Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[John Gentleman]

6 hours ago, pablo said:

 I always thought that 747s were too heavy to take off from EDI. Must have been wrong, wonder why there's none routinely operating?

They probably are too heavy at max takeoff weight (zero fuel weight + fuel + pax + cargo). The return journey will probably takeoff with minimum fuel + pax, then fill the tanks at an eastern european/middle eastern airport enroute back to China. 

[Governor Tarkin]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Provided they are cool with potentially killing their parents/grandparents by passing it on to them.

 

 

...dusts down insurance policy...

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

 

...dusts down insurance policy...

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Ray Gin

[kila]

51 minutes ago, Blackie the Cat said:

Please can tell me how many people have died from the flu this year/season?

 

FFS are people forgetting that the NHS was becoming overwhelmed because of the amount of patients needing ICU treatment?

 

That was the point of lockdown and thankfully things started to peak.

 

This virus spreads significantly more than seasonal flu does. It's bonkers to dismiss the much more risky and contagious CV19 as a flu.

 

 

[John Gentleman]

5 hours ago, Gulpener said:

 

There is still a use for them as freighters though.

 

Aye, US Air Force 1, a highly modified 747, is still the presidential aircraft, though there's actually two of them. Their livery is identical aside the tail numbers.

[John Gentleman]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

They end up describing it as something like "R=0.5 means that it takes 2 infected people to infect 1 new person"   ... which is a rather ridiculous way of describing it, IMO. 

 

So how would you present the reproduction rate? The current descriptor makes perfect sense to me.

[Captain Sausage]

16 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Provided they are cool with potentially killing their parents/grandparents by passing it on to them.

If they are selfish enough to put them in that position. I’ve long been saying we should be protecting the vulnerable (think they were being referred to as the ‘shielded’ previously) and letting everyone else get back to normal. 
 

The economic fallout of this will be massive and we should be doing everything we can to mitigate that safely. 
 

If that means we continue the lockdown for those over 65, with chronic respiratory illness (cystic fibrosis, etc) and with suppressed immune systems (cancer, etc) then return all others to normality then I think it’s a logical way forward. 
 

As a massive generalisation (which is probably fair given we’re talking about the entire country) this would have a limited impact of the revenue makers of the country. Most of the shielded are over 65s who are typically retired (yes there are exceptions) so it would enable us to protect our most vulnerable and to also protect the economy. 
 

And before I get labelled a heartless, callous ******* - it should be noted that lockdown will have to be paid for somehow. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see big business covering the whole thing. It’ll come in the form of personal taxation and public service cost cutting. Both of those things will increase poverty and will result in deaths, as we’ve seen with the government policy of the last decade. 
 

Just my 2 cents. 

[Boof]

3 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

That is a stock photo That appears when you click to identify the plane. Flightradar24 is great for seeing the and identifying aircraft movements around the world. 
 

 

FR24 is great.

 

Currently tracking G-BOOF tootling around between Oxford and Aylesbury. So when I come to buy an aircraft - that registration is out

 

Can't find G-HMFC in use...if any of our philanthropists are looking in...  

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

I still don't get why we are allowing any flights into the country and going down this two week self quarantine idiocy that will never be enforced. Baffling to me. 

It’s mean a a mystery since day one and like yourself baffled.

[JudyJudyJudy]

50 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

Are you dense or just being wilfully obtuse?

 

When did we last lockdown for the flu? Look at the exponential growth of deaths and how it correlates with lockdown. 
 

If we hadn’t locked down, deaths would have continued to exponentially increase and would’ve been in the millions world wide.

 

The mortality rate of COVID19 (disease caused by coronavirus) is also misleading. SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus) is typically asymptomatic. Very limited sample, but data from an Antarctic cruise ship showed 80% of 128 people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic. That means they did not ‘get’ COVID-19. 
 

So if you take the death rate quoted above of 3.5% (Worldometer quotes the IFR [infection fatality rate] at 1.4%), and assume the data from the cruise ship are accurate, then the death rate as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 is actually 0.7%. 
 

There are a few assumptions in this, primarily that only people with COVID-19 test positive for SARS-CoV-2 (using that assumption as it’ll primarily be those with COVID-19 symptoms who request testing) but if you use the worldometer IFR and these assumptions, that death rate reduces to 0.3%. 
 

