Coronavirus

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Everyone should be accountable for their actions.
 

Trial by tabloid from some two bit journalist and experts on social media I just think is taking things a touch too far though. 

Fair enough. 
 

And if he has fucked of COBRA because he just couldn’t  be arsed you going to join me in removing his knackers?

Edited April 19, 2020 by mickbrown

[Tonge moor green jacket]

8 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Am I alone in thinking he shouldn’t be missing any?

Listen to Gove for a bit more insight. Put your opinion of him as a person to one side, and there's a bit to learn about these cobra meetings. I certainly did.

[mickbrown]

8 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Listen to Gove for a bit more insight. Put your opinion of him as a person to one side, and there's a bit to learn about these cobra meetings. I certainly did.

Will do. He’s an uber cunt though 

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

Fair enough. 
 

And if he has fucked if COBRA because he just couldn’t  be arsed you going to join me in removing his knackers?

No sorry as if I recall correctly there are a number of snowflakes on here who literally wet there knickers at the mention of any form of capital punishment and I don’t wish to upset them 

in respect of him missing these meetings. I don’t have enough of an understanding of the facts and even then I wouldn’t be sufficiently appraised to make a judgement.  Who else attended? or who has missed them? and the reasons behind Missing them? Who ultimately makes the final decisions in regards actions from those meetings? And would any individuals non-attendance to such a meeting have such a profound effect? 
 

I would balance that by saying I would expect all the necessary members of that committee to attend. But again I don’t know if this is a misguided expectation on my part. Because I know very little about it all. 
 

if it’s proven that there has been a dereliction of duties as is being implied by certain people, then I have enough faith in our system that his feet won’t touch the sides and he will be removed from office. 
 

I would also expect him to serve. A lengthy, Possibly life sentence for murder/manslaughter/culpable homiciide as unless I’m reading all this wrongly people are blaming him not attending for the death of thousands?  Which if true I would expect a long custodial sentence. 

[birch-chorley]

18 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Not sure it was pro-Brexit 

Never really read it

 

I read it 

Wasn’t pro Brexit at all, neither was the FT 

Which is why I always find it odd when folk try and say Murdoch controls the media. Half his titles were pro Brexit, the others against, that surely means he either doesn’t have as much editorial control as people think or he doesn’t give a shit either way 

[Ani]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52342511
 

Easy to forget the Liberals but the active service pay boost seems reasonable idea. 

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

No sorry as if I recall correctly there are a number of snowflakes on here who literally wet there knickers at the mention of any form of capital punishment and I don’t wish to upset them 

in respect of him missing these meetings. I don’t have enough of an understanding of the facts and even then I wouldn’t be sufficiently appraised to make a judgement.  Who else attended? or who has missed them? and the reasons behind Missing them? Who ultimately makes the final decisions in regards actions from those meetings? And would any individuals non-attendance to such a meeting have such a profound effect? 
 

I would balance that by saying I would expect all the necessary members of that committee to attend. But again I don’t know if this is a misguided expectation on my part. Because I know very little about it all. 
 

if it’s proven that there has been a dereliction of duties as is being implied by certain people, then I have enough faith in our system that his feet won’t touch the sides and he will be removed from office. 
 

I would also expect him to serve. A lengthy, Possibly life sentence for murder/manslaughter/culpable homiciide as unless I’m reading all this wrongly people are blaming him not attending for the death of thousands?  Which if true I would expect a long custodial sentence. 

Woah fella, who mentioned killing him? Just a gentle knacker removing 

Edited April 19, 2020 by mickbrown

[birch-chorley]

16 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It is. They backed Leave in the referendum and are steadfast in their support of Brexit and Boris.

For all I know the article this morning might be the most inaccurate, misleading article evr written, but the idea it's just another dig at the Tories is nonsense - he's literally being criticised by his own side here.

Incorrect, they were pro remain 

Breakdown by title here...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/which-newspapers-support-brexit_uk_5768fad2e4b0a4f99adc6525
 

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

Woah fella, who mentioned killing him? Just a gentle knacker removing 

That’s ok then.  
just all go down do it now as he’s guilty of whatever 

[masi 51]

Everything around the time of the virus outbreak revolved around Brexit that much was true.

Lets be honest about it if we had exited 12 months previously when we should have. Maybe then we would not have been fucking about with a election and making sure we was leaving at the end of January. So yes the re moaners made it impossible for a government to govern. 

