Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The US polling that’s putting the focus on the key group that backs Trump – evangelical Chrisitans –

13

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    The thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not. These are the official figures.

  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    The thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not. These are the official figures.

    and a load of crap - that makes it even more worrying that they are official and being used a justification to destroy society and business
  • Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    LadyG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't understand the 10pm thing. It would make more sense to close down pubs altogether.

    Can you imagine a British winter without British pubs?? It is unthinkable. We might as well commit suicide.
    There was a survey quoted here which showed that more than half the population NEVER go into a pub. There must be lots more like me who pop into one now and then. The proportion who go regularly (i.e. several times a week) is I'd guess about 20%? The proportion who couldn't live without them for one winter must be smaller than that.

    I'm not advocating shutting them down - pubs with space and air and precautions like Cyclefree's daughter's pub don't sound very risky. But in the same way as the barber that I go to has precautions by the bucketload while his competitor up the road has zilch, it seems fair to have strict rules and close the pubs that don't abide by them and undercut the responsible ones.
    So this is one of the things I'm finding mysterious about the British response as I understand it. Britain has world-beating infrastructure when it comes to interfering busybodies micromanaging detailed elfin safety rules for small businesses. Yet they seem to be treating businesses only in broad categories, and instead trying to micromanage *individuals*.
    This is an excellent point. There is another approach to broad brush laws, with often arbitrary unscientific requirements, that every business has to attempt to squeeze itself into (and which many will not be able to and go out of business as a result). Others on the other hand may find loopholes which place them within the letter but not the spirit of the law (the wrong way around!)

    Require every business to produce a COVID risk assessment, and operational plan to be signed off by the local authority. Underpinning this can be Government guidance on recommended operating practice (like table service in pubs). Where precise compliance with Government guidance is impractical/impossible allow flexibility to show how alternative arrangements are being put in place to comply with the spirit of the guidance, if not the letter. (Eg. a highly social distanced queuing system at the bar)

    And reinforce this with checks from local authority officers/police to ensure compliance with the agreed plan.
    The problem is the good being tarred with the bad. A lot of restaurants and pubs are acting quite responsibly, and others are giving lip service to the rules, and not even that later at night.

    Oadby briefly became the second hottest spot in the country a week or so ago, relating it seems to activity like this non socially distanced wedding with 200 guests:

    https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/oadby-restaurant-temporarily-closed-council-4530103

    The problem is that to break the virus we need pretty universal following of the rules, and those rules to be enforced before rather than after the fact.
    Places that don’t follow the rules, won’t follow the rules. Regardless of the level that they are set. All tightening the rules does (in a blanket way, rather than as I am suggesting) is put the responsible places out of business and drive more people into the irresponsible ones.

    Furthermore, my suggested approach would mandate much more local authority involvement. They would have the authority to monitor and immediately shut non compliant pubs, without risk of legal challenge. Because part of the legal framework would be local authority sign off.
    LAs don’t have the money or the resources to enforce this ffs
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,415
    edited September 2020

    The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    edited September 2020
    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
  • The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
    The probability of dying within any 28 day period is so low, even for the elderly or those with underlying health conditions, that only a small fraction of those who died within four weeks of testing positive for Covid are likely to be misclassified.
    As others have noted, all the evidence suggests a true mortality rate for Covid of a little north of 1%. It's not the Black Death but it's also far from flu and needs to be taken seriously.
  • The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
    1. No it doesn't, it shows that there was evolving knowledge of the data in a fast moving environment. The correction to the data for the 28 days happened after lockdown was lifted, not before it and was because it was clear and understood that the latter data was incorrect because it showed people still dying but the early deaths were accurate.
    2: Demonstrably false considering the peak of excess deaths was at the peak of the virus and that bringing the virus under control halted the excess deaths.

