blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 08:04:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 ... 305 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 353839 times)
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #2895 on: August 11, 2020, 07:04:26 PM »

I couldn't technically call what I did playing, anyway.
Logged

MT’s bro
Probation
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #2896 on: August 11, 2020, 09:27:34 PM »

I am further along the 'more careful' line re Covid than just about anyone I know. My friends are going to restaurants and bars, and into each others' houses, even in groups of three or four, none of whom live together. They would literally be having quiet drinks, definitely not involved in any of the raucous behaviour. I haven't been anywhere, though I have met with friends outdoors, and had a friend to visit tonight for the first time.

I haven't been back to my family in Dublin since the start of the year, and I spoke with my brother and sister tonight to say I might fly over for a couple of days this week, mainly with a view to having a window-visit with my mother. To say they weren't keen is an understatement. My brother just went quiet, so I could tell he didn't approve, and then he just said I should wait a few more weeks. He didn't offer for me to stay, which he always does. My sister said I could stay with her, but I would have to go straight to a bedroom when I arrive and stay there, and she would bring meals to my room. She also said I have to hire a car, as I mustn't travel on public transport. When I suggested that it would be okay to use the sitting room if we kept apart, and that I might use a bus, she said it's not negotiable.

Ireland has had few Covid deaths lately (though infections have started increasing again) - 5 Covid deaths in the last two weeks, 14 in the two weeks before that and 46 in the month before that. Pubs and restaurants are still closed. It has divided the world into Red and Green countries, though countries can move up or down - five countries were demoted to Red last week. The UK is Red, which means people arriving from this high-risk country have to quarantine for two weeks.

I was taken aback by how the mind-sets are so different. My family is completely persuaded of the requirement to still be ultra-cautious, despite being in a lower-death country, whereas people here who I regard as sensible have slipped into fairly casual habits, without any visible adverse reaction. Portsmouth, where I live (pop 238,000), has had no Covid deaths for over two months. Both groups can't be right, can they? My family's attitude seems excessive to me, but I assume it's representative of the population in Ireland, and I suspect I have been drawn along with the general relaxation in attitudes here, without realising it, even if I haven't been participating. If my family is right, then I definitely shouldn't be allowing anyone into my house here, and going to a pub or restaurant should remain out of the question. I feel like I don't agree with either group, yet I can see how their position looks reasonable from their perspective.

I could tell that my brother and sister thought my attitude was reckless, while I know people here who think I am being excessively cautious. I suspect that people reading this in the UK will be surprised at how my family sees it and would side with my friends. But how do reasonable people in one country mostly come to one conclusion and those in another country think the opposite? Is it that we are so suggestible that we can be made to think whatever our government wants, while thinking that we are making our own decisions? I don't know what I think any more.

Sorry mate, we actually just don’t like you very much and this was a good excuse to bat you away.......see you in 2022 maybe.
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #2897 on: August 11, 2020, 10:28:13 PM »

That's a really interesting question and summary about different perceptions

Since the pubs re-opened I've been out once with a mate and went to a restaurant with my wife at the weekend. It all felt very controlled, nearly normal and I didn't 'feel' like I was taking a silly risk - would definitely avoid a busy, towny, youthfully oriented pub though

I've never stopped visiting my Mum during the whole affair, have had to visit hospitals a few times (very well managed at last) and I now mix with my Son and Daughters family as if all was normal. Actually, we don't do hugging and handshakes and stuff.

Anyway, the point I'm slowly getting to is that I think I've been sensible throughout without following all rules because I am happy to tolerate a certain level of obvious risk. I think it's much harder for people who have been very cautious and tried to abide really closely to the rules to emerge back out again and I think that's inevitable.

Also, it was interesting to see the point about deaths in your local hospitals being so low. Throughout the last few months I've stopped paying much attention to the headline numbers as they feel pretty meaningless to me. I have been tracking deaths/admissions to hospitals in my county and health trust area. When you look at that versus the population that is served you can see that the numbers are just tiny and the risk of catching the virus and being hospitalised,  if you're in a job that isn't specially high risk and you're somewhat sensible, are extremely, extremely low.

In the first few months of the whole thing I was very tolerant of Govt mistakes and even their ineptitude at times. Now, so many months into the thing I am truly shocked by the inability to forge a common shared understanding of what a good approach looks like in terms of accurate reporting, sensible testing policies, assessments of current risk levels versus other risks we naturally accept, sensible mitigation strategies etc.

