Note the poster and his posting history in the thread. Only a month ago he was saying there was no difference in overall total deaths per day in the U.K.
Ain't that the truth. Juvenile point scoring from virtually all of them.
This is the question that is key to leaving lockdown:
"If we are going to leave lockdown how are we going to restart mass public transport without mass temperature checks, hand sanitizer deployed everywhere, the compulsory wearing of face masks (or face coverings) and the mass disinfection of trains/trams/busses and stations."
Not once has it remotely close to having been asked.
Second time you've accused me of lying and been proven wrong, first one was antibody tests. I'll accept an apology when you're ready.
'Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.'
From this study https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
Stanford also estimated 0.12%-0.2% from their study.
When we started this back and forth, I looked at your 8 pages of posting history on the thread and you've done nothing but happy clap and post mindless optimism from the start. Luckily, you're no where near any position of power and had no part in the country or world's preparedness or response.There wasn't at the time was there? Look at the numbers at the time.
Clearly there is now and it's shite but if the numbers that some studies are saying may have had it are right, that's a good thing. You are obsessed with focussing on the worst possible case all the time for some reason.
Without being party political, there’s a lot of truth in this. A massive amount of NHS time seems to be wasted in normal times due to lack of strategic thinking. Part of the problem is probably the high turnover of ministers, which gives little incentive to think long term.Don't want this to come across wrong, of course anyone who needs NHS help should get it, but if we can create a culture where far fewer people waste everyone's time clogging up A&E with things a GP or Out of Hours can sort, the better. We need to re-establish walk-ins during this time and try and correct what in the past 2 decades has been a needless crushing of our A&E departments.
Shame we don't have a government that can spot opportunities like this in the "downtime", before everyone goes back out partying again and cramming our essential services up.
Nobody is advocating uncritical acceptance of anything, we have a right to know why decisions are taken and in a democracy our politicians have a duty to answer truthfully. They and their advisers in SAGE also have a right to meet and discuss the data and the options and issues in private. Confidentiality is a necessary precondition to ensure the integrity and honesty of those interactions and has been a feature of the relationship between elected MPs and their civil servants and advisers in this country for a very long time. It is a system that has served us well and the secrecy is in the public interest and is temporary.So we are following a modeller who has been wrong in the past (the only evidence we’ve got), secretive scientific groups, with some members sitting on all the advising groups, advising the government in secret and not publishing anything about that advice, leading to the government saying, ‘we are following the science’ so we will do this, that and the other and you’re happy to never question any of that?
UC Berkeley
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-reports-of-low-fatality-rate-for-covid-19/
"A comparison of daily deaths in Italy since January 2020 with those over the previous five years there indicates that the fatality rate in that country for those infected with the new coronavirus is at least 0.8%, far higher than that of the seasonal flu and higher than some recent estimates.
Extrapolating from the Italian data, University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory data scientists estimate that the fatality rate in New York City and Santa Clara County in California can be no less than 0.5%, or one of every 200 people infected.
These conclusions contrast with those of a study posted online last week by Stanford University epidemiologists, who pegged the fatality rate at between 0.1% and 0.2%. An affiliated team from the University of Southern California (USC) this week reported a similar fatality rate in Los Angeles.
The difference, the researchers say, is likely due to many deaths among older people that have not been counted in the official Italian statistics. The team found a much higher fatality rate for those over 70 years of age: In Lombardy, a region hit hard by the pandemic, those between 70 and 79 had a 2.3% infection fatality rate, while those 80 to 89 had an almost 6% fatality rate. Nearly 13% of those over 90 died.
The team also estimated, based on the predicted fatality rate for those infected with the new coronavirus and the positivity rate for those tested for COVID-19 in New York City, that about one-quarter of that city’s population has been infected with the virus. This agrees with the recent announcement by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo of 21% infection.
The team’s predicted infection rate for Santa Clara is around 1%, while that for Los Angeles is around 2%, based on current mortality rates.
Given known infection and fatality rates on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the team also calculated an upper limit on the fatality rate for those infected: about twice the lower limit, or 1%, for New York City and Santa Clara County.
With essentially everyone in Bergamo infected, and the known deaths since January — predicted to be more than 6,000 out of a population of 1 million — it was easy to calculate the lowest possible infected fatality rate: 0.56%.
For Lombardy, the researchers estimated that the lowest possible fatality rate was even higher: about 0.84%. They also estimated that 23% of the population of Lombardy was infected, as of April 18 — on average, 35 times the number of positive tests in the province."
When we started this back and forth, I looked at your 8 pages of posting history on the thread and you've done nothing but happy clap and post mindless optimism from the start. Luckily, you're no where near any position of power and had no part in the country or world's preparedness or response.
Yes it would be great if this was just a Flu with a similar (0.1%) mortality rate, however it's not. Anyone working in a hospital can tell you that, without needing to read and already questioned (and non-peer reviewed) study. I'd much rather take the pandemic seriously and not endanger loved ones.
If 100% of New York state had been infected the death rate would already be 0.13%Second time you've accused me of lying and been proven wrong, first one was antibody tests. I'll accept an apology when you're ready.
'Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.'
From this study https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
Stanford also estimated 0.12%-0.2% from their study.