I have no problem with the PM getting special treatment . My issue is with the press coverage and the almost hero status he’s being rewarded with for recovering .
A lot of people recover , they’re not hero’s they just recovered ! And his calling out two foreign nurses when his rancid government and its anti immigrant stance especially during Brexit has led to immigrants being vilified .
I’m glad he’s recovered but that’s it . No amount of him playing the martyr or sudden caring for the NHS and it’s many foreign workers will remove the stench of hate he’s peddled for years !
Hate is not confined to accusations about the conservative party and the problem you seem to overlook is that Boris will now be the number one supporter for the NHS and immigration as necessary from across the globe, not just the EU
Amazing, BJ now the high priest and reborn messiah of the new state religion. I'd hope those habitual whiners about NHS religiosity would have some problems over this but experience tells me they'll be reverse ferreting like good 'uns.
I am very much against the NHS becoming a religion; I see it as an organisation that needs a lot of development. I didn't agree with all of Boris's words, but I respected that they were a true reflection of his feelings and most of the nation's currently.
Before calling it a day, I just have to say that I think the happy-clappy 'God is Love' crowd have definitely got it wrong.
The vindictive so-and-so from the Old Testament, killing children in Egypt and drowning everyone except for one family and two of each species, seems closer to the mark to me.
That's the god of COVID-19.
Night all.
See Randolph Churchill's opinion of the Old Testament God.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
The baby will be called Covid-19, to show how the nation is overcoming the disease and to remind Boris what number child of his it is.
Hopefully Carrie goes into labour around the same time the government asks for an extension to the transition period and the Bozo cult leave members and right wing press are too busy proclaiming that a devastated nature can now rejoice at the impending arrival . And we don’t get too many they’re stealing Brexit headlines !
Before calling it a day, I just have to say that I think the happy-clappy 'God is Love' crowd have definitely got it wrong.
The vindictive so-and-so from the Old Testament, killing children in Egypt and drowning everyone except for one family and two of each species, seems closer to the mark to me.
That's the god of COVID-19.
Night all.
He killed them as Pharoah refused to let the Israelites go and the Arc was to protect Noah and the righteous, he only drowned the wicked.
It was the Chinese government who allowed Covid 19 to emerge by refusing to close wet markets and improve lab safety
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
This is where nationalism ends. Everyone pointing the finger at everyone else.
I have no problem with the PM getting special treatment . My issue is with the press coverage and the almost hero status he’s being rewarded with for recovering .
A lot of people recover , they’re not hero’s they just recovered ! And his calling out two foreign nurses when his rancid government and its anti immigrant stance especially during Brexit has led to immigrants being vilified .
I’m glad he’s recovered but that’s it . No amount of him playing the martyr or sudden caring for the NHS and it’s many foreign workers will remove the stench of hate he’s peddled for years !
Hate is not confined to accusations about the conservative party and the problem you seem to overlook is that Boris will now be the number one supporter for the NHS and immigration as necessary from across the globe, not just the EU
Amazing, BJ now the high priest and reborn messiah of the new state religion. I'd hope those habitual whiners about NHS religiosity would have some problems over this but experience tells me they'll be reverse ferreting like good 'uns.
I am very much against the NHS becoming a religion; I see it as an organisation that needs a lot of development. I didn't agree with all of Boris's words, but I respected that they were a true reflection of his feelings and most of the nation's currently.
I agree. My fear as I have expressed on here often is that the religious fervour that surrounds the NHS, whereby no criticism can be accepted and all its problems are due to lack of funds, will now worsen. This means that yet more money will be wasted trying to improve it as it is without proper consideration to how it can be reformed to make it fit for purpose.
Those who try to argue for reform will continue to be accused of wanting a US type system (we don't) and the fact that the NHS is a third rate first world health service which compares poorly with practically ever one of our peers will be ignored or shouted down.
Far from being the salvation for the NHS this crisis will ensure it continues to languish in, at best, mediocrity when compared to other first world countries.
Wow that’s an absolutely shocking story . Easier though for the right wing there to just blame the EU who apparently ordered Lombardy to fuck up its response !
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
Is that the same Japan whose Covid-19 cases and deaths increased very sharply after they postponed the Olympics?
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
This is where nationalism ends. Everyone pointing the finger at everyone else.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
And we show no sign of learning from previous mistakes.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
This is where nationalism ends. Everyone pointing the finger at everyone else.
Do you mean that this is where globalisation ends
Sorry I was wrong, nationalism starts with pointing the finger, the end is usually far worse.
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Possibly you are right, but why not once every hundred years? Isnt that as good a descriptor as any? If you are correcting, then what is the clear evidence it will be a "lot" more frequent?
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
Is that the same Japan whose Covid-19 cases and deaths increased very sharply after they postponed the Olympics?
Yes, though they still have nowhere near the infection or death rate we do and the government has already calked a national emergency despite he low numbers so far.
I think it's an interesting perspective from Asia. The point about them seeing us the same way we look at the US us an eye-opener. There's been talk here about how we might need to keep the border closed to the US. Well, Asians lump the UK in the same boat it seems.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
And we show no sign of learning from previous mistakes.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
We make and have made different mistakes from Japan (or any other country). Some of these mistakes may have been avoidable, but hindsight is a tricky thing.
Some of our civil servants may be objectively judged as a bit crap, others perhaps as the best in the world. Either way they're doing their best.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Possibly you are right, but why not once every hundred years? Isnt that as good a descriptor as any? If you are correcting, then what is the clear evidence it will be a "lot" more frequent?
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Isn't there increasing frequency of diseases jumping from other animals to humans?
It could be like those "once in a hundred years" floods that actually turn out to now happen every couple of years because the climate has changed
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
And we show no sign of learning from previous mistakes.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
We make and have made different mistakes from Japan (or any other country). Some of these mistakes may have been avoidable, but hindsight is a tricky thing.
Some of our civil servants may be objectively judged as a bit crap, others perhaps as the best in the world. Either way they're doing their best.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
And we show no sign of learning from previous mistakes.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
We make and have made different mistakes from Japan (or any other country). Some of these mistakes may have been avoidable, but hindsight is a tricky thing.
Some of our civil servants may be objectively judged as a bit crap, others perhaps as the best in the world. Either way they're doing their best.
Mistakes are inevitable.
But I do not have any confidence that we will learn from those mistakes.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
For those actually interested rather than seeking to point score this explains it fairly clearly
We can count, just we can count hospital deaths on the day and other deaths a few days behind. The press are naturally desperate for the latest figures so we have daily hospital deaths and a lagging ONS total deaths number.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
And we show no sign of learning from previous mistakes.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
We make and have made different mistakes from Japan (or any other country). Some of these mistakes may have been avoidable, but hindsight is a tricky thing.
Some of our civil servants may be objectively judged as a bit crap, others perhaps as the best in the world. Either way they're doing their best.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
Let’s wait for the third or fourth wave, and see where we all are.
I believe it's the seventh wave that you should look out for.
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Possibly you are right, but why not once every hundred years? Isnt that as good a descriptor as any? If you are correcting, then what is the clear evidence it will be a "lot" more frequent?