    Give any mathematical evidence for your absolutely bullshit "at least 99.8%" survival claim. Please posit both the nominator and denominator to sustain your claim - please say how many people have died from the virus in your view and how many have survived it in your view to get 99.8%. Or were you just throwing around numbers without any basis behind them?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,415
    edited September 2020

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    i went as well and it was nice to see 60000 a day people having a good time .Something that seems to be increasingly frowned upon by Covid Kevins and Karens. We have become a miserable puritan society
    You don’t need to be in a crowd of whatever size to have fun, just reevaluate your definition of fun within the rules and get on with it. The better EVERYONE follows guidelines the sooner they can be relaxed.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    edited September 2020
    Deleted - format error
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
  • The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
    What do you mean 10,000 people came back to life? They were dead! Of something else you fool, not mysteriously resurrected.
  • The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    Yes, quite. There is indeed a libertarian argument to be made against restriction, though I would still argue against it. Idiots like state_go_away who simply disregard facts that conflict with their ideology are doing those who have a coherent case against restrictions no favours at all.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2020

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    Citation please for 8 million?

    8% is what was said yesterday. 8% of 67 million is 5.36 million.

    Year to date excess deaths are 53,318: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

    So that is 1% mortality.
  • Governments talk about fake news .Well that 10% fatality rate they did nothing to suppress was up there with Elvis being found on the moon
  • IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
  • The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
    There will be some people who die within 28 days of something else, and others who take longer to die (indeed I presume they are still counting people unfortunate enough to spend several weeks on ventilation). But it is some sort of international standard. In the dark days of April and May it probably made very little difference and was a reasonable quick and dirty estimate, the problem was as the death numbers fell and some people may have had a test several months ago it became disproportionately inaccurate. Until recently, Scotland was making the same error with its people-in-hospital stat.

    Ultimately, we will never know who died of covid. In one way its like stating that Spanish Flu didn't kill that many people as many died from bacterial pneumonia (thankfully we are now immunised against HIB as babies). And when you are in the middle of a pandemic you don't mess around with conducting 40,000 autopsies, you bury your patient and move onto treating the next
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Working out numbers is made more difficult when statistics are withheld.

    The White House Coronavirus Task Force needs to stop hiding its weekly reports from the public
    https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/21/coronavirus-task-force-stop-hiding-weekly-reports/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
    A ten o'clock curfew will just mean the same irresponsible twats who pass on Covid drinking faster, getting drunk faster, disobeying social distancing sooner. Impact on transmission - nil.

    Close the pubs for three weeks. See what that does. Pay the pubs to stay closed.
  • Scott_xP said:


    "David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Businesses School, said he would "take a dim view" if his students presented similar data."

    Telegraph.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Tokyo Olympics consulting firm paid ¥37 million to IOC member's son, papers show
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/21/national/tokyo-olympics-consulting-firm-ioc-lamine-diack/
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    Governments talk about fake news .Well that 10% fatality rate they did nothing to suppress was up there with Elvis being found on the moon

    Do you expect a governmental rebuttal from all of your forum posts then?
  • They must think they are in trouble: Gove has been sent to deal with R4 Today 8am slot.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
    A ten o'clock curfew will just mean the same irresponsible twats who pass on Covid drinking faster, getting drunk faster, disobeying social distancing sooner. Impact on transmission - nil.

    Close the pubs for three weeks. See what that does. Pay the pubs to stay closed.
    Most pub customers, especially in the day time, are not irresponsible twats.

    More likely the irresponsible twats will end up in somebodies home to drink instead. Which may not be progress.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    They must think they are in trouble: Gove has been sent to deal with R4 Today 8am slot.

    Gove also thinks he is next in line after BoZo
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
    A ten o'clock curfew will just mean the same irresponsible twats who pass on Covid drinking faster, getting drunk faster, disobeying social distancing sooner. Impact on transmission - nil.

    Close the pubs for three weeks. See what that does. Pay the pubs to stay closed.
    I think that makes more sense to be honest. I think someone from Holland was saying they decided there against restricting opening hours too much as there was evidence people would have a few in the pub and then go onto a house party to carry on.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
    A ten o'clock curfew will just mean the same irresponsible twats who pass on Covid drinking faster, getting drunk faster, disobeying social distancing sooner. Impact on transmission - nil.

