RugbyRebels

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... pp-message

This Tory government is engaging in so much corruption.

The resident loonies are at it again here, denying the pandemic exists. However, if they had the critical thinking and understanding to realise that the pandemic was very real and ravaging several countries, they have a point.

We have ridiculous rules in place that do nothing to stop the spread. A Curfew from 8 at night to 5 in the morning, shops closing at 7pm, only over 65s allowed in shops from 9-11am...

No gatherings outside, no sports outside...

And, in Hungary, the death rate is pretty identical to the 5 year average. In other words, here people are not dying in any numbers. And those who do die of covid are old and/or sick.

I had a chat with someone who was telling me an olympic champion had died of covid, just like that, at 47. Well, he didn't...he had cancer.

The restrictions here are insane considering no-one is dying of it! In fact, there is a statistic that says your survival rate if you do not go into hospital is 99%, and your survival rate if you go into hospital is 10%!!!!

10%!!! They're just killing people in there, ffs.

Stom

let a few tourists in with the pest, relax the restrictions, then see what happens.

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:The resident loonies are at it again here, denying the pandemic exists. However, if they had the critical thinking and understanding to realise that the pandemic was very real and ravaging several countries, they have a point.

We have ridiculous rules in place that do nothing to stop the spread. A Curfew from 8 at night to 5 in the morning, shops closing at 7pm, only over 65s allowed in shops from 9-11am...

No gatherings outside, no sports outside...

And, in Hungary, the death rate is pretty identical to the 5 year average. In other words, here people are not dying in any numbers. And those who do die of covid are old and/or sick.

I had a chat with someone who was telling me an olympic champion had died of covid, just like that, at 47. Well, he didn't...he had cancer.

The restrictions here are insane considering no-one is dying of it! In fact, there is a statistic that says your survival rate if you do not go into hospital is 99%, and your survival rate if you go into hospital is 10%!!!!

10%!!! They're just killing people in there, ffs.

What a stunningly shit take.

Or is this Poe's Law in action? I hope so, because holy shit. Are you worried about 5G too?

Eh?

I very much believe governments should be executing restrictions that have the most impact on reducing the spread of the virus. And that restrictions that have no impact should not be used as they erode trust and people will stop following the restrictions that do make sense.

There is no scientific reason for a curfew. All it does is mean that everyone who needs to shop after work has a small window in which to do it, so the shops are busier and spread is more likely!!!

All it does is make people miserable.

Someone called the police on a group of schoolkids on a walk because they were breaking restrictions. Outside. Yet those same kids are allowed to be in a 10m2 room together?

That makes no sense.

And as for 5g, my only concern is, well, efficiency. Although as I’m not an expert, and they say it’s fine, it’s not a concern I value particularly highly. My other concern would be if they stick it on the hill next to me, because it’s a pretty hill. The one just next to it isn’t so pretty, so they can stick it on that hill.

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote:Vaccinations starting next week I hear. Pfizer - code named Courageous appropriately, is the first one being given to NHS staff....

Has the UK given regulatory clearance? I don't think the FDA hearing for the Pfizer vaccine is until the 10th Dec here.

Today. And whilst mass roll out starts next week- GPs will be doing nothing else I suspect- hospitals will be vaccinating staff as early as today I believe.

Pfizer shares would have been a good investment I think

Which Tyler wrote:Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the >75s, the medially vulnerable with the >65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the >55s

So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Which Tyler wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

Stom wrote:So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

I think diabetic, thyroid issues, and heart conditions would be the more objective and medically appropriate definition of threshold.

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: New list as of today bumps the "Clinically extremely vulnerable" - like my sister, and brother's colleague's hubby - up from 6th priority to 4th. 3rd would have been nice, but it's as good as could be reasonably hoped for
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

1 Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2 All those 80 years of age and over Frontline health and social care workers
3 All those 75 years of age and over
4 All those 70 years of age and over Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals*
5 All those 65 years of age and over
6 All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
7 All those 60 years of age and over
8 All those 55 years of age and over
9 All those 50 years of age and over
10 Everyone else


Still no place for increased vulnerability for socio-economic reasons (location, poverty, BAME, occupational exposure etc).
Personally, I'd bump the extremely vulnerable up with the <75s, the medially vulnerable with the <65s and the socio-economically vulnerable with the <55s

Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

I think diabetic, thyroid issues, and heart conditions would be the more objective and medically appropriate definition of threshold.

I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

No arguments there. And I'd add those in teaching and other education roles to that as well. In my wife's school, teachers are dropping like flies.

Sandydragon wrote: Does group 6 include the obese? Just wondering how they will identify that group, but it has been an important consideration in this.

Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable lists available here (and updated semi-regularly)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... oronavirus

morepork wrote: I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

For my suggestion, I'm counting them as socio-economically vulnerable - so things like occupational exposure, poverty, BAME, location etc

Which Tyler wrote:

morepork wrote: I would like to see some allowances for people that work in the food service industry such as supermarket workers who are compelled to be right in the front line, provide an essential service, and suffer a lot of abuse from wankers in the general public.

