|
Post by MilanStokie on Oct 26, 2020 12:00:21 GMT
Anyway... New decree in Italy: Gyms and Swimming Pools closed for the foreseeable. Cinemas and theatres all closed for the foreseeable. Skiing season is effectively cancelled. All bars and restaurants to be closed after 18:00. Curfew from 23:00 - 06:00 (Already was this a week back) No establishment can sell any alcohol after 18:00 (supermarkets and takeaways included) Facemasks everywhere, including outside. €3000 fine for not adhering. Regional travel allowed but strongly recommended against and likely that will be banned in the next decree if the numbers continue to rise. I guess the world over is 'in on the act'. Pfft What are the numbers like in Italy, Milan? It is proportional to the UK and are you seeing it in specific areas or is it progressing throughout? The growth has been similar to UK, albeit a week or 2 behind. First time it went over 20,000 yesterday but weekend data isn't as reliable I dont think. The deaths at start of October were <20, now at 150. I believe it was Friday that of 150 dead, 55 were in Lombardy and almost a third of the cases are here as well.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Oct 26, 2020 12:03:17 GMT
Anyway... New decree in Italy: Gyms and Swimming Pools closed for the foreseeable. Cinemas and theatres all closed for the foreseeable. Skiing season is effectively cancelled. All bars and restaurants to be closed after 18:00. Curfew from 23:00 - 06:00 (Already was this a week back) No establishment can sell any alcohol after 18:00 (supermarkets and takeaways included) Facemasks everywhere, including outside. €3000 fine for not adhering. Regional travel allowed but strongly recommended against and likely that will be banned in the next decree if the numbers continue to rise. I guess the world over is 'in on the act'. Pfft what was the trouble in Naples over the weekend, was it anti lockdown ? Anti-lockdown yes, its all gone very violent in Campania but they have had the strictest regulations in place for a while. Juventus v Napoli was affected by the positive cases resulting in forced forfeit for Napoli to Juve. I had a check-up in a Milan hospital 10 days ago (it is the centre of covid treatment in this area). I was quite concerned about going. 2 days later "outbreak at Sacco hospital, 20 nurses infected". It's out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 12:04:27 GMT
What are the numbers like in Italy, Milan? It is proportional to the UK and are you seeing it in specific areas or is it progressing throughout? The growth has been similar to UK, albeit a week or 2 behind. First time it went over 20,000 yesterday but weekend data isn't as reliable I dont think. The deaths at start of October were <20, now at 150. I believe it was Friday that of 150 dead, 55 were in Lombardy and almost a third of the cases are here as well. Looking at the deaths in Italy over the last 3 weeks I'd say they're accelerating far quicker than over here. It looks as though Italy are going to get hit hard again.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Oct 26, 2020 12:06:09 GMT
The growth has been similar to UK, albeit a week or 2 behind. First time it went over 20,000 yesterday but weekend data isn't as reliable I dont think. The deaths at start of October were <20, now at 150. I believe it was Friday that of 150 dead, 55 were in Lombardy and almost a third of the cases are here as well. Looking at the deaths in Italy over the last 3 weeks I'd say they're accelerating far quicker than over here. It looks as though Italy are going to get hit hard again. Could very well be the case, which is why Conte has put in place quite strict regulations to stop it BEFORE it gets to it, unlike our mate Bozza.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 12:11:01 GMT
Looking at the deaths in Italy over the last 3 weeks I'd say they're accelerating far quicker than over here. It looks as though Italy are going to get hit hard again. Could very well be the case, which is why Conte has put in place quite strict regulations to stop it BEFORE it gets to it, unlike our mate Bozza. Absolutely. I was only looking at the figures over there before it kicked off again 3/4 weeks ago and was surprised how well they were doing. Any idea what changed so quickly?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 26, 2020 12:18:50 GMT
What are the numbers like in Italy, Milan? It is proportional to the UK and are you seeing it in specific areas or is it progressing throughout? They've gone from less than 2,000 cases a day throughout September to over 22,000 cases yesterday. Deaths have increased much lower thankfully like ours. Seems to be a good consensus that whilst deaths are still prevelant and at an alarming number we do seem to be mitigating much better. My personal take is that the key issue we face now is going to be capacity and the knock on effect of lower bed space will have on non-covid deaths.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Oct 26, 2020 12:29:30 GMT
Could very well be the case, which is why Conte has put in place quite strict regulations to stop it BEFORE it gets to it, unlike our mate Bozza. Absolutely. I was only looking at the figures over there before it kicked off again 3/4 weeks ago and was surprised how well they were doing. Any idea what changed so quickly? I can only really link it to the weather. It was still 20 degrees a couple of weeks ago and then it dropped to 10-15 with rain. But imho, it's just a natural slow growth of a virus. I said it a couple dozen pages back, by start of November we will have a really good idea of how strong this second wave will be. Keep it under 300 deaths and can only be positive.
