Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's really still that bad. The numbers were improving for a while but it looks like they've plateaued now. They're banking a lot on current estimates of new cases (about 8000 per day, of which about 2000 are being seen in testing) and the hope that in two weeks time that'll equate to less than a hundred deaths per day.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is it really still that bad in the UK? If you didn't have to cover your face indoors you could easily forget about the virus in Germany.
Won't they say "we are recording deaths differently to many countries in the EU"?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is it really still that bad in the UK? If you didn't have to cover your face indoors you could easily forget about the virus in Germany and in comparison that picture makes quite the impression.
In thinking about why the UK was impact worse than others, I basically I think there's three broad categories to consider. Firstly, is what you might call the basic make up of a country - population density, age profile, number of ports, lifestyle habits, population attitudes to authority, stuff like that. If the UK is shown to be more susceptible due to, for example, an older population or more dense cities, then clearly Johnson can't be held responsible for that.But why are our numbers not coming down faster. No matter how much blame is heaped on the government it does not seem as if the Spanish, Italian, French or Netherlands governments fared much better at the start. So we were slower than most to react which is a big minus but virtually every country experienced an accute lack of PPE. Most countries failed to adequately protect those in care homes and although it’s difficult to do any meaningful comparisons on testing the indicators, as far as I can assertain, are that we are testing just as much if not more than most other EU countries. Italy and Spain for example seemed to have had more cases and deaths amongst their medical staff so why are our numbers so appalling in comparison? Is it that we should have insisted the guidance was obeyed rather than having ’advised’ that It was? Should we have rigorously enforced the rules and perhaps had armed police on the streets to ensure compliance? Is our vaunted NHS as good as we crack it up to be? Is patient recovery better in other countries? If so why? Could it perhaps be that we have a higher proportion of resident idiots? Do we shove the responsibility for looking after our frail and elderly more on our government than other nations? I genuinely am at a loss and simply reading that BoJo has fecked up does diddly squat for understanding or advancing any sort of worthwhile discussion.
That's a great summary. I'd put your final point as the number one reason why the UK is doing badly now - the lockdown wasn't a lockdown for many people. That "hour of exercise" gave people a lot of wriggle-room without infringing the rules.In thinking about why the UK was impact worse than others, I basically I think there's three broad categories to consider. Firstly, is what you might call the basic make up of a country - population density, age profile, number of ports, lifestyle habits, population attitudes to authority, stuff like that. If the UK is shown to be more susceptible due to, for example, an older population or more dense cities, then clearly Johnson can't be held responsible for that.
Secondly is the quality and quantity of its relevant infrastructure - the NHS and social care providers notably, but also factoring in the capacity of Whitehall, Public Health England, its Local Authorities, the third sector, and so on. Shrinking these structures has been the concerted aim of the Tories for a decade now, so if the state of these structures turns out to be a meaningful factor, then the Tories as a whole take responsibility for that.
Finally there's the handling of the crisis from the day news arrived on our shores - how quickly we locked down, how quickly testing came on line, how information and advice was communicated, the quality of the Government's communications, etc. Clearly this is 100% on Johnson and his team.
In the final reckoning it will be impossible to quantify exactly which of these factors was the most important. They all exacerbate each other after all. However I think that when you look at the issues that have cropped up, the diminished state of our public infrastructure and the uneven and frankly wonky response by Government have both been telling components.
Once when the Doctor declares them dead and once when the coroner declares the cause. Then once when the family book the funeral.Won't they say "we are recording deaths differently to many countries in the EU"?
This is was baffles me a bit tbh, I can't tell you how strictly the UK lockdown was enforced, but I know that Germany didn't even try to be anywhere near as strict with their measures, people were allowed to leave their homes freely (as long as they kept their distance to other people) and many made use of that, as I've never seen so many people going for walks or runs and bicycle stores must have had the time of their lives as well. Yet we only recorded a fraction of the deaths and came out of this (for now!) much more quickly.That's a great summary. I'd put your final point as the number one reason why the UK is doing badly now - the lockdown wasn't a lockdown for many people. That "hour of exercise" gave people a lot of wriggle-room without infringing the rules.
