My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
We all want to know, because until Yorks/NE sorts this out, we are all locked down (Cabinet having had a big fight about the possibility of differential lockdown escapes).
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
We all want to know, because until Yorks/NE sorts this out, we are all locked down (Cabinet having had a big fight about the possibility of differential lockdown escapes).
Sort out what ???
The reason that deaths in Y&NE haven't fallen so much is that they weren't as high to begin with.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Redo your calculations using hospitalisations not deaths. Deaths put very litte strain on the NHS directly except for the doctors and nurses who die.
Another point you forget to mention is that the 7000 deaths are extra deaths on top of the 32000 you quote. Most of these extra deaths are of people who contribute to the economy.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
Or we could just give everybody else a yellow star.
How are you comparing all mortality with other countries when that data isn't available? We've seen Italy's for March but not many others.
We have quite a few now: UK, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium are all about the same in excess mortality per capita, with Italy likely a fair bit ahead.
France's figures look a lot better on this score because the "standard" death stats seem to be capturing a very high % of covid deaths. They seem to now be in a distinct 2nd tier on this approach, along with Switzerland and Sweden - perhaps Ireland also, haven't seen excess mortality stats there.
Striking figures for Germany, Israel, Denmark and Norway, where it's barely possible to tell there's been a pandemic at all compared to previous years.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
This was written in The Mirror 13 years ago. Has there ever been a more cliche ridden match report? Would the stereotyping make it past the editor now?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Didn't the government say that 20k deaths would be a 'good result' ?
Wise people try to set targets they expect to achieve.
Ever tried to decontaminate a kirk in a hurry? You don't know what has been touched. You'd need to clean all the pews, all the prayer books, all the hassocks ...
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Those comparisons are only dubious in so far as they understate the relative extent to which our government has cocked things up.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
Big news today so far as the public is concerned is I expect the UK having the worst death toll in europe.
On the same day that there were reports that the Italian figure is understated by 50%. No wonder people don't trust the media.
Unfortunately for the government it is the simple fact that we have more deaths than anyone else in Europe that will stick. Few people bother to look beyond the headlines
See above:
ROME (Reuters) - Italy’s coronavirus death toll is much higher than reported, statistics bureau ISTAT said on Monday in an analysis pointing to thousands of fatalities that have never been officially attributed to COVID-19.
I'm not really disputing that, it's the fact that we have more deaths than anywhere else in Europe that people will latch on to , not the "ah, buts".
By 'people' of course you mean right thinkers like yourself not the majority who view the world much more realistically.
I think you are wrong that the majority view the world more realistically. The majority don't pay much attention.
Somebody made the point a couple of days ago that Cummings understood that it didn't really matter if the "big number" was accurate because the fact that people kept arguing about it kept that number in the headlines and fixed it in the minds off the public. The figure on the bus and the 100k tests were given as examples.
I tend to agree with that and argued that when the number of UK deaths became the highest in Europe then it would be that headline figure that would register in peoples' minds and all the arguments surrounding it would only serve to keep it in peoples' minds. I believe I will be proved correct judging by the online headlines tonight. The notion will be fixed in many people's heads that we are the worst in Europe.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
Or we could just give everybody else a yellow star.
Does Richard Burgon have any yellow stars, er, free badges left over to hand out?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Didn't the government say that 20k deaths would be a 'good result' ?
Wise people try to set targets they expect to achieve.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that more than that is a bad result. To come back to your point about international travel, the big question for me is “why didn’t we have contingency plans in place to limit a virus like this from entering the country?” Had the death rate been 50%, you can guarantee the government would have made it happen!
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Didn't the government say that 20k deaths would be a 'good result' ?
Wise people try to set targets they expect to achieve.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that more than that is a bad result. To come back to your point about international travel, the big question for me is “why didn’t we have contingency plans in place to limit a virus like this from entering the country?” Had the death rate been 50%, you can guarantee the government would have made it happen!
Its a question the media should be asking:
How many thousands have died because of the lack of restrictions on air travel ?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
The government was willing to accept thousands of extra deaths rather than place restrictions on air travel.
Consequences of that decision was inevitable.
Oh don’t worry, I think the government will be in big trouble. It doesn’t need dubious statistical comparisons for that.
Didn't the government say that 20k deaths would be a 'good result' ?