In addition, COVID-19 mortality is extremely heavily weighted towards those over 65. So for young people, there is genuinely very little to fear from this virus.

 

In comparison to flu, which has an IFR of around 0.1%, COVID-19 is somewhere between 3 and 10 times more deadly, but it’s also massively more transmissible which is the biggest issues. However, flu is extremely dangerous to both the young and the old, whether thankfully COVID-19 appears to be of little consequence to young people. The R(t) [transmission rate] of the flu is around 1.3 and somewhere between 2 and 3 for COVID-19 which is an absolutely incredible difference and the biggest reason for the lockdown. 
 

TLDR: COVID-19 is more infectious, and more deadly than the flu. Lockdown was obviously the right thing to do. But for context, those under 65 should not be as fearful of this thing as the media is making us. 

Great posting. 

[John Gentleman]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

... is the important caveat.  Its taken 5 months for 367k to die, and most countries haven't yet had to deal with a 2nd wave which looks increasingly likely to happen given the headlong rush to let people start moving around.

The US, Brazil, Russia and India – all populous countries – are still battling the 1st wave! 

Aussies have been patting themselves on the back for keeping the R rate below 1 for weeks and restrictions were being eased. That was until today when 12 new cases were diagnosed in Victoria (Melbourne) and the R rate has now jumped to 1.26. That's how quickly things can change for the worse.

There's an awful lot we don't know about this virus, but a pattern is emerging; a country gets the R rate below 1, lifts/eases restrictions, then experiences cluster outbreaks in specific places, eg, a care home; a school; a factory etc. This can only mean there's a cohort of individuals out there carrying heavy virus loads and are probably asymptomatic (or minimally symptomatic) themselves. 'A' grade 'shedders & spreaders'. 

[Francis Albert]

27 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

It’s mean a a mystery since day one and like yourself baffled.

WHO initial advice was that international air travel was not a significant factor in spreading the virus. Made no sense to me and and though I have not seen it,it may have been updated.

[Captain Sausage]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

WHO initial advice was that international air travel was not a significant factor in spreading the virus. Made no sense to me and and though I have not seen it,it may have been updated.

I think the logic is that when you’ve already got community transmission, bringing more people into the country doesn’t make a different. We’ve already got it circulating in general society so it can’t be stopped. 
 

I saw a good example that if a plane arrived in London from Iceland, statistically it would bring down the transmission rate of the UK, as Iceland has a lower Rt than the UK. 
 

So basically by preventing access from countries with worse current outbreaks than ourselves and opening up to all others, statistically you don’t make anything worse. Anecdotally there’ll always be cases that conflict with this. 

[Taffin]

2 hours ago, Blackie the Cat said:

Here is another 100% fact  - Globally up to 650,000 die each year due to respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu. At the moment there are just over 367,000 that have died from Covid-19.    

 

And that's with vaccinations.

 

I do believe this is worse, but not by the margin suggested by others. With that in mind, I don't think the comparisons to flu are as ridiculous as some try make out. There's undoubtedly similarities between the two. I've also yet to get an answer on what people think the global flu deaths would be without a vaccine for a more accurate comparison.

 

 

[main]

The 60k+ death rate is fictional, it is drawn from covid being placed on the death certificate of many elderly people who have died where they have not been tested or the doctors have guessed/presumed a cause of death (this was also a thing before covid). 1600 people die on average in Britain every day, again mostly elderly so it is highly likely in my opinion that this has inflated the death rate, both the government and obviously the ONS one.

 

Also, how people can base assertions (I.e death rate, infection rate) on the ‘R rate’ is beyond me when we have absolutely no idea how many people have been infected. Given the alleged notorious contagiousness of coronavirus, it would suggest that far more people have been infected than the government figures, which are clearly the absolute bare minimum. Therefore, that suggests that the death rate/hospitalisation rate is far lower than reported. All IMO from what I have tried my best to research.

[The Real Maroonblood]

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

WHO initial advice was that international air travel was not a significant factor in spreading the virus. Made no sense to me and and though I have not seen it,it may have been updated.

The thing is travelling in an aircraft I find it’s not that hygienic so it seems an obvious place for any virus to spread.

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

I think the logic is that when you’ve already got community transmission, bringing more people into the country doesn’t make a different. We’ve already got it circulating in general society so it can’t be stopped. 
 

