Covid 19 not good news

[mazzer2]

Franglais:

the maoster:
With or from? Big difference.

From
statista.com/statistics/110 … in-the-uk/

Can you produce the figures of died with Covid on that date because at that time everytime someone died who had Covid, Covid was put as the cause of death. It was only later on that the way of recording the cause of death was changed so for example if someone had a heart attack and died who was also infected with Covid then it was recorded as a Covid death even though it probably wasn’t Covid that killed them.
There is a big difference between dying of Covid and dying with Covid although obviously not for the person who died as they are still dead

[franglais]

Mazzer2:

Franglais:

the maoster:
With or from? Big difference.

From
statista.com/statistics/110 … in-the-uk/

Can you produce the figures of died with Covid on that date because at that time everytime someone died who had Covid, Covid was put as the cause of death. It was only later on that the way of recording the cause of death was changed so for example if someone had a heart attack and died who was also infected with Covid then it was recorded as a Covid death even though it probably wasn’t Covid that killed them.
There is a big difference between dying of Covid and dying with Covid although obviously not for the person who died as they are still dead

The link gives the sources that Statista used.
.
Where do you get the info that: everytime someone had covid, that was recorded as the cause of death?
There are many different ways of recording these things it is absolutely true, and knowing how to look at them is important.
Writing off figures as wrong needs a more reliable source, surely?

[ets]

Franglais:
.
Where do you get the info that: everytime someone had covid, that was recorded as the cause of death?
There are many different ways of recording these things it is absolutely true, and knowing how to look at them is important.
Writing off figures as wrong needs a more reliable source, surely?

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths

‘‘Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. The actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. People who died from COVID-19 but had not tested positive are not included and people who died from COVID-19 more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included.’’

Btw ‘‘people who died from covid but had not tested positive’’ - how did they know they died from covid then?? Lol.

[franglais]

.
Never seen a cop film?
Post mortem examination may well give the cause of death as C19 although the victim had not been diagnosed with it.

[noremac]

I see the university accommodation is starting to get outbreaks, but with very little if any hospitalisation. They are self-isolating, but would they be better just to accept getting the virus? They are away from possibly more vulnerable parents, grandparents etc, so if there is any time to get it, it seems the best time while surrounded by other young people.

[mazzer2]

Franglais:
.
Never seen a cop film?
Post mortem examination may well give the cause of death as C19 although the victim had not been diagnosed with it.

Not all deaths get a post mortem, I was not writing off your figures but it is important to differentiate because when you delve into the figures in terms of age underlying issues etc it becomes apparent that the risk to the general population is a lot lower than is being stated, yes you can point to the healthy young person who died of it but 20 year olds die of heart attack and young women get breast cancer but they are anomalies not the norm. I liken a lot of the measures taken to the blanket risk assessment at RDC’s where one rule fits all, if it is unsafe to walk across a yard unless wearing safety boots then surely it is to dangerous to get out of your cab, the only danger is from other HGV’s I doubt there is a coroner in the country at an inquest into someone hit by an HGV has said well if he was wearing safety boots he’d still be alive.
Despite the rise in infections hospitals are not being over run could this be because it’s effects on younger healthy people are not much more than a severe bout of flu so you can see why they aren’t to enthusiastic about the measures.

[franglais]

Mazzer2:

Franglais:
.
Never seen a cop film?
Post mortem examination may well give the cause of death as C19 although the victim had not been diagnosed with it.

Not all deaths get a post mortem, I was not writing off your figures but it is important to differentiate because when you delve into the figures in terms of age underlying issues etc it becomes apparent that the risk to the general population is a lot lower than is being stated, yes you can point to the healthy young person who died of it but 20 year olds die of heart attack and young women get breast cancer but they are anomalies not the norm. I liken a lot of the measures taken to the blanket risk assessment at RDC’s where one rule fits all, if it is unsafe to walk across a yard unless wearing safety boots then surely it is to dangerous to get out of your cab, the only danger is from other HGV’s I doubt there is a coroner in the country at an inquest into someone hit by an HGV has said well if he was wearing safety boots he’d still be alive.
Despite the rise in infections hospitals are not being over run could this be because it’s effects on younger healthy people are not much more than a severe bout of flu so you can see why they aren’t to enthusiastic about the measures.

Remembering that hospital admissions will follow infections by a week or two, and any deaths will likely be a week or more after that.

[franglais]

File on 4 - Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery - @bbcradio4 bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mczc
And yet to be aired:
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mzms
.
Yes, only a few die of C19, and they are mostly elderly or with other conditions. Many will be unaffected by more than a cold or flu.
But some will have a bad, and maybe long term effects. Apart from the individuals’ suffering there is medical cost and lost labour cost.

