[fishini]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2020 - 09:54 AM, said:

Are you adjusting for population in that? age profile of population? Population density? all of which are critical factors in spread and mortality rates and therefore relevant in any meaningful comparison.....

An apple is greener than an orange. To which the answer is of course, so what....

Well Mr White Line. Do you not find it strange that the government were comparing us to Europe and how better we were? Until our numbers went higher than theirs. Then comparisons can't be made.

[azul]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2020 - 09:54 AM, said:

Are you adjusting for population in that? age profile of population? Population density? all of which are critical factors in spread and mortality rates and therefore relevant in any meaningful comparison.....

An apple is greener than an orange. To which the answer is of course, so what....

No he isn’t but he should because not doing it allows government apologists to counter the figures. However our government loves headline figures. Ever heard the one about 100,000 tests/day by the end of April

I posted a good article a while back detailing how hard it is to make straight comparisons. Although the data is probably 2 weeks out of date now, it had us down as the 4th worst in Europe behind, Belgium, Italy and Spain although the trajectories were only going oneway.

It’s pretty obvious from figures around the world that density of population has an effect, but the link below would counter the age argument (if it was made).

https://www.prb.org/...st-populations/

This post has been edited by azul: 07 May 2020 - 10:32 AM

[Paragon of Virtue]

fishini, on 07 May 2020 - 09:45 AM, said:

The fact is we are the worst in Europe and the second worst in the world. We had more notice than any country in Europe. You never mention these stats. Why? Where's the other .25% gone?

It's far too early to say that, the full picture simply isn't there across Europe as not countries report the same. Until we know the number of deaths above expected we can't say who has dealt with the worse. Currently we have the highest number of reported deaths as a result of the virus but it's hardly a robust figure and you could probably say the same for most of the other European countries.

[azul]

fishini, on 07 May 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

His perfect scenario. People die of it in a boat.

I was too polite to suggest that but it was about ONS figures regarding ethnic minorities

Search and Destroy, on 07 May 2020 - 10:05 AM, said:

I find the term “peddling “ rather unsettling

It’s as if only the stats you like should be published

I’m sorry you feel unsettled

[fishini]

azul, on 07 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I was too polite to suggest that but it was about ONS figures regarding ethnic minority's

I know what you meant. Please don't be polite where he is concerned he doesn't deserve it

[calvin plummers socks]

Search and Destroy, on 07 May 2020 - 09:16 AM, said:

Death rates by age

0-19 0.05%
20-39 0.7%
40-59 8%
60-79 39%
80+ 52%

Underlying health conditions across all ages 93%

Wonder how many of these poor folk would have passed away in this period - I guess some may have?

[azul]

calvin plummers socks, on 07 May 2020 - 10:34 AM, said:

Wonder how many of these poor folk would have passed away in this period - I guess some may have?

Take a look at the ONS data for the vast increase in seasonal deaths and you probably come up with a decent educated guess

Have you ever heard of a full definition of what constitutes ‘underlying conditions’?

I haven’t but I know asthma is one and that isn’t generally life threatening and if suspect most over 60’s have some kind ‘underlying condition’ that they may or may not know about but in normal times be relatively benign.

This post has been edited by azul: 07 May 2020 - 11:18 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 07 May 2020 - 07:53 AM, said:

That's right. The important number is capacity. The destiny of Pete's package seems to me to have been in the hands of Royal Mail, not Hancock's. Similarly, the number of tests being requested and processed by care homes should be the responsibility of owner/managers, as should PPE. Care homes need grading like hotels and restaurants.

No it isn't - the important number is people dying. Or not, as witnessed in countries that tested far more, far earlier.

And you sound like a government apologist blaming the Royal Mail for Hancock's failure. He didn't say there'd be capacity for tests; he didn't say there'd be tests in the post: he said there'd be a hundred thousand tests done by the end of April. But there weren't and never have been since.

I have more sympathy for focus falling upon private care home owners to provide PPE, though. However you're as wrong as 'S&D' to accuse them or their workers of not applying for tests. Do you know if that's true? Or is it just another diversion. Just another excuse. Certainly the signs around the stadium's testing facility stated 'By Invitation Only' when I visited a few days ago. So the idea there're bored testers stood whistling nonchanantly into a deserted car park because front line staff can't be bothered is just crass.

And by the way, I fall into the 'qualified for testing' category yet I've received nothing official. Absolutely nothing.

'Care homes need grading like hotels and restaurants'? Really? Seriously? Y'mean they should be closed too? So where would all the vulnerable go, Dave - the street? Into already overwhelmed hospitals? Steve Baker and his callously free market worshipping ilk might see that as a price worth paying. Their families won't.

