Seems a pretty pointless table at this point as all countries are at different stages of the timeline. The UK is quite far behind so our numbers will be significantly higher.
Country Population Deaths Per Million Spain 46 Million (approx) 402 Belgium 11 Million (approx) 383 Italy 60 Million (approx) 358 France 65 Million (approx) 263 UK 67 Million (approx) 190 Netherlands 17 Million (approx) 183 Germany 83 Million (approx) 83
Whilst its clear Germany stands out as having clearly managed the situation exceptionally well (at least so far) and of course although most countries seem to think they are at or just past peak there will be some further movement in the figures would it be fair to say that although the UK government has clearly made some (significant) errors (eg not participating in the ventilator scheme, testing of front line NHS staff, PPE ) overall they seem to be doing better than most comparable countries (i.e. EU countries with populations over 10 million and advanced healthcare systems)? at least using the metric of deaths per capita which I think ultimatley probably has to be the most comparable metric amongst nations (given there may be some discrepency over what deaths are linked to CV19 but overall would still seem most comparable)
Is Macron in trouble for his handling in France for example?
Also Belgium seems dramatically different from both Holland and France which seems hard to explain at least when thinking in geographic terms
The German number is 45...
Country Population Deaths Per Million Spain 46 Million (approx) 402 Belgium 11 Million (approx) 383 Italy 60 Million (approx) 358 France 65 Million (approx) 263 UK 67 Million (approx) 190 Netherlands 17 Million (approx) 183 Germany 83 Million (approx) 83
Whilst its clear Germany stands out as having clearly managed the situation exceptionally well (at least so far) and of course although most countries seem to think they are at or just past peak there will be some further movement in the figures would it be fair to say that although the UK government has clearly made some (significant) errors (eg not participating in the ventilator scheme, testing of front line NHS staff, PPE ) overall they seem to be doing better than most comparable countries (i.e. EU countries with populations over 10 million and advanced healthcare systems)? at least using the metric of deaths per capita which I think ultimatley probably has to be the most comparable metric amongst nations (given there may be some discrepency over what deaths are linked to CV19 but overall would still seem most comparable)
Is Macron in trouble for his handling in France for example?
Also Belgium seems dramatically different from both Holland and France which seems hard to explain at least when thinking in geographic terms
Thanks for posting this.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/number-coronavirus-pandemic
Quite grim reading here but sadly I suspect very accurate. This is going to go on for a very long time.
Damn.As I write the UK is reporting more than 10,000 deaths from Covid-19. Due to the realities of collecting data during an infectious disease emergency like this, that is likely to be an underestimate. Again, if we assume this is the peak and there is the same number on the way down that’s 20,000 total from the initial surge. And to get to population immunity you have to multiply that by at least 30: based on the current data, that’s about 600,000 deaths to get there, minimum.
With really early, aggressive testing and contact tracing you might be able to keep the R0 at the same level as lockdown, while removing some of the lockdown measures. Emphasis on “some”. Putting us in lockdown was supposed to buy the government time to ramp up testing and contact tracing capacity. Which has been nowhere near good enough so far.Came to post this. Maybe im being stupid but...
Surely the only reason they have got the infection rate to 1 is social distancing and therefore loosening those restrictions will increase in to 1.1 1.2 1.3 etc that she has basically said will ruin their health service?
Or how else do you reduce the infection rate across the board like that?
It depends what you mean by reliable. When you’re looking for something with a low prevalence you need a level of sensitivity/specificity that is incredibly hard to achieve. I think we’re going to have to compromise and roll out the best available with an acknowledgment that it will be fundamentally flawed but we’ll have to make do.Have we actually got an accurate serological test yet? Italy is planning to start doing them from next week but i didn't know we had found a reliable one yet - https://www.lombardianotizie.online/test-sierologici/
With really early, aggressive testing and contact tracing you might be able to keep the R0 at the same level as lockdown, while removing some of the lockdown measures. Emphasis on “some”. Putting us in lockdown was supposed to buy the government time to ramp up testing and contact tracing capacity. Which has been nowhere near good enough so far.
That’s the ideal scenario anyway. My concern is people acting like idiots and immediately throwing a party as soon as some of the lockdown measures are rolled back. That and asymptomatic spread.
It's also worth noting the time frame she gives. She said they assume that at 1.1 it would take until October to reach full ICU capacity. That's six months. Unless you get a massive spike in infection rate instantly there seems to be quite a bit of room to maneuver and if it doesn't work out you always know (or sadly: assume) that you're capable to reset it back to 1 with stricter measures.Yeah it's basically going to be a trial and error situation - they will release some lockdown measures with the warning of "Don't fecking make us do this again if we don't have to". If the crazy parties start straight away, boom, 3 more weeks of stricter lockdown. If people more or less behave, great. I think there's a majority in the country that would happily abide by some rules as long as some of their liberties are returned and they can start earning money again. Basically like rubbing a dog's nose in a puddle of its own urine.
As you said yourself, the government's aims for this lockdown haven't been achieved and that's probably because they're full of shit and don't have the capabilities at the moment to achieve those aims.