We used to under report deaths, now we over report which keeps adding to the fear factor - surely just get this right. We are notionally testing at a ludicrously high rate versus a country like Germany but there doesn't seem to be any rationale or strategy behind this that leads to an orderly return to some normality. There is no effort to properly communicate risk and measure this versus the costs of continuing like we are - I'd obviously concede this is very difficult to do but surely some attempt should be made to do this and try to reach some consensus. It seems like our Government (today) and parliamentary system is woefully incapable of addressing something like this and there's really no obvious sign of improvement over the last few months.
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #2898 on: August 12, 2020, 11:38:39 PM »

I am further along the 'more careful' line re Covid than just about anyone I know. My friends are going to restaurants and bars, and into each others' houses, even in groups of three or four, none of whom live together. They would literally be having quiet drinks, definitely not involved in any of the raucous behaviour. I haven't been anywhere, though I have met with friends outdoors, and had a friend to visit tonight for the first time.

I haven't been back to my family in Dublin since the start of the year, and I spoke with my brother and sister tonight to say I might fly over for a couple of days this week, mainly with a view to having a window-visit with my mother. To say they weren't keen is an understatement. My brother just went quiet, so I could tell he didn't approve, and then he just said I should wait a few more weeks. He didn't offer for me to stay, which he always does. My sister said I could stay with her, but I would have to go straight to a bedroom when I arrive and stay there, and she would bring meals to my room. She also said I have to hire a car, as I mustn't travel on public transport. When I suggested that it would be okay to use the sitting room if we kept apart, and that I might use a bus, she said it's not negotiable.

Ireland has had few Covid deaths lately (though infections have started increasing again) - 5 Covid deaths in the last two weeks, 14 in the two weeks before that and 46 in the month before that. Pubs and restaurants are still closed. It has divided the world into Red and Green countries, though countries can move up or down - five countries were demoted to Red last week. The UK is Red, which means people arriving from this high-risk country have to quarantine for two weeks.

I was taken aback by how the mind-sets are so different. My family is completely persuaded of the requirement to still be ultra-cautious, despite being in a lower-death country, whereas people here who I regard as sensible have slipped into fairly casual habits, without any visible adverse reaction. Portsmouth, where I live (pop 238,000), has had no Covid deaths for over two months. Both groups can't be right, can they? My family's attitude seems excessive to me, but I assume it's representative of the population in Ireland, and I suspect I have been drawn along with the general relaxation in attitudes here, without realising it, even if I haven't been participating. If my family is right, then I definitely shouldn't be allowing anyone into my house here, and going to a pub or restaurant should remain out of the question. I feel like I don't agree with either group, yet I can see how their position looks reasonable from their perspective.

I could tell that my brother and sister thought my attitude was reckless, while I know people here who think I am being excessively cautious. I suspect that people reading this in the UK will be surprised at how my family sees it and would side with my friends. But how do reasonable people in one country mostly come to one conclusion and those in another country think the opposite? Is it that we are so suggestible that we can be made to think whatever our government wants, while thinking that we are making our own decisions? I don't know what I think any more.

Sorry mate, we actually just don’t like you very much and this was a good excuse to bat you away.......see you in 2022 maybe.

Thanks for being honest - it must feel good to get things off your chest.
I'll see you whenever I see you, I guess.
By the way, we're not supposed to tell you, but I think it's only fair that you should know you were adopted.
Hey, it does feel good!
Logged
arbboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13285


View Profile
« Reply #2899 on: August 12, 2020, 11:43:20 PM »

carnage soap opera stuff this is surely?   No one's brother (who isn't a blonde) would surely ever stalk you onto blonde?  how the fuck do they even find you?
Logged
arbboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13285


View Profile
« Reply #2900 on: August 12, 2020, 11:44:06 PM »

Proper in your eye stuff reply wise if its true! 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2020, 11:45:38 PM by arbboy » Logged
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #2901 on: August 12, 2020, 11:51:45 PM »

carnage soap opera stuff this is surely?   No one's brother (who isn't a blonde) would surely ever stalk you onto blonde?  how the fuck do they even find you?



Proper in your eye stuff reply wise if its true! 


1.01 it's a random and MT is messing about Cheesy
Logged

Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #2902 on: August 13, 2020, 12:47:56 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

So we get an urgent review when it is likely some deaths were wrongly included in Covid deaths, but we got no urgent review when it was clear that the Covid deaths were understated by a much larger amount in the early weeks?

