Coronavirus

[SasaS]

There is 5,000 more people tested, number of new cases is down, that is good news. Deaths may stay at the current  level for some time, it is too early to expect significant positive changes there.

[Mudface]

Yeah, I was 'hoping' for deaths to be more around 600, maybe by the end of next week. 

 

Fucking terrible, isn't it, that 600 people losing their lives would be seen as relatively good news?

[Pureblood]

That's because it isn't good news. 

[Pureblood]

Priti Patel using the briefing as an advert for how great the police are. 

[SasaS]

Good news is that new cases are down with the testing up. Deaths will reflect this in a week or two. And yes, 600 people dying is better than 800 people dying, news that fewer people will be dying is good news.

[Mudface]

Aye, and at least the 7 day rolling average is continuing to go down-

 

[lifetime fan]

The reported number of 1,600 coronavirus deaths outside of hospitals is bollocks, it's going to be at least 20 times that.

[Pureblood]

Remember when we were told that deaths were not likely to exceed 20,000 by the science man?  Still following the science, are we?  Bunch of cunts. Neil Ferguson has some explaining to do.

 

https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/

 

"We assessed in that report…that fatalities would probably be unlikely to exceed about 20,000 with effectively a lockdown, a social distancing strategy," Ferguson, who is himself recovering from COVID-19, told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday. "But it could be substantially lower than that."

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

40 minutes ago, TK421 said:

That's because it isn't good news. 

 

Context

[mattyq]

2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

The reported number of 1,600 coronavirus deaths outside of hospitals is bollocks, it's going to be at least 20 times that.

The FT guy thinks 25000 have died in care homes which is broadly in line with the deaths on the Continent

[Duff Man]

3 hours ago, Mudface said:

Not to come over all gammon, but the Guardian have run about a dozen articles so far about 'BAME' people being more likely to die. Aside from 'BAME' meaning absolutely sod all other than 'non-white', the ratio of deaths is 19% where you'd expect around 15% based on the population. So not only is it not statistically significant, the demographics of the places where it's hit hardest- London, Birmingham and other large cities- are places where BAME people are more concentrated anyway. If anything, BAME people are actually under-represented.

 

Compare that with the single article where worldwide, men are about twice as likely to die than women. That's far more interesting as it suggests that having two X chromosomes rather than XY confers some sort of protection, and yet there's been no follow up, no op-ed pieces. Fucking identity politics.

It's actually about a 3rd, according to ICNARC, which does seem quite significant:

 

"A report by the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre on the first 3,883 patients critically ill with coronavirus found that over a third were non-white (33.6 per cent), compared with 18 per cent of the UK population."

 

And percentage of critically-ill patients is similar:

 

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre found 34% of more than 4,800 critically-ill patients with Covid-19 identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic."

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

It's actually about a 3rd, according to ICNARC, which does seem quite significant:

 

"A report by the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre on the first 3,883 patients critically ill with coronavirus found that over a third were non-white (33.6 per cent), compared with 18 per cent of the UK population."

 

And percentage of critically-ill patients is similar:

 

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre found 34% of more than 4,800 critically-ill patients with Covid-19 identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic."

There's a school of thought that this could be related to vitamin D deficiency. 

[Mudface]

10 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

It's actually about a 3rd, according to ICNARC, which does seem quite significant:

 

"A report by the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre on the first 3,883 patients critically ill with coronavirus found that over a third were non-white (33.6 per cent), compared with 18 per cent of the UK population."

 

And percentage of critically-ill patients is similar:

 

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre found 34% of more than 4,800 critically-ill patients with Covid-19 identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic."

Says 19% in this article- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/racial-inequality-in-britain-found-a-risk-factor-for-covid-19

 

That's for overall deaths.

[lifetime fan]

27 minutes ago, mattyq said:

The FT guy thinks 25000 have died in care homes which is broadly in line with the deaths on the Continent

 

That's a far more believable figure.

[Elite]

Didn't one of these 'experts' predict 6000 deaths when all this started?

 

Looking like there will be 10x that at least, when taking into account care homes, etc.

[aRdja]

Tories are mentally ill.