Wise people try to set targets they expect to achieve.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that more than that is a bad result. To come back to your point about international travel, the big question for me is “why didn’t we have contingency plans in place to limit a virus like this from entering the country?” Had the death rate been 50%, you can guarantee the government would have made it happen!
Its a question the media should be asking:
How many thousands have died because of the lack of restrictions on air travel ?
1 person gets on the plane, 10 get off with it. Those ten are working on a construction site, spread it to 3 more each...
That was a disappointing update this afternoon. Angela McLean was jittery, tripping over her words and made a mistake on reading out the results of one of the data slides. I also thought some of her answers to journalists were less than convincing. Quite the poorest performance from an expert so far. While Raab did quite well in Boris's absence he was less impressive this afternoon and frankly Boris should have been there today to steady the ship which even as a friend to the government I think has been rolling around a bit today.
I predict that the social care system will finally have to be overhauled well before the Virus Public Inquiry, which is going to have devastating analysis of what happened in care homes.
You're hopefully right, though we never even got to find out what Boris's great plan for it was, since I don't remember him getting around to telling us about it.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
The rozzers would be quite busy at the Black Cat roundabout.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
Lockdown earlier, not even consider 'herd immunity', put those coming from abroad in 2 week quarantine, order in PPE in quantity much earlier. Things that New Zealand and Germany did.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
How are you comparing all mortality with other countries when that data isn't available? We've seen Italy's for March but not many others.
We have quite a few now: UK, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium are all about the same in excess mortality per capita, with Italy likely a fair bit ahead.
France's figures look a lot better on this score because the "standard" death stats seem to be capturing a very high % of covid deaths. They seem to now be in a distinct 2nd tier on this approach, along with Switzerland and Sweden - perhaps Ireland also, haven't seen excess mortality stats there.
Striking figures for Germany, Israel, Denmark and Norway, where it's barely possible to tell there's been a pandemic at all compared to previous years.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Redo your calculations using hospitalisations not deaths. Deaths put very litte strain on the NHS directly except for the doctors and nurses who die.
Another point you forget to mention is that the 7000 deaths are extra deaths on top of the 32000 you quote. Most of these extra deaths are of people who contribute to the economy.
I did redo on hospitalisations by increasing cases two or three fold. Still within capacity.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Maybe our problem was that our new plastic money carries the virus more effectively than paper.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
But is this a sensitive clutch-on-biting-point machine or an auto barge saloon?
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
Thereby ruining the economy. There are lots of businesses that can weather changes, restrictions - but not the looming uncertainty of repeat lock down.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Redo your calculations using hospitalisations not deaths. Deaths put very litte strain on the NHS directly except for the doctors and nurses who die.
Another point you forget to mention is that the 7000 deaths are extra deaths on top of the 32000 you quote. Most of these extra deaths are of people who contribute to the economy.
I did redo on hospitalisations by increasing cases two or three fold. Still within capacity.
It's 7,000 out of 27,700,000. De minimis.
This was the Gov'ts original plan. It doesn't stand up to the horrific press deaths due to this virus cause.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
But is this a sensitive clutch-on-biting-point machine or an auto barge saloon?
Nice analogy. You need to keep R well below 1 to avoid sensitive clutch.
Edit: That is well below 1 within the vulnerable group. It doesn't matter within the healthy under 50 group.
Yeah, that's the idea - they're all comparing current/recent death rates with five year averages. Bypasses all the problems with different countries reporting various subsets of hospital/carehome/community deaths, different testing levels for the latter two, reporting differences etc. A death is just a death.
Of course it's a crude measure in some ways, it'll include some deaths caused by lockdown (and perhaps a net effect with some lives saved, eg road/work accidents, lower flu deaths etc). Also there's the question of deaths currently being stored up by missed treatment, especially with cancer.
Still, overall it has to be the best method we have.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
Lockdown earlier, not even consider 'herd immunity', put those coming from abroad in 2 week quarantine, order in PPE in quantity much earlier. Things that New Zealand and Germany did.
On PPE the question will be why didn't we implement the 2017 report? Once you are in a pandemic, you are fighting to source every last glove with every other Government on the planet, and if you do get supplies, you will have paid through the nose (always assuming you don't get delivered shit quality). You have to face the fact that unless you are prepared to play EXTREMELY dirty, your staff may end up wearing bin liners. Question: all those complaining we couldn't timely source stock and thereby left the NHS exposed - would you have paid massive bribes to secure that stock to keep them safe?
