Number of Deaths

[WATFORD zero]

All very early of course, fluent across the globe. For example, the ONS report UK all settings deaths earlier than some countries, whilst in today’s FT article Spain have overnight added 12,000 for past under-counting of total excess deaths. Going by Italian media articles throughout, it would not be a surprise if they made a significant uplift in their figures sometime later this year.

I know that Spain recently changed the basis of their Covid reporting, but I would have thought that Excess deaths v 5 year average would be very hard for most countries to change or manage, as total number of deaths in a reasonably open democracy cannot really be 'interpreted' (N Korea, China, Russia aside).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1266052940269326337[/tweet]

 

[Weststander]

I know that Spain recently changed the basis of their Covid reporting, but I would have thought that Excess deaths v 5 year average would be very hard for most countries to change or manage, as total number of deaths in a reasonably open democracy cannot really be 'interpreted' (N Korea, China, Russia aside).

I agree.

Strangely, the FT article mentioned Spain adding a backdated 12,000 to its total excess deaths figure, after a reassessment. Highlighting I think that this unique event has presented challenges for honest countries and their statisticians/epidemiologists.

No doubt it will all settle down by the end of 2020.

 

[Weststander]

There are a lot of parallels between Archer and Johnson and the members use to drool over him too.

I always thought of Archer, pre his perjurious undoing, cringeworthy when he got involved in politics ... the same with other celebs who jumped on the Labour and Tory bandwagons in the 80’s eg Everett. I didn’t realise that, you’re probably right, I assume blue rinse constituency stalwarts.

 

[Mackenzie]

[tweet]1266052940269326337[/tweet]

I wonder who advised the government to take that approach? Seems pretty callous given the virtually unused Nightingale Hospitals.

 

[narly101]

I wonder who advised the government to take that approach? Seems pretty callous given the virtually unused Nightingale Hospitals.

Ah the "Nightingale" hospitals. The ones we couldn't have used them if we'd needed them due to staff shortages.

But they proved an incredible positive photo op for the scum didn't they..... China can do it, look what we can do....

 

[Trevor]

I wonder who advised the government to take that approach? Seems pretty callous given the virtually unused Nightingale Hospitals.

Ok, I'll make it clear here that I am NHS and any opinion (point 1 oh and 3) is my own and is not necessarily reflective of my employer

1) So I think early on, the fear / worst likely scenario was that the NHS would get over-run and that dreadful choices would have to be made and generally the patient with the best chance would be the one treated - and the thought was that care-home patients would in those scenarios rarely be prioritised. You have to bear in mind that nobody knew then that the NHS would cope and the plans made at that point should be seen in context.

2) In this area (Milton Keynes) and many others Covid patients are being discharged to care-homes as a temporary measure while they get strong enough to go home - this does not happen before they test negative - and I think most right-minded people would feel that is reasonable

3) I feel that it was awful that routine testing was not required prior to discharge back home to care homes (whether for Covid patients or other) - and when we look back that will be seen as a dreadful error

 

[clapham_gull]

Ok, I'll make it clear here that I am NHS and any opinion (point 1 oh and 3) is my own and is not necessarily reflective of my employer

1) So I think early on, the fear / worst likely scenario was that the NHS would get over-run and that dreadful choices would have to be made and generally the patient with the best chance would be the one treated - and the thought was that care-home patients would in those scenarios rarely be prioritised. You have to bear in mind that nobody knew then that the NHS would cope and the plans made at that point should be seen in context.

2) In this area (Milton Keynes) and many others Covid patients are being discharged to care-homes as a temporary measure while they get strong enough to go home - this does not happen before they test negative - and I think most right-minded people would feel that is reasonable

3) I feel that it was awful that routine testing was not required prior to discharge back home to care homes (whether for Covid patients or other) - and when we look back that will be seen as a dreadful error

What appears to have happened as well is the virus was spreading in Care Homes irrespective of patients coming out of hospital.

There has been some evidence in London that

1) Care home staff were self isolating due to being in contact with elderly residents who had tested positive.

2) Care homes were taking on part time staff to cover who....

3) ...were moving between homes to get work and spreading the virus around.


The same as happened in Scotland but the difference is clear. Their Government has been been reasonably open about the predicament there were under.

