COVID19

[nirvana]

10 deaths a day.   God knows what will happen to the economy if the deaths get back to 1000+ a day.   If 10m people tested positive for the flu (or any other health issue) but only 10 people a day were dying from it would the same thing be happening?  Numbers in hospitals have hardly changed for weeks either.   Most people who are going to die from this already have.  The Government has never done a better job for scaring the living daylights out of people irrationally.  People are still going to die from this for months or years but at 10 a day its just crazy the out of proportion reaction to this.

Why are just gross positive test results stated and not % of tests taken that are positive?  If we tested 5m people in the next week then obviously positive tests are going to go through the roof.   What am i missing?

Missing nothing imo.

Amongst others, met with a young Aunt and a cousin around 12 days ago at a mass spreader family event - deffo more than 6 of us there so you can imagine the fear - good news tho, no-one caught covid at the event.

Haven't seen either of them for about 5 months, one in NHS and one in a BUPA care environment. Interesting to hear their take - both described how bad it was early on which gave me a different appreciation of that time. Both with virtually no issues now.

Interesting too that NHS person, virtually no issues with PPE throughout, private care BUPA place, constantly understocked, running out - it's a good thing a BUPA care home doesn't cost much or you'd be fumming if you were a client.

[TightEnd]

not sure it can be described as a fun read, but a good read nonethless

"Into the wood-panelled briefing room they strode: Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Boris Johnson. The three amigos. The three musketeers. The two wise men and a hanger-on.

Johnson came last. Secret agents, on walking into a room, instinctively scan for exits and threats. The prime minister does the same, his eyes shifting quickly right and left, on the lookout for angry husbands or outraged international lawyers"

https://thecritic.co.uk/two-men-and-a-boris/

[TightEnd]

People who test +ve for COVID19 were TWICE AS LIKELY as controls to have visited a restaurant in the last week, in a CDC study.

Full paper at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm?s_cid=mm6936a5_w

"Eat Out to Help Out" looks a probable contributor to the current rising infection rate.

[Doobs]

People who test +ve for COVID19 were TWICE AS LIKELY as controls to have visited a restaurant in the last week, in a CDC study.

Full paper at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm?s_cid=mm6936a5_w

"Eat Out to Help Out" looks a probable contributor to the current rising infection rate.

I don't know how far we can stretch this.  The restaurant group is only about 100 people total over the test population and the control, so that can be significant. 

The bar/coffee shop/church/gym/public transport sample sizes are only 20 across the test population and the control.  Hence any useful conclusion isn't possible, so I think it would be better not to publish those charts.   I expect many people could just view the picture and conclude bars are safer than restaurants and that is definitely not proven here.  FWIW I had to check the paper as it wasn't clear what I was looking at and I work with stuff like this; so am assuming most other people just make a bad conclusion.

As it is I think it just seems obvious that given the age ranges of the spike in Covid cases, and the correspenence with the bars opening and eat out to help out, that both have contributed to a rise in the Covid cases.  It is hard to say how significant the effect was because we don't have a better study to look at. 

I did smile a bit when they blamed the young people for the spread in Covid, and yeah they are partially responsible, but what the hell did you expect to happen when you reopened the pubs and ran the eat out to help out promotion? 

Would love to see a better UK bases study, but can't imagine our Government paying for a survey that shows eat out to help out might have had a downside. 

[Jon MW]

People who test +ve for COVID19 were TWICE AS LIKELY as controls to have visited a restaurant in the last week, in a CDC study.

Full paper at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm?s_cid=mm6936a5_w

"Eat Out to Help Out" looks a probable contributor to the current rising infection rate.

I don't know how far we can stretch this.  The restaurant group is only about 100 people total over the test population and the control, so that can be significant. 

The bar/coffee shop/church/gym/public transport sample sizes are only 20 across the test population and the control.  Hence any useful conclusion isn't possible, so I think it would be better not to publish those charts.   I expect many people could just view the picture and conclude bars are safer than restaurants and that is definitely not proven here.  FWIW I had to check the paper as it wasn't clear what I was looking at and I work with stuff like this; so am assuming most other people just make a bad conclusion.

As it is I think it just seems obvious that given the age ranges of the spike in Covid cases, and the correspenence with the bars opening and eat out to help out, that both have contributed to a rise in the Covid cases.  It is hard to say how significant the effect was because we don't have a better study to look at. 

I did smile a bit when they blamed the young people for the spread in Covid, and yeah they are partially responsible, but what the hell did you expect to happen when you reopened the pubs and ran the eat out to help out promotion? 

Would love to see a better UK bases study, but can't imagine our Government paying for a survey that shows eat out to help out might have had a downside. 

In addition to what you have said, I would have thought the fact that it is a US study makes it difficult to draw conclusions from for the UK. Primarily because of a lack of information.

This only collected data from 11 health centre's in the US. The US is very big and different states have had different rules with different levels of compliance.

The difference between those rules and levels of compliance doubly compounded against comparing it to the UK rules and UK levels of compliance just leaves too much variance. I don't see how you could infer any reliable meaning from this study as applied to the UK.

Imperial College have been studying the epidemic, so far they've only really broken it down down demographically. It would be handy if they added an extra set of survey questions like this to their analysis to give a UK based version (and their study is much bigger so hopefully wouldn't have any issues with sample size).

[superwomble]

Grosvenor have just posted that the 'rule of six' does not apply to casino cash games and that they will continue to run with seven-handed games.

