COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Healdplace]

The latest top ten red list (though recall based on several day old numbers as it uses the actual cases for that day not the ones reported for that day) is below:

You can compare with the GM ten boroughs week to week list that I gave here earlier this afternoon as the numbers used are reasonably comparable. Though not exactly due to the different case allocation methods. As the GM ones are what the position is now four days after the data used in the list above.

On todays data there would be no GM towns in the top 10.


1 Derry City and Strabane 1014

2 Nottingham 884

3 KNowsley 716

4 Liverpool 680

5 Burnley 584

6 Pendle 490

7 West Lancashire 487

8 Belfast 485

9 Sefton 483

10 Manchester 459

 

[Healdplace]

Showing signs of plateauing even ?

Some more than others but, yes, I did use that word in comparing the Welsh figures earlier as it looks very clear there week to week to week - 576 - 627 - 674 is a shallow increase. A 20% rise over two weeks.

 

[nellyonthewing]

1500 people die in the UK everyday on average. In Flu season probably hits 1750+.
Context seems to have been replaced by blind panic. .

 

[artfuldodger]

Another high % of the over 65s. Easy to see why deaths are rising now this bleed over has occurred from the younger age groups.

When it was 5/6% the deaths were small in total. They are starting to take off now it is more than double that.

It is obvious that this is the number one priority to try to bring down to stop the NHS being swamped.

If only we had a way to stop that transfer we could contain the worat aspect of this wave over the winter but we do not even seem to be doing anything much at all to even get this key fact across to people and try to stop it escalating.

I remain utterly baffled why there is no messaging direct to the vulnerable - who are as cheesed off and confused as everyone by what they are allowed/not allowed/advised/requested/mandated to do.

So they all just do what politicians do and we are where we are.

Why on Earth is no special messaging using icons they trust being used to make clear what is happening. I do not know a aingle person who trusts or even believes what any politician or government sponsored doctor is saying in the public domain any more. And almost noboody has a real clue about what they are allowed to do.

This just looks so obvious I am starting to wonder if they actually want older people to die to get this thing over with. So have a policy of deliberate incompetence.

Cannot be true, obviously, but their apparent strategy seems hard to understand. As the number one priority right now has to be stopo the vulnerable catching it and becoming the next statistic.

And nothing of the kind is happening.

Seeing as they are the vulnerable group, could research be done to find out where those over 75, who get the virus and maybe die, are getting it. Hospitals, family visits, shops, the pub? At least they’d then have a better idea where to avoid.

 

[BigJoe#1]

I’ve had a look at your article and I wasn’t that impressed Joe. If the Swedes had brilliant results then I would acknowledge it but they haven’t. We’ve been through this before on this forum and Sweden hadn’t done any better than its neighbours. Some posters highlight Sweden on ideological groundsthat is fair enough but even current results put it behind Sweden and Greece.

The European Respiratory Virus Surveillance Summary (ERVISS)

This interactive dashboard provides a weekly integrated epidemiological summary for influenza, RSV and SARS-CoV-2.

www.ecdc.europa.eu

I truly wish the Swedes had very few cases and the virus disappeared everywhere but just trying to undermine how UK figures are counted and pretending one country is doing much better than another doesn’t get us that far.

Fair points.

However, when you compare the number of deaths per 100,000, Over the last fourteen days Sweden are at 0.3 whilst the UK are at 1.7, nearly 6 times as many.

Looking at the number of new cases over the same period, Sweden are at 85.3 and the UK 333.3 again a significant variation wouldn't you agree?

Sweden chose to not shutdown keep their country ticking over, the UK took a different route. At the time no one knew which would be the better, all we knew was there would be deaths.

To me this shows Sweden are currently performing far better than the UK, and I wish there were less deaths here but to me this shows that the Swedish approach has worked better than the UK's.

I appreciate others might want to think differently but I find it hard to see it looking at these figures.

 

[SiMCFC]

I was working last night and nipped in Tesco in the middle of Lancaster on the way home, for all the shit the Uni students have been getting, they were all masked up and being sensible keeping to smaller groups all walking back up via the City centre, strange seeing all the bars etc closed though at about half 10 at night.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Indeed. We both have extremely high death rates. Whereas you claimed "quite indisputable that the deaths and reinfection rates are far superior to the majority of the rest of Europe."

Far from "indisputable", that is absolute prime bollocks. Not only is Sweden's death rate not "far superior to the rest of Europe", it's the exact opposite. There's not a single European country with a significantly worse death rate than Sweden.

Have you read TOTO's post?

Over the last fourteen days the UK has recorded 333.3 new cases per 100,000 compared to Swedens 85.5.

As for deaths, the UK recorded 1.7 per 100,000 people, whereas Sweden have recorded 0.3. I'm sure you'll agree that us a significant variance, that is roughly four times as many new cases in the UK and six times as many deaths.... now matter how you try to dress it up that is a significant variation.... and not prime bollocks... in my opinion.

 

[kaz7]

1500 people die in the UK everyday on average. In Flu season probably hits 1750+.
Context seems to have been replaced by blind panic. .

Tney dont die of a highly infectious virus we dont have immunity to , it is a false comparison imo

 

[Healdplace]

Seeing as they are the vulnerable group, could research be done to find out where those over 75, who get the virus and maybe die, are getting it. Hospitals, family visits, shops, the pub? At least they’d then have a better idea where to avoid.