The question is: are we prepared to pay a huge amount of money to have mountains of stocks that risks never getting used (or can you source a mass of replacements as you put the soon-to-be-passed-its-best stock on the market at a discount)?
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
Lockdown earlier, not even consider 'herd immunity', put those coming from abroad in 2 week quarantine, order in PPE in quantity much earlier. Things that New Zealand and Germany did.
All reasonable ideas.
But which UK politicians would have implemented them ?
Especially if our Sir Humphreys were not supportive.
I really don't think many UK politicians would have done much differently.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
I think the most relevant fact is that London was perhaps a fortnight ahead of the rest of the country in the pandemic.
If you apply the offset to the London number, it is at about 50-60% of its peak.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
Thereby ruining the economy. There are lots of businesses that can weather changes, restrictions - but not the looming uncertainty of repeat lock down.
It wouldn't be the plan for the reasons you give. It would be the emergency brake if we were heading for "a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions" to quote Kinabalu.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
Well, that's where context comes into it. We did have more warning and we are an island (well, GB is). So, should our benchmark be European neighbours or island nations like Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea (it's effectively an island)?
Of course, what we don't know is how different nations will behave over the next six months.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Redo your calculations using hospitalisations not deaths. Deaths put very litte strain on the NHS directly except for the doctors and nurses who die.
Another point you forget to mention is that the 7000 deaths are extra deaths on top of the 32000 you quote. Most of these extra deaths are of people who contribute to the economy.
I did redo on hospitalisations by increasing cases two or three fold. Still within capacity.
It's 7,000 out of 27,700,000. De minimis.
This was the Gov'ts original plan. It doesn't stand up to the horrific press deaths due to this virus cause.
I think the original plan was to let it rip throughout the population except for the extremely vulnerable. I'm suggesting letting it rip with healthy under 50s who are not living with vulnerable people. Quite a difference.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
I believe May or Cameron would have taken the threat posed by Covid-19 more seriously and acted more quickly. Boris and his top lieutenants were asleep at the wheel right up to the point when the PM caught the virus himself by failing to take infection-avoidance measures seriously enough.
But my main point was that a lot of the current Cabinet looks out of its depth. Raab and Patel are not up to 2 of the highest offices of state and are there primarily because they are hardline Brexiteers. Sunak has done well in his response so far but has basically been throwing money around, the test of his mettle is yet to come when he has to sort out the financial mess.
Support for being in the EU was party policy for decades before the referendum. It stands to reason that if you specifically exclude from Cabinet anyone who supported the party's long standing pro-EU stance up to 3 years ago then you are going to be fishing in a much smaller pool as far as experience and talent are concerned.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
Lockdown earlier, not even consider 'herd immunity', put those coming from abroad in 2 week quarantine, order in PPE in quantity much earlier. Things that New Zealand and Germany did.
On PPE the question will be why didn't we implement the 2017 report? Once you are in a pandemic, you are fighting to source every last glove with every other Government on the planet, and if you do get supplies, you will have paid through the nose (always assuming you don't get delivered shit quality). You have to face the fact that unless you are prepared to play EXTREMELY dirty, your staff may end up wearing bin liners. Question: all those complaining we couldn't timely source stock and thereby left the NHS exposed - would you have paid massive bribes to secure that stock to keep them safe?
The question is: are we prepared to pay a huge amount of money to have mountains of stocks that risks never getting used (or can you source a mass of replacements as you put the soon-to-be-passed-its-best stock on the market at a discount)?
An alternative is to have your own production facilities where you can expand output within a few weeks.
It would cost a few million but given what the government has been spending ...
Ever tried to decontaminate a kirk in a hurry? You don't know what has been touched. You'd need to clean all the pews, all the prayer books, all the hassocks ...
Remove all the prayer books, block off most of the pews and limit the area of the church accessed. Have blue tape on the ground marking the path people are required to stay on. It becomes very manageable if properly considered and planned.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
That is true but in Corbyn's case most of the experienced Blairites excluded themselves and fortunately he never got to be the PM.
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
So what different policy decisions would other politicians have made ?
I believe May or Cameron would have taken the threat posed by Covid-19 more seriously and acted more quickly. Boris and his top lieutenants were asleep at the wheel right up to the point when the PM caught the virus himself by failing to take infection-avoidance measures seriously enough.