[mazzer2]

Franglais:
File on 4 - Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery - @bbcradio4 bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mczc
And yet to be aired:
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mzms
.
Yes, only a few die of C19, and they are mostly elderly or with other conditions. Many will be unaffected by more than a cold or flu.
But some will have a bad, and maybe long term effects. Apart from the individuals’ suffering there is medical cost and lost labour cost.

So to save on the medical costs for one person thousands of people sit at home not earning and costing the government more. Governments have taken a sledgehammer to this, listen to how you are being spoken to, this morning on the Today programme the Welsh health minister has told the people of Wales that if they behave then they can have a semi normal Christmas, didn’t realise Wales was a primary school classroom. As time goes on and people do not see bodies in the street it will become increasingly difficult to enforce restrictions I have friends and relatives all over the UK and know no one who has had it and neither do they, my parents live in a small village in West Wales with a higher than average number of pensioners living in and they also know no one who has had it, there is definitely a virus however it is far from the bubonic plague

[franglais]

Mazzer2:
So to save on the medical costs for one person thousands of people sit at home not earning and costing the government more.

Well, that is pretty much is the exact opposite of what I`m trying to say!

Ill put up another post and try to explain myself better. . Better to be clearer so I am criticised for what I do mean, right or wrong, not what I dont mean!

[mazzer2]

Franglais:

Mazzer2:
So to save on the medical costs for one person thousands of people sit at home not earning and costing the government more.

Well, that is pretty much is the exact opposite of what I`m trying to say!

Ill put up another post and try to explain myself better. . Better to be clearer so I am criticised for what I do mean, right or wrong, not what I dont mean!

Lol not a bother

[franglais]

Try this link
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm
Read it all, but look especially at fig2.

The dark blue columns (deaths) are shorter than the ICU admissions (except for the eldest) and in all cases are shorter or much shorter than admissions.
Using rough approximations:
If we see an overall 1% fatality rate that means a 2% to 6% ICU usage rate, and a 10% to 15% hospitalization rate.

100 infections result in one death, and maybe 20 hospital places taken.

{The infamous herd immunity comes in about 66%-ish for C19.
So in the UK pop 66million, 44m would be infected.
1% equals 440,000 deaths. Sound familiar enough? Mostly elderly and infirm, but everyone a human being.
Now, that would mean there were also 800,000 ICU beds and 4 to 6 million hospital beds used!
OK, all the cases would not happen on the same day, I`m NOT suggesting that!
This is why the lockdown was necessary to flatten and reduce the infection curve.
To gauge the bed usage, 2018/19 the UK had 141,000 beds including mental health, maternity etc, 5,900 critical care beds.
kingsfund.org.uk/publicatio … ed-numbers.
If the system were to become overloaded then treatment levels would fall and outcomes would fall resulting in more than the 1% fatalities.
Has this happened?
No. Because we have had a shutdown.}

So,

Mazzer2:
So to save on the medical costs for one person thousands of people sit at home not earning and costing the government more.

The trouble we are taking now, is to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and hospitalization of possibly millions, with all the suffering and expense that involves.

“In England, between 26 April and 08 September, 6.2% of people tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 on a blood test, suggesting they had the infection in the past; the percentage of people testing positive for antibodies is higher in London than in the East Midlands, the South East and the South West of England.”
ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … tember2020
So far we have had over 40,000 deaths with just 6% of the population showing antibodies…that multiplies up to support the 440,000 dead if the virus is unchecked. And the millions hospitalized. And those with long term damage.
These are big numbers and as such some will be sceptical of them. Quite right too. But look at the sources, look at the wide range of bodies saying the same thing, look at countries from all over saying the same thing. Big numbers, but unfortunately they are real.
.
As more “recover” any longer term effects will become apparent. (It has only been around 9 months or so, what do we know of effects on pregnancy?) Heightened chance of heart attacks?
theguardian.com/commentisfr … mptoms-who
Will those who have had even mild C19 have the same or a differing life expectancy?
.
Sound melodramatic at all? I hope not.
But this is a serious problem, and needs taking seriously. Anyone thinking it is no more than a cold or `flu is seriously misunderstanding it.