    Close the pubs for three weeks. See what that does. Pay the pubs to stay closed.
    I think that makes more sense to be honest. I think someone from Holland was saying they decided there against restricting opening hours too much as there was evidence people would have a few in the pub and then go onto a house party to carry on.
    Only a small reduction in R is needed in order to get R back below 1.

    While closing the pubs altogether will definitely reduce R, might it not be overkill? Is it not worth trying a smaller step and seeing if it works?
  • Gove now blabbering on about the scientific method. When is that going to be applied to their modelling of potential cases and deaths?
  • alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    Why would Maccies close? They aren't a pub and offer table service.
  • Gove now in a total mess over whether he would have a couple of friends around for dinner.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyone considered than table service (no compulsory masks for staff) is also potentially worse? All those waiters potentially taking Covid from group to group?

    That doesn't seem to be happening much in practice, there are a bunch of clusters in restaurants where nearly everyone at the table with the spreader and sometimes adjacent tables got infected but the waiting staff didn't. They're only with the customers for a short time. But obviously the waiting staff should be wearing masks, and so should the customers apart from when they're actually eating.
    Very few things happen “much”. Once you get away from the scary looking projections, the actual numbers of people infected are tiny. At the end of the day if you are in a pub/restaurant that pays no attention to the rules whatsoever, packs people in like sardines, the virus still can’t get transmitted unless one person actually has it. When the Govt are setting “risk levels” at 20 cases per 100,000 just think what the actual chances of bumping into it at that level are...

    Now that’s obviously not a reason not to have any rules, but it does seem something that is forgotten from time to time. A picture is published of people apparently not taking precautions and many people seem to automatically assume that they’ll all have Covid by the morning.
    I don't know who you think is forgetting that. The point of the rules and the changes in behaviour is to reduce the average number of people each infected person infects. If that gets above 1, even if it starts at a level where it isn't a big problem, it'll grow until it becomes a big problem.

    So what the policy needs to do is to work out the least disruptive set of changes that can get the average below 1. Right now it seems like there's a strong argument for why it's very harmful to have kids out of school, especially for disadvantaged children, so if there's some leeway, it seems better to use it in places like that, rather than in trying to bring restaurants back to high occupancy.
    Rules on things like table service - if as trailed - are not minor inconveniences to businesses. They will simply force many to close. The costs for many of mandatory table service, in staffing alone are impossible. Pubs and restaurants (think eg. McDonalds). It is being billed as not a big deal. And yet there are many other alternatives possible with a bit of flexibility allowed. Allow pubs to put in place “safe” queuing systems instead. Require mask wearing when not seated at the table. Other things. Don’t theoretically allow pubs to remain open, but under conditions where it is impossible to trade viably.
    Again I'm not seeing the media over there so I may be missing something but I don't know who you're arguing with? Who's saying restrictions on restaurants are a minor inconvenience?

    Obviously if there are less disruptive thing that work then great, but inevitably not all the businesses that were viable in a world with no pandemic are viable in a world with a pandemic.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    Scott_xP said:
    "If you can work at home you should do so" was been the approach in Germany since early June. It has the advantage that if 5% of a person's work has to be done at the workplace it can be. The organisation can make use of most people being out of office to keep the office as safe as is resonably possible.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    Err, no!

    In the UK we have had 41 788 deaths in 398 625 cases. That is a mortality rate of just over 10%.

    While clearly we have undercounted cases, it is not by a factor of 2 orders of magnitude.
    I am sorry bu that stat you have used as a starting point is beyond absurd. It is worrying that people are still thinking in terms of a fatality rate of 10% due to this crass stat that the government and media did not discourage.
    You talking about "at least 99.8% survival" is what was patently absurd and disprovable by the statistics we have.

    What the good doctor just quoted was the case fatality rate and he couched it appropriately. The likely actual fatality rate given the evidence is about 1%.
    I think there has been improvement since the first wave, looking at this age related mortality chart from a German study. In March I estimated the risk of me dying if I caught it at 2% (white male, fiftysomething, BMI 27, mild hypertension). It is probably now about half that, but still quite a risk. Only 10% of staff at my hospital in a hotspot have antibodies, so we have a long way to go yet.