But my main point was that a lot of the current Cabinet looks out of its depth. Raab and Patel are not up to 2 of the highest offices of state and are there primarily because they are hardline Brexiteers. Sunak has done well in his response so far but has basically been throwing money around, the test of his mettle is yet to come when he has to sort out the financial mess.
Support for being in the EU was party policy for decades before the referendum. It stands to reason that if you specifically exclude from Cabinet anyone who supported the party's long standing pro-EU stance up to 3 years ago then you are going to be fishing in a much smaller pool as far as experience and talent are concerned.
Well I'm not impressed with this government but I'm not impressed my most politicians.
I don't think Cameron would have done any better as he was not a 'details man' while May, who was okay on details, couldn't lead or show flexibility.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
I think the most relevant fact is that London was perhaps a fortnight ahead of the rest of the country in the pandemic.
If you apply the offset to the London number, it is at about 50-60% of its peak.
The peak in deaths is just a couple of days apart in all but one case IIRC, though. I’m not sure that there was much difference at the point of lockdown.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
What's your evidence for saying that London now has half the deaths of Y&NE ?
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
What's your evidence for saying that London now has half the deaths of Y&NE ?
Actually it’s about two thirds, I should have checked as it’s from the graph as embedded in the original post.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Are there any measures where we are doing well
Excess counting of tests ahead of them being processed perhaps
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
The news was today that Italy's numbers are underestimated by 50%.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
What's your evidence for saying that London now has half the deaths of Y&NE ?
Actually it’s about two thirds, I should have checked as it’s from the graph as embedded in the original post.
And the difference between London and Y&NE deaths for that last day is 19.
Whereas at the peak London's death rate was over 100 more per day than Y&NE.
Y&NE 'flattened the curve' whereas London didn't.
Which is why Y&NE will have thousands fewer deaths but its 'death tail' might be somewhat higher and longer.
The scientist whose advice prompted Boris Johnson to lockdown Britain resigned from his government advisory position on Tuesday night as the Telegraph can reveal he broke social distancing rules to meet his married lover.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Are there any measures where we are doing well
Excess counting of tests ahead of them being processed perhaps
There's fewer restrictions on flying than in many other countries.
I'm sure some frequent flyers will regard that as doing well.
First, what an excellent thread header, quality writing, cogent and coherent in its argument with just a hint of wit and a Scottish reference. What more could any PB-er want?
What the thread is trying to say (and it's hard for a mere mortal such as I to appreciate such a cerebral titan) is that confusing people going into lockdown is one thing but confusing them about coming out is quite another.
In South Africa, Germany and Ireland the relevant racing authorities all had "positive and encouraging" meetings with the respective Government officials and Ministers and it got them the sum total of nowhere.
South Africa faces a four week suspension and Phumelea, the betting operator and racecourse owner, is on the cusp of liquidation. Ireland "might" resume on June 8th while Germany still waits to hear.
In Denmark, the Police stopped a race meeting at Aalborg citing breaches of social distancing while France looks the most likely to resume on May 11th.
Let's not forger Matt Hancock's constituency includes Newmarket so it's not surprising he referenced racing this morning but for racing to resume there will be a lot more movement on social distancing and group gatherings than has been mentioned so far as well as the small matter of betting shops re-opening.
What we can't afford is or are announcements which turn out to be false hope or unrealistic optimism. Come Sunday. Boris Johnson will need to be explicit in the road map - unlike Varadkar - to avoid confusion and further uncertainty.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
The news was today that Italy's numbers are underestimated by 50%.
Unlike yesterday's MP though he has resigned for his mistake (yes the MP did resign as Trade Minister but it was his job as Trade Minister he was abusing).
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
The fundamental objection is that it's too risky. It could well work but it increases the chance of the virus getting out of hand - which brings into the realms of possibility a health and financial and societal catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
If it looks like it's getting out of hand, you just lock down again and squash R.
Thereby ruining the economy. There are lots of businesses that can weather changes, restrictions - but not the looming uncertainty of repeat lock down.
Some people don't get that a reopen followed by a lockdown would be far more devestating than simply remaining locked down.
Week after week the BBC’s mantra has been “all deaths are tragedies” when talking about the virus. Yet tonight they couldn’t wait to pile into misleading statistical comparisons.
They are an utter disgrace.
It's the BBC's fault 30,000 people have died?
Umm, not sure how you took that from my post.
Whose fault is it, then?
Sunil, tlg86 is referring to BBC`s misrepresentation of statistics.