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Isn't there increasing frequency of diseases jumping from other animals to humans?
It could be like those "once in a hundred years" floods that actually turn out to now happen every couple of years because the climate has changed
I dont know, its certainly plausible? As you were correcting me and you are normally very accurate I was expecting something more clear cut.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
For those actually interested rather than seeking to point score this explains it fairly clearly
We can count, just we can count hospital deaths on the day and other deaths a few days behind. The press are naturally desperate for the latest figures so we have daily hospital deaths and a lagging ONS total deaths number.
Actually the hospital deaths number is also a few days behind. They get about 10% of the deaths on the next day, and up to about 90% within the week.
The main elderly home they talk about is Pio Albergo Trivulzio, the largest public nursing home of the region. It is where all the Tangentopoli scandal started in early 90s that destroyed a whole political class.
Today a newspapers published an audio taped on 30th March between nurses of that elderly home.
Well, let's say that if half of the things said are true, they are in big troubles. Nurses with fever were going to work, they put down they had only 36 of fever and the head nurse knew it and let her work anyway. They talk about another nurse working with bad coughing and fever. They talk about x-rays showing bilateral pneumonia being hidden in the archives. One nurse says "if they test us, we are all positives here!"
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
There is a case for the UK to be criticised by South Korea given they have a testing rate well above ours, there is not a case for the UK to be criticised by Japan given they have a testing rate well below ours and went into lockdown after we did
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
And the policy target of flattening the peak to below nhs capacity relates precisely to the hospital figures. Moreover it looks as if we'll achieve that policy target.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
You are making the same mistake as many on the right when they say are not allowed to say x, y or z. You can say what you like, but others might not agree.
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
Because I think it's helpful, here's the highlights of that twitter thread from Nick Stripe at the ONS:
Based on all deaths registered in England & Wales in the w/e 27 March:
- there were over 11,000 total deaths, up 500 on the week before, 1,000 higher than the 5 year average for the same week (but when Easter falls affects that average as registration offices are shut) - 539 of these involved COVID, 5% of all deaths - 18% of all deaths in London involved COVID - COVID related deaths impacted older people more (as do all deaths of course) - 62% of COVID related deaths were males - 93% of COVID related deaths took place in a hospital setting
Based on deaths that occurred in Eng only, with a confirmed date of death up to Fri 27 March, we now have 3 data sources to compare: - the daily govt announcement the following day (28 March) indicated there had been 926 positive COVID tested deaths in hospitals - based on all deaths actually registered by the 1st April (where the death has been certified and informed to the local registration service and then sent to us for statistical analysis) 1,568 had COVID mentioned on the death certificate for deaths up to 27 March - NHS England are now reconciling the figures announced daily by relating them back to actual date of death. Their Sun 5 April data indicated there were 1,649 deaths with a +ve COVID test in hospital settings by 27 Mar. Their figures currently closely match ours day by day
Death registrations take 5 days on avg after actual date of death at the best of times, so our figures will still go a fair bit higher for that same period. There are clearly also lags in hospitals confirming and reporting deaths every day. This is perfectly understandable
NHS England's figures may still go higher for that period too, but probably not as high as ours will end up. Ours will eventually be the gold standard data source and also include all deaths, regardless of whether they took place inside hospitals or not (care homes etc)
The lags in daily reporting mean that when deaths start going down, that will also lag. i.e. we might not see it for a few days after it starts. It also now looks like the lags are more pronounced in the daily figures announced on Sun and Mon. There is a weekend effect here
Remember, of deaths actually registered in w/e 27 March, regardless of actual date of death, only 7% were outside hospital settings. We might expect that to increase if: - the lags in registering deaths outside hospitals are more pronounced in a lockdown (don't know yet) - NHS critical care / intensive care capacities are breached - care homes suffer significant COVID outbreaks.
So, please stay home. Please don't visit care homes
I found the weekend effect statistically significant when I did some GLM time series modelling of the data myself, so I think that reporting lag at weekends is a real phenomenon not just a chance artefact in a couple of weeks of data.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
You are making the same mistake as many on the right when they say are not allowed to say x, y or z. You can say what you like, but others might not agree.
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
It's quite amusing. I think the number of posts bemoaning the fact that you can't say anything to criticise "sainted Boris" vastly exceed the number that say you can't.
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Possibly you are right, but why not once every hundred years? Isnt that as good a descriptor as any? If you are correcting, then what is the clear evidence it will be a "lot" more frequent?
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Isn't there increasing frequency of diseases jumping from other animals to humans?
It could be like those "once in a hundred years" floods that actually turn out to now happen every couple of years because the climate has changed
I dont know, its certainly plausible? As you were correcting me and you are normally very accurate I was expecting something more clear cut.
Yes I don't really know and should have phrased it differently , but there was speculation about more diseases jumping from other species because of humans expanding into more habitats, and certain farming methods.
I do think any assumption that we won't be "due" another pandemic for another hundred years would be a dangerous mistake.
Because I think it's helpful, here's the highlights of that twitter thread from Nick Stripe at the ONS:
Based on all deaths registered in England & Wales in the w/e 27 March:
- there were over 11,000 total deaths, up 500 on the week before, 1,000 higher than the 5 year average for the same week (but when Easter falls affects that average as registration offices are shut) - 539 of these involved COVID, 5% of all deaths - 18% of all deaths in London involved COVID - COVID related deaths impacted older people more (as do all deaths of course) - 62% of COVID related deaths were males - 93% of COVID related deaths took place in a hospital setting
Based on deaths that occurred in Eng only, with a confirmed date of death up to Fri 27 March, we now have 3 data sources to compare: - the daily govt announcement the following day (28 March) indicated there had been 926 positive COVID tested deaths in hospitals - based on all deaths actually registered by the 1st April (where the death has been certified and informed to the local registration service and then sent to us for statistical analysis) 1,568 had COVID mentioned on the death certificate for deaths up to 27 March - NHS England are now reconciling the figures announced daily by relating them back to actual date of death. Their Sun 5 April data indicated there were 1,649 deaths with a +ve COVID test in hospital settings by 27 Mar. Their figures currently closely match ours day by day
Death registrations take 5 days on avg after actual date of death at the best of times, so our figures will still go a fair bit higher for that same period. There are clearly also lags in hospitals confirming and reporting deaths every day. This is perfectly understandable
NHS England's figures may still go higher for that period too, but probably not as high as ours will end up. Ours will eventually be the gold standard data source and also include all deaths, regardless of whether they took place inside hospitals or not (care homes etc)
The lags in daily reporting mean that when deaths start going down, that will also lag. i.e. we might not see it for a few days after it starts. It also now looks like the lags are more pronounced in the daily figures announced on Sun and Mon. There is a weekend effect here
Remember, of deaths actually registered in w/e 27 March, regardless of actual date of death, only 7% were outside hospital settings. We might expect that to increase if: - the lags in registering deaths outside hospitals are more pronounced in a lockdown (don't know yet) - NHS critical care / intensive care capacities are breached - care homes suffer significant COVID outbreaks.