    I am actually fairly moderate on control measures. Schools and Universities should continue, and my dept is working on non covid work hampered only slightly by the measures. I think a 10 o'clock curfew reasonable though.
    A ten o'clock curfew will just mean the same irresponsible twats who pass on Covid drinking faster, getting drunk faster, disobeying social distancing sooner. Impact on transmission - nil.

    Close the pubs for three weeks. See what that does. Pay the pubs to stay closed.
    I think that makes more sense to be honest. I think someone from Holland was saying they decided there against restricting opening hours too much as there was evidence people would have a few in the pub and then go onto a house party to carry on.
    Only a small reduction in R is needed in order to get R back below 1.

    While closing the pubs altogether will definitely reduce R, might it not be overkill? Is it not worth trying a smaller step and seeing if it works?
    Fair point.

    If that is the overall strategy. No one has idea now what the guiding strategy is though. Are we still saving the NHS?
  • Nigelb said:

    Gove now in a total mess over whether he would have a couple of friends around for dinner.

    Struggling to come up with names ?
    Lol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Gardner has folded.
    https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/1308180830838284293

    And I think Grassley, too.
    Romney yet to decide.
  • Scott_xP said:

    They must think they are in trouble: Gove has been sent to deal with R4 Today 8am slot.

    Gove also thinks he is next in line after BoZo
    :lol:
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    Why would Maccies close? They aren't a pub and offer table service.
    New rules apply to pubs and restaurants. McDonald’s offer table service? Waiters taking orders and delivering food? Or have I misunderstood the phrase “table service”?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    The public are being taken for fools . Any business has a strategy for justification for doing certain actions. i think we are entitled to be told directly by government what the strategy on covid-19 is ? What is the end game? Is it complete elimination ? (why when flu is not treated the same) , is it to get a vaccine (that will take years to be effective if ever) . If its not either of these then why the ruinous restrictions ? Maybe the strategy of this pathetic government is to never admit they were wrong on Covid -19 and thus keep up pretending they can control a virus (nobody can ) .
    Covid-19 has a 99.8 % survival rate FFS (at least)- the same as flu

    At least a 99.8% survival rate?

    That means with over 45k dead in this country that over 22.5 million have already had the virus at least here.
    Over a quarter of a million excess deaths in the USA, so over 125 million have already had the virus at least there.

    Are you sure about that?

    What irritates me most about the people wanting to argue against restrictions is the complete disregard for facts. I find a libertarian argument against restrictions quite compelling but this statistical bulls**t just makes it look like you're not understanding the facts.
    that 45 dead figure is wrong for a start as it is people dying who have covid -19 not because of it.
    Its people who died within 28 days and its also the excess deaths figure for year to date so try again.
    two points

    1) It was changed to this after the lockdown when 10000 people came back to life somehow. Shows government were making their ruinous decisions on the basis of false data.
    2) even now neither premise means they are showing people who died because of covid-19 - Excess deaths will include people who died because of the actual lockdown and also dies within 28 days still means you didn't necessarily die of covid-19 .Its the likes of you who continue to use stats to back up a false premise not me
    Does the 28 day rule also mean if one succumbs to Covid after a 30 day battle for survival, Covid didn't kill them?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited September 2020
    All these “local lockdowns” with slightly different rules are going to do wonders for confusion over what the rules are. Especially when politicians on national TV continue to talk about the rule of 6 that doesn’t actually apply to god knows what % of the country.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    Why would Maccies close? They aren't a pub and offer table service.
    New rules apply to pubs and restaurants. McDonald’s offer table service? Waiters taking orders and delivering food? Or have I misunderstood the phrase “table service”?
    You order on your phone or on the touch screen, and then waiters deliver the food to your table.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    Why would Maccies close? They aren't a pub and offer table service.
    New rules apply to pubs and restaurants. McDonald’s offer table service? Waiters taking orders and delivering food? Or have I misunderstood the phrase “table service”?
    Delivering food yes they do.

