Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2021, 08:00:10 am

Login with username, password and session length

@vscofficial

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 420433 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

GazLaz

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1260 on March 29, 2020, 02:10:14 pm by GazLaz »
209 today



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

ian1980

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1261 on March 29, 2020, 02:10:39 pm by ian1980 »
209 UK deaths in last 24hrs

So quite a bit down on yesterday
« Last Edit: March 29, 2020, 04:06:20 pm by ian1980 »

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1262 on March 29, 2020, 02:12:17 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
This is becoming an absolute outrage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52082248

I say again. This is not about party politics. This is about basic competence.

What we have learned in the past few days.

1) The Cabinet Office, run by Gove, whose professional background before politics was as a journalist, sent out a survey to firms 2 weeks ago (why not 8 weeks ago) asking what they could do to make PPE. Firms that responded have heard nothing since.

2) The EU sent an e-mail to the UK Govt a few weeks ago inviting us to join a coordinated strategy to make and distribute PPE and ventilators. Our Govt did not respond. Give says it doesn't matter because...well apparently because we can do it ourselves. But see 1) above.

3) A couple of days ago, Johnson (whose background before joining politics was journalism) said "he understood" that 7.5m items of PPE were "on the way" to frontline NHS  workers. But NHS workers are still not receiving them.

There's a pattern here. Our leaders have zero technical background. They have zero senior management background. Zero background in supply chain management. What they DO have is lots of experience in telling stories.

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7991
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1263 on March 29, 2020, 02:17:09 pm by wilts rover »
There was always the possibility of a pandemic. There were plenty of warnings over many years. But, were we prepared when #Covid19 arrived? No, of course not! Au contraire! All of the warnings were ignored. Even when we knew it was coming, the UK Government did nothing!

Did nothing? NO

Slow to react, YES

The outbreak began in China in December and first case in this country was in York on 22nd January.

Thus the government has had all that time to prepare for a pandemic. They could have either:

a) done their utmost to stop the virus entering the country by mass testing and tracing at ports and airports

b) prepared the NHS by sourcing protective equipment for hospital & community, GP's & care home staff and ensuring an adequate supply of ICU beds

Instead they told you there was no need to shout schools or football grounds, Cheltenham could go ahead and it was OK to keep shaking hands with people provided you washed them afterwards.

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 23173
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1264 on March 29, 2020, 03:05:04 pm by drfchound »
I despair with some people.
This morning my wife saw four people (two different couples) visit our next door neighbour.
They all hugged each other then stood around in a group, all close together, chatting.
There was also a small child with them who had a kiss from everyone when they left to go home.
Unbelievable that they are still doing this.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2020, 03:58:34 pm by drfchound »

NickDRFC

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 5352
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1265 on March 29, 2020, 03:55:17 pm by NickDRFC »
I despair with some people.
This morning my wife saw four people (two different couples) visit our next door neighbour.
The all hugged each other then stood around in a group, all close together, chatting.
There was also a small child with them who had a kiss from everyone when they left to go home.
Unbelievable that they are still doing this.

I hope she or you said something. Some people really are min-numbingly stupid.

mushRTID

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6318
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1266 on March 29, 2020, 05:13:26 pm by mushRTID »
I despair with some people.
This morning my wife saw four people (two different couples) visit our next door neighbour.
They all hugged each other then stood around in a group, all close together, chatting.
There was also a small child with them who had a kiss from everyone when they left to go home.
Unbelievable that they are still doing this.

It’s really f**king selfish, not just ignorant to the possibility of catching and spreading this thing, but disrespectful for the many families who are following the rules.


BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1267 on March 29, 2020, 05:25:31 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
And once again, f**king appalling reporting from the BBC.

Headline: Italy deaths continue unabated

Fact: Italy has reported 20% fewer deaths today than it did on Friday. The number of deaths Italy reported today was actually lower than the average over the past week. They ARE turning the corner.

This is a truly dreadful service by the BBC. They are acting like a tatty tabloid when they should be informing and educating.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1268 on March 29, 2020, 05:54:37 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
To show just how f**king awful that BBC reporting is, I've produced a different graph today. This shows how the time taken for the total number of deaths to double in each country has evolved throughout the epidemic. Clearly, we want that doubling time to get longer and longer, and when it does, it means we were getting a grip on the spread one or two weeks ago, and we have probably started turning the corner of this first wave.

Italy is clearly turning the corner. They have got their doubling time up from 2.5 days about three weeks ago, to 10 days now. Over a month, that is the difference between the number of deaths increasing 8 fold or a 4000 fold. It is disgraceful of the BBC that they are not getting this message across. Not telling people that there IS a point to the lockdown.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2020, 05:57:06 pm by BillyStubbsTears »

IDM

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 18714
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1269 on March 29, 2020, 05:55:03 pm by IDM »
Even with the bbc you have to read behind the headlines..