[rog]

Unless someone can come up with an another solution then it seems to me we have only 2 options

1 - Keep schools etc open with a reasonable economy but accept covid and possibly high deaths from it -
OR
2 - Close schools etc which ruins the economy accepting all the personal/national financial implications but keep the covid rate right down

From the graphs it seems to be obvious to all except Govt that the opening of schools etc is the reason for soaring covid infections - it was climbing a little before Sept 1st but nothing like it has post that date

Personally I do not think what ever we do will get rid of this virus so letting out slowing or quickly is going to have the same bottom line but that is just my view on this and that means I would go for option 1 but would also scrap social distancing/masks etc PROVIDING the NHS can cope

[franglais]

ROG:
Unless someone can come up with an another solution then it seems to me we have only 2 options

1 - Keep schools etc open with a reasonable economy but accept covid and possibly high deaths from it -
OR
2 - Close schools etc which ruins the economy accepting all the personal/national financial implications but keep the covid rate right down

From the graphs it seems to be obvious to all except Govt that the opening of schools etc is the reason for soaring covid infections - it was climbing a little before Sept 1st but nothing like it has post that date

Personally I do not think what ever we do will get rid of this virus so letting out slowing or quickly is going to have the same bottom line but that is just my view on this and that means I would go for option 1 but would also scrap social distancing/masks etc PROVIDING the NHS can cope

ROG:
Keep schools etc open with a reasonable economy but accept covid and possibly high deaths from it -

High death rate plus high sickness rate equals a bad economic hit anyway. It isn`t a straight either/or choice.

ROG:
From the graphs it seems to be obvious to all except Govt that the opening of schools etc is the reason for soaring covid infections

I haven`t seen any reliable expert saying school opening is the single cause of rising infection rates. It is most probably one of many intertwined causes, but it is being over simple to say it is one thing.
“back to the office”, “eat out to help out”, holidays, ending of furlough, opening pubs, and yes, schools. None of the former would cause an overnight change, all have an effect.

ROG:
so letting out slowing or quickly is going to have the same bottom line

ROG:
also scrap social distancing/masks etc PROVIDING the NHS can cope

Letting all restrictions fall would probably give an exponential rise in infections and the NHS, even with the Nightingales, would be under serious strain, so giving increased mortalities.
The bottom line is probably different, and all we have done so far a waste.

ROG:
Personally I do not think what ever we do will get rid of this virus

We don`t need to, although that would be the ideal. We just need to hold out until we can control it better.

[rog]

Franglais:
We just need to hold out until we can control it better.

HOW

[mazzer2]

The death rates are taken from what happened at the outset until now, yet survival rates now are already better than in March due to more knowledge so the curve is not necessarily going to follow the same pattern. The first phase took out a people in vulnerable groups so a lot of them are no longer here to be taken out in the second wave, we now know that it affects BAME more than white so again measures put in place will prevent their death rates being the same rate.
The rate of infection has been rising steadily since the end of August yet death rates haven’t matched which is a good thing but goes to show that the people getting infected now are not as vulnerable as those infected in the first wave.

[franglais]

Mazzer2:
The death rates are taken from what happened at the outset until now, yet survival rates now are already better than in March due to more knowledge so the curve is not necessarily going to follow the same pattern. The first phase took out a people in vulnerable groups so a lot of them are no longer here to be taken out in the second wave, we now know that it affects BAME more than white so again measures put in place will prevent their death rates being the same rate.
The rate of infection has been rising steadily since the end of August yet death rates haven’t matched which is a good thing but goes to show that the people getting infected now are not as vulnerable as those infected in the first wave.

Treatment will get better as we learn more. Agreed. So slowing the spread as research continues should be beneficial.

How do we protect one group more than another? Tell BAME to stay home and do nowt while others work…and earn money?
And some of the figures surrounding BAME are suspect as they don`t seem to take account of all variables. More BAME are in lower paid and manual jobs. Money is an indicator in many health conditions. (The best indicator for a long life is a healthy bank balance!)
BAME citizens may use public transport, and be unable to work from home. All relevant.

40,000 deaths so far.
66,000,000 pop of which about 20% is over 65yrs, so thats 13million. Or 9% over 75yrs, 5million-ish potential vulnerable for you if you let it run free. That 40,000 hasnt really decreased the pool of vulnerable. There are still loads of oldies out there.
Remember less than 10% of the UK pop have antibodies. The shutdown worked well in it`s aim. No denying it was and will continue to be expensive, but it worked.

Infection rates preceed hospitalization and death rates. But youre right about there seeming to be less severe outcomes now. Those becoming infected now are predominantly younger, so will be less vulnerable. Why are more young people infected? This could be because the young are selfish, irresponsible, little gits who couldnt care less…but it does have other explanations: more youngsters work in hospitality etc. There are more younger pub staff, coffee baristas,shop staff, than older. Us oldies are more likely to be able to work from home. Lorry drivers may be exceptions, but we don`t talk to people as frequently as shop staff etc. Youngsters are more likely to be exposed to C19, so will show this in the figures.

[m_a_n_rules]

ffs franglais are you the spawn of carryfast…

[franglais]

m.a.n rules:
ffs franglais are you the spawn of carryfast…

One day will I grow into a frog?

[rog]

The young are the ones in schools

The rates were going up a little prior to September but then the opening of schools caused this spike
The data confirms that fact