For me there is a lack of appreciation between the difference between statistics and management information. Right now, most of those worldometer figures are the latter. There will be plenty of time for a forensic statistical assessment of how different countries responded to this, and I suspect the UK will not do particularly well. Right now the focus should be on "what are the government doing to get us out of this mess?"
Why do you suspect the UK will not do particularly well. I suspect except for Germany we will have done reasonably when we start comparisons with the actual excess death figures of other EU countries (France, Spain, Italy).
You may have missed this from a couple of days back.
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
Are there any measures where we are doing well
Excess counting of tests ahead of them being processed perhaps
There's fewer restrictions on flying than in many other countries.
I'm sure some frequent flyers will regard that as doing well.
We're able to leave our house during lockdown, something other countries haven't. Being able to get some fresh air and shopping etc without having to get the government's permission first as other nations have required is quite something and probably part of why lockdown isn't so grating in this nation.
Unlike yesterday's MP though he has resigned for his mistake (yes the MP did resign as Trade Minister but it was his job as Trade Minister he was abusing).
These scientists are a pretty febrile lot, aren’t they? Clearly not used to the public eye to the same extent as politicians.
Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.
Dominic Cummings is stupider than Priti Patel.
Dim though I knew he was, I would never have believed that. It’s like hearing somebody is less logical than Piers Corbyn.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Yet we are told that London never reached capacity. The simple fact is that London is controlling this more effectively. Is that down to close proximity to hospitals? Age profile? Prevalence of comorbidities? I see that the idea of treating parts of the country differently has arisen, maybe because of this disparity. Is there a danger that countrywide relaxation of lockdown rules could adversely affect the North or vice versa for London? Scotland can go its own way but regions cannot.
London's death rate peaked at over 200 per day whereas in Y&NE it peaked at half that.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
So why does London now have half the deaths of Yorks/NE? The UK is seeing different regions react differently and that is the unavoidable reality, I can see why govt. is pushing for regional lockdowns/relaxations but is that workable? In Italy it was disastrous, for example.
Possibly because the virus burnt out already more in London than the Y&NE.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52528452
The reason that deaths in Y&NE haven't fallen so much is that they weren't as high to begin with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274.co.uk
There is little doubt that the cabinet after the "get Brexit done" GE was primarily chosen on the criteria of those who were willing/pleased to exit the EU on WTO terms.
Every Conservative politician who had supported the party's policy on the EU right up to 2016 was therefore excluded from the cabinet. He might have got away with it if nothing much had happened between the election and the end of the transition period in 8 months time but the pandemic has cruelly exposed the lack of talent and experience in the current line up.
https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1257717933771554817?s=21
They are an utter disgrace.
Another point you forget to mention is that the 7000 deaths are extra deaths on top of the 32000 you quote. Most of these extra deaths are of people who contribute to the economy.
France's figures look a lot better on this score because the "standard" death stats seem to be capturing a very high % of covid deaths. They seem to now be in a distinct 2nd tier on this approach, along with Switzerland and Sweden - perhaps Ireland also, haven't seen excess mortality stats there.
Striking figures for Germany, Israel, Denmark and Norway, where it's barely possible to tell there's been a pandemic at all compared to previous years.
Consequences of that decision were inevitable.
Wise people try to set targets they expect to achieve.
Somebody made the point a couple of days ago that Cummings understood that it didn't really matter if the "big number" was accurate because the fact that people kept arguing about it kept that number in the headlines and fixed it in the minds off the public. The figure on the bus and the 100k tests were given as examples.
I tend to agree with that and argued that when the number of UK deaths became the highest in Europe then it would be that headline figure that would register in peoples' minds and all the arguments surrounding it would only serve to keep it in peoples' minds. I believe I will be proved correct judging by the online headlines tonight. The notion will be fixed in many people's heads that we are the worst in Europe.
How many thousands have died because of the lack of restrictions on air travel ?
Someone on twitter reckons they're heading for London's construction sites (Sounds plausible)
It's 7,000 out of 27,700,000. De minimis.
So London did not control more effectively, rather it came close to losing control in early April.
Edit: That is well below 1 within the vulnerable group. It doesn't matter within the healthy under 50 group.
Of course it's a crude measure in some ways, it'll include some deaths caused by lockdown (and perhaps a net effect with some lives saved, eg road/work accidents, lower flu deaths etc). Also there's the question of deaths currently being stored up by missed treatment, especially with cancer.