Our Government has been bullshitting about a "protective ring"

 

[beorhthelm]

2) Care homes were taking on part time staff to cover who....

3) ...were moving between homes to get work and spreading the virus around.

know someone who used to work in them, moving between homes is standard for many on rotas. they are outside government control, i dont know why they ever made claims.

 

[Trevor]

What appears to have happened as well is the virus was spreading in Care Homes irrespective of patients coming out of hospital.

There has been some evidence in London that

1) Care home staff were self isolating due to being in contact with elderly residents who had tested positive.

2) Care homes were taking on part time staff to cover who....

3) ...were moving between homes to get work and spreading the virus around.


The same as happened in Scotland but the difference is clear. Their Government has been been reasonably open about the predicament there were under.

Our Government has been bullshitting about a "protective ring"

That's right, in care homes (in normal times) there is a high incidence of staff doing shifts in multiple care homes. My Dad is in a care home and I am deeply appreciative of the fact that they have a stable workforce and very rarely use agency staff. Other problems in care homes include lack of PPE in comparison to NHS (I understand that there is a higher death rate amongst care sector workers compared to people who were working across all sectors during the time period). Also the availability of testing has come very late to care homes - which is problematic because the elderly often present differently in respect of Covid.

Another challenge for some care homes is that the residents may not understand things like social distancing - my Dad has dementia would have no clue about this virus (in one respect lucky him) and none of them would where he is. Their only realistic tactic is to stop it coming into the home by whatever means.

I hope that as a population enough of us take the time to understand exactly how well or otherwise the Government has handled this crisis in time for the next election. And also that we have the balls to accept that there is a cost to preparedness - (and there hasn't been enough money in the care sector for many many years)

 

[dazzer6666]

Ok, I'll make it clear here that I am NHS and any opinion (point 1 oh and 3) is my own and is not necessarily reflective of my employer

1) So I think early on, the fear / worst likely scenario was that the NHS would get over-run and that dreadful choices would have to be made and generally the patient with the best chance would be the one treated - and the thought was that care-home patients would in those scenarios rarely be prioritised. You have to bear in mind that nobody knew then that the NHS would cope and the plans made at that point should be seen in context.

2) In this area (Milton Keynes) and many others Covid patients are being discharged to care-homes as a temporary measure while they get strong enough to go home - this does not happen before they test negative - and I think most right-minded people would feel that is reasonable

3) I feel that it was awful that routine testing was not required prior to discharge back home to care homes (whether for Covid patients or other) - and when we look back that will be seen as a dreadful error

Good post, thanks. Would add to that the unreliability of testing anyway (30% false negatives), plus the difficulty in properly testing, for example, elderly patients with dementia with what is a fairly unpleasant invasive process........

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I always thought of Archer, pre his perjurious undoing, cringeworthy when he got involved in politics ... the same with other celebs who jumped on the Labour and Tory bandwagons in the 80’s eg Everett. I didn’t realise that, you’re probably right, I assume blue rinse constituency stalwarts.

Slightly odd post, mon vieux, given that Archer was an MP before he became a celeb, and Everett was never an MP, and only Weller and Bragg B (and Bragg M, Shurely Shome relashun?) supported the red team.

So you intrigued me.

I just looked up 2019 supporters. The tories have Roy Chubby Brown and Ricky George, whereas Labour have a somewhat less dinosaurian contingent.

 

[Weststander]

Slightly odd post, mon vieux, given that Archer was an MP before he became a celeb, and Everett was never an MP, and only Weller and Bragg B (and Bragg M, Shurely Shome relashun?) supported the red team.

So you intrigued me.

I just looked up 2019 supporters. The tories have Roy Chubby Brown and Ricky George, whereas Labour have a somewhat less dinosaurian contingent.

View attachment 124286
View attachment 124287

I was aware that Archer had been an MP, but I was talking about his political celeb resurrection, after he’d made his wealth from writing. Imho he came across as a wally.

On to your other point, and I know others feel the same as me, but I’ve never taken kindly in UK politics to celebs who try to ram their views down our throats. The belligerence, arrogance and sometimes hypocracy that comes with it is a turn off for me, and in the 80’s that included Bragg, Monkhouse, Pat Kane and latterly Charlotte Church. Bragg’s become a really interesting, reflective and far more mellowed thinker. Newsnight have had some fantastic interviews with him.

