Re: COVID19
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:00 pm
One oddity of this, being a person who likes a hard copy of the Times, is I've not read a paper for a while
I know. I really shouldn’t bother but sometimes the temptation is too great.Mellsblue wrote:Not sure which shows less judgement, arguing that we should follow the Swedish model or reading the comments section on a newspaper’s website.Sandydragon wrote:That’s the position taken by many a Times reader judging by the comments section in that paper.Mellsblue wrote: Fair enough. Mea culpa. I was writing that whilst trying to deal with two increasingly restless children and from a position that you are still believing China’s numbers and equating two countries that are completely different in pretty much every sense.
It’s like me looking at Sweden’s raw data and deciding we shouldn’t lockdown at all. It’s a ridiculous position to take and at least we can believe Sweden’s data.
I’ve been a digital subscriber for about 5 years now. Can’t remember the last time I bought an actual paper.Digby wrote:One oddity of this, being a person who likes a hard copy of the Times, is I've not read a paper for a while
That sounds very odd. Italy has an old population but isn’t that bad. Sounds like you’re local dictator is playing silly buggers with statistics.Stom wrote:BTW, there's been a lot of questions about how Hungary has so few deaths (here, locally).
Well, I just took a look at the statistics again...It's killing almost 10% of the infected people. That's seriously insane.
I mean...wow.
They've only tested 37,000 people so far, the healthcare system would collapse under any strain at all, and the population is very, very old. All the young people are abroad!
However...a cynic could look at the stats and say that all the deaths are in places that consistently vote against the government (basically just Budapest). There's been less than 50 CASES in all bar 2 counties. Because no-one wants to go there, lol.
It's really going to decimate the population here...literally.
They absolutely are. The state media is all about how the recovery rate is higher than the death rate. But with so few tests...Sandydragon wrote:That sounds very odd. Italy has an old population but isn’t that bad. Sounds like you’re local dictator is playing silly buggers with statistics.Stom wrote:BTW, there's been a lot of questions about how Hungary has so few deaths (here, locally).
Well, I just took a look at the statistics again...It's killing almost 10% of the infected people. That's seriously insane.
I mean...wow.
They've only tested 37,000 people so far, the healthcare system would collapse under any strain at all, and the population is very, very old. All the young people are abroad!
However...a cynic could look at the stats and say that all the deaths are in places that consistently vote against the government (basically just Budapest). There's been less than 50 CASES in all bar 2 counties. Because no-one wants to go there, lol.
It's really going to decimate the population here...literally.
Is that real? Where's it from?Mellsblue wrote:Blimey:
It states IMF data at the bottom of the graph.Stom wrote:Is that real? Where's it from?Mellsblue wrote:Blimey:
As if the majority of self-employed people have to sign up to universal credit to receive anything, and that is deferred until June...they could end up with nothing. Are those figures included in this or not? Because if they are, that's misleading: the majority of those cases are not going to see anything.
I'd imagine a large chunk of that is furloughed employees salaries. It's 100% the right policy (brought to you by Comrade CorbynStom wrote:Is that real? Where's it from?Mellsblue wrote:Blimey:
As if the majority of self-employed people have to sign up to universal credit to receive anything, and that is deferred until June...they could end up with nothing. Are those figures included in this or not? Because if they are, that's misleading: the majority of those cases are not going to see anything.
Of course, China could have acted even more rapidly.Sandydragon wrote:China could have acted with greater rapidity if it had not attempted to silence the messenger. Their lockdown did prove to be effective (and no I don’t trust their numbers) but could they have acted sooner if they had investigated the reports coming out of Wuhan? Probably.Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't understand your point here.Sandydragon wrote: Put another way, the first cases in Wuhan were reported at the end of November 2019. Yet the lockdown in China occurred almost two months later, with some well documented attempts to cover it up along the way.
It looks like China acted quickly, but too late..Son of Mathonwy wrote: But what's our excuse for acting even less rapidly than China?
No worries, we all make mistakes.Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. Mea culpa. I was writing that whilst trying to deal with two increasingly restless children and from a position that you are still believing China’s numbers and equating two countries that are completely different in pretty much every sense.Son of Mathonwy wrote:No. Per capita we were even worse.Mellsblue wrote:So, per capita the U.K. locked down earlier than China. That’s measuring exponential growth per capita for you.
On absolute numbers our deaths at lockdown were 13x China's.
On per capita numbers they were 284x China's.
It’s like me looking at Sweden’s raw data and deciding we shouldn’t lockdown at all. It’s a ridiculous position to take and at least we can believe Sweden’s data.