    Taking orders I'm sure they can rapidly change their system to accomodate that if they need to. They've already changed to waiters delivering the food.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyone considered than table service (no compulsory masks for staff) is also potentially worse? All those waiters potentially taking Covid from group to group?

    That doesn't seem to be happening much in practice, there are a bunch of clusters in restaurants where nearly everyone at the table with the spreader and sometimes adjacent tables got infected but the waiting staff didn't. They're only with the customers for a short time. But obviously the waiting staff should be wearing masks, and so should the customers apart from when they're actually eating.
    Very few things happen “much”. Once you get away from the scary looking projections, the actual numbers of people infected are tiny. At the end of the day if you are in a pub/restaurant that pays no attention to the rules whatsoever, packs people in like sardines, the virus still can’t get transmitted unless one person actually has it. When the Govt are setting “risk levels” at 20 cases per 100,000 just think what the actual chances of bumping into it at that level are...

    Now that’s obviously not a reason not to have any rules, but it does seem something that is forgotten from time to time. A picture is published of people apparently not taking precautions and many people seem to automatically assume that they’ll all have Covid by the morning.
    I don't know who you think is forgetting that. The point of the rules and the changes in behaviour is to reduce the average number of people each infected person infects. If that gets above 1, even if it starts at a level where it isn't a big problem, it'll grow until it becomes a big problem.

    So what the policy needs to do is to work out the least disruptive set of changes that can get the average below 1. Right now it seems like there's a strong argument for why it's very harmful to have kids out of school, especially for disadvantaged children, so if there's some leeway, it seems better to use it in places like that, rather than in trying to bring restaurants back to high occupancy.
    Quite right. Alex_'s argument that you'd be unlucky to be in the same place as one of the 20 per 100,000 who has the virus misses the point.
    Some people will be near the 20 and if insufficient measures are in place the infection rate may be above 1.0 then 20 will turn to 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 1,280 etc per 100,000 at the doubling rate which was originally around 3 days but is now apparently aound 7.
    We need to get the 'R' number under 1 and to keep the doubling rate long. If this is not done it will mean more illness and deaths, more pressure on the NHS as we approach winter - and a worse outcome for the economy than would be the case if restrictions are appropriate.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    All these “local lockdowns” with slightly different rules are going to do wonders for confusion over what the rules are. Especially when politicians on national TV continue to talk about the rule of 6 that doesn’t actually apply to god knows what % of the country.

    How does having a few friends round for dinner or a drink fit in with the rules? How to confuse people part 3456
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    @TheScreamingEagles @Pulpstar I know you love early voting stats, here are Wisconsin's

    https://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/absentee

    1 million mail ballots have been requested. Wisconsin has less than 6 million people in it!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyone considered than table service (no compulsory masks for staff) is also potentially worse? All those waiters potentially taking Covid from group to group?

    That doesn't seem to be happening much in practice, there are a bunch of clusters in restaurants where nearly everyone at the table with the spreader and sometimes adjacent tables got infected but the waiting staff didn't. They're only with the customers for a short time. But obviously the waiting staff should be wearing masks, and so should the customers apart from when they're actually eating.
    Very few things happen “much”. Once you get away from the scary looking projections, the actual numbers of people infected are tiny. At the end of the day if you are in a pub/restaurant that pays no attention to the rules whatsoever, packs people in like sardines, the virus still can’t get transmitted unless one person actually has it. When the Govt are setting “risk levels” at 20 cases per 100,000 just think what the actual chances of bumping into it at that level are...

    Now that’s obviously not a reason not to have any rules, but it does seem something that is forgotten from time to time. A picture is published of people apparently not taking precautions and many people seem to automatically assume that they’ll all have Covid by the morning.
    I don't know who you think is forgetting that. The point of the rules and the changes in behaviour is to reduce the average number of people each infected person infects. If that gets above 1, even if it starts at a level where it isn't a big problem, it'll grow until it becomes a big problem.