Then whilst you didn't bring it up I'll deal with the numbers issue, here. The government itself has spent several weeks comparing ours' with the rest of Europe. Using what was happening there a some sort of benchmark (the oft quoted 'two weeks behind Italy and Spain' thing). Yet now THEIR VERY OWN STATS show we're the worst they and their media allies (the Mail's Andrew Pierce was playing the same game on GMB this morning) suddenly say we should ignore them. They're not accurate. We should wait until folk've forgotten the worst of what's happening and they've peddled a load more pro-Bozo propaganda.

Well let's be clear; if they were doing better than Europe the millionaire media would be shouting it from the rooftops. They'd be hailing the same supposed 'success' Bozo so unbelievably claimed. They'd be waving the Union Flag, singing 'Rule Britannia' and trotting out yet more twaddle about British exceptionalism.

But instead there's just talk of a 'magic monday' that'll be anything but for countless Brits still dealing with what an incompetently complacent government allowed to happen.

I'm guessing Steve 'don't give a damn' Baker isn't one of 'em...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 07 May 2020 - 11:40 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

azul, on 07 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I’m sorry you feel unsettled

Heh, heh, heh. Like it.

[calvin plummers socks]

azul, on 07 May 2020 - 11:07 AM, said:

Take a look at the ONS data for the vast increase in seasonal deaths and you probably come up with a decent educated guess

Have you ever heard of a full definition of what constitutes ‘underlying conditions’?

I haven’t but I know asthma is one and that isn’t generally life threatening and if suspect most over 60’s have some kind ‘underlying condition’ that they may or may not know about but in normal times be relatively benign.

Yep- I see smoking and obesity are the highest causes (which is a no brainier I guess).

Anyone know the death rates annually of ‘normal’ flu as a comparitor?

[isleaiw1]

azul, on 07 May 2020 - 10:20 AM, said:

No he isn’t but he should because not doing it allows government apologists to counter the figures. However our government loves headline figures. Ever heard the one about 100,000 tests/day by the end of April

I posted a good article a while back detailing how hard it is to make straight comparisons. Although the data is probably 2 weeks out of date now, it had us down as the 4th worst in Europe behind, Belgium, Italy and Spain although the trajectories were only going oneway.

It’s pretty obvious from figures around the world that density of population has an effect, but the link below would counter the age argument (if it was made).

https://www.prb.org/...st-populations/

I honestly dont care what the govt does, I know Donald does it which signifies why no one with a brain cell should be doing it. Ideally we would have a control group to see what different governments actions did and how they improved things - but with so many variables, meaningful comparisons are impossible and therefore comments that try to do so are idiotic. Whoever makes them.

And @fishini, its not white line to want something to be fair and reasonable, although it clearly doesnt suit those with a political agenda one way. Which I don't as I have said before. All a bunch of shysters...

One death is one too many, but one redundancy is one too many too. At the last count we had £8m worth on an annualised basis in terms of the latter. Just awful. They are the stats I will deal with. Real ones.

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 07 May 2020 - 11:35 AM, said:

.

Then whilst you didn't bring it up I'll deal with the numbers issue, here. The government itself has spent several weeks comparing ours' with the rest of Europe. Using what was happening there a some sort of benchmark (the oft quoted 'two weeks behind Italy and Spain' thing). Yet now THEIR VERY OWN STATS show we're the worst they and their media allies (the Mail's Andrew Pierce was playing the same game on GMB this morning) suddenly say we should ignore them. They're not accurate. We should wait until folk've forgotten the worst of what's happening and they've peddled a load more pro-Bozo propaganda.

Well let's be clear; if they were doing better than Europe the millionaire media would be shouting it from the rooftops. They'd be hailing the same supposed 'success' Bozo so unbelievably claimed. They'd be waving the Union Flag, singing 'Rule Britannia' and trotting out yet more twaddle about British exceptionalism.

I have to go and do 5 hours of meetings but two obvious points Chris...

- so if we end the football season now is it those with most points or those with most points per game that get the glory. You seem to think the former based on it being absolute numbers that matter....

- papers dont do politics currently - they do clicks for ad revenue when the world is falling apart. I have a friend at News UK who has as much as said so to me.

Apart from that those 2 points are pretty accurate...

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 07 May 2020 - 12:29 PM, said:

I have to go and do 5 hours of meetings but two obvious points Chris...

- so if we end the football season now is it those with most points or those with most points per game that get the glory. You seem to think the former based on it being absolute numbers that matter....

- papers dont do politics currently - they do clicks for ad revenue when the world is falling apart. I have a friend at News UK who has as much as said so to me.

Apart from that those 2 points are pretty accurate...

I actually said the season should be bookended, Ian. Left incomplete. And whilst I've a soft spot for Evo I honestly couldn't care less how ups and downs are decided.

As for the media thing it's been interesting to see even staunchly pro tory outlets expose some pretty hard hitting scandals. The Mail's list of fallen front line staff, the Sunday Times' SAGE revelations, the FT continuing to print death figures far higher than the governmemt's...