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Oct 26, 2020 12:39:51 GMT
This is going to go on forever is'nt it?
A state of perpetual emergency and living in fear with absolutely nothing to look forward to.
Life is effectively over I fear. If it's still like this in a year's time then I'm getting the biggest Dave Gahn-esque speedball I can find and will be checking out, cock in hand, surrounded by Asian hookers.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 26, 2020 12:48:21 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2020 12:50:20 GMT
What you mean is you don’t like people not agreeing with you ....even when many have told you how the hospital numbers are counted and many about to lose their jobs,businesses and homes you continue to not give a fuck about them instead seeing them go through hell on the basis of “ could happen” or “ may happen” unlike many on here who do care about them and see the bigger picture Perhaps a public discussion forum is not the place for you I have asked people several times how many deaths of covid per day are acceptable before we go into a full lockdown. Nobody ever answers the question. Go on give me a number... I guess you probably haven't been given an answer because I think your question massively over simplifies the issue and without the correct data, it's an impossible one to answer. By way of example ... If a substantial percentage of the people being currently admitted to hospital with Covid are coming from care homes, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue at care homes, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital with Covid, caught it in hospital after being admitted for something else entirely, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue with cross contamination in hospitals, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital 'with' Covid only appear in the stats because they have been routinely tested on admission to hospital and as a result, have found to be positive but aren't actually sick from Covid at all, then do their inclusion in the headline figure, massively skew the reality of the situation when it comes to forming our policy, a policy that might be based on the total figure only? Now it might be, that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has come from care homes and it might be that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has caught it in hospital and it might be that the vast majority of people in hospital are absolutely terribly sick with the virus and we've got a looming catastrophe coming our way and we absolutely should shut everything down right now but without accurate data, how can anybody be expected to offer a considered opinion?
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 26, 2020 12:51:35 GMT
Anyway... New decree in Italy: Gyms and Swimming Pools closed for the foreseeable. Cinemas and theatres all closed for the foreseeable. Skiing season is effectively cancelled. All bars and restaurants to be closed after 18:00. Curfew from 23:00 - 06:00 (Already was this a week back) No establishment can sell any alcohol after 18:00 (supermarkets and takeaways included) Facemasks everywhere, including outside. €3000 fine for not adhering. Regional travel allowed but strongly recommended against and likely that will be banned in the next decree if the numbers continue to rise. I guess the world over is 'in on the act'. Pfft Please, please can we have this Boris sir.... BAAAAAA
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 12:54:58 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do. Lockdowns don't work? So I totally imagined we got those 1000 deaths a day we saw in April down to single figures in June ?