I guess this is one reason why 2/3 of NSC seems to hate Bono. Although I quite like the bloke.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was aware that Archer had been an MP, but I was talking about his political celeb resurrection, after he’d made his wealth from writing. Imho he came across as a wally.

On to your other point, and I know others feel the same as me, but I’ve never taken kindly in UK politics to celebs who try to ram their views down our throats. The belligerence, arrogance and sometimes hypocracy that comes with it is a turn off for me, and in the 80’s that included Bragg, Monkhouse, Pat Kane and latterly Charlotte Church. Bragg’s become a really interesting, reflective and far more mellowed thinker. Newsnight have had some fantastic interviews with him.

I guess this is one reason why 2/3 of NSC seems to hate Bono. Although I quite like the bloke.

I genuinely never knew Bono has vocally advocated for a political party.

I do know he has been mocked mercilessly though. Here are some crackers:

 

[Weststander]

I genuinely never knew Bono has vocally advocated for a political party.

I do know he has been mocked mercilessly though. Here are some crackers:

View attachment 124288
View attachment 124289
View attachment 124290

With Bono, it’s not UK party politics, but his many detractors can’t bear a very vocal activist, who’s fabulously wealthy, lives the highlife and has ‘minimised‘ hIs tax arrangements.

I like U2 and genuinely don’t mind him at all.

 

[Bodian]

They are in fact, in severe hock, they are trying to boost their online presence as they are losing more than other papers in printing and distribution costs/ sales. If you were to subscribe to anything, I'd suggest Private Eye, it will open your eyes.

Or even better, get your Auntie to subscribe one year for you, and you may find that almost 30 years later she is still buying you the same birthday present - and it just arrives on the doormat every fortnight without you having to do anything.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hopkins are now showing daily % of cases tested that are positive, and the total number thereof. They argue that a high % of positive cases reflects poor testing whereby only those sick get tested. The worst culprits here are Brazil, but we are right up there with the worst. The UK. That's shocking.

Not only that we are finding large numbers of those tested are positive (see below). The government is telling is we are doing 'more' testing (true) and that 'most' people test negative (true) but looking at the actual numbers versus other nations with reliable data we are actually doing really badly versus other developed nations.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison



Edit here is the bottom of taht data set



This shows clearly that EARLY and widespread TESTING and ACTION is why some places have very low positivity rate and very low numbers of cases. Who knew? They did. So did we.....

Edit - there also seems to be a southern hemisphere thing going on here....could it be seasonal? Still too early to say...would explain Greece - nice and hot but not exactly the world's most organised of nations....

 

[Machiavelli]

Hopkins are now showing daily % of cases tested that are positive, and the total number thereof. They argue that a high % of positive cases reflects poor testing whereby only those sick get tested. The worst culprits here are Brazil, but we are right up there with the worst. The UK. That's shocking.

Not only that we are finding large numbers of those tested are positive (see below). The government is telling is we are doing 'more' testing (true) and that 'most' people test negative (true) but looking at the actual numbers versus other nations with reliable data we are actually doing really badly versus other developed nations.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison

View attachment 124313

Edit here is the bottom of taht data set

View attachment 124314

This shows clearly that EARLY and widespread TESTING and ACTION is why some places have very low positivity rate and very low numbers of cases. Who knew? They did. So did we.....

Edit - there also seems to be a southern hemisphere thing going on here....could it be seasonal? Still too early to say...would explain Greece - nice and hot but not exactly the world's most organised of nations....

It's what the WHO have been saying since January.
Greg Clark summed it up really well in a PSC last week, saying: "so capacity drove strategy, rather than strategy driving capacity".

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's what the WHO have been saying since January.
Greg Clark summed it up really well in a PSC last week, saying: "so capacity drove strategy, rather than strategy driving capacity".

Yes, and this isn't 'fake news' WHO - this is Johns Hopkins University, U S of old A.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I had a peek on the good news thread. I almost posted a comment but decided 'what a load of soppy optimistic bollocks' was not appropriate for that thread.

Today's numbers don't look great to me....