So, please stay home. Please don't visit care homes
I found the weekend effect statistically significant when I did some GLM time series modelling of the data myself, so I think that reporting lag at weekends is a real phenomenon not just a chance artefact in a couple of weeks of data.
For what it's worth, based on my analysis there was definitely a weekend effect last weekend (slower on Sat/Sun, then sped up on Monday and a little on Tuesday to compensate), but no sign of it so far this weekend. If anything, reporting has gotten slightly faster over this week and there are fewer deaths being reported more than a week late.
Reporting patterns have actually been quite stable overall, although figuring out how to adjust for last weekend is causing me some grief.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Well there's a very esteemed professor of public health who agrees with him.
But to be honest I don't get it. If you really believe "It is no longer acceptable to produce data on #COVID19 deaths that exclude care homes" then you're saying "hospital-only figures shouldn't be published". But what's wrong with having hospital-only figures, bearing in mind we care about what happens in hospital for separate reasons to why we care about deaths elsewhere?
The thing that is wrong is using the hospital-only figures as if they represented total deaths (which they don't, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are up-to-date figures (they might be the next best thing but they still have quite considerable lags, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are totally accurate (which ...), as if they are suitable for uncritical international comparison (only with a massive piece of salt).
And there are plenty of people committing all those sins, so I can see why people get annoyed at seeing hospital-only figures banded around inappropriately. But the answer clearly isn't to abandon or redefine the data series half-way through and make life far harder for all the modellers, epidemiologists, statisticians etc who are using it!!!
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
You are making the same mistake as many on the right when they say are not allowed to say x, y or z. You can say what you like, but others might not agree.
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
It's quite amusing. I think the number of posts bemoaning the fact that you can't say anything to criticise "sainted Boris" vastly exceed the number that say you can't.
Now he is out of hospital Im very comfortable criticising him whether he is a saint or not. His behaviour in getting the PM job was deceitful and contemptible. His Brexit deal was a climbdown and surrender. His proroguing of parliament was dangerous and his treatment of long term conservatives like Clarke and Heseltine a disgrace.
On coronavirus I think him and the govt should get wide support and be given far more latitude than we should normally give politicians.
Not every decision will be right but the govt have involved scientists from day one, put in place a reasonable plan for the economy and found imo a better balance for living thru lockdown than some other countries. PPE and testing are the two troublespots, but both were always going to be a challenge. On testing we do seem to be underperforming and hopefully that can be put right asap.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
You are making the same mistake as many on the right when they say are not allowed to say x, y or z. You can say what you like, but others might not agree.
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
It's quite amusing. I think the number of posts bemoaning the fact that you can't say anything to criticise "sainted Boris" vastly exceed the number that say you can't.
Quite right. In any case, Saint Boris is an insult. A man of his classical tastes and herculean grandeur can only rightly be deemed a demi-God.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
There is a case for the UK to be criticised by South Korea given they have a testing rate well above ours, there is not a case for the UK to be criticised by Japan given they have a testing rate well below ours and went into lockdown after we did
Japan has 53 cases per million, we have 1251 cases per million
Japan has had 0.9 deaths per million, we have had 156 deaths per million
The criticisms that the Japanese colleagues of Max B are making are valid. Perhaps you might like to address them
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
I also think that in the main their analysis is correct but we aren't allowed to say so in case it's seen as criticism of the sainted Boris.
You are making the same mistake as many on the right when they say are not allowed to say x, y or z. You can say what you like, but others might not agree.
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
My comment was slightly tongue in cheek, a couple of days ago someone was clutching their pearls on PB because somebody has had the temerity to call our PM Bozo whilst he was in hospital.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
It depends on what you are trying to compare.
If you are comparing day to day trends in the progression of the virus in the UK, yes the hospital figures alone are the best benchmark available.
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
I share your view that the media should pay more attention to the other figures. I think they will if they start to focus on whether the UK will end up with more deaths than anywhere else in Europe, or on why the UK has ended up in a situation where it cannot relax the lockdown in contrast to other European countries which are doing so.
I also share your view that the government could present the figures somewhat differently. However, I don't think they're going to be in any rush to do so, if it aids comparisons with other European countries.
Can we now start asking why we were later to lock down, are slower to test, and have a higher death rate than comparator countries?
Even the much-derided US have are now testing at almost double our rate per capita.
Meanwhile the economy is in free-fall and there’s no indication of an exit strategy whatsoever.
It’s only 6 weeks since we were told smugly, that unlike those infernal Europeans, we will be “following the science”. This country’s government - and the mainstream media whose job it is to hold them to account - have been caught with their trousers down.
If we had locked down earlier surely the economic free fall would be faster? Complaining of both seems strange.
"We were told smugly" - well it depends who by, govts have generally been very reluctant to criticise each other and say each country is different. Perhaps you can find a quote from a cabinet minister, CMO or CSO smugly criticising infernal Europeans for not following science?
Of course the govt has been caught with their trousers down, so has every country, this is a once in a hundred years crisis, it would have been crazy and wildly expensive to be constantly fully prepared for such an event.
Why do people keep saying once in a hundred years? If we don't learn the lessons it will be a lot more frequent.
Possibly you are right, but why not once every hundred years? Isnt that as good a descriptor as any? If you are correcting, then what is the clear evidence it will be a "lot" more frequent?
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Isn't there increasing frequency of diseases jumping from other animals to humans?
It could be like those "once in a hundred years" floods that actually turn out to now happen every couple of years because the climate has changed
I dont know, its certainly plausible? As you were correcting me and you are normally very accurate I was expecting something more clear cut.
Yes I don't really know and should have phrased it differently , but there was speculation about more diseases jumping from other species because of humans expanding into more habitats, and certain farming methods.
I do think any assumption that we won't be "due" another pandemic for another hundred years would be a dangerous mistake.
The "due" idea is rubbish anyway even if something genuinely is, statistically, a one in one hundred years event! Because that 1 in 100 event is just as likely to happen in 2021 or 2022 than it is in 2120. They're not going to be evenly spaced out. But if we do get to 2120 without it happening so far, we don't become "overdue" and then it becomes massively more likely the in the year 2121 to make up for it...
So yes it would be a dangerous mistake to think that unlikely events can be ignored if we're not "due" one, but then that seems to be the kind of mistake people make all the time even when the probability of the event isn't changing...
Doesn't directly address the question of whether zoonosis is becoming more likely but does explain why the dynamics of such an emergence are very difficult to model/predict. Worth a read if you're curious. (From 2014 so probably not cutting edge any more but the concepts are surely still relevant!)
China would be the obvious scapegoat, if we had not just left the EU and found the US going for a US first approach. It still might be but it would close our geo political options down even further.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Well there's a very esteemed professor of public health who agrees with him.
But to be honest I don't get it. If you really believe "It is no longer acceptable to produce data on #COVID19 deaths that exclude care homes" then you're saying "hospital-only figures shouldn't be published". But what's wrong with having hospital-only figures, bearing in mind we care about what happens in hospital for separate reasons to why we care about deaths elsewhere?