So my understanding of their lack of sensitivity is that these tests may return a false negative, but there's no chance they will return a false positive? So they would be fail safe in a way - nobody who hasn't had it is going to be sent out thinking they're immune.It depends what you mean by reliable. When you’re looking for something with a low prevalence you need a level of sensitivity/specificity that is incredibly hard to achieve. I think we’re going to have to compromise and roll out the best available with an acknowledgment that it will be fundamentally flawed but we’ll have to make do.
Its up and down here. We've had a lot more helicopters overhead the last few days and police checkpoints, but there also seems to be more people about.The lockdown is being more strictly enforced here now. I went to the bank and the pharmacy (took the dogs as they get no walks these days), and while I was waiting outside the pharmacy the local police were stopping every single car going in and out of the village. They also spoke to me and to two other pedestrians. I had to show them my ID to satisfy them that I was entitled to be there.
Deaths per million is pretty pointless since every country has another way of reporting deaths. Due to the the dramatic scenes at our elderly homes, every death there is reported as a Covid-19 death. That's why our numbers are so inflated, I think there are other countries who only report 100% confirmed cases or sometimes even just deaths occurring in hospitals.Also Belgium seems dramatically different from both Holland and France which seems hard to explain at least when thinking in geographic terms
There's another expert who's saying it's already burning out.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/number-coronavirus-pandemic
Quite grim reading here but sadly I suspect very accurate. This is going to go on for a very long time.
There's another expert who's saying it's already burning out.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...-uk-restrictions-measures-lifted-covid-19-nhs
The reality, I suspect, is something in-between.
Well in my view what will happen is that if there is civil disobedience and people go about their business as usual, you'll see a massive spike of infections and deaths. People will then have to go back to enforced isolation and govts may need to be heavy handed in that regard.Exactly that. They're not really bothered about it. If you get it you get it seems to be the overriding opinion. I think it's coming from the small amount of actual deaths, especially in younger age ranges.. Friends of mine are seeing their livelihoods disappear, decades of savings shrivel... I think people will generally behave for another few weeks but after that it'll be more dangerous to keep people inside than letting them out.
They've got a point certainly, even if many will feel its premature. Where do we draw the line? A few weeks inside? OK. A few months? Hmmm. A year? Not happening, regardless of how many people die.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Many countries have passed "increased or changed surveillance" related laws to ensure improved virus tracking capability. Doubt these laws will be reversed after the virus crisis is over.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Many countries have passed "increased or changed surveillance" related laws to ensure improved virus tracking capability. Doubt these laws will be reversed after the virus crisis is over.
Increased surveillance and more active policing. What's not to like...
Oh, that's the guy who gave "three-month" prognosis to the Lockerbie bomber which had him released from jail on compassionate grounds.There's another expert who's saying it's already burning out.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...-uk-restrictions-measures-lifted-covid-19-nhs
The reality, I suspect, is something in-between.
The doom mongering in here is astonishing to me. How the feck can anyone know what the situation will be like in 4 months, that's a very big timeframe.Definitely. If it was all doom and gloom there wouldn't be a single country in Europe releasing any lockdown measures and the opposite is true. Likewise, we're not going to be in beer gardens and going to gigs by June. The truth is somewhere in between and I view that as a positive.
I am very much looking forward to the pubs re-opening and meeting my pals for far too many to be healthy cold pints in a sunny beer garden. I'll likely burst into tears when it actually happens I'll be so happy. Having said that, I'll not be surprised if I need to postpone that thought until next summer. Really hope I'm wrong though.The doom mongering in here is astonishing to me. How the feck can anyone know what the situation will be like in 4 months, that's a very big timeframe.
I agree with your view. Do think however that pubs will open again by the start of the summer, otherwise a lot of them will simply go out of business.
Not trying to side with police actions but it seemed to me that the journalist wasn’t really helping himself by hanging around too! I have no idea why that lady was being charged but what was surprising is the lack of protective gear for the police officer taking her to the van.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Point is so many so called experts are giving wildly different timeframes, I only linked that one cause that was the most recent I saw.Oh, that's the guy who gave "three-month" prognosis to the Lockerbie bomber which had him released from jail on compassionate grounds.
I wouldn't trust his judgement. Plus this is not even his field. I guess the Express couldn't find anyone else.
The lockdown won't last forever, but things will be on edge for a long while we figure out a way to stop it overwhelming the NHS. Lockdowns may be off and on for the next year, as needed to keep the virus under control.The doom mongering in here is astonishing to me. How the feck can anyone know what the situation will be like in 4 months, that's a very big timeframe.
I agree with your view. Do think however that pubs will open again by the start of the summer, otherwise a lot of them will simply go out of business.
That rubbing a dog’s nose in its own piss analogy is really weird and doesn’t remotely apply here.Yeah it's basically going to be a trial and error situation - they will release some lockdown measures with the warning of "Don't fecking make us do this again if we don't have to". If the crazy parties start straight away, boom, 3 more weeks of stricter lockdown. If people more or less behave, great. I think there's a majority in the country that would happily abide by some rules as long as some of their liberties are returned and they can start earning money again. Basically like rubbing a dog's nose in a puddle of its own urine.