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 26, 2020 13:03:46 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do. Lockdowns don't work? So I totally imagined we got those 1000 deaths a day we saw in April down to single figures in June ? You mean it dropped in The summer months? Fancy that. We're back in the same position. Spain and Italy had the toughest Lockdowns in Europe and guess what? Its still there and the same morons wishing it on us again.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 13:03:59 GMT
I have asked people several times how many deaths of covid per day are acceptable before we go into a full lockdown. Nobody ever answers the question. Go on give me a number... I guess you probably haven't been given an answer because I think your question massively over simplifies the issue and without the correct data, it's an impossible one to answer. By way of example ... If a substantial percentage of the people being currently admitted to hospital with Covid are coming from care homes, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue at care homes, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital with Covid, caught it in hospital after being admitted for something else entirely, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue with cross contamination in hospitals, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital 'with' Covid only appear in the stats because they have been routinely tested on admission to hospital and as a result, have found to be positive but aren't actually sick from Covid at all, then do their inclusion in the headline figure, massively skew the reality of the situation when it comes to forming our policy, a policy that might be based on the total figure only? Now it might be, that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has come from care homes and it might be that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has caught it in hospital and it might be that the vast majority of people in hospital are absolutely terribly sick with the virus and we've got a looming catastrophe coming our way and we absolutely should shut everything down right now but without accurate data, how can anybody be expected to offer a considered opinion? We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 26, 2020 13:07:59 GMT
This is going to go on forever is'nt it? A state of perpetual emergency and living in fear with absolutely nothing to look forward to. Life is effectively over I fear. If it's still like this in a year's time then I'm getting the biggest Dave Gahn-esque speedball I can find and will be checking out, cock in hand, surrounded by Asian hookers. As long as the ridiculous testing regime carries on you've got to fear we're not going to see the back of it for quite some time. I won't pretend to understand most of what's in this thread, but the general gist is that PCR testing is completely unreliable and is pretty much responsible for devastating our lives. BTW, Kevin McKernan led the Human Genome Project (Google it). threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320536482298384390.html
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 26, 2020 13:14:24 GMT
I guess you probably haven't been given an answer because I think your question massively over simplifies the issue and without the correct data, it's an impossible one to answer. By way of example ... If a substantial percentage of the people being currently admitted to hospital with Covid are coming from care homes, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue at care homes, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital with Covid, caught it in hospital after being admitted for something else entirely, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue with cross contamination in hospitals, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital 'with' Covid only appear in the stats because they have been routinely tested on admission to hospital and as a result, have found to be positive but aren't actually sick from Covid at all, then do their inclusion in the headline figure, massively skew the reality of the situation when it comes to forming our policy, a policy that might be based on the total figure only? Now it might be, that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has come from care homes and it might be that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has caught it in hospital and it might be that the vast majority of people in hospital are absolutely terribly sick with the virus and we've got a looming catastrophe coming our way and we absolutely should shut everything down right now but without accurate data, how can anybody be expected to offer a considered opinion? We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. So given that is your opinion would you like to start the bidding on how many deaths is acceptable before full lockdown and we can say higher or lower.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 13:18:14 GMT
Lockdowns don't work? So I totally imagined we got those 1000 deaths a day we saw in April down to single figures in June ? You mean it dropped in The summer months? Fancy that. We're back in the same position. Spain and Italy had the toughest Lockdowns in Europe and guess what? Its still there and the same morons wishing it on us again. Of course its still there because it won't be controlled until there's a vaccine. Lockdowns do work to get deaths down and to protect the health system from being totally overwhelmed. Without the lockdown in March we'd have seen a total meltdown of the health system. You would have had people dying in corridors, people unable to access emergency services, heart attacks, strokes all happening at home. Thousands of deaths every day. The only way you can manage this until there's a vaccine is a series of rolling lockdowns every few months and in between things can carry on with a degree of normality. There's more good news on a vaccine today so it's going to pass trials in a few weeks and we can start vaccinating from the turn of the year and by the summer into enough people to provide some good immunity and then hopefully we'll only need a couple more managed short, sharp lockdowns in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 26, 2020 13:20:30 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do. They work to destroy people's lives and livelihoods whilst giving the illusion that it's about a pandemic. Ticks every box for this Globalist reset operation run via the WEF, UN, WHO, and the shills at John Hopkins, Imperial college, etc. If there really was a deadly pandemic, I'd happily and willingly lock myself in. And that's the crux of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Oct 26, 2020 13:22:37 GMT
This is going to go on forever is'nt it? A state of perpetual emergency and living in fear with absolutely nothing to look forward to. Life is effectively over I fear. If it's still like this in a year's time then I'm getting the biggest Dave Gahn-esque speedball I can find and will be checking out, cock in hand, surrounded by Asian hookers. I highly recommend it !