That would be a good start - though you would hope someone did that long ago.

 

[blueparrot]

Fair points.

However, when you compare the number of deaths per 100,000, Over the last fourteen days Sweden are at 0.3 whilst the UK are at 1.7, nearly 6 times as many.

Looking at the number of new cases over the same period, Sweden are at 85.3 and the UK 333.3 again a significant variation wouldn't you agree?

Sweden chose to not shutdown keep their country ticking over, the UK took a different route. At the time no one knew which would be the better, all we knew was there would be deaths.

To me this shows Sweden are currently performing far better than the UK, and I wish there were less deaths here but to me this shows that the Swedish approach has worked better than the UK's.

I appreciate others might want to think differently but I find it hard to see it looking at these figures.

Its about more than death figures, if we hadn’t shut down in March the NHs would have been overwhelmed, it came close in some areas even woth lockdown, and many more would have died, not just from covid. Comparing what Sweden did and what we did is pointless.

 

[nellyonthewing]

Tney dont die of a highly infectious virus we dont have immunity to , it is a false comparison imo

Sadly those 1500 a day are predominantly elderly and many suffering with dementia, diabetes, copd or just old age and this cruel virus takes a large % of them.

 

[Healdplace]

Tney dont die of a highly infectious virus we dont have immunity to , it is a false comparison imo

Nor would someone suggest we are over reacting if we had an outbreak of cholera and were putting resources into curbing it.

Yes there has to be balance with not over stretching the economy but you do not ignore a highly infectious disease by likening it to flu. And the world is not stupid and pretty much everywhere is taking it as seriously as we are. Which would be odd if the planet was over reacting as one in a competition to reach bankcruptville first.

With flu we also spend a lot of money every single year fighting via ever expanding free vaccination.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Have you read TOTO's post?

Over the last fourteen days the UK has recorded 333.3 new cases per 100,000 compared to Swedens 85.5.

As for deaths, the UK recorded 1.7 per 100,000 people, whereas Sweden have recorded 0.3. I'm sure you'll agree that us a significant variance, that is roughly four times as many new cases in the UK and six times as many deaths.... now matter how you try to dress it up that is a significant variation.... and not prime bollocks... in my opinion.

And i believe the population in sweden is as dense as here in uk. The line spun that sweden is more spread out is incorrect. The vast majority live in Citys , same as here

 

[BigJoe#1]

Its about more than death figures, if we hadn’t shut down in March the NHs would have been overwhelmed, it came close in some areas even woth lockdown, and many more would have died, not just from covid. Comparing what Sweden did and what we did is pointless.

Well apart from the fact we built loads of unused Nightingale hospitals and, the nett benefit is the prospects going forward. We could have done the same as Sweden and built our nightingale hospitals which would have been a back up and protected our NHS as in fact it did.

Don't get me wrong, Sweden messed up but that was mainly in the protection of care homes. They too, like the rest of the world can learn lessons form other countries by taking the best of each. The trouble is our politicians do not want to acknowledge they may have got it wrong.

Nothing to do with blame but about learning lessons and best practise going forward.

 

[Healdplace]

16,171 cases - up about 500

 

[blueparrot]

And i believe the population in sweden is as dense as here in uk. The line spun that sweden is more spread out is incorrect. The vast majority live in Citys , same as here

The average population density for Sweden is 25.4 inhabitants per km2 (2019).

As of 2019, the population density for the United Kingdom was 275 people per square kilometer.

10 times less.

 

[Healdplace]

England hospital numbers

Patients up 167 in day to 4814. (wk ago 3225) (50% rise)

Ventilators up 12 in day to 494. (wk ago 396) (25% rise)

 

[BigJoe#1]

The average population density for Sweden is 25.4 inhabitants per km2 (2019).

As of 2019, the population density for the United Kingdom was 275 people per square kilometer.

10 times less.

The average maybe, but if we compare cities Marcus has a point.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Have you read TOTO's post?

Over the last fourteen days the UK has recorded 333.3 new cases per 100,000 compared to Swedens 85.5.

As for deaths, the UK recorded 1.7 per 100,000 people, whereas Sweden have recorded 0.3. I'm sure you'll agree that us a significant variance, that is roughly four times as many new cases in the UK and six times as many deaths.... now matter how you try to dress it up that is a significant variation.... and not prime bollocks... in my opinion.

You forget the density of populations per square mile in the countries though, compared to Sweden we are living in a shoebox compared to them, it’s no surprise rates are higher.

 

[blueparrot]

Well apart from the fact we built loads of unused Nightingale hospitals and, the nett benefit is the prospects going forward. We could have done the same as Sweden and built our nightingale hospitals which would have been a back up and protected our NHS as in fact it did.

Don't get me wrong, Sweden messed up but that was mainly in the protection of care homes. They too, like the rest of the world can learn lessons form other countries by taking the best of each. The trouble is our politicians do not want to acknowledge they may have got it wrong.

Nothing to do with blame but about learning lessons and best practise going forward.

Yes, the Nightingales were for an emergency in case the NHS was overwhelmed, luckily we locked down and didn’t need them. If we hasn’t locked down we may have needed them , that wouldnt have been a good thing, and wouldn’t have protected the NHS.
Whether for population,geographical, social, cultural, lifestyle reasons, whether the robustness of health services. They are all open to debate. What isn’t is that we could have taken the path they did. We simply couldn’t, it would have caused a health service and social care meltdown.