Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[JudyJudyJudy]

6 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 

 

😂 😂 😂

 

 

 

I'd say all in all, a pretty good news day! We just need to keep an eye on the infection rate but feeling more positive / optimistic!

Yes id agree too. 

[Don Dan]

5 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I still can't work out what could possibly be in it for the government, any government, to deliberately trash the economy for a lie. Can any of the flat earthers on here tell me why they would do it. 

They now what they are doing, you can tell by the Mutley grin on their coupons when they set about trolling.

[Don Dan]

Has anyone a link which explains how they are changing the statistics for hospital admissions relating to COVID-19 please. 
thanks in advance.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Has anyone a link which explains how they are changing the statistics for hospital admissions relating to COVID-19 please. 
thanks in advance.

 

https://blogs.gov.scot/statistics/2020/09/15/counting-people-in-hospital-with-covid-19/

[TheOak88]

1 hour ago, Natural Orders said:

267 new cases

 

How many deaths today?

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

And right on cue Mr Stupid turns a change in measurement into it was all lies.

 

 

[Robbofan99]

41 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Christ Almighty, the figure was only released in the last hour.

Yeah but they are usually the first to post the doom and gloom news 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Great news about the hospital admissions now they have altered the stats. It would have been much better if they had done this earlier, perhaps like the deaths figures used both, certainly once we were out of lockdown and numbers were smaller.

 

If we could now get the testing sorted out it would really help. Perhaps mass antibody testing would help now too, all the positive tests from it wouldn't need another live virus test.

 

I think one thing the SG need to re-assess is the 6/2 rule, it either needs to be 6 adults from any households plus kids, or 2 households up to any number. The current rule is too restrictive and rules out too many events in our normal lives. I can only assume it set as it is to assist with enforcement, but I think if it was now altered and explained why then backed with information campaigns then compliance would be high.

 

I also think if we are doing masking we should be doing masking and that means everyone, everywhere indoors and have much better bigger information campaign to educate how, when where, what type etc

You were doing well until the last paragraph ! 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Great news about the hospital admissions now they have altered the stats. It would have been much better if they had done this earlier, perhaps like the deaths figures used both, certainly once we were out of lockdown and numbers were smaller.

 

If we could now get the testing sorted out it would really help. Perhaps mass antibody testing would help now too, all the positive tests from it wouldn't need another live virus test.

 

I think one thing the SG need to re-assess is the 6/2 rule, it either needs to be 6 adults from any households plus kids, or 2 households up to any number. The current rule is too restrictive and rules out too many events in our normal lives. I can only assume it set as it is to assist with enforcement, but I think if it was now altered and explained why then backed with information campaigns then compliance would be high.

 

I also think if we are doing masking we should be doing masking and that means everyone, everywhere indoors and have much better bigger information campaign to educate how, when where, what type etc

Agreed. The 6/2 limit is because bigger groups are where the virus is being passed around. 

[Shanks]

47 minutes ago, graygo said:

So out of a population of around 5 million there is 48 people in hospital due to Covid-19, that's less than 0.001%

 

99.999% of us are not in hospital.

Exactly, just shows how laughable the shouts about a second lockdown are.  We are a million miles away from the NHS being over capacity.  
 

[The Internet]

Nicola deliberately nerfing the numbers to make it look like we're doing better imo

 

[Don Dan]

25 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

https://blogs.gov.scot/statistics/2020/09/15/counting-people-in-hospital-with-covid-19/

👍

 

[redjambo]

9 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

If we could now get the testing sorted out it would really help. Perhaps mass antibody testing would help now too, all the positive tests from it wouldn't need another live virus test.

 

The 12-minute test is currently being assessed for efficacy at several Scottish hospitals (see https://www.gov.scot/news/12-minute-covid-tests/ for the initial announcement of the test). Hopefully it will prove to be so and will be rolled out quickly because that will make a huge difference.

[Nucky Thompson]

23 hours ago, redjambo said:

@Nucky Thompson: Just a heads up, because I know you are interested in it, that today's stats from the SG indicate that the revised hospital figures are going to take effect as of tomorrow.

I thought that they might drop by about a hundred, never by that much.

 

No wonder they didn't revise the figures last week when they were meant to. Tightening restrictions at the same time as the true hospital figures come out 

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

Nicola deliberately nerfing the numbers to make it look like we're doing better imo

 

 

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Exactly, just shows how laughable the shouts about a second lockdown are.  We are a million miles away from the NHS being over capacity.  
 