There was also no effective enforcement. In the European countries which were worst-hit, lockdown was comprehensive and strict. In addition, being outside the house had to be justified, there was paperwork to carry and the police were making lots of checks.
All countries with low death rates all link back to early and strong introduction of testing, tracking & tracing. The WHO said this very early on & it seems our government decided to go their own way.Why? Was it because Germany ramped up testing much quicker? Was it because Cheltenham was allowed to take place?
I think that it all depends on where the virus circulated within your country. If you look at french stats, two regions were hit hard and the rest didn't really see the virus, the difference between regions wasn't testing. I would say that luck played a big role.This is was baffles me a bit tbh, I can't tell you how strictly the UK lockdown was enforced, but I know that Germany didn't even try to be anywhere near as strict with their measures, people were allowed to leave their homes freely (as long as they kept their distance to other people) and many made use of that, as I've never seen so many people going for walks or runs and bicycle stores must have had the time of their lives as well. Yet we only recorded a fraction of the deaths and came out of this (for now!) much more quickly.
Why? Was it because Germany ramped up testing much quicker? Was it because Cheltenham was allowed to take place?
Numerous inquests will no doubt cover that, some media and opposition politicians tried but were criticised in trying to play party politics. In reality the time to hold them account is in the early days of this crisis, some on here were very vocal in others calling out the government early on. Those calling them out are now being proven right.Is there a point where Government officials need to be looked at for decisions that were so bad, that they need to be tried and potentially punished for them?
I remember those banging on about herd immunity like it was the most sensible option and you were stupid if you didn't think soNumerous inquests will no doubt cover that, some media and opposition politicians tried but were criticised in trying to play party politics. In reality the time to hold them account is in the early days of this crisis, some on here were very vocal in others calling out the government early on. Those calling them out are now being proven right.
But isn't spread(containment) a function of testing? Germany's first hot spot (Heinsberg) was 45 minutes by car from Düsseldorf, which is closely linked with the Ruhr area and Cologne, around 7 million people in a fairly densely populated area.I think that it all depends on where the virus circulated within your country. If you look at french stats, two regions were hit hard and the rest didn't really see the virus, the difference between regions wasn't testing. I would say that luck played a big role.
No, there was no more testing in the rest of the country. I think that in the future we will realize that the spreads were linked to very specific contexts. In Mulhouse we know exactly what happened, it's a big religious events that caused the epidemic.But isn't spread(containment) a function of testing? Germany's first hot spot (Heinsberg) was 45 minutes by car from Düsseldorf, which is closely linked with the Ruhr area and Cologne, around 7 million people in a fairly densely populated area.
It isn't the reading that the government has mucked up dealing with this virus.But why are our numbers not coming down faster. No matter how much blame is heaped on the government it does not seem as if the Spanish, Italian, French or Netherlands governments fared much better at the start. So we were slower than most to react which is a big minus but virtually every country experienced an accute lack of PPE. Most countries failed to adequately protect those in care homes and although it’s difficult to do any meaningful comparisons on testing the indicators, as far as I can assertain, are that we are testing just as much if not more than most other EU countries. Italy and Spain for example seemed to have had more cases and deaths amongst their medical staff so why are our numbers so appalling in comparison? Is it that we should have insisted the guidance was obeyed rather than having ’advised’ that It was? Should we have rigorously enforced the rules and perhaps had armed police on the streets to ensure compliance? Is our vaunted NHS as good as we crack it up to be? Is patient recovery better in other countries? If so why? Could it perhaps be that we have a higher proportion of resident idiots? Do we shove the responsibility for looking after our frail and elderly more on our government than other nations? I genuinely am at a loss and simply reading that BoJo has fecked up does diddly squat for understanding or advancing any sort of worthwhile discussion.
Which is where “luck” plays less of a role. Countries that allowed mass gatherings to go ahead when the virus was already rife seem to have done particularly badly. When you saw events like Cheltenham and Stereophonics concerts going ahead in the Uk you could see this current disaster coming.No, there was no more testing in the rest of the country. I think that in the future we will realize that the spreads were linked to very specific contexts. In Mulhouse we know exactly what happened, it's a big religious events that caused the epidemic.
