Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Rudy

Recommended Posts

Interesting point of view from a health economist. Argues we've already missed the boat on mass testing, puts numbers into perspective and concludes the only way out of this now is "staying in lockdown". 

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-as-a-health-economist-im-not-convinced-the-case-for-mass-testing-stacks-up-135257

I would say that we need to be able to test NHS staff because otherwise the next few weeks will be rockier than needed but we have to prioritise them. I also think now its too late to test enough people and track them sufficiently to enable lockdown being lifted. So testing should be for frontline staff, medical need and perhaps other emergency workers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, jayjayoghani said:

Testing for an STD, involves summat like that down your Japs eye.

So I'm told. 

I avoided them for years till i found out they could now do them via your piss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

For Casino and others with an open and inquisitive mind;

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/if-the-virus-is-so-bad-why-are-european-death-rates-down

So why we building emergency hospitals then?

Authors of articles like that ought to go to a busy hospital, take a look and maybe interview some staff, rather than sitting at home with their calculator trying to make on it's not that bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mickbrown said:

So we’re going to get 30 new ventilators by the weekend.

Fucking outstanding work lads. 

 

That's the kind of needless bullshitting from the government that's not needed. Michael Gove boasting to 7m people the day before at the briefing about the start of THOUSANDS OF VENTILATORS coming flying off the production line and to the rescue next week. Then quietly releasing the information that it's 30, with 'hundreds' to come in the next few weeks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

For Casino and others with an open and inquisitive mind;

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/if-the-virus-is-so-bad-why-are-european-death-rates-down

The error articles like this make is comparing annual national statistics for established causes of death, versus local statistics for a cause of death that's only been around for a couple of months in a few cities.

Its like comparing the deaths in the first weeks of WW2 versus the total deaths in WW1.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

So testing should be for frontline staff, medical need and perhaps other emergency workers. 

Are we counting school staff as frontline staff ? I'm coming at this from a bit of a selfish perspective but maybe it's a bit wider than that.

The vast majority of kids still in schools are those with parents who are "key workers".

Those kids are the most likely to be exposed to the virus, they act as a perfect host, stay well, let it multiply and then snot all over everything and so on. Social distancing and the necessary hygiene isn't going to happen at the primary school level, so you've got a number of virus bombs running around potentially infecting staff.

There might be a small number of kids and a small number of staff and in theory we are all social distancing etc but one of those staff goes to Tesco and uses a trolley and infects the handle etc etc.

Wife is back in tomorrow and although I'm hoping she's actually had the virus we don't know and I'll have to hold my hand up and say I'm uncharacteristically worried about her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

 

Wife is back in tomorrow and although I'm hoping she's actually had the virus we don't know and I'll have to hold my hand up and say I'm uncharacteristically worried about her.

teachers should be higher up in the queue than most, think the NHS frontline and emergency workers go first though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
15 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

Are we counting school staff as frontline staff ? I'm coming at this from a bit of a selfish perspective but maybe it's a bit wider than that.

The vast majority of kids still in schools are those with parents who are "key workers".

Those kids are the most likely to be exposed to the virus, they act as a perfect host, stay well, let it multiply and then snot all over everything and so on. Social distancing and the necessary hygiene isn't going to happen at the primary school level, so you've got a number of virus bombs running around potentially infecting staff.

There might be a small number of kids and a small number of staff and in theory we are all social distancing etc but one of those staff goes to Tesco and uses a trolley and infects the handle etc etc.

Wife is back in tomorrow and although I'm hoping she's actually had the virus we don't know and I'll have to hold my hand up and say I'm uncharacteristically worried about her.

See, this thing is bringing out the old softie in us all. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
41 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

The error articles like this make is comparing annual national statistics for established causes of death, versus local statistics for a cause of death that's only been around for a couple of months in a few cities.

Its like comparing the deaths in the first weeks of WW2 versus the total deaths in WW1.  

Doesn't quite sit right that article.

The final paragraph suggests it's an overreaction to lockdown: if we go above the critical mass of cases in hospital we run the risk of more deaths, ruining NHS staff and having a level of government trust through the floor.

Can see what it's trying to say, but we'd have needed far more testing to get towards that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nordkurve
2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Yep. Woman at the lodge whilst walking the dogs. Her dog was happily mooching. She suddenly grabbed it, struggled to put it on the lead whilst desperately trying to pull a scarf over her face. Then descended down the banking like Hilary trying to get away from an Everest like storm.

Wouldn't make eye contact, nor speak.

I could do no more than laugh.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind but I was only walking along with my cock out!

Ha ha. Made me laugh that. Just what I needed this morning after a shit nights sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

The error articles like this make is comparing annual national statistics for established causes of death, versus local statistics for a cause of death that's only been around for a couple of months in a few cities.

Its like comparing the deaths in the first weeks of WW2 versus the total deaths in WW1.  

Are you saying the article is a pile of shite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter

I’d rather the government over reacted, and we had NHS staff twiddling their thumbs for a few weeks, than doing very little and seeing hospitals looking like Omaha Beach on d day.

We just have to accept the lockdown, stick to it and hope we can come out of hibernation sometime in May.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Doesn't quite sit right that article.

The final paragraph suggests it's an overreaction to lockdown: if we go above the critical mass of cases in hospital we run the risk of more deaths, ruining NHS staff and having a level of government trust through the floor.

Can see what it's trying to say, but we'd have needed far more testing to get towards that.

aye, they trying to take an objective look at the numbers to justify their point of view, without taking a look at what is actually happening in the real world

but then it's on conservativewoman.co.uk, so there's no room for a subjective point of view, or empathy for others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Doesn't quite sit right that article.

The final paragraph suggests it's an overreaction to lockdown: if we go above the critical mass of cases in hospital we run the risk of more deaths, ruining NHS staff and having a level of government trust through the floor.

Can see what it's trying to say, but we'd have needed far more testing to get towards that.

It's been written by someone who's already decided that lockdown is an overreaction, and then looks for evidence to prove that point, which is the opposite of scientific method.

An example of this is where he cherry picks flu death figures for the whole of the UK in a  particularly bad whole year, (28K for 2014-15) under a non lockdown situation, where a virus has been allowed to exponentially spread.

Why not use last years flu season figures, or an average (because they're lower), why not just compare London for the month of March?  why not extrapolate out the current figures to get an annual one and build in the effect of a lockdown on flu figures - all these would be a more accurate way of comparing - but it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.