep moral high [remember Churchill removing railings for  "the war effort"], and it won't make any difference juggling these tests for a few days, I don't know how they work, but lab facilities will be a big factor, not easy to suddenly increase skilled staff or automation at a time when the bug is knocking quite a few of the staff off their perches, often for weeks at a time, sometimes permanently.

10 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Will those 40,000 get counted again when they do the test.

 

I think the waters will be well muddied by then.

[Athy]

40 minutes ago, LadyG said:

. The risk of catching this particular disease is mainly dependant on the actions of individuals, but many do not understand how to prevent the spread.

When they've been told fifteen times a day on telly (and, for all I know, on radio and in the papers) for the past month or more? That is hard to believe.