I think it’s all about those mass events. The worst thing about mass events is that it attracts people from all over the country, who then go back home and seed the virus in a new area. The UK has been hit absolutely everywhere. No region spared. Which is most likely the main reason for the long tail.But why are our numbers not coming down faster. No matter how much blame is heaped on the government it does not seem as if the Spanish, Italian, French or Netherlands governments fared much better at the start. So we were slower than most to react which is a big minus but virtually every country experienced an accute lack of PPE. Most countries failed to adequately protect those in care homes and although it’s difficult to do any meaningful comparisons on testing the indicators, as far as I can assertain, are that we are testing just as much if not more than most other EU countries. Italy and Spain for example seemed to have had more cases and deaths amongst their medical staff so why are our numbers so appalling in comparison? Is it that we should have insisted the guidance was obeyed rather than having ’advised’ that It was? Should we have rigorously enforced the rules and perhaps had armed police on the streets to ensure compliance? Is our vaunted NHS as good as we crack it up to be? Is patient recovery better in other countries? If so why? Could it perhaps be that we have a higher proportion of resident idiots? Do we shove the responsibility for looking after our frail and elderly more on our government than other nations? I genuinely am at a loss and simply reading that BoJo has fecked up does diddly squat for understanding or advancing any sort of worthwhile discussion.
I read here in this study that mean duration of inpatient stay is about 7 days. Which I find a bit strange because on non-ITU covid wards it seems like we try and manage them for absolutely ages after unsuccessful conversations with ITU registrars/consultants that they're for ward based ceiling of care and its just a case of manging their sats and supporting with fluids (occasionally the odd unforeseen medical quirk usually a rash or bloods so deranged that your consultant sometimes arbitrarily decides need further ix and specialist advice)I think it’s all about those mass events. The worst thing about mass events is that it attracts people from all over the country, who then go back home and seed the virus in a new area. The UK has been hit absolutely everywhere. No region spared. Which is most likely the main reason for the long tail.
I wonder how high a % of BAME population the uk has compared to other European countries?I read here in this study that mean duration of inpatient stay is about 7 days. Which I find a bit strange because on non-ITU covid wards it seems like we try and manage them for absolutely ages after unsuccessful conversations with ITU registrars/consultants that they're for ward based ceiling of care and its just a case of manging their sats and supporting with fluids (occasionally the odd unforeseen medical quirk usually a rash or bloods so deranged that your consultant sometimes arbitrarily decides need further ix and specialist advice)
The range of inpatient stay is absolutely huge, the ones that pass quickly I think skew that mean value substantially but vast majority it feels like we treat them unsuccessfully for AGES before they pass away, its awful because it gives families false hope
I digress but I wonder whether differences between how we manage inpatients versus other countries accounts for a longer tail as well. In general I mean new cases and deaths is still on a gentle downward trend if possible a bit static now. Think we just need a bit longer to observer. Perhaps its just an uncomfortable truth that we just have unhealthier overall population comparatively which means a slightly higher CFR for us.
COVID wards are getting busier though according to our local incident centre in the midlands and ITU have tightened up admission criteria here. Flow is manageable though. So we're bracing ourselves. Advanced care planning has been a HUGE help.
https://www.ft.com/content/5fd6ab18-be4a-48de-b887-8478a391dd72I wonder how high a % of BAME population the uk has compared to other European countries?
Yeah, you'd have thought so.Or at least be able to get that question answered somewhere other than a football forum.
For the whole of Germany, the RKI publish a daily report with a current estimate of the R number, because Germans are great stats nerds.It's supposed to be Berlin, the rest of Germany is allegedly at 0.89 but I haven't really seen a lot of reports confirming it.
Thanks.For the whole of Germany, the RKI publish a daily report with a current estimate of the R number, because Germans are great stats nerds.
This is the latest (from yesterday)
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ...chte/2020-06-03-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
The current daily R-value is 0.71 and the 7-day average (which is less subject to big fluctuations) is 0.83. So they seem to be doing well still, even if there is an local outbreak in Berlin.