 

If a lockdown was considered by the government,   the primary purpose would not be to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed.   The purpose would be to put a brake on rising infections.    Pre-emptively helping the NHS.    The big lockdown earlier in the year came when they had no idea whatsoever what the scale of the ICU and death rates would be.   It was an unknown quantity.    Much more is now known regarding how many people would be seriously affected.   Any future lockdown would be to prevent infections rising,   aiding the test,  trace and isolate system.   Slightly different to the initial crisis.

[Nucky Thompson]

2 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

I get that, but then make it like England 

She would never do that. Everything has to be different from England

[Bull's-eye]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

If a lockdown was considered by the government,   the primary purpose would not be to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed.   The purpose would be to put a brake on rising infections.    Pre-emptively helping the NHS.    The big lockdown earlier in the year came when they had no idea whatsoever what the scale of the ICU and death rates would be.   It was an unknown quantity.    Much more is now known regarding how many people would be seriously affected.   Any future lockdown would be to prevent infections rising,   aiding the test,  trace and isolate system.   Slightly different to the initial crisis.

 

Please get out more, please.

[Don Dan]

Hi it’s stupid here😬 will or are the rest of the UK adopting this new method of counting? 

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Hi it’s stupid here😬 will or are the rest of the UK adopting this new method of counting? 

 

They already do.

[Shanks]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

If a lockdown was considered by the government,   the primary purpose would not be to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed.   The purpose would be to put a brake on rising infections.    Pre-emptively helping the NHS.    The big lockdown earlier in the year came when they had no idea whatsoever what the scale of the ICU and death rates would be.   It was an unknown quantity.    Much more is now known regarding how many people would be seriously affected.   Any future lockdown would be to prevent infections rising,   aiding the test,  trace and isolate system.   Slightly different to the initial crisis.

How do you know this?  I’ve not seen it mentioned we would go into lockdown based purely on infections, majority of which cause no issues.  Lockdown is to protect the NHS from being ****ed.  
 

Yes if the hospital admissions increased they would start looking at it, I can’t see them going into lockdown based purely on infection rates. 

[Don Dan]

13 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

They already do.

Thanks. It beats me why we’re as the UK arnt using the same systems despite us being different countries. It would make commons sense to me especially when other countries outside the UK make decisions based on English counting and statistics. What I mean by that is countries like Spain or France would put in restrictions in people travelling there based on a mish mash of statistics. I might also add we the UK have different restrictions on travellers arrive here depending if it’s England or Scotland. The whole thing in my mind is really confusing. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Boy Daniel

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said:

Thanks. It beats why we’re as the UK arnt using the same systems despite us being different countries. It would make commons sense to me especially when other countries outside the UK make decisions based on English counting and statistics. What I mean by that is countries like Spain or France would put in restrictions in people travelling there based on a mish mash of statistics. I might also add we the UK have different restrictions on travellers arrive here depending if it’s England or Scotland. The whole thing in my mind is really confusing. 

 

Not sure why it's confusing. If you're in Scotland then follow the Scottish guidelines, in fact whatever country you're in then follow that countries guidelines.

[Nucky Thompson]

6 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Thanks. It beats me why we’re as the UK arnt using the same systems despite us being different countries. It would make commons sense to me especially when other countries outside the UK make decisions based on English counting and statistics. What I mean by that is countries like Spain or France would put in restrictions in people travelling there based on a mish mash of statistics. I might also add we the UK have different restrictions on travellers arrive here depending if it’s England or Scotland. The whole thing in my mind is really confusing. 

Travel restrictions are down to rates of infection not hospitalisations 

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Not sure why it's confusing. If you're in Scotland then follow the Scottish guidelines, in fact whatever country you're in then follow that countries guidelines.

Sorry I may not have communicated my concern clearly. We are amalgamating statistics taken in different ways and they are logged as one, see worldometer daily updates. Where the over all death rate and infections etc are logged. 
Then you get the likes of Spain basing their restrictions on travellers based the on the total reported  by the UK whilst Scotland’s figures are better than say England. IMO all the way we record deaths etc should be the same. That way no country has restrictions placed on them unfairly.

[Pasquale for King]

40 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

I get that, but then make it like England and be a max of 6, at least groups of friends can play outside, a pint after a round of golf, coffee after a walk in park, it doesn't help families meet up though.