Donnywolf

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 16004
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1270 on March 29, 2020, 05:56:08 pm by Donnywolf »
I have had it with the BBC. I used to respect them and their output and loved the way people in overseas Countries always say " I listen to the BBC because they tell it how it is"

And yet again I say I will never forgive them for editing the Johnson laughter out on the Leaders debate when they replayed the highlights next day thus altering it for anyone who had not seen it live

On the night someone asked Johnson " do you think that Politicians should ensure they tell the truth"

Johnson "absoutely - its critical" (thats the gist of it)

Audience lots of them roared with laughter which showed for me they thought his answer was at the least ironic and at worst a lie in itself

Next morning BBC showed highlights and started with that missing out the laughter altogether and making his answer look upstanding and believable and BELIEVED.

They can s**t for me from now on.

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1271 on March 29, 2020, 06:02:26 pm by Copps is Magic »
The trouble seems to me also that they are doing very little investigative journalism. They are just highly selectively reporting on things happening in a very sensationalist way.

If they did a bit more digging around they would find a different angle to the story. For example, Sweden is now reporting a reduction in ICU patients. The Netherlands is very close to doing the same.

Digging around is really not that difficult in this day and age.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1272 on March 29, 2020, 06:05:12 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
PS: For the mathematically minded, this is how I've worked out the doubling time.

Assume the number of deaths D increases exponentially with time (t), so D has the form D=A.exp(b.t) with A being a constant and b being a function of time.

So the first derivative of D wrt t D'=A.b.exp(b.t)  (NB: I suspect this is probably not spot on accurate if b is a function of time, but this is big handfuls stuff.)

Therefore at any time t, D'/D=b

Define the time at the start of a doubling period as T0 and the time to double as DT, so the time at the end of the doubling period is T0+DT.

Then A.exp[b(T0+DT)]=2A.exp(bT0)

Dividing through by A.exp(bT0) gives exp(b.DT)=2

So DT=ln(2)/b or DT=ln(2).D/D'.


In simple terms, if you want to know what the doubling time is in days, take the total number of deaths to date, divide it by the new deaths on that date and multiply the result by 0.7.

And then hope and pray that that figure keeps generally going up.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2020, 06:08:40 pm by BillyStubbsTears »

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1273 on March 29, 2020, 06:07:08 pm by Filo »
PS: For the mathematically minded, this is how I've worked out the doubling time.

Assume the number of deaths D increases exponentially with time (t), so D has the form D=A.exp(b.t) with A being a constant and b being a function of time.

So the first derivative of D wrt t D'=A.b.exp(b.t)

Therefore at any time t, D'/D=b

Define the time at the start of a doubling period as T0 and the time to double as DT, so the time at the end of the doubling period is T0+DT.

Then A.exp[b(T0+DT)]=2A.exp(bT0)

Dividing through by A.exp(bT0) gives exp(b.DT)=2

So DT=ln(2)/b or DT=ln(2).D/D'.


In simple terms, if you want to know what the doubling time is in days, take the total number of deaths to date, divide it by the new deaths on that date and multiply the result by 0.7.

And then hope and pray that that figure keeps generally going up.

I prefer your graph Mr Einstein 😂😂😂

Nudga

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3909
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1274 on March 29, 2020, 06:10:49 pm by Nudga »
I have had it with the BBC. I used to respect them and their output and loved the way people in overseas Countries always say " I listen to the BBC because they tell it how it is"

And yet again I say I will never forgive them for editing the Johnson laughter out on the Leaders debate when they replayed the highlights next day thus altering it for anyone who had not seen it live

On the night someone asked Johnson " do you think that Politicians should ensure they tell the truth"

Johnson "absoutely - its critical" (thats the gist of it)

Audience lots of them roared with laughter which showed for me they thought his answer was at the least ironic and at worst a lie in itself

Next morning BBC showed highlights and started with that missing out the laughter altogether and making his answer look upstanding and believable and BELIEVED.

They can s**t for me from now on.

The same BBC that reported that the WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11 but the building was still intact behind the reporter?

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1275 on March 29, 2020, 06:17:33 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
It's part of the same problem as the politicians. The reporters, for the most part, are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. They are reporting on something that they are not qualified to report on.

I had some interaction professionally a few years back with David Shuckman, who is the BBC Science Editor. He was different gravy. He is brilliant at understanding difficult scientific concepts and communicating them to the public. He should be front and centre of the BBC's reporting of CV19, but I've barely seen him.

Bristol Red Rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1276 on March 29, 2020, 10:59:10 pm by Bristol Red Rover »
I wonder if all current UK deaths are tested for corona? If so, that will tend to account for a portion of the reported death rate. If it's only cases where there has been something of the symptoms of corona observable then that portion will be less. Many people who have reportedly died at home from this without evidence of the symtoms, may also be tested and found positive.

Add to this that it appears that 50% are asymptomatic ie highly unlikely to have health issues from corona, then you can see how reported death rates can be skewed. Beyond that 50% most will have a milder reaction to the virus, one still not causng death, but they have the symptoms and test positive so are likey to be added to figures. I'm sure they are skewed in this way, maybe almost imperceptibly or maybe more significantly. Same for UK, China, Italy etc.