The thing that is wrong is using the hospital-only figures as if they represented total deaths (which they don't, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are up-to-date figures (they might be the next best thing but they still have quite considerable lags, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are totally accurate (which ...), as if they are suitable for uncritical international comparison (only with a massive piece of salt).
And there are plenty of people committing all those sins, so I can see why people get annoyed at seeing hospital-only figures banded around inappropriately. But the answer clearly isn't to abandon or redefine the data series half-way through and make life far harder for all the modellers, epidemiologists, statisticians etc who are using it!!!
1) The figures that people hear factor into their behaviour, 20,000 (as Foxy suggested would be the figure) does a lot more to encourage following the lockdown. 2) At some point, the figures will be known. In fact, I expect the media to make this public within a week or so. They need to get ahead of the headlines, or it looks very shifty (the optics are important). 3) It's just the right thing, as many will feel, to count everyone as being equal. Because two people, one triaged into hospital and one not are currently seen as being totally different it looks as though they are being hidden. This also applies to care home workers who are being seen as second class compared to hospital staff.
I fear that lower numbers may, when expedient, be used to excuse a relaxing of the lockdown, I hope I am proved wrong.
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
That's only true if other European countries are all reporting a standardised metric that consists of hospital deaths plus some other deaths that we aren't. But I'm not sure that's true, is it? Some still seem to be reporting hospital deaths only.
Frankly since different countries have different definitions of "deaths from COVID-19" (if it relies on testing then this depends who that country tests and is subject to the considerable problem of false negatives, if it relies on symptoms then who's recording them - not everyone sees a doctor before they die) you're never going to achieve perfect comparisons anyway.
I agree hospital deaths alone is obviously not a great benchmark for international comparison if only because different countries will have different proportions dying in different kinds of facilities (some countries may prefer for COVID patients to be treated in their care home and others to send them to hospital, in some more people are dying in their own home) but the most meaningful figure would be total deaths, and that's going to be a pain in the backside to count because there will always be long lags for civil registration of deaths and determining causes of deaths outside health facilities.
In the long run, I suspect the best figures for comparison will be "excess deaths" as might be used for e.g. flu or heat-wave deaths, which will largely get around the problem of inconsistent case definitions. But they're found only by considerable statistical jiggery-pokery and aren't going to be available in real-time.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Well there's a very esteemed professor of public health who agrees with him.
But to be honest I don't get it. If you really believe "It is no longer acceptable to produce data on #COVID19 deaths that exclude care homes" then you're saying "hospital-only figures shouldn't be published". But what's wrong with having hospital-only figures, bearing in mind we care about what happens in hospital for separate reasons to why we care about deaths elsewhere?
The thing that is wrong is using the hospital-only figures as if they represented total deaths (which they don't, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are up-to-date figures (they might be the next best thing but they still have quite considerable lags, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are totally accurate (which ...), as if they are suitable for uncritical international comparison (only with a massive piece of salt).
And there are plenty of people committing all those sins, so I can see why people get annoyed at seeing hospital-only figures banded around inappropriately. But the answer clearly isn't to abandon or redefine the data series half-way through and make life far harder for all the modellers, epidemiologists, statisticians etc who are using it!!!
1) The figures that people hear factor into their behaviour, 20,000 (as Foxy suggested would be the figure) does a lot more to encourage following the lockdown. 2) At some point, the figures will be known. In fact, I expect the media to make this public within a week or so. They need to get ahead of the headlines, or it looks very shifty (the optics are important). 3) It's just the right thing, as many will feel, to count everyone as being equal. Because two people, one triaged into hospital and one not are currently seen as being totally different it looks as though they are being hidden. This also applies to care home workers who are being seen as second class compared to hospital staff.
I fear that lower numbers may, when expedient, be used to excuse a relaxing of the lockdown, I hope I am proved wrong.
One of the main reasons (the main reason?) for the lockdown is to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, so yes the NHS stats will be a big part of deciding when to relax the lockdown and rightly so.
It wont be any time soon, expect another 3 weeks of status quo at least, and then if its going better a gradual but very slow easing of restrictions from then on.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
It’s a shame Carrie wasn’t closer to her due date . That way the press could ignore the 10,000 death toll as they camped out waiting for the new arrival . We could all be discussing baby names whilst ignoring the governments failings in its handling of the virus .
It isn't 10,612. It's a considerable amount more than the number dying only in hospitals.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
This is really starting to tick me off, whatever you think about this government's response (or any other country's, either - might be annoying that different countries use different definitions, different time-frames etc, but there's a reason their statisticians are counting the way they do, often related to the structure of that country's health and statistical systems).
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
It depends on what you are trying to compare.
If you are comparing day to day trends in the progression of the virus in the UK, yes the hospital figures alone are the best benchmark available.
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
I share your view that the media should pay more attention to the other figures. I think they will if they start to focus on whether the UK will end up with more deaths than anywhere else in Europe, or on why the UK has ended up in a situation where it cannot relax the lockdown in contrast to other European countries which are doing so.
I also share your view that the government could present the figures somewhat differently. However, I don't think they're going to be in any rush to do so, if it aids comparisons with other European countries.
Wait, hang on. You seem to be implying that there is some kind of standard reporting metric across Europe that, if the UK conformed to, would allow direct comparisons. I don't think that's the case? Aside from the issue of hospital deaths vs hospital plus some other deaths vs all deaths, there are different reporting lags across countries, and within countries, between hospitals and other places. There are probably regional issues within some countries and possibly a private vs public effect in places. Add on top that it's not even clear that all countries are taking the same view on "died from" as opposed to "died with" and you have a gigantic mess on your hands. I just don't think any form of direct comparison is going to be possible for a couple of years.
Edit: never mind; I think MBE has already covered these points.
This is what it looks like when your health service capacity does break down under the strain. Not 100% sure I trust the Mail's reporting, obviously, but the traffic jam of ambulances looks awful. Perhaps it's just a line of ambulances primed and ready for action and it's all been misreported. But the appearance is very much of the kind of apocalyptic scenes we were being threatened with as the possibility of COVID-19 overwhelming us seemed very real.
It's interesting, as you've said before, that the NHS in practice seems to have avoided these kind of scenes, yet the death toll here has still been terrible. Ultimately, in the absence of effective treatment, it seems there are a lot of people even a functioning health service can't save. But I wouldn't want to see what happens when it stops functioning.
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
That's only true if other European countries are all reporting a standardised metric that consists of hospital deaths plus some other deaths that we aren't. But I'm not sure that's true, is it? Some still seem to be reporting hospital deaths only.
Frankly since different countries have different definitions of "deaths from COVID-19" (if it relies on testing then this depends who that country tests and is subject to the considerable problem of false negatives, if it relies on symptoms then who's recording them - not everyone sees a doctor before they die) you're never going to achieve perfect comparisons anyway.
I agree hospital deaths alone is obviously not a great benchmark for international comparison if only because different countries will have different proportions dying in different kinds of facilities (some countries may prefer for COVID patients to be treated in their care home and others to send them to hospital, in some more people are dying in their own home) but the most meaningful figure would be total deaths, and that's going to be a pain in the backside to count because there will always be long lags for civil registration of deaths and determining causes of deaths outside health facilities.
