COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[kevin horlocks wand]

Remind me when kids were not being educated?

We jumped through all the hoops to provide remote learning during the first lockdown. Any kids who did nothing during that time, the responsibility lies with their parents.

well thats not the kids fault is it ?

 

[True_Blue69]

You have already said you haven’t been in one since they reopened so you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
And already, today, the govt have taken a step to making them safer by giving teaching staff priority with NHS staff for testing.
Before today that didn’t happen.

What are you on about? I said I am not allowed in which is a safety measure in itself. Our school have told us the measures they have put in and all parents we have spoken to are happy that it is as safe as it can get.

Even better that they are making them safer, I wasn't aware of that but I'm amazed it was not introduced earlier.

 

[Healdplace]

This Morming today had Andrew Neil (living in France) and Nick Ferrari discussing the restrictions. They both flat out agreed with those on here saying the numbers are being deliberately talked up by the government to scare us all and that there will be no serious second wave.

They were adamant it is not doubling every week in France as we were told and deaths rocketing etc and might even be stalling or fizzling out in the two countries used to scare us and deaths in France are not in the hundreds.

Usually I trust Andrew Neil as a hard hitting intervirewer so I am wondering where they get this argument from.

Is there evidence for this?

I then looked at the official death figures for France. They peaked more or less when we did around mid April with around 1300/1400 deaths a day - pretty much what we had then too. Even though they were apparently a week or two ahead of us in the epidemic. So that is a bit odd to start with as you would have expected us to lag them. Actually we seem to have just had a less sharp peak and it then flattened more slowly afterwards when France's dropped more quickly to small numbers.

So presumably whatever differences were in play made that marked change apparent.

In May the French deaths were up and down sharply in ways ours were not. One day 10 May 70 and 11 May 263 for example. On 10 May we had 347 (to their 70) and on 11 May 309 (to their 263) - so no such sharp up/down and we were still more 'stable' but higher in general as our curve fell more slowly than France.

On 16 May France had 96 deaths (we had 314). On 17 May France had 483 (we had 266). On 18 May France fell to 131 (we had 293).

That 131 was the highest France has had since until just 3 days ago when it had 184 - a total anomaly v the days around it which were nowjere near that high. So likely due to a catch up of old data not a sudden rise.

In June in France the numbers fell into the 20s and 30s and even had just 9 as soon on 14 June (4 weeks after that near 500). The UK did not get a single figure number until four weeks later well into July.

In recent days France had 50, day after 25. Then 11 two days ago. Then 53 yesterday. The UK had 27. 27 and 18. Very similar total numbers.

So its hard to see a pattern here as their system of recording deaths has always apparently created sharp spikes that come out of nowhere but are not really evidence of a trend.

The UK deaths since May have been more smooth and continued the steady fall we saw after the mid April huge peak with the small but obvious impact of the Monday underreporting of Sunday data and then catch up on Tuesdays. In June our deaths were far higher than France throughout the month with only a handful of sub 100 totals v France having an entire month sub 100. When we had many in the high 100s, plenty of 200s and several in the 300s.

I dare say then they might have compared us with them then and said whatever they were doing differently in June versus us was obviously working and ours was not. But I doubt it was that simple. And it looks very suspect to judge patterns in France in September as a reasonably preduictor of where we may be going based on the above.

Not supporting or denying either argument on the we will follow France to hundreds of deaths. Just saying that looking at the data suggests France had a sharper peak, faster fall and in general is not that far above us now. At most by a factor of 2.

So the interesting question is how did they get their deaths so low so fast in May and we took longer to tail off?

 

[Marvin]

This Morming today had Andrew Neil (living in France) and Nick Ferrari discussing the restrictions. They both flat out agreed with those on here saying the numbers are being deliberately talked up by the government to scare us all and that there will be no serious second wave.

They were adamant it is not doubling every week in France as we were told and deaths rocketing etc and might even be stalling or fizzling out in the two countries used to scare us and deaths in France are not in the hundreds.

Usually I trust Andrew Neil as a hard hitting intervirewer so I am wondering where they get this argument from.

Is there evidence for this?

I then looked at the official death figures for France. They peaked more or less when we did around mid April with around 1300/1400 deaths a day - pretty much what we had then too. Even though they were apparently a week or two ahead of us in the epidemic. So that is a bit odd to start with as you would have expected us to lag them. Actually we seem to have just had a less sharp peak and it then flattened more slowly afterwards when France's dropped more quickly to small numbers.

So presumably whatever differences were in play made that marked change apparent.

In May the French deaths were up and down sharply in ways ours were not. One day 10 May 70 and 11 May 263 for example. On 10 May we had 347 (to their 70) and on 11 May 309 (to their 263) - so no such sharp up/down and we were still more 'stable' but higher in general as our curve fell more slowly than France.