The only person who predicted this was Bill Gates. And yet  the worlds leaders never listened to him.

[Escobarp]

Can people stop bringing facts into this debate. It spoils it for a number of folk

anyway happy Sunday its time for some exercise. Got a 3 hour walk ahead. route All planned and even got a wee sandwich packed to sit and have by the sea.
 

I will keep an eye out for boris’ criminal trial. See you all later for the dons Press briefing. 
 

[Rudy]

2 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Everything around the time of the virus outbreak revolved around Brexit that much was true.

Lets be honest about it if we had exited 12 months previously when we should have. Maybe then we would not have been fucking about with a election and making sure we was leaving at the end of January. So yes the re moaners made it impossible for a government to govern. 

The only person who predicted this was Bill Gates. And yet  the worlds leaders never listened to him.

Obama listened. There’s a video on YouTube where he talks about the world not being ready for a new pandemic.

[masi 51]

Well he was the one man that could have done more in forward planning....Did he really do enough.....

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

12 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Incorrect, they were pro remain 

Breakdown by title here...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/which-newspapers-support-brexit_uk_5768fad2e4b0a4f99adc6525
 

From that very article: "The Sunday Times has come out for Brexit, putting it at odds with its daily counterpart The Times, which has backed Remain."

[kent_white]

16 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Everything around the time of the virus outbreak revolved around Brexit that much was true.

Lets be honest about it if we had exited 12 months previously when we should have. Maybe then we would not have been fucking about with a election and making sure we was leaving at the end of January. So yes the re moaners made it impossible for a government to govern. 

The only person who predicted this was Bill Gates. And yet  the worlds leaders never listened to him.

To be fair - loads of people have been predicting a global pandemic for a long, long time. Sadly prevention is always one of those things that gets cut when times are hard.

Bill Gates did a good job of raising the profile of it though.

[Wanderlust]

I think the Government have tried to pass off responsibility for their changes in strategy by using the old "we are informed by the science" trick. As the Swedish guy demonstrates, you can take one set of facts and interpret them in different ways and there is a huge disconnect between science and policy formation. In essence science can be interpreted to suit a political objective and then spun to justify pretty much anything.

However in this case it has been presented as "we are powerless and have no other choice than to do what we propose as the science told us to do it."

Although it's difficult to get away with "science told us to depend on herd immunity - and then science told us not to depend on herd immunity"

[kent_white]

22 minutes ago, Ani said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52342511
 

Easy to forget the Liberals but the active service pay boost seems reasonable idea. 

It's a nice gesture - but I think we'll be skint enough when this is all over. 

I'd rather the money was ploughed back somewhere where it's going to be badly needed.

Also - there would be massive arguments about who qualifies as 'front-line'.

[ProfessorWoland]

Just now, Hoppy510 said:

I think the Government have tried to pass off responsibility for their changes in strategy by using the old "we are informed by the science" trick. As the Swedish guy demonstrates, you can take one set of facts and interpret them in different ways and there is a huge disconnect between science and policy formation. In essence science can be interpreted to suit a political objective and then spun to justify pretty much anything.

However in this case it has been presented as "we are powerless and have no other choice than to do what we propose as the science told us to do it."

Although it's difficult to get away with "science told us to depend on herd immunity - and then science told us not to depend on herd immunity"

I think that Imperial College paper frightened the life out of them, as it did me for that matter. If that graph kept on rising it would've overwhelmed the healthcare system. Could any government take that risk on the limited information available?

[Guest]

Govt response to criticism on ventilators 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster

[peelyfeet]

2 hours ago, boltondiver said:

A bullet point summary;

• UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
• The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
• This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
• The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
• The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
• The paper was very much too pessimistic
• Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
• The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
• The results will eventually be similar for all countries
• Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
• The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
• At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

 

 

Sweden evidence.

Sweden is currently at 150 deaths per million population, higher than US,  8th highest in the world (ignoring china, and very small nations), UK is 5th, out of 200 ish.

out of the highest 8 countries, Sweden is the only one that doesn't look like it's plateauing yet, their highest deaths so far was 4 days ago,  looks like they may still be in growth, so it's too early to say how their approach is going to do, or compare it against others that are further along yet.

Sweden had more stringent restrictions than the UK for 10 days from 12th - 21st March, and, as they had community spread later than us, (around a week behind), this should have had a more suppressing effect on their early disease spread.