Is it because there are are screens between the players? If so, doesn't this open up a whole new grey area where we can meet up with more than five of our friends and family as long as there are screens between us all?

I haven't seen any mention of this loophole in any of the news items about the rule of six though.

[DaveShoelace]

Grosvenor have just posted that the 'rule of six' does not apply to casino cash games and that they will continue to run with seven-handed games.

Is it because there are are screens between the players? If so, doesn't this open up a whole new grey area where we can meet up with more than five of our friends and family as long as there are screens between us all?

I haven't seen any mention of this loophole in any of the news items about the rule of six though.

I think the six thing is just to stop gatherings in houses. The home, hospital and public transport are where people catch it the most and people are relaxed and whatnot. You can control a pub, a card room etc a lot easier.

Having said that, live poker still seems particularly dumb at the moment.

[superwomble]

Grosvenor have just posted that the 'rule of six' does not apply to casino cash games and that they will continue to run with seven-handed games.

Is it because there are are screens between the players? If so, doesn't this open up a whole new grey area where we can meet up with more than five of our friends and family as long as there are screens between us all?

I haven't seen any mention of this loophole in any of the news items about the rule of six though.

I think the six thing is just to stop gatherings in houses. The home, hospital and public transport are where people catch it the most and people are relaxed and whatnot. You can control a pub, a card room etc a lot easier.

Having said that, live poker still seems particularly dumb at the moment.

The news items I've seen about the new 'rule of six' all mentioned that it includes pubs, so I don't see how casinos would be different.

[StuartHopkin]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

[RED-DOG]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

Hi Stu.

I don't mean to be pedantic but how can we get back to normal if people are dying all over the place?

Which ever way I phrase that it seems argumentative and abrasive. I don't mean it to be, it's a genuine question.

x

[the sicilian]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

Hi Stu.

I don't mean to be pedantic but how can we get back to normal if people are dying all over the place?

Which ever way I phrase that it seems argumentative and abrasive. I don't mean it to be, it's a genuine question.

x

People are dying all over the place ? where is this reported ?.. as far as i can tell death rates dont seem to have been reported for a while

[RED-DOG]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

Hi Stu.

I don't mean to be pedantic but how can we get back to normal if people are dying all over the place?

Which ever way I phrase that it seems argumentative and abrasive. I don't mean it to be, it's a genuine question.

x

People are dying all over the place ? where is this reported ?.. as far as i can tell death rates dont seem to have been reported for a while

No, perhaps I put that badly.

What I mean is if we go back to normal before we get an effective vaccine I think people will start dying as a consequence.

[the sicilian]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

Hi Stu.

I don't mean to be pedantic but how can we get back to normal if people are dying all over the place?

Which ever way I phrase that it seems argumentative and abrasive. I don't mean it to be, it's a genuine question.

x

People are dying all over the place ? where is this reported ?.. as far as i can tell death rates dont seem to have been reported for a while

No, perhaps I put that badly.

What I mean is if we go back to normal before we get an effective vaccine I think people will start dying as a consequence.

Havent we been back to a degree of normal for about 4 months now ? we are for a better phrase crawling all over each for that time..enough of the population flout guidelines to have brought on what you would perceive a sharp rise in death rates but this hasnt happened. infection rates are up but this has to be literally the most meaningless number ever.. the numbers you need to know are deaths and numbers that actually needed treatment.. if you report 10,000 infections but if 9974 of them didnt require treatment and just went home and isolated what does that tell us

Yes covid is a thing..yes we need to protect those most vulnerable..but we also cant keep going round in circles praying for a rushed vaccine.

[arbboy]

10 people a day have been dying from it for weeks now.  Protests/pubs/gyms/eat out to help out all these triggers to increase cases but no increase in deaths and hospitals empty.   Why can't we just crack on and  if you are that worried stay indoors.

[StuartHopkin]

Had half an hour at Grosvenor Nottingham last night

They seemed to have made a good effort, door man ensuring masks worn on entry.

There was a cash game running but I was just there for a blackjack fix.

Seemed acceptable to take your mask off once sat at the table, perspex partitions weren't too much of a hindrance.

Spotted a poor bloke with a table converted into a chip sanitising station.

Scotch still tasted the same

All in all they seemed to be doing a pretty good job, but then I am quite happy with the idea that we need to get back to normal as much as we need to control the infection rate.

Hi Stu.

I don't mean to be pedantic but how can we get back to normal if people are dying all over the place?

Which ever way I phrase that it seems argumentative and abrasive. I don't mean it to be, it's a genuine question.

x

Hi Tom

No problem at all, I don't see it as either argumentative or abrasive. I think everyone's view point on this situation differs wildly so always interesting to discuss.

For me it's about balance, I might of worded my original post badly, I didn't mean everything should go completely back to normal.

So firstly as Dean said, people are no longer dying all over the place, there seems to be good evidence from the rest of the EU that the death rate for a second wave isn't going to match that of the first wave. Fingers crossed.

Secondly, I don't think the Government is doing a very good job on this, and I don't think it is at all clear which measures work and which don't.

The original lock down was always stated as ensuring that the NHS were not overwhelmed, currently they aren't, nor does it appear that they will be.

The lockdown has done untold damage on people's financial and mental health so there has to be a balance between getting things back to normal as far as reasonably possible and protecting both the NHS and people who are vulnerable.  

When put like that would you agree there has to be balance and maybe we're just slightly on different sides of the scale, or do you think restrictions should be harsher across the board whatever the cost is to economy etc?