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 26, 2020 13:32:45 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do. Lockdowns don't eradicate the virus - we need a vaccine/herd immunity for that. However lockdown is the only game in town once the death rates are so high that your health system will collapse under the strain if you don't do something about it. The lockdown in March/April did not eradicate the virus so in those terms it didn't work. However it did stop the NHS from being overloaded so in those terms it succeeded. Or do you think the NHS wouldn't have been swamped if a lockdown hadn't have been introduced and if so what is your evidence? We are not currently in lockdown - the government are introducing measures that fall short of a lockdown in order to keep infections and deaths in check so that a lockdown becomes unnecessary. However if the hospital admission rates do get out of control a lockdown will be implemented because the alternative is just to let people cough themselves to death in their homes, in the streets or in specially commissioned marquees erected for that very purpose. Fortunately even this government will not let that happen and there isn't a serious political party out there proposing "let them croak" as a solution. Out of interest if you had your way and didn't lockdown how many deaths would you consider acceptable over the next 6 months and what would you do if it was exceeded before the end of the winter?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2020 13:36:04 GMT
I guess you probably haven't been given an answer because I think your question massively over simplifies the issue and without the correct data, it's an impossible one to answer. By way of example ... If a substantial percentage of the people being currently admitted to hospital with Covid are coming from care homes, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue at care homes, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital with Covid, caught it in hospital after being admitted for something else entirely, then it would seem to me that we need to be concentrating on an issue with cross contamination in hospitals, not talking about full lockdowns. If a substantial percentage of people in hospital 'with' Covid only appear in the stats because they have been routinely tested on admission to hospital and as a result, have found to be positive but aren't actually sick from Covid at all, then do their inclusion in the headline figure, massively skew the reality of the situation when it comes to forming our policy, a policy that might be based on the total figure only? Now it might be, that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has come from care homes and it might be that hardly anybody in hospital with Covid has caught it in hospital and it might be that the vast majority of people in hospital are absolutely terribly sick with the virus and we've got a looming catastrophe coming our way and we absolutely should shut everything down right now but without accurate data, how can anybody be expected to offer a considered opinion? We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. For two months, after pubs and restaurants reopened, cases, hospital admissions and deaths dropped steadily until there was virtually none at all but as soon as the schools and Uni's reopened, bang, all the stats started going in the wrong direction again and have done ever since. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. But politically, education is untouchable, so let's blame the pubs instead and it will appear that we are at least doing something. Now I'm not saying that we should close down the education system but all the while it remains open, to then blame other parts of our society for the rising figures is just ridiculous imo. Currently the 7 day rolling average for the number of people in hospital 'with' Covid is 917 and the last time we were at that sort of figure was in the first week of May when it was 958. However, the current 7 day rolling average for deaths is 151, when during the first week of May it was 391. Now I know that now we have the 28 day cut-off point but in no way does that account for the huge difference in admissions to death ratio. I'd like an explanation for why it's so different this time around? Is it due solely to better treatment, or (and this is the important bit) is a significant proportion of 'covid cases' in hospitals not people who are sick with Covid at all but are actually people who have been tested positive for Covid whilst being admitted into hospital for something else entirely? That isn't looking for something that isn't there, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask but I also know that I haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a reasonable answer to it.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 26, 2020 13:41:13 GMT
What you mean is you don’t like people not agreeing with you ....even when many have told you how the hospital numbers are counted and many about to lose their jobs,businesses and homes you continue to not give a fuck about them instead seeing them go through hell on the basis of “ could happen” or “ may happen” unlike many on here who do care about them and see the bigger picture Perhaps a public discussion forum is not the place for you I have asked people several times how many deaths of covid per day are acceptable before we go into a full lockdown. Nobody ever answers the question. Go on give me a number... According to the ONS the number of Deaths per hundred thousand was about 230 in May 2020. See chart here. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinmay2020The reason this is an important figure is because at that time Boris issued his plan to release lockdown. See here www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/11/what-is-covered-in-the-uk-governments-lockdown-easing-planSo regardless of what I think if the Government was to be consistent as numbers went over say 230 deaths per 100k you'd assume that you'd add measures. April (full lockdown) being about 600 deaths per 100k. So putting that into today's numbers Stoke on Trent for example has CASES not deaths of about 200 per 100k. That would seemingly put us miles away from lockdown if the Government was consistent.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 26, 2020 13:57:32 GMT
