COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[55yr old teenager]

Of course it is

What do you mean? There is no personal Info being released. Dont mean this the it will sound but they will just be a number (cringe inside for saying that)

 

[DrBlueBob]

Oi behave. ;)

Sorry Oakie. (-:

 

[oakiecokie]

I’m just saying 93 is a good innings mate. Not that I think she should be out and about doing stuff.

Liz or my Mum ? Hey mate it was a bit of a piss take and it wasn`t meant as a debate. ;)

 

[meltonblue]

The pathway of the disease elsewhere, its contagion and mortality rate, the population density of China within urban areas and the Chinese government’s inveterate propensity for dissembling are all cogent elements of evidence to support that assertion.

There is nothing xenophobic about concluding that based on the foregoing, the Chinese figures are manifestly wrong.

The contagion and mortality rate that China experienced at the onset is similar to other countries as well though (mortality rate is a difficult one anyway due to the inconsistency in testing approach everywhere). Ultimately, the question is whether the level of lockdown that China went to was capable of suppressing their curve enough to account for the lower figures. It certainly would have had a significant impact which I don't think people are really taking into account, the limiting of the spread eventually in other countries is showing that in itself. They would have got their contagion rate down far quicker.

I don't think that in itself would have done it though, I'm sure there will be more. The real number will probably be somewhere in the middle of what China said and what some are suggesting.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I think the problem here is the data source.

If you stick to the official government announcements you get this:




NHS England will have a different reporting system to the whole of UK figures which are issued by the Government.

The accumulative number is now the only reliable one to use since it’s come to light they’re dishing out previous days’ deaths on any old date.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Aren't you a lawyer? Doesn't seem like it.

None of the above is *evidence* of China frigging the numbers. And moreover, you overlook two extremely salient points:

1. That China locked down much more severely and indeed more quickly than any other nation has done. Other countries have finally seen the light as to how to deal with this crisis, but in the west, without exception has acted too late and compared to China, not as severely. We are attempting now to do what they did, albeit with a massively higher base of infections to start with. It is entirely conceivable - IMO likely - that from that lower base and with their severe lock down, they did in fact manage to quickly get the new infection rate right down - as we are trying to do. And with that, the death rate has been restrained.

2. Were this not the case and China opened up its manufacturing base and it's ports once more - as it has done - then the disease would be running rife across the country with a death toll which not only I am sure would be unacceptable even to the Chinese (the word "even" added for the xenophobes), but also it would be at levels impossible to keep secret. Satellite surveillance if nothing else would uncover the vast mortuaries which would be needed. And anyway, the more westernise urban centres with countless western journalists would also be rife with it, and we'd know about it.

What we can logically conclude is that China *does* have this situation under control. Whether the peak number of deaths is higher than they admitted to, doubtless will come out over the fullness of time. But the constant wild speculation on here that they are lying about everything and anything is honestly quite pathethic.

Pathethic [sic] or not, your first comment greatly amuses me against the backdrop of your frequent self-declared inability to find gainful and worthwhile employment. Whatever you occasionally do for a living, you clearly aren’t very good at it, although better than you are at constructing and putting an argument across, I’ll hazard.

Stick to your day ‘job’, when this all ends and I’ll stick to mine - I never struggle for work btw, quite the opposite, which should tell you all you need to know about my capabilities.

You don’t understand the difference between evidence and speculation. You said there was no evidence and I provided some, as did you. It’s not my fault that you’re too simple to understand the distinction.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The contagion and mortality rate that China experienced at the onset is similar to other countries as well though (mortality rate is a difficult one anyway due to the inconsistency in testing approach everywhere). Ultimately, the question is whether the level of lockdown that China went to was capable of suppressing their curve enough to account for the lower figures. It certainly would have had a significant impact which I don't think people are really taking into account, the limiting of the spread eventually in other countries is showing that in itself. They would have got their contagion rate down far quicker.

I don't think that in itself would have done it though, I'm sure there will be more. The real number will probably be somewhere in the middle of what China said and what some are suggesting.

I fully accept the Chine policy of containment will have significantly, in fact hugely, suppressed the figures, but not to the extent claimed. I simply don’t think it’s possible, especially given the complete absence of knowledge about the disease at the outset.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Pathethic [sic] or not, your first comment greatly amuses me against the backdrop of your frequent self-declared inability to find gainful and worthwhile employment. Whatever you occasionally do for a living, you clearly aren’t very good at it, although better than you are at constructing and putting an argument across, I’ll hazard.

Stick to your day ‘job’, when this all ends and I’ll stick to mine - I never struggle for work btw, quite the opposite, which should tell you all you need to know about my capabilities.

You don’t understand the difference between evidence and speculation. You said there was no evidence and I provided some, as did you. It’s not my fault that you’re too simple to understand the distinction.