Again, it’s a marathon not a sprint. It’s not just about COVID deaths in the first few weeks. That is short sighted. It’s about the COVID deaths over the next 12/18/24 months. It’s about having an economy that will be as strong as possible coming out the other side. UCL have authored a report that the blow to our economy due to the lockdown could cost approx 140,000 lives in the long run, ie many times more than COVID will probably take. How many of the extra deaths last week were due to lockdown side affects? Why have calls to domestic abuse helplines and mental health help lines shot through the roof?The ripple effects of the lockdown are pretty much endless. It’s not all about how many people die from COVID in the first few weeks. Who is to say the Sweden’s response isn’t better for the population in the long term.Son of Mathonwy wrote:No worries, we all make mistakes.Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. Mea culpa. I was writing that whilst trying to deal with two increasingly restless children and from a position that you are still believing China’s numbers and equating two countries that are completely different in pretty much every sense.Son of Mathonwy wrote: No. Per capita we were even worse.
On absolute numbers our deaths at lockdown were 13x China's.
On per capita numbers they were 284x China's.
It’s like me looking at Sweden’s raw data and deciding we shouldn’t lockdown at all. It’s a ridiculous position to take and at least we can believe Sweden’s data.
It's not like looking at Sweden's data and deciding we shouldn't lock down. That's because Sweden's data is so bad. (In your hypothetical position) what grounds would you possibly have to use Sweden as any kind of example to follow? With 119 Covid-19 deaths per million they are the 11th worst country in the world, worse than the USA (86), worse by far than their nearest neighbours, Norway (28) and Finland (13).
The argument you're making - that China is so different and untrustworthy that we can't draw any conclusions from it (to be precise, that it would be "ridiculous" to draw conclusions from it) - is exactly the kind of thinking that's allowed our response to the pandemic to be so catastrophic.
Well partially the information wasn't as forthcoming from China as it could have been. But I agree with you that we could have acted faster (ordered PPE in bulk and testing equipment).Son of Mathonwy wrote:Of course, China could have acted even more rapidly.Sandydragon wrote:China could have acted with greater rapidity if it had not attempted to silence the messenger. Their lockdown did prove to be effective (and no I don’t trust their numbers) but could they have acted sooner if they had investigated the reports coming out of Wuhan? Probably.Son of Mathonwy wrote: I don't understand your point here.
But what's our excuse for acting even less rapidly than China?
Mellsblue wrote:
No ones arguing the U.K. has played a blinder but, as I’ve said before, I’m not being drawn on the China comparison because, well, they’re run by a bunch of lying, genocidal ****s.
Sorry, should have been clearer about what the numbers in brackets were. They're the deaths per million, not the position in the list, ie the USA has 86 dead per million, Norway 28 per million and Finland 13 per million.Mellsblue wrote:Given your per. capita deaths list that places the US higher than Finland, perhaps we should’ve adopted Trump’s response rather than looking at Finland’s?!?!?
I wonder if vapers are any better or worse?Galfon wrote:David Hockney's hunch doesn't fit well with the health message generally, tbf.
That's all we need..
"A study by New York University found that just five per cent of 4,103 coronavirus hospital patients in the city admitted to being smokers.
This was far lower than the 15.5 per cent of smokers in the population there.
The same proportion of smokers were found in COVID-19 patients who did not need hospitalisation, suggesting they were less likely to catch the virus or were not being accurately recorded.
The New York study is not the first to find a low number of smokers in COVID-19 hospital admissions.
Data from multiple Chinese studies shows that COVID-19 hospital patients contained a smaller proportion of smokers than the general population (6.5 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent), suggesting they were less likely to end up in hospital"
(dailymail)
you wouldn't do that to guinea pigs ( hang on, they do..)Son of Mathonwy wrote: I wonder if vapers are any better or worse?
And I wonder if the whole thing isn't just a load of Daily Mail bullshit, of course.
Where does China sit with their newly revised numbers that are a first attempt not to look like serial bullshitters?Son of Mathonwy wrote:Sorry, should have been clearer about what the numbers in brackets were. They're the deaths per million, not the position in the list, ie the USA has 86 dead per million, Norway 28 per million and Finland 13 per million.Mellsblue wrote:Given your per. capita deaths list that places the US higher than Finland, perhaps we should’ve adopted Trump’s response rather than looking at Finland’s?!?!?
7th in total deaths, way down in per capita obviously (2 per million)Digby wrote:Where does China sit with their newly revised numbers that are a first attempt not to look like serial bullshitters?Son of Mathonwy wrote:Sorry, should have been clearer about what the numbers in brackets were. They're the deaths per million, not the position in the list, ie the USA has 86 dead per million, Norway 28 per million and Finland 13 per million.Mellsblue wrote:Given your per. capita deaths list that places the US higher than Finland, perhaps we should’ve adopted Trump’s response rather than looking at Finland’s?!?!?