Lockdowns don't work though. Only stupid people and the government think they do. They work to destroy people's lives and livelihoods whilst giving the illusion that it's about a pandemic. Ticks every box for this Globalist reset operation run via the WEF, UN, WHO, and the shills at John Hopkins, Imperial college, etc. If there really was a deadly pandemic, I'd happily and willingly lock myself in. And that's the crux of the matter. So are you happily out there breaking covid restrictions believing you can't catch it, get ill, infect others and possibly kill people? Because if so the crux of the matter here on planet earth is that you are putting the lives of other's at risk on the back of your belief in a collection of bullshit conspiracy theory websites. PS Looking forward to the Great Reset - the more I read about it the better it sounds. Coordinated responses to future pandemics, green energy and Universal Basic Income for all. Bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 14:14:57 GMT
We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. So on that fear factor basis why a few weeks ago didn't they try and hide / not reveal data showing that it was the vast majority of young people who were getting it and of those young people hardly anyone died? Why did they adjust the death period down to 28 days if they wanted to ramp up the fear factor rather than downplaying it. They've got sage, the opposition and public opinion all against their anti lockdown policies, if there was any way they could show data to support their position they would. In regards to education being the major driver, I'd agree with that to a degree but as Milanstokey pointed out in Italy there were little rises when their schools / uni's reopened it was a few weeks later when the weather turned and households started mixing indoors again. The last thing I want is for the economy to be wrecked but I think we're in danger of doing more damage by having an uncohesive set of policies which don't work but which keep the economy in uncertainty. Rolling short, sharp lockdowns every few months with some normality like we saw in July and August in between is the only way to go imo to keep deaths down and to keep the economy functioning as best as it can in between until we get that immunity from the vaccine next summer.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 26, 2020 14:15:51 GMT
We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. For two months, after pubs and restaurants reopened, cases, hospital admissions and deaths dropped steadily until there was virtually none at all but as soon as the schools and Uni's reopened, bang, all the stats started going in the wrong direction again and have done ever since. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. But politically, education is untouchable, so let's blame the pubs instead and it will appear that we are at least doing something. Now I'm not saying that we should close down the education system but all the while it remains open, to then blame other parts of our society for the rising figures is just ridiculous imo. Currently the 7 day rolling average for the number of people in hospital 'with' Covid is 917 and the last time we were at that sort of figure was in the first week of May when it was 958. However, the current 7 day rolling average for deaths is 151, when during the first week of May it was 391. Now I know that now we have the 28 day cut-off point but in no way does that account for the huge difference in admissions to death ratio. I'd like an explanation for why it's so different this time around? Is it due solely to better treatment, or (and this is the important bit) is a significant proportion of 'covid cases' in hospitals not people who are sick with Covid at all but are actually people who have been tested positive for Covid whilst being admitted into hospital for something else entirely? That isn't looking for something that isn't there, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask but I also know that I haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a reasonable answer to it. Paul the data that is possibly less immune to a misrepresentation is the death rate per 100k. I know it was about 600 per 100k in April (full lockdown) and about 200 per 100k in May at the point restrictions were signalled to be eased. According to this it was about 13 per 100k in Sept up from 7 per 100k in August. www.itv.com/news/2020-10-23/englands-covid-death-rate-rises-for-first-time-since-aprilWhen you look at the rate in Wales it's inconceivable they need a circuit break at 10 per 100k. I think if we were genuinely heading for 200 deaths per 100k lockdown would at least be consistent, but we seem miles off that at the moment don't we?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2020 14:24:10 GMT
We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. For two months, after pubs and restaurants reopened, cases, hospital admissions and deaths dropped steadily until there was virtually none at all but as soon as the schools and Uni's reopened, bang, all the stats started going in the wrong direction again and have done ever since. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. But politically, education is untouchable, so let's blame the pubs instead and it will appear that we are at least doing something. Now I'm not saying that we should close down the education system but all the while it remains open, to then blame other parts of our society for the rising figures is just ridiculous imo. Currently the 7 day rolling average for the number of people in hospital 'with' Covid is 917 and the last time we were at that sort of figure was in the first week of May when it was 958. However, the current 7 day rolling average for deaths is 151, when during the first week of May it was 391. Now I know that now we have the 28 day cut-off point but in no way does that account for the huge difference in admissions to death ratio. I'd like an explanation for why it's so different this time around? Is it due solely to better treatment, or (and this is the important bit) is a significant proportion of 'covid cases' in hospitals not people who are sick with Covid at all but are actually people who have been tested positive for Covid whilst being admitted into hospital for something else entirely? That isn't looking for something that isn't there, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask but I also know that I haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a reasonable answer to it. That's a great post mate, nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 26, 2020 14:25:22 GMT