I saw a good example that if a plane arrived in London from Iceland, statistically it would bring down the transmission rate of the UK, as Iceland has a lower Rt than the UK. 
 

So basically by preventing access from countries with worse current outbreaks than ourselves and opening up to all others, statistically you don’t make anything worse. Anecdotally there’ll always be cases that conflict with this. 

Thanks. Can see the logic in that.

[XB52]

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

Good post. Sensible and pragmatic. Not great for an Internet forum, but good for the real world. 

apart from it being totally wrong you are right 

[Dawnrazor]

Well, by the looks of things around here all restrictions have now been lifted and we're "as you were"

Unbelievable, truly unbelievable!

[Mikey1874]

 

[ri Alban]

59 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

And that's with vaccinations.

 

I do believe this is worse, but not by the margin suggested by others. With that in mind, I don't think the comparisons to flu are as ridiculous as some try make out. There's undoubtedly similarities between the two. I've also yet to get an answer on what people think the global flu deaths would be without a vaccine for a more accurate comparison.

 

 

Why don't  Jonesy, Nib... Sorry, blackie the cat and Yourself have a group hug whilst licking the walls in the Covid ward of the local hospital, and then tells us what it was like having Covid 19. I'm sure you've had the flu at some point, without vaccination.

[The Internet]

17 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Well, by the looks of things around here all restrictions have now been lifted and we're "as you were"

Unbelievable, truly unbelievable!

 

The weather's having a laugh with us really. When has it ever been this warm and sunny for this long at this time of year? A global pandemic has no chance of keeping British folk indoors when the weather's like this. It's going to be interesting to see the state of things around the middle/end of June, whether this little burst of activity causes any significant spike. I think people are still extremely wary and will keep their distance when meeting others so I'll be surprised if there's a huge spike in infections here. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, main said:

The 60k+ death rate is fictional, it is drawn from covid being placed on the death certificate of many elderly people who have died where they have not been tested or the doctors have guessed/presumed a cause of death (this was also a thing before covid). 1600 people die on average in Britain every day, again mostly elderly so it is highly likely in my opinion that this has inflated the death rate, both the government and obviously the ONS one.

 

Also, how people can base assertions (I.e death rate, infection rate) on the ‘R rate’ is beyond me when we have absolutely no idea how many people have been infected. Given the alleged notorious contagiousness of coronavirus, it would suggest that far more people have been infected than the government figures, which are clearly the absolute bare minimum. Therefore, that suggests that the death rate/hospitalisation rate is far lower than reported. All IMO from what I have tried my best to research.

"Given the alleged notorious contagiousness of coronavirus, it would suggest that far more people have been infected than the government figures, which are clearly the absolute bare minimum. Therefore, that suggests that the death rate/hospitalisation rate is far lower than reported. All IMO from what I have tried my best to research."

 

Yes this is accurate . It means that if a lot of the population have had it then the mortality rate is extremely low.  Problem is we just dont know. Now if they tested everyone for the anti bodies we would find this out.  Ive got a hunch that its probably very low. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Says it all really  

 

 

[kila]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

And that's with vaccinations.

 

I do believe this is worse, but not by the margin suggested by others. With that in mind, I don't think the comparisons to flu are as ridiculous as some try make out. There's undoubtedly similarities between the two. I've also yet to get an answer on what people think the global flu deaths would be without a vaccine for a more accurate comparison.

 

Flu deaths would be much higher without vaccination obviously. There are also treatments for flu, though the most severely hit may still requite a trip to ICU.

 

As of right now, there are no treatments for CV19. There's plenty research going on, developments but nothing that is proven. The worst hit get put on a ventilator and their immune system has to fight it on its own.

 

So because of that CV19 is much more serious than seasonal flu. Hopefully there'll be a breakthrough in treatment soon and then the effects of CV19 will be mitigated for the most vulnerable and eventually it might just be like another flu. But we're not there yet!

 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, main said:

The 60k+ death rate is fictional, it is drawn from covid being placed on the death certificate of many elderly people who have died where they have not been tested or the doctors have guessed/presumed a cause of death (this was also a thing before covid). 1600 people die on average in Britain every day, again mostly elderly so it is highly likely in my opinion that this has inflated the death rate, both the government and obviously the ONS one.