On 16 May France had 96 deaths (we had 314). On 17 May France had 483 (we had 266). On 18 May France fell to 131 (we had 293).

That 131 was the highest France has had since until just 3 days ago when it had 184 - a total anomaly v the days around it which were nowjere near that high. So likely due to a catch up of old data not a sudden rise.

In June in France the numbers fell into the 20s and 30s and even had just 9 as soon on 14 June (4 weeks after that near 500).

The day before the 131 in recent days France had 50, day after 25. Then 11 two days ago, Then 53 yesterday. So its hard to see a pattern here as their system of recording deaths has always apparently created sharp spikes that come out of nowhere but are not really evidence of a trend.

The UK deaths since May have been more smooth and continued the steady fall we saw after the mid April huge peak with the small but obvious impact of the Monday underreporting of Sunday data and then catch up on Tuesdays. In June our deaths were far higher than France throughout the month with only a handful of sub 100 totals v France having an entire month sub 100. When we had many in the high 100s, plenty of 200s and several in the 300s.

I dare say then they might have compared us with them and said whatever they were doing differently in June versus us was obviously working and ours was not. But I doubt it was that simple. And it looks very suspect to judge patterns in France in September as a reasonably preduictor of where we may be going based on the above.

Not supporting or denying either argument on the we will follow France to hundreds of deaths. Just saying that looking at the data suggests France had a sharper peak, faster fall and in general is not that far above us now. At most by a factor of 2.

So the interesting question is how did they get their deaths so low so fast in May and we took longer to tail off?

Have a look at Spain on worldometer. Their new cases have been dropping for a week, although it's probably too soon to be certain. Yet the Government figures didn't capture that yesterday.

It appears that the infection is now predominantly in the young now and hence hospitalisations and deaths are much much lower than they were, however how do you prevent this reservoir on infection from spreading to the more vulnerable?

At times I've felt that we should just let it rip amongst the young whilst the rest of us be very careful indeed but the best policy seems now to be to just sit tight and safe until the vaccines are distributed.

 

[Healdplace]

Thank you. I will look at Spain but not post a similar stat heavy post on the comparison.

My view on what to do is not dissimilar as I have said often on here. The focus should be on making the vulnerable realise their vulnerability and balance their own risk and let the less vulnerable have the freedom to choose their balance of risk between enjoying life/work/exposure. But also understanding the hazard of the two groups mixing being the big threat to both of their preferred choices.

As you can only avoid legislating change if change can be persuaded by reason instead.

So as I have posted a few times here - focus (using TV ads NOT from politicians or scientists but generational icons) the message at these two separate groups. Because a unified message to the country is entirely the wrong approach given the nature of the pandemic and its way of impacting people.

It is clear that mostly younger people were catching it here but there has reportedly been a recent up tick in older people doing so. Its why Ayrshire and I post data on the over 60s testing positive where available each day. They are crucial to all this that they be kept low.

This is the most likely driver of increasing patients and ventilators and deaths.

Though - of course - there will be younger vulnerable people who need the same protection as older people and might need a third set of ads from an icon of theirs to make them understand their own true balance of risk.

I do hope the government pursue this targetted risk based approach not one unified message as that is way too confusing and people need to know what THEY should have the freedom to do and the possible consequences for them and others if they do not.

They have to wake up to this not being a virus that treats all citizens equally and if we message people as one that crucial element gets swamped.

 

[grunge]

The half arsed, in out shake it all about, open business, shit panic, shut them down again, now this town etc etc. That lockdown.

No businesses have been shut down though have they? at most removed an hour from pubs / resturants.

although removing it from resturants is a clear mistake. Singapour has shown resturants can be open with very little if not zero transmission as social distancing is easy.

 

[Quad]

No businesses have been shut down though have they? at most removed an hour from pubs / resturants.

although removing it from resturants is a clear mistake. Singapour has shown resturants can be open with very little if not zero transmission as social distancing is easy.

Says 5% from pubs , think it said 43 % from care homes

 

[abu13]

Seems odd to me that after 4 or 5 months of warning us of a deadly second wave, that we get to the point where the second wave may be starting and we don't appear to have a clear plan of action.

 

[Healdplace]

Boris about to give a statement to parliament live on TV.

He will still also address the nation at 8.00 pm

Nicola Sturgeon postpones hers to 2.20 as a result.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Seems odd to me that after 4 or 5 months of warning us of a deadly second wave, that we get to the point where the second wave may be starting and we don't appear to have a clear plan of action.

closing pubs an hour earlier, that will do the trick.