I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. For two months, after pubs and restaurants reopened, cases, hospital admissions and deaths dropped steadily until there was virtually none at all but as soon as the schools and Uni's reopened, bang, all the stats started going in the wrong direction again and have done ever since. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. But politically, education is untouchable, so let's blame the pubs instead and it will appear that we are at least doing something. Now I'm not saying that we should close down the education system but all the while it remains open, to then blame other parts of our society for the rising figures is just ridiculous imo. Currently the 7 day rolling average for the number of people in hospital 'with' Covid is 917 and the last time we were at that sort of figure was in the first week of May when it was 958. However, the current 7 day rolling average for deaths is 151, when during the first week of May it was 391. Now I know that now we have the 28 day cut-off point but in no way does that account for the huge difference in admissions to death ratio. I'd like an explanation for why it's so different this time around? Is it due solely to better treatment, or (and this is the important bit) is a significant proportion of 'covid cases' in hospitals not people who are sick with Covid at all but are actually people who have been tested positive for Covid whilst being admitted into hospital for something else entirely? That isn't looking for something that isn't there, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask but I also know that I haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a reasonable answer to it. Paul the data that is possibly less immune to a misrepresentation is the death rate per 100k. I know it was about 600 per 100k in April (full lockdown) and about 200 per 100k in May at the point restrictions were signalled to be eased. According to this it was about 13 per 100k in Sept up from 7 per 100k in August. www.itv.com/news/2020-10-23/englands-covid-death-rate-rises-for-first-time-since-aprilWhen you look at the rate in Wales it's inconceivable they need a circuit break at 10 per 100k. I think if we were genuinely heading for 200 deaths per 100k lockdown would at least be consistent, but we seem miles off that at the moment don't we? You're looking at the wrong timelines though. What was the death rate per 100k that they were looking at in mid March at the point they made the decision to go into full lockdown? I'd guess it would be considerably lower than in the middle of April when the 3/4 week lag from cases to deaths started to materialise.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 26, 2020 14:35:18 GMT
Paul the data that is possibly less immune to a misrepresentation is the death rate per 100k. I know it was about 600 per 100k in April (full lockdown) and about 200 per 100k in May at the point restrictions were signalled to be eased. According to this it was about 13 per 100k in Sept up from 7 per 100k in August. www.itv.com/news/2020-10-23/englands-covid-death-rate-rises-for-first-time-since-aprilWhen you look at the rate in Wales it's inconceivable they need a circuit break at 10 per 100k. I think if we were genuinely heading for 200 deaths per 100k lockdown would at least be consistent, but we seem miles off that at the moment don't we? You're looking at the wrong timelines though. What was the death rate per 100k that they were looking at in mid March at the point they made the decision to go into full lockdown? I'd guess it would be considerably lower than in the middle of April when the 3/4 week lag from cases to deaths started to materialise. We'll that's the challenge with putting a rate on an x axis which has time on it, too coarse or too fine. But at least it gives a benchmark of when it was ok to come out. As Paul keeps pointing out you can't find the data. The one thing we can see though is the rate of death is not increasing as fast as it did. Perhaps you might be happy to give me the number on that basis you want to go into lockdown 10, 50, 100, 150, 200. I think the last daily was about 60/100k The monthly is significantly lower.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 26, 2020 14:40:53 GMT
We have a government in England who would rather die in a ditch than go into a full lockdown. So why on earth would they try and hide / not reveal the figures you mention in order to build a case for not going into full lockdown. If there was a miniscule amount of evidence for the government to use to build a case against full lockdowns don't you think Cummings and the government would be all over it? That's why I think you're looking for something that isn't there. I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. For two months, after pubs and restaurants reopened, cases, hospital admissions and deaths dropped steadily until there was virtually none at all but as soon as the schools and Uni's reopened, bang, all the stats started going in the wrong direction again and have done ever since. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. But politically, education is untouchable, so let's blame the pubs instead and it will appear that we are at least doing something. Now I'm not saying that we should close down the education system but all the while it remains open, to then blame other parts of our society for the rising figures is just ridiculous imo. Currently the 7 day rolling average for the number of people in hospital 'with' Covid is 917 and the last time we were at that sort of figure was in the first week of May when it was 958. However, the current 7 day rolling average for deaths is 151, when during the first week of May it was 391. Now I know that now we have the 28 day cut-off point but in no way does that account for the huge difference in admissions to death ratio. I'd like an explanation for why it's so different this time around? Is it due solely to better treatment, or (and this is the important bit) is a significant proportion of 'covid cases' in hospitals not people who are sick with Covid at all but are actually people who have been tested positive for Covid whilst being admitted into hospital for something else entirely? That isn't looking for something that isn't there, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask but I also know that I haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a reasonable answer to it. Good valid questions. As far as I can see, all the evidence suggests that the main contributor towards high rates are schools which makes common sense because social distancing is impossible in schools, and generally kids don't get this Covid thing tbh. They think it's just for old people and nothing to do with them, generally speaking (that's what I am picking up in schools!). This is backed by the fact that before schools opened the rate was incredibly low and it looked like we were ok to get back to normal. So as long as schools are open and there is no vaccine we have Covid-19 unless something completely new comes into the equation. Everything else it seems (according to current Gov't strategy) will have to be put on hold.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2020 14:48:11 GMT
I think you are absolutely wrong in that assertion mate. I think the government want to make sure that there is and continues to be an element of fear within the population so that they will show compliance when it comes to either local or national lockdowns being implemented. If they were to release data that showed it actually wasn't that bad, then that would be it, completely over, any chance of compliance in the future would be totally out of the window. So on that fear factor basis why a few weeks ago didn't they try and hide / not reveal data showing that it was the vast majority of young people who were getting it and of those young people hardly anyone died? Why did they adjust the death period down to 28 days if they wanted to ramp up the fear factor rather than downplaying it. They've got sage, the opposition and public opinion all against their anti lockdown policies, if there was any way they could show data to support their position they would. In regards to education being the major driver, I'd agree with that to a degree but as Milanstokie pointed out in Italy there were little rises when their schools / uni's reopened it was a few weeks later when the weather turned and households started mixing indoors again. The last thing I want is for the economy to be wrecked but I think we're in danger of doing more damage by having an uncohesive set of policies which don't work but which keep the economy in uncertainty. Rolling short, sharp lockdowns every few months with some normality like we saw in July and August in between is the only way to go imo to keep deaths down and to keep the economy functioning as best as it can in between until we get that immunity from the vaccine next summer. They adjusted the period because it was clearly ridiculous that people who had recovered from Covid but then went on to die of something else entirely were being included in the Covid figures. An issue that was actually pointed out to them by Carl Heneghan, somebody who has been very critical of the government. Your rolling short sharp national lockdowns might be the correct way to go but from where I'm sitting, you're basing it on very little. All I'm asking for, is to see the relevant data before I'll start championing one method over another. Is that really too much to ask? I noticed you just tossed away the rest of my post, which contained (imo) quite pertinent figures that need addressing. There is a lack of data out there which raises legitimate questions and as long as those questions present themselves, then I'll keep asking them. I haven't got an agenda and I'm not suggesting I'm right, indeed I'm not even offering an opinion, I just want to see the data before being able to formulate one. As I've asked before, if the virus is as prevalent as it was first time around, then why aren't they telling people who had to shield first time around to shield now? And I don't buy the fatigue answer any longer, this has been going on since the beginning of September but there still isn't an instruction for vulnerable people to shield, why is that? It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. And I'm still really interested in why things aren't taking off in London to the same degree either? The lack of people currently in the West End and the City will probably be having some effect but there are plenty of people working from home who are employed in Manchester and Liverpool too and beyond that, London is an absolutely massive place which is in effect, a city of many small cities and towns, so why two months on, has the virus not taken hold in anything like the way it has in the North? Surely this is a hugely important question that needs answering because the answer in itself might help us to establish the best way forwards in other areas. It just seems to me, to simply say "just lock it all down" is an incredibly simple/lazy solution, even if it is a solution at all, at the end of the day, it might indeed be the only way but please, show me the data first. This is an interesting piece. www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-ten-worst-Covid-data-failures
|
|