 

Also, how people can base assertions (I.e death rate, infection rate) on the ‘R rate’ is beyond me when we have absolutely no idea how many people have been infected. Given the alleged notorious contagiousness of coronavirus, it would suggest that far more people have been infected than the government figures, which are clearly the absolute bare minimum. Therefore, that suggests that the death rate/hospitalisation rate is far lower than reported. All IMO from what I have tried my best to research.

 

There are over 60k more deaths this year than the 5 year average, while the country has been locked down. What's responsible if not Covid? 

[Ray Gin]

16 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

The weather's having a laugh with us really. When has it ever been this warm and sunny for this long at this time of year? 

 

2 years ago. Scorching from May right through June. 

[main]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

There are over 60k more deaths this year than the 5 year average, while the country has been locked down. What's responsible if not Covid? 

 

For a country of nearly 67 million people, it is not unprecedented to have this number of deaths higher than the average. I don’t have the figures on me but I believe there are about 5 April’s that have had higher deaths in the uk in the last 20 years. I’m not a covid denier or conspiracy theorist by any means, this is clearly a very nasty bug that is potentially fatal to people who are vulnerable to a whole range of other ailments also, again mainly due to older age and poor immune systems. 

 

It is slightly too early to tell at this point, but I have a good hunch that this lockdown has in itself contributed to excess deaths that would not have happened. The people not turning up to our almost deserted hospitals (outside the covid wards of course) are indicative of people with other conditions such as cancer not turning up for treatment or to inspect symptoms is potentially fatal. In addition to mental health issues, I don’t know if there has been an increase in suicides, I really hope not. Although if someone was already close to the edge, being shut away or indeed having to work and maintain dull, bleak responsibilities with your only pleasures taken away, it could easily push the most vulnerable into a terrible decision.

 

Without wanting to present a maybe callous sounding ‘they would have died anyway’ thesis, it does have to be noted the average age plus the presence of one or more serious co morbidities of the fatalities. It is entirely feasible to assume that a lot of these deaths were in the ‘projected annual deaths’ and have simply sped up. In order for a proper analysis, it would be wiser to wait until the end of the year at least before making assumptions about the effects of covid and the lockdown on the number of deaths in this country and around the world. 

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, John Gentleman said:

The US, Brazil, Russia and India – all populous countries – are still battling the 1st wave! 

Aussies have been patting themselves on the back for keeping the R rate below 1 for weeks and restrictions were being eased. That was until today when 12 new cases were diagnosed in Victoria (Melbourne) and the R rate has now jumped to 1.26. That's how quickly things can change for the worse.

There's an awful lot we don't know about this virus, but a pattern is emerging; a country gets the R rate below 1, lifts/eases restrictions, then experiences cluster outbreaks in specific places, eg, a care home; a school; a factory etc. This can only mean there's a cohort of individuals out there carrying heavy virus loads and are probably asymptomatic (or minimally symptomatic) themselves. 'A' grade 'shedders & spreaders'. 

Interesting (and worrying) info, John.     

 

The simple point I was trying to make in my earlier  post which you replied to was that R is a complex estimate the medical experts  use through modelling to gauge how rapidly they think the  virus is spreading (or being suppressed) - it's not being sensibly represented or described by the media via their current reporting or fancy diagrams.    The expert modelling shows that the difference on the ground in terms of COVID cases (and subsequent deaths)  between 0.8 and 0.9 is starkly different - just 0.1 of a difference can account for several hundred extra cases.  Indeed, they generally only quote a range for what they think the R value is - most recently between 0.7 and 0.9 (UK wide).  So to answer your question, R only makes any sense to ordinary folk (like me) when you can compare what it's value was estimated to be last week to what it's value is estimated to be this week - is it getting "better" or "worse".  

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, main said:

 

For a country of nearly 67 million people, it is not unprecedented to have this number of deaths higher than the average. I don’t have the figures on me but I believe there are about 5 April’s that have had higher deaths in the uk in the last 20 years. I’m not a covid denier or conspiracy theorist by any means, this is clearly a very nasty bug that is potentially fatal to people who are vulnerable to a whole range of other ailments also, again mainly due to older age and poor immune systems. 