As you said yourself, the government's aims for this lockdown haven't been achieved and that's probably because they're full of shit and don't have the capabilities at the moment to achieve those aims.
The doom mongering in here is astonishing to me. How the feck can anyone know what the situation will be like in 4 months, that's a very big timeframe.
I agree with your view. Do think however that pubs will open again by the start of the summer, otherwise a lot of them will simply go out of business.
He was filming the arrest(While also standing at a safe distance), right ?Not trying to side with police actions but it seemed to me that the journalist wasn’t really helping himself by hanging around too! I have no idea why that lady was being charged but what was surprising is the lack of protective gear for the police officer taking her to the van.
It's a clumsy analogy and I don't think it's all that effective in dogs but I get what he means.That rubbing a dog’s nose in its own piss analogy is really weird and doesn’t remotely apply here.
Anything less than 100% sensitivity will create false negatives. Anything less than 100% specificity will create false positives. It's more or less impossible to create tests with 100% sensitivity and specificity that are cheap/easy enough to use that they could be rolled out on a large scale. With the way this thing spreads, even a handful of false positives could trigger a huge outbreak.So my understanding of their lack of sensitivity is that these tests may return a false negative, but there's no chance they will return a false positive? So they would be fail safe in a way - nobody who hasn't had it is going to be sent out thinking they're immune.
The lockdown won't last forever, but things will be on edge for a long while we figure out a way to stop it overwhelming the NHS. Lockdowns may be off and on for the next year, as needed to keep the virus under control.
Well either that or the government goes full Brazil and tells us all to get on with it and die quietly if we have to. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Oh I definitely agree that things won't be back to normal for quite some time, but some of the suggestions in here (i.e. lockdowns until 2021 I've seen mentioned) are just ridiculous. Once the peak in the UK is over, it's about managing the load for the NHS, and indeed not overwhelming should now be the priority. However, you have people going on "how can we have football in autumn when NHS resources are necessary for that" and that's just weird, because no one knows how the situation will be by then. I'd say we have much bigger fish to fry if by then 100% of NHS resources are still necessary to combat Covid-19.If the alternative is 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands more people dying then no the pubs won't be opening by the start of the summer.
It's not doom-mongering to say that it'll be a long time before things go back to normal. We're only at the start of this thing and there's no vaccine in sight so I'd say it's delusionally optimistic to think pubs will be open by the start of the summer.
I don't understand. The police are right in my opinion. It doesn't matter that he is a journalist. He can either continue exercising or go home. He continued to try and argue with them that because he is journalist he has the right to stay? Why?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It definitely doesn't work with dogs, because they don't have the cognitive ability to understand why you're being so cruel to them. It's punishment without learning. It doesn't apply here because humans do have the ability to work out why this lockdown is necessary. Despite some people (including the poster I was responding to) being wilfully awkward/obtuse.It's a clumsy analogy and I don't think it's all that effective in dogs but I get what he means.
Well i am not sure filming an incident at a safe distance is considered an essential activity. The officers correctly pointed this out and the journalist looking for a story (a real shocker) indicated he was out for exercise but decided to film. I suppose everyone has a right to their opinion. I don’t see this particular incident as evidence of police infringing public rights. Perhaps there are incidences that show this but not this one imo.He was filming the arrest(While also standing at a safe distance), right ?
Given that the Police are the ones enforcing the law in peacetimes, and that a number of the people becoming police due to its authoritative roles, the importance of clear national guidelines of how they operate is of utmost importance.Strike while the iron is hot. I always suspected the government would take advantage of a crisis like this to slide in the odd change that, at present, will be for public good but beyond that will be for insidious reasons. Hopefully that's not the case but right now, we do need a harder approach like this (within fecking reason) as it's for the greater good.
Given that the Police are the ones enforcing the law in peacetimes, and that a number of the people becoming police due to its authoritative roles, the importance of clear national guidelines of how they operate is of utmost importance.
I'm sure countries will try to find such medium. I'm just not optimistic that they will work. It's very infectious and not even 1% of the population is immune now. It's likely we'll hit multiple peaks, some much bigger than this, while trying to find such medium.Point is so many so called experts are giving wildly different timeframes, I only linked that one cause that was the most recent I saw.
The only guarentee is we need to find a happy medium to somewhat cope with the virus, we don't know how long it will be prelevant to whatever degree, obviously in an ideal world the prophet is right but I don't think anyone banking on it.
Unless I'm wrong it's still legal to film in the UK ? Also standing still hasn't been made illegal, right ? It's not constant jumping jacks or go home(If he started jogging on the spot would that have made the situation better ?)I don't understand. The police are right. It doesn't matter that he is a journalist. He can either continue exercising or go home. He continued to try and argue with them that because he is journalist he has the right to stay? Why?
At no point does that video even vaguely suggest there won’t be.They've done exceptionally well but there's no way there won't be another lockdown after the restrictions are loosened. Many are in for a rude awakening.