Depends on your family, I was lucky to meet mine in a big group twice recently outside for lunch. There’s a loophole though, it’s 6/2 but you can go to as many other householdS afterwards if you wish. Leitch said yesterday he would hope folk wouldn’t do it though. 30 folk can go game hunting though 🙈. 

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Sorry I may not have communicated my concern clearly. We are amalgamating statistics taken in different ways and they are logged as one, see worldometer daily updates. Where the over all death rate and infections etc are logged. 
Then you get the likes of Spain basing their restrictions on travellers based the on the total reported  by the UK whilst Scotland’s figures are better than say England. IMO all the way we record deaths etc should be the same. That way no country has restrictions placed on them unfairly.

 

Right, with you now.

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Travel restrictions are down to rates of infection not hospitalisations 

Indeed but we all need to report and record these deaths, infections hospitalisation  in unison. We are an United Kingdom (at the moment) after all. At the moment we are disunited in what we are doing but other countries still treat us as one. 

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Right, with you now.

Sorry I’m not the brightest when it comes to communication in the written word. I was rubbish at English when I was at school😂

[Robbofan99]

51 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Please get out more, please.

Aye he keeps changing the goal posts . Probably peed off about the new stats in hospital as he can’t use that for his usual arguments . The NHS is not overwhelmed and Looks like it will not be despite rising “ infections “the only reason for the lockdown well primary reason for it was not to be overwhelmed so obviously that means there should not be another full lockdown . Unless they change the goal posts , which wouldn’t surprise me . 

[Don Dan]

Why are the dumbos in government not looking at this test for Covid19. Are we really this bloody slow and incompetent.

https://www.canarianweekly.com/posts/new-test-two-minutes-results

The Canary Islands Government has several test options to carry out on tourists entering and leaving the islands, as has been sent to the central Government in Madrid for approval, although it has a preference for a test that has all the guarantees of reliability, is the fastest on the market giving reliable results in just two minutes, and it only costs 15 euros. 

It is called the DSA Analyzer test, from the Rhogen laboratory, which works as a kind of hand-held breathalyzer and allows giving results from exhaled air.

This test, which was approved by European standards last week, as it meets all the reliability parameters, allows the identification of the different phases of virus infection through exhaled air.

The other option is the rapid detection PCR whose cost is 30 euros, but the time for results is one hour. The advantages of the Rhogen laboratory test are what make it the first option, according to Government sources.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Boy Daniel

[Robbofan99]

Only 5 people in Lothian in hospital with COVID                                                                                                        

Today's Covid-19 Data

267 new positive PCR tests -  3.6% of 7512 newly tested individuals (may not reflect the total number of new cases#).

1 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive

6## people in ITU last night with recently confirmed 

48## people were in hospital 'with recently confirmed COVID-19'.*

* The data reported today may be incomplete as a result of a backlog of test results accumulated in the UK lab network. Work is underway to urgently address this issue.

** Due to the previous inclusion of people who are no longer being treated for COVID-19 in number of people in hospital, from today this is a new measure that only counts in-patients who have first tested positive for COVID-19 recently.

GG and C 101, Lanarkshire 59  Lothian 53, Grampian 15, Ayrshire and Arran 13 with three island boards 0. Remainder 1-11. It is likely that the large number today is distorted by delay in processing tests yesterday.

Comment

The major change today is the way in which counting of patients has changed. This has resulted in a reduction of 'Covid-19 patients by 82% overnight. 

The impact is greatest in Lothian - down from 78 to fewer than 5 patients - a decrease of at least 95% with GG and C also showing a striking reduction from 138 to 22 patients - a decrease of 84%

These changes confirm that  longstanding concerns about over-counting have been  validated.

The comparative figures for the last 5 days, using the new methodology running in parallel to the old show that there is no trend change in numbers with random daily variance.

The delay in resolving this issue across Scotland, after it came to light in Fife in July (and was resolved) raises further questions about data reliability. In fairness it is evident by comparing 'old and new' methods that Lanarkshire data are accurate. It is also likely that other boards were using accurate case counting.

These figures indicate that there is no current evidence for a rise in the very small numbers of patients in hospital with 'active Covid-19' who currently occupy approximately  0.4% of Scotland's acute hospital beds.

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Shanks said:

How do you know this?  I’ve not seen it mentioned we would go into lockdown based purely on infections, majority of which cause no issues.  Lockdown is to protect the NHS from being ****ed.  
 

Yes if the hospital admissions increased they would start looking at it, I can’t see them going into lockdown based purely on infection rates. 