 

It is slightly too early to tell at this point, but I have a good hunch that this lockdown has in itself contributed to excess deaths that would not have happened. The people not turning up to our almost deserted hospitals (outside the covid wards of course) are indicative of people with other conditions such as cancer not turning up for treatment or to inspect symptoms is potentially fatal. In addition to mental health issues, I don’t know if there has been an increase in suicides, I really hope not. Although if someone was already close to the edge, being shut away or indeed having to work and maintain dull, bleak responsibilities with your only pleasures taken away, it could easily push the most vulnerable into a terrible decision.

 

Without wanting to present a maybe callous sounding ‘they would have died anyway’ thesis, it does have to be noted the average age plus the presence of one or more serious co morbidities of the fatalities. It is entirely feasible to assume that a lot of these deaths were in the ‘projected annual deaths’ and have simply sped up. In order for a proper analysis, it would be wiser to wait until the end of the year at least before making assumptions about the effects of covid and the lockdown on the number of deaths in this country and around the world. 

 

This isn't just the UK with extra deaths. It's happening globally. It is definitely unprecedented. 

[main]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

This isn't just the UK with extra deaths. It's happening globally. It is definitely unprecedented. 

 

I would make the same points in my above post for all countries, not just Britain. And there are reasons why certain cities/regions/cities have experienced a quicker surge and fall of coronavirus cases. However, that would be getting away from your question.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, main said:

 

I would make the same points in my above post for all countries, not just Britain. And there are reasons why certain cities/regions/cities have experienced a quicker surge and fall of coronavirus cases. However, that would be getting away from your question.

 

 

Right. Just by chance countries around the world are seeing tens of thousands of extra deaths during a global pandemic but its not the disease that's causing it. 

[main]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Right. Just by chance countries around the world are seeing tens of thousands of extra deaths during a global pandemic but its not the disease that's causing it. 

 

I didn’t say that. And given that the population of the world is almost 8 billion, a difference to the annual world death total in the thousands is trivial (well, as trivial as death statistics can be). Compared to the big players like tuberculosis amongst others, Covid is having a much smaller impact on those figures.

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, kila said:

 

Flu deaths would be much higher without vaccination obviously. There are also treatments for flu, though the most severely hit may still requite a trip to ICU.

 

As of right now, there are no treatments for CV19. There's plenty research going on, developments but nothing that is proven. The worst hit get put on a ventilator and their immune system has to fight it on its own.

 

So because of that CV19 is much more serious than seasonal flu. Hopefully there'll be a breakthrough in treatment soon and then the effects of CV19 will be mitigated for the most vulnerable and eventually it might just be like another flu. But we're not there yet!

 

 

Cheers, interesting, I don't think I'd ever fully appreciated the seriousness of the flu itself until all of this or the numbers it kills. Hopefully we can get CV19  under control in the same way. As I said (this isn't aimed at you), obviously this is worse for the very reasons you state...we have treatments and vaccines for the flu. I certainly know which I'd prefer to catch! I'm just not sure that fundamentally it's that out of the box to compare it with flu given the spread, the symptoms and those who are risk from it. It's a moot point really anyway as it doesn't matter which is more deadly. 

[redjambo]

53 minutes ago, main said:

 

For a country of nearly 67 million people, it is not unprecedented to have this number of deaths higher than the average. I don’t have the figures on me but I believe there are about 5 April’s that have had higher deaths in the uk in the last 20 years. I’m not a covid denier or conspiracy theorist by any means, this is clearly a very nasty bug that is potentially fatal to people who are vulnerable to a whole range of other ailments also, again mainly due to older age and poor immune systems.

 

Very unlikely. Please provide evidence of that statistic.

 

To help you out here are the monthly mortality statistics for England and Wales since 2006: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlyfiguresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence

 

Note that all these years have April mortality figures in the 30-40,000's.

 

April 2020's figure was 88,049.

 

So that leaves you with 2001-2005 to prove your point, and I very much doubt that these years lie above the range mentioned above.

[main]

13 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Very unlikely. Please provide evidence of that statistic.

 

To help you out here are the monthly mortality statistics for England and Wales since 2006: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlyfiguresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence

 

Note that all these years have April mortality figures in the 30-40,000's.

 

April 2020's figure was 88,049.

 

So that leaves you with 2001-2005 to prove your point, and I very much doubt that these years lie above the range mentioned above.

 

Busy at the moment but will try get them for you at some point.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, main said:

 

Busy at the moment but will try get them for you at some point.

 

Cheers, main.