    So what the policy needs to do is to work out the least disruptive set of changes that can get the average below 1. Right now it seems like there's a strong argument for why it's very harmful to have kids out of school, especially for disadvantaged children, so if there's some leeway, it seems better to use it in places like that, rather than in trying to bring restaurants back to high occupancy.
    Rules on things like table service - if as trailed - are not minor inconveniences to businesses. They will simply force many to close. The costs for many of mandatory table service, in staffing alone are impossible. Pubs and restaurants (think eg. McDonalds). It is being billed as not a big deal. And yet there are many other alternatives possible with a bit of flexibility allowed. Allow pubs to put in place “safe” queuing systems instead. Require mask wearing when not seated at the table. Other things. Don’t theoretically allow pubs to remain open, but under conditions where it is impossible to trade viably.
    Again I'm not seeing the media over there so I may be missing something but I don't know who you're arguing with? Who's saying restrictions on restaurants are a minor inconvenience?

    Obviously if there are less disruptive thing that work then great, but inevitably not all the businesses that were viable in a world with no pandemic are viable in a world with a pandemic.
    The new restrictions are being reported as a “compromise” allowing businesses to continue to operate with some of the worst safety issues removed. I’m saying that it will effect businesses far worse than is being suggested. And despite there being alternatives on offer eg. safe queueing and masks at the bar, rather than mandated table service which could be considered equivalent in their safety levels. The Government is basically forcing businesses to close without having the responsibility to pay for it.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    The idea that pubs and restaurants closing at 10pm instead of 11.30pm is going to halt the second wave is just beyond a joke.
  • Alistair said:

    @TheScreamingEagles @Pulpstar I know you love early voting stats, here are Wisconsin's

    https://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/absentee

    1 million mail ballots have been requested. Wisconsin has less than 6 million people in it!

    I had been expecting overall turnout to be low as people stay at home because of the plague, but perhaps it will easily top 2016's turnout by some distance.
  • Scott_xP said:
    He basically hadn't a clue how to answer the 'would you invite a couple over for dinner'? There was a load of blather and then some bollocks about how a party of 20 or 30 was not common sense (to which Hussain said - 'that's illegal anyway'). At one point I think he said 'it is safe to eat in restaurant with another couple because of social distancing'. It is not 'safe', it is a reduced risk i.e. a bit safer compared to them sitting on your lap.

    Clueless or he had a couple over for dinner last night and is worried a photo of them leaving will be all over social media by 11am.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Scott_xP said:
    Most grouse beaters are working class and playing organised football etc is also exempt from the rule of 6
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    Why would Maccies close? They aren't a pub and offer table service.
    New rules apply to pubs and restaurants. McDonald’s offer table service? Waiters taking orders and delivering food? Or have I misunderstood the phrase “table service”?
    Delivering food yes they do.

    Taking orders I'm sure they can rapidly change their system to accomodate that if they need to. They've already changed to waiters delivering the food.
    Ok fair enough. Apologies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Gardner has folded.
    https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/1308180830838284293

    And I think Grassley, too.
    Romney yet to decide.

    Yes but on that basis only if Trump nominates a moderate Justice which he won't because if he does and does not nominate a staunch conservative then pro life evangelicals will stay home in November and not bother to vote for him
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    Scott_xP said:


    "David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Businesses School, said he would "take a dim view" if his students presented similar data."

    Telegraph.
    I do think that chart will live on infamy. Such legerdemain and sleight of hand is just about acceptable when explaining how this new cream will make you look younger. It is totally unacceptable for our chief scientists presenting "facts" to a largely innumerate audience.

    The really annoying thing is that there was a valid story to tell which justified further action. They didn't need to indulge in fantasy. But epidemiologists seem completely hooked on exponential models and wilfully ignore the fact that that is not how things happen in the real world.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081
    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    I ate in McDonalds on Saturday. They did table service and it worked fine.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Most grouse beaters are working class and playing organised football etc is also exempt from the rule of 6
    Lol
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.

    Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Most grouse beaters are working class and playing organised football etc is also exempt from the rule of 6
    Even the Royal estates are turning against grouse shooting based on its poor land management, inconvenience to locals, disruption and elimination of other wildlife. They want a more environmentally sustainable use for their land. You should have watched ch4 on the issue last night.
  • So Gove has told us to work from home if we can.