 

 

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, Elite said:

Didn't one of these 'experts' predict 6000 deaths when all this started?

 

Looking like there will be 10x that at least, when taking into account care homes, etc.

There was Prof Tom Pike, who wasn't an epidemiologist but does work for Imperial College, who predicted 5,700.  He had to retract that prediction within two days.

 

And there's Prof Neil Ferguson, who is an epidemiologist and also works for Imperial College, who predicted between 7,000 and 20,000.  Ferguson is said to be instrumental in providing the modelling that has shaped the government's policy and response.  

 

The government says it is committed to following the science.  Given that this science has categorically proven to be incorrect, my suggestion is that they stop following it and tell Neil Ferguson thanks but no thanks.  

[Elite]

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

There was Prof Tom Pike, who wasn't an epidemiologist but does work for Imperial College, who predicted 5,700.  He had to retract that prediction within two days.

 

And there's Prof Neil Ferguson, who is an epidemiologist and also works for Imperial College, who predicted between 7,000 and 20,000.  Ferguson is said to be instrumental in providing the modelling that has shaped the government's policy and response.  

 

The government says it is committed to following the science.  Given that this science has categorically proven to be incorrect, my suggestion is that they stop following it and tell Neil Ferguson thanks but no thanks.  

You certainly would ask him for tips for your football ACCA.

[Duff Man]

5 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Says 19% in this article- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/racial-inequality-in-britain-found-a-risk-factor-for-covid-19

I guess we'll see as the Government have launched a review, which in itself suggests there's more to it than just the Graun doing identity politics - something the Tories don't give a single fuck about at all. The British Medical Association did also call for an investigation.

 

My own opinion is that at the end of all this, it'll most likely be the BAME community that have been hit the hardest by both the health and economic impacts of Coronavirus, and that's something that shouldn't be ignored.

[Pureblood]

I wonder where Patrick Vallance got his 20,000 figure from? Hmm, tough one that is.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-experts-once-said-20-000-deaths-was-a-good-outcome-so-where-is-the-uk-headed-now-11978609

 

On 17 March, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said keeping the number of UK deaths below 20,000 would be a "good result" from the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

"If we can get this down to 20,000 and below, that is a good outcome in terms of where we would hope to get to with this outbreak," he told a committee of MPs.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

 

[Mudface]

7 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I guess we'll see as the Government have launched a review, which in itself suggests there's more to it than just the Graun doing identity politics - something the Tories don't give a single fuck about at all. The British Medical Association did also call for an investigation.

 

My own opinion is that at the end of all this, it'll most likely be the BAME community that have been hit the hardest by both the health and economic impacts of Coronavirus, and that's something that shouldn't be ignored.

True, but expanding that slightly, it'll be the poorest in general that get hardest hit (as usual). There's a lot more similarity between people on low incomes than there is between people classified as BAME.

[cochyn]

13 minutes ago, TK421 said:

There was Prof Tom Pike, who wasn't an epidemiologist but does work for Imperial College, who predicted 5,700.  He had to retract that prediction within two days.

 

And there's Prof Neil Ferguson, who is an epidemiologist and also works for Imperial College, who predicted between 7,000 and 20,000.  Ferguson is said to be instrumental in providing the modelling that has shaped the government's policy and response.  

 

The government says it is committed to following the science.  Given that this science has categorically proven to be incorrect, my suggestion is that they stop following it and tell Neil Ferguson thanks but no thanks.  

 

And follow what, horoscopes? From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the science, every country's science community is feeling its way in the dark here. The link I posted a few pages back has the most recent data sets make for pretty harrowing reading. You may not like what you're seeing, naturally.  But 'misleading' figures pretty much comes down to the inherent variables in statistical models. Science isn't to blame here (we'd be doubly fucked without it). It's a totally new virus that we still know alarmingly little about.  

[Mudface]

Oh, and here's an article about the death rates for men and women, drawing on a much wider pool of people- https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-kills-more-men-than-women-why-immune-system

 

My beef with the Guardian is that this seems to have been ignored even though it's a far more significant stat.

[aRdja]

4 minutes ago, 1892-LFCWasBorn said:

 

She really is vile isn’t she?