[main]

16 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Cheers, main.

 

The Statistics you come across are bloody hard to find again with the unbelievable number of graphs and charts etc that are being pumped out on a daily basis right now. My terminology was a bit wrong but the point I was trying to make is explained pretty well in this article

 

https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/09/alistair-haimes-the-virus-that-turned-up-late/

 

[Gards]

1 hour ago, main said:

 

For a country of nearly 67 million people, it is not unprecedented to have this number of deaths higher than the average. I don’t have the figures on me but I believe there are about 5 April’s that have had higher deaths in the uk in the last 20 years. I’m not a covid denier or conspiracy theorist by any means, this is clearly a very nasty bug that is potentially fatal to people who are vulnerable to a whole range of other ailments also, again mainly due to older age and poor immune systems. 

 

It is slightly too early to tell at this point, but I have a good hunch that this lockdown has in itself contributed to excess deaths that would not have happened. The people not turning up to our almost deserted hospitals (outside the covid wards of course) are indicative of people with other conditions such as cancer not turning up for treatment or to inspect symptoms is potentially fatal. In addition to mental health issues, I don’t know if there has been an increase in suicides, I really hope not. Although if someone was already close to the edge, being shut away or indeed having to work and maintain dull, bleak responsibilities with your only pleasures taken away, it could easily push the most vulnerable into a terrible decision.

 

Without wanting to present a maybe callous sounding ‘they would have died anyway’ thesis, it does have to be noted the average age plus the presence of one or more serious co morbidities of the fatalities. It is entirely feasible to assume that a lot of these deaths were in the ‘projected annual deaths’ and have simply sped up. In order for a proper analysis, it would be wiser to wait until the end of the year at least before making assumptions about the effects of covid and the lockdown on the number of deaths in this country and around the world. 

I'm sorry but what?

 

We've had 60,000 more deaths this year than the last 5 year average.  That's not 'unprecedented'?  Show me a year where we've had 60,000 more deaths than the previoud 5 years average.

 

Data is really important in this and this is a piece of data that needs to be looked at.

[main]

Just now, Gards said:

I'm sorry but what?

 

We've had 60,000 more deaths this year than the last 5 year average.  That's not 'unprecedented'?  Show me a year where we've had 60,000 more deaths than the previoud 5 years average.

 

Data is really important in this and this is a piece of data that needs to be looked at.

 

See above. Statistics without context are useless. As the article explains, a lot of these deaths are dragged forward amongst other factors, thereby making the death figures less clear cut. Once again, not a denier or conspiracy theorist. Just pointing out my view that although this is a nasty illness which is killing more people than would die normally, it is not an unprecedented plague.

[redjambo]

15 minutes ago, main said:

 

The Statistics you come across are bloody hard to find again with the unbelievable number of graphs and charts etc that are being pumped out on a daily basis right now. My terminology was a bit wrong but the point I was trying to make is explained pretty well in this article

 

Thanks, main, but I'll have to be honest that it was only the "5 times April mortality exceeded in the last 20 years" comment of yours that grabbed my attention, because I thought "Hang on, that can't be right". The rest of the discourse I tend to disagree with, personally believing that Covid-19 is a serious threat and that lockdown is helping keep it in check, but I'm not motivated enough to get sufficiently deeply into it to argue my case.

Edited May 30, 2020 by redjambo

[main]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Thanks, main, but I'll have to be honest that it was only the "5 times April mortality exceeded in the last 20 years" comment of yours that grabbed my attention, because I thought "Hang on, that can't be right". The rest of the discourse I tend to disagree with, personally believing that Covid-19 is a serious threat and that lockdown is helping keep it in check, but I'm not motivated enough to get sufficiently deeply into it to argue my case.

 

Fair enough. Admittedly my wording about 5 April’s was off the top of my head but couldn’t be arsed trailing through the internet to find the statistics. The article does explain my point  which I should have just made the effort to find anyway.

[Gards]

3 minutes ago, main said:

 

See above. Statistics without context are useless. As the article explains, a lot of these deaths are dragged forward amongst other factors, thereby making the death figures less clear cut. Once again, not a denier or conspiracy theorist. Just pointing out my view that although this is a nasty illness which is killing more people than would die normally, it is not an unprecedented plague.

But the graphs in here are pretty conclusive...