    Any admission that the 'get your backside in to the office to save Pret' strategy was a mistake?

    I expect today's announced for England to be hslf-arsed. NI has already jumped with no household visits and I expect Scotland to follow. In England we'll still have the patchwork - for now.
  • DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
    On your first point, there must be an element of this. In the thought experiment where there are not even voluntary efforts at social distancing and the disease were to spread as widely as it wanted, I would imagine the fatality rate would end up a bit below 1%. So you might still be talking about 400-500k deaths in the UK, which is a lot of unnecessary deat, suffering and bereavement and must be avoided if at all possible.
    On your second point, I agree with you up to a point. For instance, I think we should do whatever we can to keep schools open. I suspect some kind of generally applicable measures will still be necessary. My problem with the government's approach is its inconsistency - eg trying to bully people into going back to the office when it was clearly unnecessary and possibly counterproductive, and now having to reverse that message. Also they have destroyed public trust, eg via the Cummings episode. And they are poisoning society by telling us to grass on our neighbours. Clearly they are in a difficult position and so one shouldn't be overly-critical though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Cyclefree said:

    Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.

    Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
    There will likely be more than 6 in a pub on different tables, only 6 in one house socially distanced is fine
  • nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Most grouse beaters are working class and playing organised football etc is also exempt from the rule of 6
    Even the Royal estates are turning against grouse shooting based on its poor land management, inconvenience to locals, disruption and elimination of other wildlife. They want a more environmentally sustainable use for their land. You should have watched ch4 on the issue last night.
    There is a surprising amount of naturally occurring poisonous substances on grouse moors judging from the way that rare birds of prey keep turning up dead.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Cyclefree said:

    Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.

    Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
    Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
  • Excellent summary of what we know so far on covid transmission:

    https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1308080056384843777
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    @Cyclefree are you willing to name your daughters pub? I would love to visit if I can to support it. I assume it’s in the Lakes?


    Yes - It is The Punchbowl, The Green, near Millom, LA18 5HJ (01229 774457). Lots of lovely walking nearby - Black and White Combe, riding, the beaches of Haverigg and Hodbarrow Nature Reserve plus lots and lots of biking.

    She has a marquee at the front and back as well as a pub garden. Food Wed - Saturday: with pies and steaks and veggie options too, all freshly cooked + local ales. Thursday is pizza night. There is a Facebook page.

    Do visit if you can.

    Thank you.

    :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
    On your first point, there must be an element of this. In the thought experiment where there are not even voluntary efforts at social distancing and the disease were to spread as widely as it wanted, I would imagine the fatality rate would end up a bit below 1%. So you might still be talking about 400-500k deaths in the UK, which is a lot of unnecessary deat, suffering and bereavement and must be avoided if at all possible.
    On your second point, I agree with you up to a point. For instance, I think we should do whatever we can to keep schools open. I suspect some kind of generally applicable measures will still be necessary. My problem with the government's approach is its inconsistency - eg trying to bully people into going back to the office when it was clearly unnecessary and possibly counterproductive, and now having to reverse that message. Also they have destroyed public trust, eg via the Cummings episode. And they are poisoning society by telling us to grass on our neighbours. Clearly they are in a difficult position and so one shouldn't be overly-critical though.
    Speaking of which - as expected Police are reporting being swamped by calls from people reporting minor infractions or even no infractions at all. Meanwhile it is much harder to report genuinely serious crimes as a result.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2020

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    Yes but Trump likely won't get a nominee through by Nov 3rd unless he picks a moderate and if he picks a moderate rather than a staunch pro life conservative as far as most evangelicals are concerned he will then be little different from Biden and many will then stay home in November and wait for 2024 in the hope they can get Pence as nominee to take on President Biden or Harris ie a candidate evangelicals feel is one of their own
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Gardner has folded.
    https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/1308180830838284293

    And I think Grassley, too.
    Romney yet to decide.