WTF are you talking about??? "Struggle for work"??? What an arsehole.

You're being a needlessly offensive twat and BTW completely wrong in every respect. You have no fucking clue about my personal circumstances. You pompous wanker.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

WTF are you talking about??? "Struggle for work"??? What an arsehole.

You're being a needlessly offensive twat and BTW completely wrong in every respect. You have no fucking clue about my personal circumstance. You wanker.

That post amuses me even more.

 

[Phil1]

Play nice, folks.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That post amuses me even more.

How interesting.

Take a look at yourself pal. No fucking wonder people think lawyers are cunts.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Pathethic [sic] or not, your first comment greatly amuses me against the backdrop of your frequent self-declared inability to find gainful and worthwhile employment. Whatever you occasionally do for a living, you clearly aren’t very good at it, although better than you are at constructing and putting an argument across, I’ll hazard.

Stick to your day ‘job’, when this all ends and I’ll stick to mine - I never struggle for work btw, quite the opposite, which should tell you all you need to know about my capabilities.

You don’t understand the difference between evidence and speculation. You said there was no evidence and I provided some, as did you. It’s not my fault that you’re too simple to understand the distinction.

Now that was a burn

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Well that escalated.

 

[jitsubluedan]

I fully accept the Chine policy of containment will have significantly, in fact hugely, suppressed the figures, but not to the extent claimed. I simply don’t think it’s possible, especially given the complete absence of knowledge about the disease at the outset.

Unless of course they knew more about the disease and its source than they are letting on!

; )

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Unless of course they knew more about the disease and its source than they are letting on!

; )

I nearly caveated with that tbf, but couldn’t be arsed!

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Might already have been covered in here, but any idea why sources such as the BBC report different daily figures for some countries than the likes of worldometer? They're almost 400 apart on the death count today. Usually I'd count the BBC as being relatively trustworthy source but that's a fair bit apart.

Anyway, I hope everyone is well, stay safe folks.

 

[meltonblue]

I fully accept the Chine policy of containment will have significantly, in fact hugely, suppressed the figures, but not to the extent claimed. I simply don’t think it’s possible, especially given the complete absence of knowledge about the disease at the outset.

I agree. The only thing I'd say is their lockdown was akin to worst case scenario - it was to an extent that we aren't at ourselves now. That and we have no idea what difference the mutations to the virus have made to some of the rates.

I'm fine with saying the China figures won't be accurate. I do think it does need a bit of balance though in terms of valid reasons for their ability to contain being mentioned at the same time. As much as I don't believe their figures, I don't believe some of the proposed figures being "leaked" either - the truth I imagine is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The contagion and mortality rate that China experienced at the onset is similar to other countries as well though (mortality rate is a difficult one anyway due to the inconsistency in testing approach everywhere). Ultimately, the question is whether the level of lockdown that China went to was capable of suppressing their curve enough to account for the lower figures. It certainly would have had a significant impact which I don't think people are really taking into account, the limiting of the spread eventually in other countries is showing that in itself. They would have got their contagion rate down far quicker.

I don't think that in itself would have done it though, I'm sure there will be more. The real number will probably be somewhere in the middle of what China said and what some are suggesting.

Consider this: If we locked *everyone* up for 2 or weeks (and shut our borders), then the virus would be completely gone from our shores. Everyone would be either recovered or dead and there would be zero new infections or deaths occurring at all. It would be gone.

Seems eminently plausible then, likely even, that the draconian lockdown imposed across Hubei did indeed suppress the virus to the extent they have reported.

What is certainly not "clear" is this wild assertion they are continually lying through their teeth about the levels of infection and death rates. Of course they may be, although I think it's unlikely if true to be anything more than exaggeration rather than orders of magnitude changing of figures, for the reasons I gave earlier. It would be obvious to the west at the moment, if that was going on.

 

[meltonblue]

Yeah, some of the "leaks" on what the actual figures might be are clearly bollocks too. The PR and deflection will go in all directions currently. It's worth considering if they were trying to suppress the numbers to a hugely significant extent, then they wouldn't have added in pneumonia deaths that weren't tested and confirmed fully as Covid into their numbers midway through their cycle.

I have no doubt you'll also get differences in the provinces and how they report up to central government too, the suppression isn't always to do with the central government.

Ultimately right now, it doesn't matter. How we deal with it and how quickly we get over it is down to our actions as individuals and a society and the decisions are own government make. The inquest can (and should) come later.

 

[Bovril]

Might already have been covered in here, but any idea why sources such as the BBC report different daily figures for some countries than the likes of worldometer? They're almost 400 apart on the death count today. Usually I'd count the BBC as being relatively trustworthy source but that's a fair bit apart.

Anyway, I hope everyone is well, stay safe folks.

Seriously ?