It is good that lots of countries are consistent, but it would be better if so many countries didn't  undershoot the deaths.   

Sad that the reporter really thinks this means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 has actually reduced when the reality is that they haven't moved at all from the approximately 60,000 there were yesterday.

I think it is better to use a source that hasn't been nobbled by Hancock going forward

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality-monitor-Week-30-2020-v01-2020-08-04.pdf


Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #2903 on: August 13, 2020, 02:19:02 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

So we get an urgent review when it is likely some deaths were wrongly included in Covid deaths, but we got no urgent review when it was clear that the Covid deaths were understated by a much larger amount in the early weeks?

It is good that lots of countries are consistent, but it would be better if so many countries didn't  undershoot the deaths.   

Sad that the reporter really thinks this means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 has actually reduced when the reality is that they haven't moved at all from the approximately 60,000 there were yesterday.

I think it is better to use a source that hasn't been nobbled by Hancock going forward

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality-monitor-Week-30-2020-v01-2020-08-04.pdf




Aren't these 2 things a bit different though. Being more accurate today, irrespective of the past numbers or pointless adjustments to them, is quite useful in terms of understanding and perceptions around risk today even if it's a lagging indicator. The all cause mortality is going to provide a better context to judge the whole approach taken during this pandemic. Reporting nonsensical numbers had to stop and I think Hancock and Co deserve more flack for that than correcting the approach.

Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #2904 on: August 13, 2020, 06:01:33 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

So we get an urgent review when it is likely some deaths were wrongly included in Covid deaths, but we got no urgent review when it was clear that the Covid deaths were understated by a much larger amount in the early weeks?

It is good that lots of countries are consistent, but it would be better if so many countries didn't  undershoot the deaths.   

Sad that the reporter really thinks this means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 has actually reduced when the reality is that they haven't moved at all from the approximately 60,000 there were yesterday.

I think it is better to use a source that hasn't been nobbled by Hancock going forward

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality-monitor-Week-30-2020-v01-2020-08-04.pdf




Aren't these 2 things a bit different though. Being more accurate today, irrespective of the past numbers or pointless adjustments to them, is quite useful in terms of understanding and perceptions around risk today even if it's a lagging indicator. The all cause mortality is going to provide a better context to judge the whole approach taken during this pandemic. Reporting nonsensical numbers had to stop and I think Hancock and Co deserve more flack for that than correcting the approach.



I am not that bothered with changing the definition going forward, though given the length of the illness in some people 28 days feels short.  If you are in hospital 29 days after testing positive for Covid then there seems a pretty good chance your death was Covid related.  Even then I don't think it matters too much to overall planning, they seem to put much more reliance on testing now that the testing regime has improved.  As an aside where is the Matt Hancock urgent review of the inaccurate testing numbers which have been reported badly throughout? 

The removal of 5,000 previous Covid deaths bothers me much more; it is clear to most with expertise that the number was much more likely to be understated previously.  It seemds that you don't stop reporting nonsensical numbers by reporting a past number in a more incorrectly than before.  I don't think it really matters whether the right number id 58,756 or 61,324, about 60,000 is in the right ballpark and is fine for now, and has the advantage of not using the spurious accuracy that publishing overall numbers to the nearest death gives.

On the upside I think it is good that the ONS still seem to be reporting a bigger number, albeit still not as big as it could be.  I'd be more dismayed if they started cooking the books, it is really important they don't succumb to this political pressure.

Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #2905 on: August 13, 2020, 08:36:13 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

So we get an urgent review when it is likely some deaths were wrongly included in Covid deaths, but we got no urgent review when it was clear that the Covid deaths were understated by a much larger amount in the early weeks?

It is good that lots of countries are consistent, but it would be better if so many countries didn't  undershoot the deaths.   

Sad that the reporter really thinks this means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 has actually reduced when the reality is that they haven't moved at all from the approximately 60,000 there were yesterday.

I think it is better to use a source that hasn't been nobbled by Hancock going forward

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality-monitor-Week-30-2020-v01-2020-08-04.pdf




Aren't these 2 things a bit different though. Being more accurate today, irrespective of the past numbers or pointless adjustments to them, is quite useful in terms of understanding and perceptions around risk today even if it's a lagging indicator. The all cause mortality is going to provide a better context to judge the whole approach taken during this pandemic. Reporting nonsensical numbers had to stop and I think Hancock and Co deserve more flack for that than correcting the approach.