Still, overall it has to be the best method we have.
The question is: are we prepared to pay a huge amount of money to have mountains of stocks that risks never getting used (or can you source a mass of replacements as you put the soon-to-be-passed-its-best stock on the market at a discount)?
But which UK politicians would have implemented them ?
Especially if our Sir Humphreys were not supportive.
I really don't think many UK politicians would have done much differently.
If you apply the offset to the London number, it is at about 50-60% of its peak.
Of course, what we don't know is how different nations will behave over the next six months.
But my main point was that a lot of the current Cabinet looks out of its depth. Raab and Patel are not up to 2 of the highest offices of state and are there primarily because they are hardline Brexiteers. Sunak has done well in his response so far but has basically been throwing money around, the test of his mettle is yet to come when he has to sort out the financial mess.
Support for being in the EU was party policy for decades before the referendum. It stands to reason that if you specifically exclude from Cabinet anyone who supported the party's long standing pro-EU stance up to 3 years ago then you are going to be fishing in a much smaller pool as far as experience and talent are concerned.
It would cost a few million but given what the government has been spending ...
"England's excess death rate among highest in Europe
An analysis of official figures from 24 European countries shows that England has had the highest excess death rate and it is not dropping"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/englands-excess-death-rate-among-highest-europe/
"Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, told the daily Downing Street press conference that excess deaths is the “key measure” in assessing the impact of Covid-19 but argued it will be “some time” before that comparison can be done between countries. However, figures from EuroMOMO which monitors official data including from all parts of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, show that England has had the highest level of excess deaths for the past four weeks. The researchers, who are supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), provide a “z-score” which takes into account factors such as population size and mortality patterns. The higher the z-score, the higher the number of excess deaths and the countries with the biggest peaks are Belgium, Spain, Italy and England. However, England is the only country which recorded a z-score over 40 and it has now been at this level for three weeks."
I don't think Cameron would have done any better as he was not a 'details man' while May, who was okay on details, couldn't lead or show flexibility.
"The water buffalo has been destroyed."
These gentle giants graze a boggy, damp marshy area of the Reserve from early spring until autumn.
Not all of them, clearly.
Excess counting of tests ahead of them being processed perhaps
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-italy-mortality/italys-coronavirus-death-toll-far-higher-than-reported-stats-office-idUKKBN22G1XB
Whereas at the peak London's death rate was over 100 more per day than Y&NE.
Y&NE 'flattened the curve' whereas London didn't.
Which is why Y&NE will have thousands fewer deaths but its 'death tail' might be somewhat higher and longer.
Ooops. Neil Ferguson playing away with married lover and breaking lockdown guidelines has resigned
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257736927899455490?s=20
https://t.co/a82X2GCi7K
I'm sure some frequent flyers will regard that as doing well.
First, what an excellent thread header, quality writing, cogent and coherent in its argument with just a hint of wit and a Scottish reference. What more could any PB-er want?
What the thread is trying to say (and it's hard for a mere mortal such as I to appreciate such a cerebral titan) is that confusing people going into lockdown is one thing but confusing them about coming out is quite another.
In South Africa, Germany and Ireland the relevant racing authorities all had "positive and encouraging" meetings with the respective Government officials and Ministers and it got them the sum total of nowhere.
South Africa faces a four week suspension and Phumelea, the betting operator and racecourse owner, is on the cusp of liquidation. Ireland "might" resume on June 8th while Germany still waits to hear.
In Denmark, the Police stopped a race meeting at Aalborg citing breaches of social distancing while France looks the most likely to resume on May 11th.
Let's not forger Matt Hancock's constituency includes Newmarket so it's not surprising he referenced racing this morning but for racing to resume there will be a lot more movement on social distancing and group gatherings than has been mentioned so far as well as the small matter of betting shops re-opening.
What we can't afford is or are announcements which turn out to be false hope or unrealistic optimism. Come Sunday. Boris Johnson will need to be explicit in the road map - unlike Varadkar - to avoid confusion and further uncertainty.
https://twitter.com/cliodiaspora/status/1257731833942487041?s=20
As i was saying. Lets not give too.much credence to.other countries desyh rates just yet.....
Not the first, and won't be the last. Silly man.
Not been a good day in South Wales with the this stabbing in Penygraig as well.
Dim though I knew he was, I would never have believed that. It’s like hearing somebody is less logical than Piers Corbyn.