COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[ayrshire_blue]

Might already have been mentioned and apologies if so - but that's a couple of days in a row now the testing figures simply state 'umavailable' when referring to the number of people tested, anyone know why these figures have all of a sudden became unavailable?

This can't be to do with the bank holiday weekend now surely? It's not been announced this way since the pandemic kicked off so why now?

 

[Uwe`s Grandad]

This can't be to do with the bank holiday weekend now surely? It's not been announced this way since the pandemic kicked off so why now?

 

[St.Pauli support]

Because of the lock down, lots of people have not been affected by the virus. Therefore they look at the figures and think we have over reacted. The figures would have been far worse if we had just let it run through us. Then all these people like TrueBlue would have been kicking off, if it had killed someone they loved.

This phenomenon of "prevention paradox" is much discussed in Germany nowadays as an explanation for all those anti-lockdown protesters, who are driven by many different aspects.

Btw, the term was first described 1981 by Geoffrey Rose, an English epidemiologist.

"Prevention paradox" mainly says you can't see the success of prevention as nothing really happened,
because the disaster to be prevented didn't come true - and the measures seem to be useless.

We don't get a direct reward for our altruistic behaviour.
Prevention is not very sexy in a modern selfish society used to sensational news and big events.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Ahh, cheers!

 

[johnnytapia]

Rate of infection has crept up again in Manchester: (was 244, then 276, then 280, now 283 per 100,000 habitants).
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate

 

[True_Blue69]

Getting destroyed by the facts so now trying diversion.

What facts have you presented mate only thing I've seen you reply is dickhead, bullshit, bollocks etc. Clearly feel comfortable acting like a nob on a web forum, each to their own.

 

[Rammy Blue]

We did briefly drop below 0 excess deaths for non COVID-19 deaths on 8th of May. It has since gone up a bit. Other than that, the article is pretty good.
New cases do appear to be stopping at about 20% with deaths similarly at 20% of those with co- comorbidities who get infected.
The comments on the Dianond Princess are interesting. As are the comments on Japen and Sweden.
If UK public health opinion was correct, both Sweden and Japan should be charnel houses as they haven't locked down. They aren't - far from it.
If Sweeden had our population they would be looking at 28k deaths so far. They're about a month behind us epidemic time wise so they're still behind our total.
Japan is way behind our death rate.
Japan has reasonable track,trace and test though not in the same league as South Korea. They do however universally wear face masks - as do most in Sweden. Research will probanly confirm that social distancing and face masks are the two major defences against this virus. That is what I expect anyway given the patterns developing across the world.

“As do most in Sweden” with regards face masks is wrong.

 

[blueparrot]

Rate of infection has crept up again in Manchester: (was 244, then 276, then 280, now 283 per 100,000 habitants).
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate

Unless I’m misunderstanding, surely it can only creep up, the rate of increase can change, but the rate of infections per 100,000 can’t reduce.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Because of the lock down, lots of people have not been affected by the virus. Therefore they look at the figures and think we have over reacted.

It's mind numbing how people cannot get this through their thick fucking skulls..... We put measures in place to ensure the numbers were lowered and they have worked. It's like all these numskulls ripping into Ferguson's predictions, when it was pretty fucking clear that was with 'no intervention'.

 

[Fame Monster]

This phenomenon of "prevention paradox" is much discussed in Germany nowadays as an explanation for all those anti-lockdown protesters, who are driven by many different aspects.

Btw, the term was first described 1981 by Geoffrey Rose, an English epidemiologist.

"Prevention paradox" mainly says you can't see the success of prevention as nothing really happened,
because the disaster to be prevented didn't come true - and the measures seem to be useless.

We don't get a direct reward for our altruistic behaviour.
Prevention is not very sexy in a modern selfish society used to sensational news and big events.

It would have been interesting to see whether an early travel ban and ban on mass gatherings would have been more effective than the lockdown imposed.

I imagine it would have been far less damaging to the economy and it's difficult to imagine it would have cost any more lives than the delayed lockdown approach the UK eventually took.