In the long run, I suspect the best figures for comparison will be "excess deaths" as might be used for e.g. flu or heat-wave deaths, which will largely get around the problem of inconsistent case definitions. But they're found only by considerable statistical jiggery-pokery and aren't going to be available in real-time.
Is the micro analysis of the stats by amateurs and media actually helpful for anyone? It was in the early days when trying to get a feel for the scale of the problem. But we now know the order of magnitude that will die in this wave in the UK. It will be very sad and significant whether the final number is 17,388 or 34,203. I am far from convinced that a different policy response or different view of our government is needed depending on the total within the plausible ranges.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here.
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance. 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. 3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error. 4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
(2) is correct and was a huge, stupid, catastrophic error. However, on the rest:
(1) is equally true of Japan. I'm not sure what the PPE situation will be like if the thing gets out of hand but testing was a largely identical festival of clown-shoes.
On (3), Japan made the exact same error. They quickly shut down traffic from China (and South Korea, which is kind of ridiculous) but when the EU/US wave hit they'd gone into this weird complacency mode. They got there in the end, but since the UK has let the outbreak get so far with blunder (1) and others I'm not sure if stopping new people coming in now helps or not.
On (4), I imagine we're have lots of testing whenever the crisis finally abates, so you should be able to measure disease prevalance in other countries, you shouldn't have to guess it from a critique of their government's resoonse. I'm sure the airlines and tourism industries will be keen to get moving again as soon as it's safe to do so.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
Indeed. I posted it without comment. I have no idea, but I suspect doctors make these kinds of decisions and numbers in their heads on a regular basis.
Seems to me that there is a strand of people who seem to think it is possible to keep very ill and frail people alive, if even for a few hours more, at any cost (both resource-wise to the NHS and pain wise to the person who is suffering).
PPE and the fact Cheltenham was allowed to go ahead (as an example of lack of Government control at that time) seem to be quite catastrophic blunders to me. Overall the Government has probably done the best it could, outside of those.
Don't buy this "Johnson has changed" stuff though, I very much doubt he has. We will see when he gets back to work.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
Yes. This is just good doctoring
I once dated a cancer doctor in the NHS. She made decisions like this all the time.
The tweet is ridiculous. Doctors have to make decisions like this all the time, as you say. And I still can't believe the Economist writer allegedly tweeted what he did.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
What surprises me is the clinical frailty scale - it seems to be missing a category.
1 - is very fit, among the fittest for their age, exercise regularly 2 - is well, no active disease but only exercise seasonally!
I am definitely not 1, so guess 2 but would exercise in some form each week. I think a large proportion of the nation would be between 1 & 2 but not either of them.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
If you are female you automatically get better treatment (“-1 for female sex”). You are therefore more likely to survive. Just because female.
I await the histrionic Guardian editorial, and the bitter argument over trans.
My father gets a score of 12 on that, my mother 7, although it’s my mother that struggles more, with arthritis. For what it’s worth, I’m a 4, whoopee...
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
That's only true if other European countries are all reporting a standardised metric that consists of hospital deaths plus some other deaths that we aren't. But I'm not sure that's true, is it? Some still seem to be reporting hospital deaths only.
Frankly since different countries have different definitions of "deaths from COVID-19" (if it relies on testing then this depends who that country tests and is subject to the considerable problem of false negatives, if it relies on symptoms then who's recording them - not everyone sees a doctor before they die) you're never going to achieve perfect comparisons anyway.
I agree hospital deaths alone is obviously not a great benchmark for international comparison if only because different countries will have different proportions dying in different kinds of facilities (some countries may prefer for COVID patients to be treated in their care home and others to send them to hospital, in some more people are dying in their own home) but the most meaningful figure would be total deaths, and that's going to be a pain in the backside to count because there will always be long lags for civil registration of deaths and determining causes of deaths outside health facilities.
In the long run, I suspect the best figures for comparison will be "excess deaths" as might be used for e.g. flu or heat-wave deaths, which will largely get around the problem of inconsistent case definitions. But they're found only by considerable statistical jiggery-pokery and aren't going to be available in real-time.
I think you're in danger of not being able to see the wood from the trees, in your search for the elixir of absolute statistical purity.
Certainly some governments - the French for example - have started to report deaths in establishments other than hospitals alongside their hospital deaths statistic, and they seem able to do so transparently as part of their headline reporting rather than burying it in the back of an ONS statistical annex. The Worldometer site suggests that the French move to do so at the start of April was complying with "international standards of correct inclusion".
The bottom line is that UK meanwhile is focusing on the measure which minimises the count. So the rule of thumb when making international comparisons seems to be that the UK figures are not going to compare any more favourably with other countries than might be suggested by a superficial comparison, and that a more in depth comparison might (or might not) make the UK figures look worse.
It's difficult to believe a journalist from such a high-brow and usually rational magazine could allegedly tweet such a thing. Maybe the account was hacked or something.
It's difficult to believe a journalist from such a high-brow and usually rational magazine could allegedly tweet such a thing. Maybe the account was hacked or something.
Apparently the guy in question hasn't worked for the magazine for nearly two years, but the profile still states his old job, so all a bit odd.
It's difficult to believe a journalist from such a high-brow and usually rational magazine could allegedly tweet such a thing. Maybe the account was hacked or something.
I agree. A bit of a google on him and it seems he was a Cameroon who is upset about Brexit, so could be he’s just not coping with it... there is still a ready audience for such outpourings of grief
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here. ... 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. ...
(2) is correct and was a huge, stupid, catastrophic error.
I think the optics of that decision looked pretty poor at the time and far worse in retrospect. Really did give the impression of not treating COVID-19 seriously, both to the UK population and to those overseas!
Whether it was "huge", "stupid" or "catastrophic" are different questions though. The eggheads had various reasons to believe that large events, especially if held outdoors, weren't especially risky compared to restaurants or pubs. The fact there are thousands of people crowded together doesn't mean, with a virus largely transmitted by (relatively) close contact, that one person can infect thousands. It might initiate a new cluster of cases, but if the disease is already inevitably spreading around anyway, that might not be regarded as such a big deal - the effect of thousands of people mixing at a large event is far less than the effect of millions of people mixing at work or on public transport, even though there's a greater chance that one might later identify a set of transmissions that occurred at one large event rather than one particular office or train carriage.
I think by that stage the government knew that it could only conceivably delay the spread. I doubt that closing the big public events would have bought even one day of time (though may have affected things at a local level). There's a similar reason for why they didn't shut the air routes in, they had crunched the numbers and realised once the epidemic had been seeded and was spreading, a few more people with the virus landing in Britain simply made no substantial difference to its course.