I am not that bothered with changing the definition going forward, though given the length of the illness in some people 28 days feels short.  If you are in hospital 29 days after testing positive for Covid then there seems a pretty good chance your death was Covid related.  Even then I don't think it matters too much to overall planning, they seem to put much more reliance on testing now that the testing regime has improved.  As an aside where is the Matt Hancock urgent review of the inaccurate testing numbers which have been reported badly throughout? 

The removal of 5,000 previous Covid deaths bothers me much more; it is clear to most with expertise that the number was much more likely to be understated previously.  It seemds that you don't stop reporting nonsensical numbers by reporting a past number in a more incorrectly than before.  I don't think it really matters whether the right number id 58,756 or 61,324, about 60,000 is in the right ballpark and is fine for now, and has the advantage of not using the spurious accuracy that publishing overall numbers to the nearest death gives.

On the upside I think it is good that the ONS still seem to be reporting a bigger number, albeit still not as big as it could be.  I'd be more dismayed if they started cooking the books, it is really important they don't succumb to this political pressure.


Got a complete tinpot next door who's still talking about it being a hoax, and how the deaths are lower, ONS have had to include Scotland to try and bolster them.

I've got him muted, as he has a pillowcase to go with his tinfoil, but the forum logs you out every day and I always get caught out not logging in before I open threads.
Logged

neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1762


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2906 on: August 13, 2020, 08:56:17 PM »

Debating 41k Covid deaths or 65k excess deaths is surely moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Not sure anyone is saying that policy x should be acted upon or not  enacted because the deaths are only 41k not 65k.

IFR is still looking like 0.9%, with about 6% of the UK having had covid.

Being old, black, male or overweight makes the IFR much worse.

Schools go back in 3 weeks, is anyone thinking of not sending their kids back? I will send my daughter in but then she is young, white and female which makes the decision easier.

However I bet more than 10% of schools are closed by half term, especially secondary schools due to outbreaks.

Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #2907 on: August 13, 2020, 09:41:54 PM »

...
  If you are in hospital 29 days after testing positive for Covid then there seems a pretty good chance your death was Covid related.  ...


They are recording all deaths that have COVID19 on the death certificate.

They're also recording the excess mortality rate.

The deaths in hospital after 28 days is pretty much just a statistical tool to get consistency.

When deaths in hospital have been used as the official rate for previous epidemics nobody has batted an eyelid; it's only because it's now affecting us that anybody cares.

This might lead to an international discussion about standardised measurements, but for planning I would have thought as much data as possible and consistency with presenting it are probably the most important things.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1762


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2908 on: August 13, 2020, 10:10:26 PM »

France gets added to the quarantine list for 4am Saturday

The great race to the ports begins, tents will be collapsed in the dark as  000’s of of families with open ferry / tunnel tickets race to be over the channel in time. Like the Beaujolais run but less posh Smiley

Nigel Farage will be there finding an angle to get himself on tv.
Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #2909 on: August 14, 2020, 08:52:03 AM »

...
  If you are in hospital 29 days after testing positive for Covid then there seems a pretty good chance your death was Covid related.  ...


They are recording all deaths that have COVID19 on the death certificate.

They're also recording the excess mortality rate.

The deaths in hospital after 28 days is pretty much just a statistical tool to get consistency.

When deaths in hospital have been used as the official rate for previous epidemics nobody has batted an eyelid; it's only because it's now affecting us that anybody cares.

This might lead to an international discussion about standardised measurements, but for planning I would have thought as much data as possible and consistency with presenting it are probably the most important things.

In the insurance world I don't think the PRA would give us a bye from producing a more accurate number just because it was inconsistent with some smaller number from some previous year.   It just seems an unprofessional thing to do too.  Just report it as accurately as you can.

You have two known errors.  A large error that meant you understated past deaths and a small error that meant you overstated some past deaths.  If you are correcting your number for past deaths correcting the first seems more important and is something that has more urgency.   It wouldn't really bother me if they hadn't changed it, it is the big song and dance they made of discovering the second error; and then the urgent need to correct it after been happy to ignore the bigger error that would have made them look worse.  That is what grates. 

If you are correcting future errors then sure, you can make the change to future reporting.  But even then you should be aware of the potential understatement going forward.

I'd hope the people doing the future planning are aware of the weekness in their modelling, then maybe it doesn't matter so much.  If the right people are aware the real number is about 60k and not about 40k then guess we will be fine.

Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 ... 305 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.208 seconds with 21 queries.