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2555
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1277 on March 30, 2020, 12:01:38 am by albie »
Bristol RR,

I posted something similar earlier in the thread. It looks like the death figures might have a wide uncertainty range both within and across populations.

More bad news as well.
If this summary is correct, a 7 day isolation is just not going to cut the mustard;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200327091234.htm

Oh dear!

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6308
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1278 on March 30, 2020, 10:19:12 am by River Don »
Bristol RR,

I posted something similar earlier in the thread. It looks like the death figures might have a wide uncertainty range both within and across populations.

More bad news as well.
If this summary is correct, a 7 day isolation is just not going to cut the mustard;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200327091234.htm

Oh dear!

We've known since January that the virus can be incubated for longer than a week.

We know it can take longer than a week to recover.

And we've known an apparently recovered individual can go on spreading it for a week after feeling better.

7 days isolation in that case seems a very arbitrary figure, and certainly on the low side for safety.

I was also reading that the 2 metre distance rule is not really far enough to be sure. Also it is not a good idea to stand downwind of someone on a breezy day, should you find yourself in a queue in a supermarket car park.

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8220
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1279 on March 30, 2020, 11:22:02 am by SydneyRover »
Dominic Cummings is self-isolating at home after showing symptoms of coronavirus, a No 10 source confirmed.

The prime minister's top adviser is understood to have fallen ill over the weekend and remains at home, while staying in contact with the Downing Street team during the quarantine period.

Bristol Red Rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1280 on March 30, 2020, 11:54:42 am by Bristol Red Rover »
Dominic Cummings is self-isolating at home after showing symptoms of coronavirus, a No 10 source confirmed.

The prime minister's top adviser is understood to have fallen ill over the weekend and remains at home, while staying in contact with the Downing Street team during the quarantine period.

On the phone to Boris, who is also ill (or just sick). Wait for the coming gov policy declaring a state of monstrous emergency sending the army out to kill and destroy febrile pink elephants and scary shaddows behind wardrobes. Seriously though, what could go wrong?

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1281 on March 30, 2020, 12:27:26 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Inevitable really.

The most dangerous man in Europe uses CV-19 to make himself a de facto dictator.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2020/03/30/blank-cheque-hungary-expected-to-pass-controversial-covid-19-law

Metalmicky

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4206
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1282 on March 30, 2020, 12:57:08 pm by Metalmicky »
Bristol RR,

I posted something similar earlier in the thread. It looks like the death figures might have a wide uncertainty range both within and across populations.

More bad news as well.
If this summary is correct, a 7 day isolation is just not going to cut the mustard;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200327091234.htm

Oh dear!

We've known since January that the virus can be incubated for longer than a week.

We know it can take longer than a week to recover.

And we've known an apparently recovered individual can go on spreading it for a week after feeling better.

7 days isolation in that case seems a very arbitrary figure, and certainly on the low side for safety.

I was also reading that the 2 metre distance rule is not really far enough to be sure. Also it is not a good idea to stand downwind of someone on a breezy day, should you find yourself in a queue in a supermarket car park.

Prince Charles is out of self-isolation.............. in 7 days

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52088684

big fat yorkshire pudding

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1283 on March 30, 2020, 01:11:29 pm by big fat yorkshire pudding »
They are to include deaths outside of hospital from tomorrow, will be interesting to see how many of those there have been.

Nudga

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3909
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1284 on March 30, 2020, 01:21:03 pm by Nudga »
I still cannot grasp why they are including terminally ill patients who have hours/days to live.
So no autopsy, just will say on death certificate that it's down to cv19 and not say pancreatic cancer.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6308
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1285 on March 30, 2020, 01:24:43 pm by River Don »
I suppose if they include terminally I'll people in the figures it will still give a more accurate picture of the spread of the thing.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 15482
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1286 on March 30, 2020, 01:27:09 pm by Bentley Bullet »
So some people will die with it, but not of it?

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1287 on March 30, 2020, 01:32:01 pm by Filo »
I still cannot grasp why they are including terminally ill patients who have hours/days to live.
So no autopsy, just will say on death certificate that it's down to cv19 and not say pancreatic cancer.

A death certificate will list all the conditions, for instance my Dad had terminal asbestos related lung cancer, it was a pulmonary embolism that finished him off, which is listed first despite his lung cancer

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1288 on March 30, 2020, 01:35:31 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
So some people will die with it, but not of it?

I think that's the idea.

To be pedantic, the only think people die of is from blood no longer getting oxygen around the body. So, just like with cancer, CV-19 doesn't kill you directly. My understanding is that, by making breathing harder, it puts more strain on the cardiovascular system and your heart eventually can't handle it. So you die of heart failure, rather than of the CV-19 infection itself.

But obviously, in the vast majority of cases, that heart failure is precipitated by the infection. That's why death certificates don't state "heart failure" on every case. They state the condition that led to the heart failure.

I think the death numbers are defined as people who have died after testing positive for CV-19.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 01:37:46 pm by BillyStubbsTears »

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1289 on March 30, 2020, 02:49:54 pm by Copps is Magic »
https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Useful guy to follow if you're following epidemiological modeling.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012