One part of the government response that I've never fully understood, but think will become clearer later once the timeline of all the government advice is released (in fact tbh the relevant stuff may already be public domain but I've not been paying attention to it) is that the initial attempt to squish the virus out seems to have been a bit half-hearted. At first when they were bothering with the full-on contact tracing etc they seemed to have at least some hope they might be able to keep controlling the outbreaks, not just delay the spread. To do this more full-bloodedly they could have imposed more stringent "quarantine at home if you've just returned from abroad" rules (they only applied this in a very limited way to certain regions), or even block-booked hotels to keep people for two weeks; they could without much pain have pushed through work-from-home-where-possible much earlier; they could have shut down large public events (this is the time and purpose for which doing so would have made a difference). Anything that reduced the R0 would have increased the probability of individual outbreaks being stopped dead and even in the worst case delayed the ultimate spread. This strategy if pursued thoroughly and for the long term would have required a far bigger ramp-up of testing capacity, and a lot of thought about "what next" (do you end up needing to virtually freeze contact with the outside world?).
In the end they seem to have given up on it before they'd really given it its best shot. I get the impression they were advised that the R0 was so big that playing whack-a-mole with the outbreaks wasn't likely to be viable, but if I was in government I'd have been tempted by the option of giving it as big a chance as possible to work. There's a very big dice-rolling element to this because once just a few cases slip through the net (as seems to have happened now in Singapore) the whole strategy risks falling apart, but this is why you wouldn't stop your preparation for the next stage. If you did get lucky (particularly if new research suggests the R0 is lower than previously thought and it's more controllable than previously believed - which at that stage couldn't be ruled out as a possibility) then you may only end up with a handful of deaths, or postpone the epidemic for a few months by which point more treatment options may be available. For the resources that would require, compared to the costs of a full-blown epidemic immediately when so little is known about the pathogen, it just seems a tempting gamble.
PPE and the fact Cheltenham was allowed to go ahead (as an example of lack of Government control at that time) seem to be quite catastrophic blunders to me. Overall the Government has probably done the best it could, outside of those.
Don't buy this "Johnson has changed" stuff though, I very much doubt he has. We will see when he gets back to work.
Just a matter of whether it is a realistic prospect of recovery. It sounds brutal, but it isn't. Futile days of uncomfortable and interventional treatment are brutal however.
If you are female you automatically get better treatment (“-1 for female sex”). You are therefore more likely to survive. Just because female.
I await the histrionic Guardian editorial, and the bitter argument over trans.
I think that the - 1 reflects that women naturally live longer than blokes (so on average are healthier than blokes of the same age, particularly as they get older) and also that women seem to suffer Covid19 less badly than men and are therefore more likely to respond to treatment.
I'm not particularly surprised to discover that this sort of scoring is in use to help guide decisions about ICU admission and ventilation. There is little point subjecting the very old and frail to invasive treatment which is almost certainly hopeless - and that's the case even in normal times, never mind now when the system may be stretched to the very limit. If you read the scoring system carefully, they will attempt icu intervention for the fittest and healthiest of the 80+ category, it isn't a blanket ban on over 80s - if it was, that would perhaps be more concerning. Ultimately these decisions must be made, I'm very glad I don't have to make them, but if I did I would want a framework like this to help decide rather than having to just make an assessment from scratch of each case.
Some disturbing chatter from Japanese work colleagues on Japanese thinking about how we've handled the crisis here. ... 2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such. ...
(2) is correct and was a huge, stupid, catastrophic error.
I think the optics of that decision looked pretty poor at the time and far worse in retrospect. Really did give the impression of not treating COVID-19 seriously, both to the UK population and to those overseas!
Whether it was "huge", "stupid" or "catastrophic" are different questions though. The eggheads had various reasons to believe that large events, especially if held outdoors, weren't especially risky compared to restaurants or pubs. The fact there are thousands of people crowded together doesn't mean, with a virus largely transmitted by (relatively) close contact, that one person can infect thousands. It might initiate a new cluster of cases, but if the disease is already inevitably spreading around anyway, that might not be regarded as such a big deal - the effect of thousands of people mixing at a large event is far less than the effect of millions of people mixing at work or on public transport, even though there's a greater chance that one might later identify a set of transmissions that occurred at one large event rather than one particular office or train carriage.
I think by that stage the government knew that it could only conceivably delay the spread. I doubt that closing the big public events would have bought even one day of time (though may have affected things at a local level). There's a similar reason for why they didn't shut the air routes in, they had crunched the numbers and realised once the epidemic had been seeded and was spreading, a few more people with the virus landing in Britain simply made no substantial difference to its course.
If you look at the numbers large events are a small fraction of daily public transport before you factor in other offices, bars, restaurants, schools, universities etc. It is extremely unlikely that the scale of any possible mistake on that was catastrophic.
In terms of timing, the last set of games to be played in the big european countries were the UEFA games and they were only cancelled in Spain and Italy. PSG were behind closed doors but had thousands outside the ground in far closer proximity than they would have been inside the ground. The idea we were out of step with most of Europe, rather than behind Italy and to an extent Spain is just history being imagined. We were behind Italy and Spain because the virus was spreading faster there!
Even in Italy it was a mess the weekend before, with games in some areas cancelled, others behind closed doors, and one match delayed five minutes before kick off with the minister of sport phoning the referee.
Comments
1. The UK government is inept - the testing and PPE shortages would have been solved by Japanese industry in double quick time, why did the government wait so long to ask for assistance.
2. Our laissez-faire approach to mass gatherings was an error and should be recognised as such.
3. The same approach to the border and arrivals is a continuing error.
4. Because of the above, Japan and other Asian nations may not open up flights to/from the UK for a long time. They don't have any confidence in the UK government to take tough decisions or in UK citizens to abide by tough lock down and quarantine rules as they would in Japan.
I think they ae right on all points.
It was the Chinese government who allowed Covid 19 to emerge by refusing to close wet markets and improve lab safety
Those who try to argue for reform will continue to be accused of wanting a US type system (we don't) and the fact that the NHS is a third rate first world health service which compares poorly with practically ever one of our peers will be ignored or shouted down.
Far from being the salvation for the NHS this crisis will ensure it continues to languish in, at best, mediocrity when compared to other first world countries.
Instead our Sir Humphreys preferred the self-admiration of 'following the science'.
The last clearly worse crisis was a century ago, possibly we will end up with similar deaths totals to 1957, 1969 and 2009 but only through far more restrictions than we had in those years. Left unrestricted it would be the worst in 100 years.
Japan tests per million, 544
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I think it's an interesting perspective from Asia. The point about them seeing us the same way we look at the US us an eye-opener. There's been talk here about how we might need to keep the border closed to the US. Well, Asians lump the UK in the same boat it seems.
Some of our civil servants may be objectively judged as a bit crap, others perhaps as the best in the world. Either way they're doing their best.
We don't know how many more. Is it an inability to count, or just unwillingness?
It could be like those "once in a hundred years" floods that actually turn out to now happen every couple of years because the climate has changed
"The contradiction at the heart of ministers’s coronavirus response"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-contradiction-at-the-heart-of-ministers-s-coronavirus-response
But I do not have any confidence that we will learn from those mistakes.
https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2020/03/31/counting-deaths-involving-the-coronavirus-covid-19/
We can count, just we can count hospital deaths on the day and other deaths a few days behind. The press are naturally desperate for the latest figures so we have daily hospital deaths and a lagging ONS total deaths number.