    Yes but on that basis only if Trump nominates a moderate Justice which he won't because if he does and does not nominate a staunch conservative then pro life evangelicals will stay home in November and not bother to vote for him
    I think you fail to understand Republican talking points.
    That statement means he’ll vote to conform anyone Trump nominates.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Arcgis data patterns post:

    So, the national restrictions, at a similar or lighter level than the summer's local restrictions are on their way in.

    Yet it seems the England-wide increase that was seen late August (I believe, as people returned from holidays) has abated a little and southern England, London included, looks to be holding steady or even improving slightly.

    The driver of increased infection seems to be within and lateral spread from areas, in the Midlands and North, that are already under some form of restriction and often have been for a while. Worse still, many places where lockdown easements were brought in (or even just announced) had sharp increases at those points and undermined any success in restriction areas.

    I'm afraid to say that most increase and deepening of restrictions needs to be targeted at two fairly wide areas of the urban North and Midlands already being targeted - a block from the Welsh border to York, and a block from the W. Mids to Leicestershire. (for the NE, I'd leave as is).

    And let's see, at micro level, what has and hasn't worked - amongst the northern areas there do appear to be modest successes at the moment (although all could change by next week) - Calderdale, Teesside.

    I think we are at the time of year when the 3-4C difference in temperature and the lifestyle it drives are part of the problem here - it will worsen, but let's focus on and minimise the reservoir of infection that will ultimately travel south.

    In the words of Dido Harding's purported doppelganger, Hit the North.

    Oh, and don't put the clocks back.
  • Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    They can get around it, there's no limit on the size of SCOTUS.

    President Joe Biden could increase the size of SCOTUS to say 15.
  • Gove now in a total mess over whether he would have a couple of friends around for dinner.

    I suppose he'd normally greet them with "You'll have had your tea?"
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    edited September 2020
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.

    Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.

    Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?

    I ate in McDonalds on Saturday. They did table service and it worked fine.
    You'll be cancelled for that.

    Might as well come out in favour of Brexit, now.

    On a serious note, what is interesting in this crisis, to me, is the way that some organisations and people have simply stepped up. What can we do? How can we do it? Others have just curled up in a ball.

    Further, this doesn't seem to go by profession. I have seen brilliant responses from building companies, school administrators and GPs. I have seen utterly crap responses by building companies, school administrators and GPs.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
    I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
  • alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
    On your first point, there must be an element of this. In the thought experiment where there are not even voluntary efforts at social distancing and the disease were to spread as widely as it wanted, I would imagine the fatality rate would end up a bit below 1%. So you might still be talking about 400-500k deaths in the UK, which is a lot of unnecessary deat, suffering and bereavement and must be avoided if at all possible.
    On your second point, I agree with you up to a point. For instance, I think we should do whatever we can to keep schools open. I suspect some kind of generally applicable measures will still be necessary. My problem with the government's approach is its inconsistency - eg trying to bully people into going back to the office when it was clearly unnecessary and possibly counterproductive, and now having to reverse that message. Also they have destroyed public trust, eg via the Cummings episode. And they are poisoning society by telling us to grass on our neighbours. Clearly they are in a difficult position and so one shouldn't be overly-critical though.
    Speaking of which - as expected Police are reporting being swamped by calls from people reporting minor infractions or even no infractions at all. Meanwhile it is much harder to report genuinely serious crimes as a result.
    The government's efforts to recreate the Stasi's network of informers is an ill thought out policy on many levels. We are only going to successfully come through this by pulling together. You don't achieve that by (a) demonstrating that the rules are only there for the little people or (b) encouraging us to turn on each other. It is the Tory approach to governing writ large: protect the interests of the powerful, and encourage the rest of us to fight among ourselves so we don't notice what's really going on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Scott_xP said:
    Which is both smart, and quite true.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Gadfly said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    @IanB2

    "And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."

    I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.

    The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.

    I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths
    The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.

    If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
    It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
    The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
    I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.

    The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
    I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
    It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2020
    Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    Republicans have held the House of Representatives however for 20 out of those 28 years with representatives allocated by population and the Senate for 16 out of those 28 years, the US government is not just the Presidency
This discussion has been closed.