 

Yes they would.   Nipping it in the bud early makes more sense than reacting to hospital figures.   Any future general lockdown will absolutely be reactive to infections.   Keeping infections in check allows test,  trace and isolate to function.   Aids the economy as well because such a lockdown need only be short in duration.    Waiting to react to hospital admissions means the infections are already running much higher,  meaning a longer duration of lockdown would probably be needed.

 

I think a general lockdown is unlikely but it's not out of the question.   More likely is a nationwide set of specific restrictions similar to the localised ones we've seen.

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Robbofan99 said:

Aye he keeps changing the goal posts . Probably peed off about the new stats in hospital as he can’t use that for his usual arguments . The NHS is not overwhelmed and Looks like it will not be despite rising “ infections “the only reason for the lockdown well primary reason for it was not to be overwhelmed so obviously that means there should not be another full lockdown . Unless they change the goal posts , which wouldn’t surprise me . 

 

Not changing any goalposts.   I can understand why you might be led to believe so of course.    What with you being intellectually diverse.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

She would never do that. Everything has to be different from England

[Nucky Thompson]

Why do they give the percentage of positive cases as newly tested individuals?

Does it matter if someone tests positive on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th test? It should be the percentage of all tests processed that day

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

it is, but Furlough isn't

A good time to introduce the Basic income? 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Why do they give the percentage of positive cases as newly tested individuals?

Does it matter if someone tests positive on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th test? It should be the percentage of all tests processed that day

 

Isn't the percentage rate just daily total specific?    

[redjambo]

10 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Why do they give the percentage of positive cases as newly tested individuals?

Does it matter if someone tests positive on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th test? It should be the percentage of all tests processed that day

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Nucky, but does this help in any way?

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-data-definitions-and-sources/

 

Edit: I see where you're coming from now. I also don't understand why the percentage figure isn't simply calculated as positive test results divided by individuals tested. It doesn't make much sense otherwise (and its accuracy would depend on the percentage of folk who have multiple tests that would affect this particular statistic). Perhaps someone else will have more insight.

Edited September 15, 2020 by redjambo

[SE16 3LN]

10 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

A good time to introduce the Basic income? 

Could he a good call

[The Internet]

14 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Why do they give the percentage of positive cases as newly tested individuals?

Does it matter if someone tests positive on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th test? It should be the percentage of all tests processed that day

 

To make the percentage look higher. 

[TheOak88]

Sweden today reported its lowest case numbers since March. 

[Back to 2005]

8 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

Sweden today reported its lowest case numbers since March. 

Not reported in the MSM presumably?

[Nucky Thompson]

18 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Nucky, but does this help in any way?

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-data-definitions-and-sources/

Thanks. I read that, but I still don't get why they do it like that.

If someone tests negative last week and then positive today, they will be included as a newly tested individual last week.

There was 17,000 tests done that reported a result today

Edited September 15, 2020 by Nucky Thompson

[TheOak88]

3 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Not reported in the MSM presumably?

 

Yeah it was reported in MSM. I got the info from an article in the Guardian today about it. 

[The Internet]

Surely folk that test positive are tested repeatedly afterwards, would skew the numbers a bit. 

[graygo]

22 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Why do they give the percentage of positive cases as newly tested individuals?

Does it matter if someone tests positive on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th test? It should be the percentage of all tests processed that day

 

Lots of folk are tested more than once on the same day, some reasons in this article.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8277901/Why-people-two-coronavirus-tests.html

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Yeah it was reported in MSM. I got the info from an article in the Guardian today about it. 

 

I don't know where the Guardian got their info from because there was a significant leap in cases in Sweden today.

 

Taken from https://c19.se/ (updated for today, 15 Sep):

 

[redjambo]

6 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Lots of folk are tested more than once on the same day, some reasons in this article.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8277901/Why-people-two-coronavirus-tests.html

 

Interesting. If the same person is tested twice during the same reporting period (day, in this case), then I can see why you would want to only include them once for the purposes of the percentage statistic which covers that reporting period. This isn't specified in the Scottish data explanations though, so I remain slightly confused with Nucky as to the exact application of the handling of this statistic.

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I don't know where the Guardian got their info from because there was a significant leap in cases in Sweden today.

 

Taken from https://c19.se/ (updated for today, 15 Sep):

 

 

Sweden had it's lowest number of cases since March yesterday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/sweden-records-its-fewest-daily-covid-19-cases-since-march

 

Edit: sorry, that's a rolling average not a daily number.

Edited September 15, 2020 by graygo