 

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/understanding-excess-mortality-the-fairest-way-to-make-international-comparisons?gclid=CjwKCAjwiMj2BRBFEiwAYfTbChxsjWa__4K4Gm7HFUOlVjGJzNv-g0TfYXK5qb6yX2gZqeGDbySa2RoCMkMQAvD_BwE

 

No-one's called it a plague.  But it does have a higher death rate than normal flue.

It is a new variant of coronovirus which has some pretty nasty after effects.  Blood clots on lungs and heart.  Kids 'kawasaki' syndrom.  Is it Spanish Flu - probably not but it's a very new and nasty coronavirus which scientists are still trying to understand.

[Taffin]

9 minutes ago, Gards said:

I'm sorry but what?

 

We've had 60,000 more deaths this year than the last 5 year average.  That's not 'unprecedented'?  Show me a year where we've had 60,000 more deaths than the previoud 5 years average.

 

Data is really important in this and this is a piece of data that needs to be looked at.

 

The part in bold isn't true, is it?

 

Whilst not 60,000 more than the previous 5 year average, 2015 was significantly more than the preceding 5 years I think.

[main]

6 minutes ago, Gards said:

But the graphs in here are pretty conclusive...

 

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/understanding-excess-mortality-the-fairest-way-to-make-international-comparisons?gclid=CjwKCAjwiMj2BRBFEiwAYfTbChxsjWa__4K4Gm7HFUOlVjGJzNv-g0TfYXK5qb6yX2gZqeGDbySa2RoCMkMQAvD_BwE

 

No-one's called it a plague.  But it does have a higher death rate than normal flue.

It is a new variant of coronovirus which has some pretty nasty after effects.  Blood clots on lungs and heart.  Kids 'kawasaki' syndrom.  Is it Spanish Flu - probably not but it's a very new and nasty coronavirus which scientists are still trying to understand.

 

I dont disagree with anything in your last paragraph. Hope you won’t be offended but I’ve had quite enough of graphs and charts atm 😄

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

The part in bold isn't true, is it?

 

Whilst not 60,000 more than the previous 5 year average, 2015 was significantly more than the preceding 5 years I think.

 

It appears that the part in bold is true.

 

Excess UK deaths in Covid-19 outbreak approach 60,000

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/uk-coronavirus-deaths-weekly-covid-19

 

[main]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

It appears that the part in bold is true.

 

Excess UK deaths in Covid-19 outbreak approach 60,000

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/uk-coronavirus-deaths-weekly-covid-19

 

 

Dont want to bring politics into it but throughout the whole coronavirus episode, I’ve found the guardian alongside the bbc/sky news to be unbearably negative and desperate to find a downside to everything. They’re not alone of course but they’re some of the main culprits. I started watching euronews out of curiosity and the difference is night and day. 

Anyways, regarding the deaths, as mentioned I think it’s highly likely the death figures have been skewered, not maliciously but still. In addition it’s also possible that the lockdown itself has had a disasterous effect on other people as I touched upon earlier and caused deaths which would not have occurred.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, main said:

 

I dont disagree with anything in your last paragraph. Hope you won’t be offended but I’ve had quite enough of graphs and charts atm 😄

 

I can't understand why. Is there any chance you could post a chart illustrating how much you've had enough of them so that I can visualise how fed up with them you are?

[Gards]

1 minute ago, main said:

 

Dont want to bring politics into it but throughout the whole coronavirus episode, I’ve found the guardian alongside the bbc/sky news to be unbearably negative and desperate to find a downside to everything. They’re not alone of course but they’re some of the main culprits. I started watching euronews out of curiosity and the difference is night and day. 

Anyways, regarding the deaths, as mentioned I think it’s highly likely the death figures have been skewered, not maliciously but still. In addition it’s also possible that the lockdown itself has had a disasterous effect on other people as I touched upon earlier and caused deaths which would not have occurred.

All the Guardian are doing are quoting data from the Office of National Statistics.  A government body.

 

Even if we take that as extreme.  We've got 34k deaths directly attributed to cvid.  We've got approx 60k excess deaths compared to previous 5 years (which includes thos 34k deaths)....so 26k excess deaths are unexplained.

[main]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

I can't understand why. Is there any chance you could post a chart illustrating how much you've had enough of them so that I can visualise how fed up with them you are?

 

Would be a lot of spikes that’s for sure.