The main elderly home they talk about is Pio Albergo Trivulzio, the largest public nursing home of the region.
It is where all the Tangentopoli scandal started in early 90s that destroyed a whole political class.
Today a newspapers published an audio taped on 30th March between nurses of that elderly home.
Well, let's say that if half of the things said are true, they are in big troubles.
Nurses with fever were going to work, they put down they had only 36 of fever and the head nurse knew it and let her work anyway. They talk about another nurse working with bad coughing and fever. They talk about x-rays showing bilateral pneumonia being hidden in the archives.
One nurse says "if they test us, we are all positives here!"
Surreal scene from that nursing home .... funeral home staff wandering around not finding the "right" coffin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbvgM_VAeFM&feature=emb_title
Have a look at https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-11th-april/ and also read this twitter thread.
https://twitter.com/NickStripe_ONS/status/1247792168418168837
The government collects and releases several different sets of statistics for different purposes. Some of those data series are faster to compile than others (hint: since the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals know/suspect whether the deceased patients have COVID-19, it's far easier - though still not instant - for them to count the deaths that happen there ... a lot of countries have health and/or statistical responsibilities split between central government and states/regions which complicates their counting even more).
There's really no point looking at the figure for deaths in hospitals only and then complaining that it only covers hospitals. There really isn't. If you want to quote one of the other data series, then go for it. They're there for you if you want them. The reason the hospital-only figure gets such centrality in the media is because it is the one that gives the most up-to-date indication of any trends. It isn't, nor is it claimed to be, the most "accurate" figure - indeed the experts continually remind us that the final death toll will be greater. Now I do think the media should pay more attention to the other figures, and perhaps the government could present them somewhat differently, but it's actually useful not to change the definition of a data series midway through because it cocks up comparability.
Dozens of Moscow ambulances queue for up to 15 HOURS outside hospitals as Kremlin declares 'state of emergency'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211727/Dozens-ambulances-filled-suspected-coronavirus-patients-wait-hours-outside-Moscow-hospitals.html
Most of the media are critical, most of the public are still broadly supportive.
With time that will change and the public will start to blame the govt in greater numbers. Hindsight increases the number of people who blame the govt.
Based on all deaths registered in England & Wales in the w/e 27 March:
- there were over 11,000 total deaths, up 500 on the week before, 1,000 higher than the 5 year average for the same week (but when Easter falls affects that average as registration offices are shut)
- 539 of these involved COVID, 5% of all deaths
- 18% of all deaths in London involved COVID
- COVID related deaths impacted older people more (as do all deaths of course)
- 62% of COVID related deaths were males
- 93% of COVID related deaths took place in a hospital setting
Based on deaths that occurred in Eng only, with a confirmed date of death up to Fri 27 March, we now have 3 data sources to compare:
- the daily govt announcement the following day (28 March) indicated there had been 926 positive COVID tested deaths in hospitals
- based on all deaths actually registered by the 1st April (where the death has been certified and informed to the local registration service and then sent to us for statistical analysis) 1,568 had COVID mentioned on the death certificate for deaths up to 27 March
- NHS England are now reconciling the figures announced daily by relating them back to actual date of death. Their Sun 5 April data indicated there were 1,649 deaths with a +ve COVID test in hospital settings by 27 Mar. Their figures currently closely match ours day by day
Death registrations take 5 days on avg after actual date of death at the best of times, so our figures will still go a fair bit higher for that same period. There are clearly also lags in hospitals confirming and reporting deaths every day. This is perfectly understandable
NHS England's figures may still go higher for that period too, but probably not as high as ours will end up. Ours will eventually be the gold standard data source and also include all deaths, regardless of whether they took place inside hospitals or not (care homes etc)
The lags in daily reporting mean that when deaths start going down, that will also lag. i.e. we might not see it for a few days after it starts. It also now looks like the lags are more pronounced in the daily figures announced on Sun and Mon. There is a weekend effect here
Remember, of deaths actually registered in w/e 27 March, regardless of actual date of death, only 7% were outside hospital settings. We might expect that to increase if:
- the lags in registering deaths outside hospitals are more pronounced in a lockdown (don't know yet)
- NHS critical care / intensive care capacities are breached
- care homes suffer significant COVID outbreaks.
So, please stay home. Please don't visit care homes
I found the weekend effect statistically significant when I did some GLM time series modelling of the data myself, so I think that reporting lag at weekends is a real phenomenon not just a chance artefact in a couple of weeks of data.
I do think any assumption that we won't be "due" another pandemic for another hundred years would be a dangerous mistake.
Reporting patterns have actually been quite stable overall, although figuring out how to adjust for last weekend is causing me some grief.
Well there's a very esteemed professor of public health who agrees with him.
But to be honest I don't get it. If you really believe "It is no longer acceptable to produce data on #COVID19 deaths that exclude care homes" then you're saying "hospital-only figures shouldn't be published". But what's wrong with having hospital-only figures, bearing in mind we care about what happens in hospital for separate reasons to why we care about deaths elsewhere?
The thing that is wrong is using the hospital-only figures as if they represented total deaths (which they don't, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are up-to-date figures (they might be the next best thing but they still have quite considerable lags, as the eggheads continually remind us), as if they are totally accurate (which ...), as if they are suitable for uncritical international comparison (only with a massive piece of salt).
And there are plenty of people committing all those sins, so I can see why people get annoyed at seeing hospital-only figures banded around inappropriately. But the answer clearly isn't to abandon or redefine the data series half-way through and make life far harder for all the modellers, epidemiologists, statisticians etc who are using it!!!
On coronavirus I think him and the govt should get wide support and be given far more latitude than we should normally give politicians.
Not every decision will be right but the govt have involved scientists from day one, put in place a reasonable plan for the economy and found imo a better balance for living thru lockdown than some other countries. PPE and testing are the two troublespots, but both were always going to be a challenge. On testing we do seem to be underperforming and hopefully that can be put right asap.
Japan has had 0.9 deaths per million, we have had 156 deaths per million
The criticisms that the Japanese colleagues of Max B are making are valid. Perhaps you might like to address them
Depends what the three bottles were.
If you are comparing day to day trends in the progression of the virus in the UK, yes the hospital figures alone are the best benchmark available.
If you wish to compare how the UK is managing the crisis compared with other European countries, counting deaths in hospitals alone is not the most meaningful benchmark.
I share your view that the media should pay more attention to the other figures. I think they will if they start to focus on whether the UK will end up with more deaths than anywhere else in Europe, or on why the UK has ended up in a situation where it cannot relax the lockdown in contrast to other European countries which are doing so.
I also share your view that the government could present the figures somewhat differently. However, I don't think they're going to be in any rush to do so, if it aids comparisons with other European countries.
So yes it would be a dangerous mistake to think that unlikely events can be ignored if we're not "due" one, but then that seems to be the kind of mistake people make all the time even when the probability of the event isn't changing...
Incidentally I read this paper this weekend: Nine challenges in modelling the emergence of novel pathogens at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436514000504
Doesn't directly address the question of whether zoonosis is becoming more likely but does explain why the dynamics of such an emergence are very difficult to model/predict. Worth a read if you're curious. (From 2014 so probably not cutting edge any more but the concepts are surely still relevant!)