As it takes 3 weeks for results to be seen in the death rate, this should have made their growth rates appear lower than ours until last week, and then start to grow slightly faster than ours, which they have.

Their current response is measured as 52 on the stringency index, UK is 71 - there isn't as much difference between the two as some articles would lead you to suspect - as of last week Sweden had the 7th least stringent lockdown in the world, we have the 26th -  out of  147. all the stats are here https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker

In summary, comparing Sweden Vs UK for lockdown effectiveness is like comparing comparing the recent seasons of Man United V Tottenham, when it should be Man City Vs Stockport.

0.1% final death rate of the INFECTED, doesn't stack up either.

If you look at the TOTAL population (not the total infected) , 0.1% has already been surpassed and is still growing in Lombardy, NYC, Madrid, after a few weeks, the final figures will be higher.

Test results in NYC, Lombardy, Madrid are still showing predominantly more negative results than positive, so 0.1% of the infected looks like its going to be way off.

Most governments think between 0.7 and 0.9% in developed countries, and much higher elsewhere.

Similar to the flu - flu usually infects around 10- 20% of the POPULATION each year, 25% in a bad YEAR, without a lockdown, and kills 0.1% of the infected, so in effect kills 0.025% of the POPULATION, in a bad YEAR.

Coronavirus has already killed over 0.1% in several areas,  so already 4 times more in a quarter of the time, with a lockdown.

 

  

[DazBob]

Missus' best mate's fella died at home last night. In his early 50s and had no underlying health conditions. Grim.

[Zico]

25 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

 

Sweden evidence.

Sweden is currently at 150 deaths per million population, higher than US,  8th highest in the world (ignoring china, and very small nations), UK is 5th, out of 200 ish.

out of the highest 8 countries, Sweden is the only one that doesn't look like it's plateauing yet, their highest deaths so far was 4 days ago,  looks like they may still be in growth, so it's too early to say how their approach is going to do, or compare it against others that are further along yet.

Sweden had more stringent restrictions than the UK for 10 days from 12th - 21st March, and, as they had community spread later than us, (around a week behind), this should have had a more suppressing effect on their early disease spread.

As it takes 3 weeks for results to be seen in the death rate, this should have made their growth rates appear lower than ours until last week, and then start to grow slightly faster than ours, which they have.

Their current response is measured as 52 on the stringency index, UK is 71 - there isn't as much difference between the two as some articles would lead you to suspect - as of last week Sweden had the 7th least stringent lockdown in the world, we have the 26th -  out of  147. all the stats are here https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker

In summary, comparing Sweden Vs UK for lockdown effectiveness is like comparing comparing the recent seasons of Man United V Tottenham, when it should be Man City Vs Stockport.

0.1% final death rate of the INFECTED, doesn't stack up either.

If you look at the TOTAL population (not the total infected) , 0.1% has already been surpassed and is still growing in Lombardy, NYC, Madrid, after a few weeks, the final figures will be higher.

Test results in NYC, Lombardy, Madrid are still showing predominantly more negative results than positive, so 0.1% of the infected looks like its going to be way off.

Most governments think between 0.7 and 0.9% in developed countries, and much higher elsewhere.

Similar to the flu - flu usually infects around 10- 20% of the POPULATION each year, 25% in a bad YEAR, without a lockdown, and kills 0.1% of the infected, so in effect kills 0.025% of the POPULATION, in a bad YEAR.

Coronavirus has already killed over 0.1% in several areas,  so already 4 times more in a quarter of the time, with a lockdown.

 

  

Is death per cases a useful metric in terms of determining who is doing a good job?

[peelyfeet]

2 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Its a newspaper short on news, the only news we have is Coronavirus news.

It's Rupert Murdoch. if they are going to continue this stance, this govmt are going to be in for a very tough time in the near future.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Is death per cases a useful metric in terms of determining who is doing a good job?

Unlikely, until, perhaps we reach the end.

Perhaps the 2 metrics then will be number of (additional) deaths and the fall in GDP?

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

9 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Its a newspaper short on news, the only news we have is Coronavirus news.

Then it would seem that they're only going to cause themselves more probems for themselves by publishing a damning piece against the figurehead of their and the readership's political viewpoints.

But that's by the by. Whatever the merits, or lack thrreof, of the article, it isn't a politically-motivated dig at the Tories, which is what was implied.