..hell, even Bozo's own 'Telegraph featured disgraceful PPE shortages.

But it looks like leopards are once again incapable of changing spots. And I've gotta wonder if a SKS who's proven extremely competent at PMQ's may, just possibly, have them rattled...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 07 May 2020 - 12:48 PM

[Search & Destroy]

azul, on 07 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I was too polite to suggest that but it was about ONS figures regarding ethnic minorities


I’m sorry you feel unsettled

I suppose if ethnicity affects the death rate it may explain why the UK rate is so high.

[dim view]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 07 May 2020 - 11:35 AM, said:

No it isn't - the important number is people dying. Or not, as witnessed in countries that tested far more, far earlier.

And you sound like a government apologist blaming the Royal Mail for Hancock's failure. He didn't say there'd be capacity for tests; he didn't say there'd be tests in the post: he said there'd be a hundred thousand tests done by the end of April. But there weren't and never have been since.

The BBC reported it as :
'Coronavirus: Target reached as UK tests pass 100,000 a day
1 May 2020

The UK provided more than 122,000 coronavirus tests on the last day of April, passing the government's target'

It's not semantics to argue that 'provided' is the same as 'tested'.

On care homes, why couldn't the most vulnerable go to the best?

[mr. smith]

dim view, on 07 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

The BBC reported it as :
'Coronavirus: Target reached as UK tests pass 100,000 a day
1 May 2020

The UK provided more than 122,000 coronavirus tests on the last day of April, passing the government's target'

It's not semantics to argue that 'provided' is the same as 'tested'.

On care homes, why couldn't the most vulnerable go to the best?

the time to celebrate is when they provide 100000 daily not just a specific day. they are currently back down around the 65-70000 figure.
boris is spouting 200000 daily by end of may. righto.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 07 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

The BBC reported it as :
'Coronavirus: Target reached as UK tests pass 100,000 a day
1 May 2020

The UK provided more than 122,000 coronavirus tests on the last day of April, passing the government's target'

It's not semantics to argue that 'provided' is the same as 'tested'.

On care homes, why couldn't the most vulnerable go to the best?

The same BBC that then joined most others in reporting it included forty thousand 'tests' which were in the post. The same BBC that's subsequently joined most others in reporting nothing like the target being met since, either.

And semantics is exactly what you're relying on here, Dave. Can't offer a link to Hancock's original promise but I'm pretty certain it didn't reference capacity or packages on the way to random destinations.

Come on pal, stop trying to defend a blatant con.

As for the care home thing I clearly misunderstood. When you said they should be graded like restaurants and hotels I thought you meant categorised like them. In other words closed. Sorry, my mistake.

[azul]

mr. smith, on 07 May 2020 - 02:05 PM, said:

the time to celebrate is when they provide 100000 daily not just a specific day. they are currently back down around the 65-70000 figure.
boris is spouting 200000 daily by end of may. righto.

He was rowing back a bit on that claim to suggest capacity. Allows him some wriggle row so he blame the bunch of ingrates for not taking them. There will always be some gullible types who believe that kind of spin.

[dim view]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 07 May 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

The same BBC that then joined most others in reporting it included forty thousand 'tests' which were in the post. The same BBC that's subsequently joined most others in reporting nothing like the target being met since, either.

And semantics is exactly what you're relying on here, Dave. Can't offer a link to Hancock's original promise but I'm pretty certain it didn't reference capacity or packages on the way to random destinations.

Come on pal, stop trying to defend a blatant con.

As for the care home thing I clearly misunderstood. When you said they should be graded like restaurants and hotels I thought you meant categorised like them. In other words closed. Sorry, my mistake.

That's ok

I would just like somebody to tell me whether anybody now has to wait if they request a test. Yes or no.

Gullible types will also be quick to point out that the purpose of the graphs is not for comparison, but simply to show the numbers published by other countries, derived by whatever mechanisms they choose.

[azul]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 07 May 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

The same BBC that then joined most others in reporting it included forty thousand 'tests' which were in the post. The same BBC that's subsequently joined most others in reporting nothing like the target being met since, either.

And semantics is exactly what you're relying on here, Dave. Can't offer a link to Hancock's original promise but I'm pretty certain it didn't reference capacity or packages on the way to random destinations.

Come on pal, stop trying to defend a blatant con.

As for the care home thing I clearly misunderstood. When you said they should be graded like restaurants and hotels I thought you meant categorised like them. In other words closed. Sorry, my mistake.

If you want a link to the promise, here it is in his own sweet words’

https://metro.co.uk/...april-12500642/

Can’t find a link to him saying anything about ‘capacity for 100,000 tests’, ‘they’ll be in the post” or “we’ll peak at 100,000 at the end of April and then drop by tens of thousands”. I’m sure they must be out there!