2) At some point, the figures will be known. In fact, I expect the media to make this public within a week or so. They need to get ahead of the headlines, or it looks very shifty (the optics are important).
3) It's just the right thing, as many will feel, to count everyone as being equal. Because two people, one triaged into hospital and one not are currently seen as being totally different it looks as though they are being hidden. This also applies to care home workers who are being seen as second class compared to hospital staff.
I fear that lower numbers may, when expedient, be used to excuse a relaxing of the lockdown, I hope I am proved wrong.
Frankly since different countries have different definitions of "deaths from COVID-19" (if it relies on testing then this depends who that country tests and is subject to the considerable problem of false negatives, if it relies on symptoms then who's recording them - not everyone sees a doctor before they die) you're never going to achieve perfect comparisons anyway.
I agree hospital deaths alone is obviously not a great benchmark for international comparison if only because different countries will have different proportions dying in different kinds of facilities (some countries may prefer for COVID patients to be treated in their care home and others to send them to hospital, in some more people are dying in their own home) but the most meaningful figure would be total deaths, and that's going to be a pain in the backside to count because there will always be long lags for civil registration of deaths and determining causes of deaths outside health facilities.
In the long run, I suspect the best figures for comparison will be "excess deaths" as might be used for e.g. flu or heat-wave deaths, which will largely get around the problem of inconsistent case definitions. But they're found only by considerable statistical jiggery-pokery and aren't going to be available in real-time.
It wont be any time soon, expect another 3 weeks of status quo at least, and then if its going better a gradual but very slow easing of restrictions from then on.
This tweet, like so many others, seems to be an example of virus derangement syndrome.
Edit: never mind; I think MBE has already covered these points.
It's interesting, as you've said before, that the NHS in practice seems to have avoided these kind of scenes, yet the death toll here has still been terrible. Ultimately, in the absence of effective treatment, it seems there are a lot of people even a functioning health service can't save. But I wouldn't want to see what happens when it stops functioning.
(1) is equally true of Japan. I'm not sure what the PPE situation will be like if the thing gets out of hand but testing was a largely identical festival of clown-shoes.
On (3), Japan made the exact same error. They quickly shut down traffic from China (and South Korea, which is kind of ridiculous) but when the EU/US wave hit they'd gone into this weird complacency mode. They got there in the end, but since the UK has let the outbreak get so far with blunder (1) and others I'm not sure if stopping new people coming in now helps or not.
On (4), I imagine we're have lots of testing whenever the crisis finally abates, so you should be able to measure disease prevalance in other countries, you shouldn't have to guess it from a critique of their government's resoonse. I'm sure the airlines and tourism industries will be keen to get moving again as soon as it's safe to do so.
Seems to me that there is a strand of people who seem to think it is possible to keep very ill and frail people alive, if even for a few hours more, at any cost (both resource-wise to the NHS and pain wise to the person who is suffering).
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1249450646077607940
Nightingale: Barely any virus patients == Tory government has wasted millions in a PR stunt.
Don't buy this "Johnson has changed" stuff though, I very much doubt he has. We will see when he gets back to work.
1 - is very fit, among the fittest for their age, exercise regularly
2 - is well, no active disease but only exercise seasonally!
I am definitely not 1, so guess 2 but would exercise in some form each week. I think a large proportion of the nation would be between 1 & 2 but not either of them.
No ones ever heard of him!
That said, the twitter account seems too insane to be really by a reputable journalist, so maybe it is a mickey take
Where is Keir Starmer?
Certainly some governments - the French for example - have started to report deaths in establishments other than hospitals alongside their hospital deaths statistic, and they seem able to do so transparently as part of their headline reporting rather than burying it in the back of an ONS statistical annex. The Worldometer site suggests that the French move to do so at the start of April was complying with "international standards of correct inclusion".
The bottom line is that UK meanwhile is focusing on the measure which minimises the count. So the rule of thumb when making international comparisons seems to be that the UK figures are not going to compare any more favourably with other countries than might be suggested by a superficial comparison, and that a more in depth comparison might (or might not) make the UK figures look worse.
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1249378300000174088
Whether it was "huge", "stupid" or "catastrophic" are different questions though. The eggheads had various reasons to believe that large events, especially if held outdoors, weren't especially risky compared to restaurants or pubs. The fact there are thousands of people crowded together doesn't mean, with a virus largely transmitted by (relatively) close contact, that one person can infect thousands. It might initiate a new cluster of cases, but if the disease is already inevitably spreading around anyway, that might not be regarded as such a big deal - the effect of thousands of people mixing at a large event is far less than the effect of millions of people mixing at work or on public transport, even though there's a greater chance that one might later identify a set of transmissions that occurred at one large event rather than one particular office or train carriage.
I think by that stage the government knew that it could only conceivably delay the spread. I doubt that closing the big public events would have bought even one day of time (though may have affected things at a local level). There's a similar reason for why they didn't shut the air routes in, they had crunched the numbers and realised once the epidemic had been seeded and was spreading, a few more people with the virus landing in Britain simply made no substantial difference to its course.
In the end they seem to have given up on it before they'd really given it its best shot. I get the impression they were advised that the R0 was so big that playing whack-a-mole with the outbreaks wasn't likely to be viable, but if I was in government I'd have been tempted by the option of giving it as big a chance as possible to work. There's a very big dice-rolling element to this because once just a few cases slip through the net (as seems to have happened now in Singapore) the whole strategy risks falling apart, but this is why you wouldn't stop your preparation for the next stage. If you did get lucky (particularly if new research suggests the R0 is lower than previously thought and it's more controllable than previously believed - which at that stage couldn't be ruled out as a possibility) then you may only end up with a handful of deaths, or postpone the epidemic for a few months by which point more treatment options may be available. For the resources that would require, compared to the costs of a full-blown epidemic immediately when so little is known about the pathogen, it just seems a tempting gamble.
I'm not particularly surprised to discover that this sort of scoring is in use to help guide decisions about ICU admission and ventilation. There is little point subjecting the very old and frail to invasive treatment which is almost certainly hopeless - and that's the case even in normal times, never mind now when the system may be stretched to the very limit. If you read the scoring system carefully, they will attempt icu intervention for the fittest and healthiest of the 80+ category, it isn't a blanket ban on over 80s - if it was, that would perhaps be more concerning.
Ultimately these decisions must be made, I'm very glad I don't have to make them, but if I did I would want a framework like this to help decide rather than having to just make an assessment from scratch of each case.
In terms of timing, the last set of games to be played in the big european countries were the UEFA games and they were only cancelled in Spain and Italy. PSG were behind closed doors but had thousands outside the ground in far closer proximity than they would have been inside the ground. The idea we were out of step with most of Europe, rather than behind Italy and to an extent Spain is just history being imagined. We were behind Italy and Spain because the virus was spreading faster there!
Even in Italy it was a mess the weekend before, with games in some areas cancelled, others behind closed doors, and one match delayed five minutes before kick off with the minister of sport phoning the referee.