For my suggestion, I'm counting them as socio-economically vulnerable - so things like occupational exposure, poverty, BAME, location etc

Unfortunately, we have a Conservative government, so I suspect socio-economic vulnerability will probably be less important than "job creators" and "investment pioneers". If people didn't want to be at greater risk for Covid, then they should have worked harder not to've been poor, shouldn't they?

Puja

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:So now I officially know someone who has died of this. A father of a friend, only met him twice but that’s close enough.

Strangely here, not in the Uk. Wasn’t expecting that...

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Why not? It's simply a question of relative quantity.

Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:
Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Reported deaths:infections there suggests a mortality of 3%. The UK ditto. The US is 2%. It's pretty constant the world over. I'm saying that maybe Hungary just hasn't been hit with the volume of cases all at once that some other countries have. That's a good thing.

I hope you don't end up getting a tracheotomy from a stone mason, but I'm not sure the stats for death after intubation are a fair judge of the quality of the staff. If you are on a ventilator things are pretty fucking grim. The CDC here has calculated the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients is 21% (it's 4% for influenza), which is meeting somewhere in the middle of triage on a ventilator and a mild stay in a hospital bed. I think the straight line is the shortest distance between two points, and this coronavirus is just one spiteful little cunty balls that can quickly swamp the scene if left unchecked.

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:
Sure, I was just making assumptions before. TBF, the healthiness of at risk groups that I personally know is generally a lot lower over here than back home. However, I did make a slight mistake: the man in question was in Romania, not Hungary. Not that 1 death is significantly relevant, it's just anecdotes.

I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Survival rates for the UK weren’t great for those on ventilators, at least not initially. I think as Morepork points out, if you are on a ventilator you are already in serious trouble. My understanding is that since the early days, medical staff have improved outcomes in the most seriously ill.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:
I sort of get your angle...I think.

The death rates from infection in Hungary and the UK are both 2.5-3%. Hungary has ~3% of the population infected, the UK has~24%. If 24% of the population of Hungary were infected, you would have 2.3 million cases which, at a death rate of 3% would be around 70,000 deaths. At the moment deaths are around 10% of that.

I'm not seeing any difference in susceptibility between the two places that can't be explained by differences in containment.

I really don't get it, tbh. The deaths are also interesting. Death rate prior to hospitalisation here is a lot less than 1%. Death rate after being put on a ventilator is around 90%... The standard of hospital care is terrible, partly because nearly all the nurses who speak another language have already left for the UK or Germany, so they have anyone who has anything to do with medicine operating the machines.

Survival rates for the UK weren’t great for those on ventilators, at least not initially. I think as Morepork points out, if you are on a ventilator you are already in serious trouble. My understanding is that since the early days, medical staff have improved outcomes in the most seriously ill.

Oh they have, just not much over here. It’s got a lot to do with the fact the government hasn’t spent a penny on upgrading crumbling hospitals and 30 year old equipment, choosing to spend the money on new football stadia instead.

Managing the disease has definitely improved. An acute problem here is having enough qualified staff on hand. During last spring and summer there were isolated foci for outbreaks to which extra staff were sent to from elsewhere. Now there are dozens of acute fronts and not enough staff to deal with it because it's fucking everywhere. Again, an entirely predictable state of affairs.

morepork wrote:Managing the disease has definitely improved. An acute problem here is having enough qualified staff on hand. During last spring and summer there were isolated foci for outbreaks to which extra staff were sent to from elsewhere. Now there are dozens of acute fronts and not enough staff to deal with it because it's fucking everywhere. Again, an entirely predictable state of affairs.

Added to which the fact that medical staff are now knackered and it’s winter so other illnesses are also prevalent; the NHS is coping pretty well all things considered.

Nottingham nicely summing up how much you can trust the great British common sense to go out for a few drinks. We might not be able to organise a piss up in a brewery, but we can take a shit in the doorway

Yes, setting up an event for thousands to attend knowing that these days hospitalty venues provide the only public bogs (and are closed) is asking for it - can't even dig a hole in the sand...

Meanwhile,
Europe latest - deaths/m. popn.
(off Worldo')

top ten:
1. Belgium 1508
2 San Marino 1443
3. Italy 1022
4. Andorra 1009
5. Spain 988
6. Bosnia 963
7. North Mac 949
8. UK 920
9. Slovenia 914
10.Montenegro 885

The storm still raging in the Western Balkans; too quick to re-open after first wave maybe..

(others- Fra 862, Sweden 720,
Hungary 651, Russia 306
Germany 243, Serbia 243)

Bottom of the pile/coping best - still Nordic/Baltic region, Swe excepted.:
Denmark 156
Latvia 156
(Gibraltar 148)
Estonia 105
Finland 78
(Monaco 76)
Norway 66

This winter will be a slog - 'murrica seems to be in for another round.

I’ve finally got around to properly kitting out my WFH office - built a new desk with proper drawers, got my cable management under control, wired broadband, two wall-mounted monitors, sofa, stereo etc.

Quite keen for another lock down so I can test it out properly. We’re sitting on 5 deaths per million (0 since September) 55 current cases (all quarantined from the border), so I might not get the chance.