Bang will go that theory of once you get it ,you won't get it again.So how will the UK government spin things if Johnson catches Covid for a 'second' time?
It’s interesting the way R varies so much from place to place, even within a country, when it used to be talked of purely as a function of how infective the virus is. Just goes to show that a one size fits all approach doesn’t make sense.For the whole of Germany, the RKI publish a daily report with a current estimate of the R number, because Germans are great stats nerds.
This is the latest (from yesterday)
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ...chte/2020-06-03-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
The current daily R-value is 0.71 and the 7-day average (which is less subject to big fluctuations) is 0.83. So they seem to be doing well still, even if there is an local outbreak in Berlin.
Presumably in a vacuum it would (not spread at all) represent a relative constant for any single strain however in the real world it is more indicative of behavioural and environmental variables than the virus' actual infection rate?It’s interesting the way R varies so much from place to place, even within a country, when it used to be talked of purely as a function of how infective the virus is. Just goes to show that a one size fits all approach doesn’t make sense.
Pretty much, yeah. Although when it comes to epidemiological models that are used to influence Public Health measures you have to go with a single R-value. And that really is a function of the virus itself.Presumably in a vacuum it would (not spread at all) represent a relative constant for any single strain however in the real world it is more indicative of behavioural and environmental variables than the virus' actual infection rate?
And I guess this macro function proves itself to be all but useless when there is such a massive variations in local areas and it's being used to drive policies at national level?Pretty much, yeah. Although when it comes to epidemiological models that are used to influence Public Health measures you have to go with a single R-value. And that really is a function of the virus itself.
Kucharski and others have commented that R is not that useful metric to use once the number of cases gets low. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it as a daily/regional metric for places where the daily infections are <50. Works better at national level or 7-day average.It’s interesting the way R varies so much from place to place, even within a country, when it used to be talked of purely as a function of how infective the virus is. Just goes to show that a one size fits all approach doesn’t make sense.
Yes, that makes sense.Kucharski and others have commented that R is not that useful metric to use once the number of cases gets low. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it as a daily/regional metric for places where the daily infections are <50. Works better at national level or 7-day average.
Whoah. That blurry effect thing is cool.And I guess this macro function proves itself to be all but useless when there is such a massive variations in local areas and it's being used to drive policies at national level?
NATION
NATION
NATIONAL
NATIONAL LEVEL
One key stat posted before on Germany and for every other country is how many elderly get infected.69% of Germany's cases were among those aged 15-59, so their overall hospitalisation % was 18%. In New York, 57% of cases were over 65. Among those aged 18-44, the hospitalisation rate was 16%, while for those 65+ it was 64%.
That booking slots thing sounds mental. Can you not just take blood off each other on the wards and send it off to the lab?So they just rolled out the serology antibody test in my trust three days ago. Initially all got excited as we were told they could process 1000 tests per day, turns out the limit is around 50 at best.
Its a bitch to get time off work too and most of the slots get used up by admin-y types (rolled out to all staff including secretaries etc) or clinical staff with more time on their hands (usually in specialities that aren't seeing many covid patients unless referred). We're not being allowed time off to get testing done which is usually in the morning from lead clinicians as its during busy morning ward round times (unless presumably we take annual leave).
And they're rolling it out to different sites within the trust but started off at a hospital that doesn't have covid wards or ITU but will make its way towards us "soon".
I swear to god so much of the NHS would be better managed if they had more doctors in charge of things and not the jobsworth manager-types. Government will be hailing this scheme any second now.
Most of those stats are just skewed because NY/Italy didn't have time to test younger people. Germany it seems just got a bit lucky to start with and then did testing well.One key stat posted before on Germany and for every other country is how many elderly get infected.
Though we should say it's not just all older people and everyone should be careful, most deaths are over 60 years old in Europe. Even when Germany wasn't testing much and everyone was saying why is Germany's deaths rate so low, it's always skewed younger for some reason and not due to ICU count. If any hard hit country had the same stats, Spain, Italy UK would have low deaths like Germany but how does that younger skew come about?
Japan haven't tested much, have the eldest population and 120 million total in a small piece of land and is built up like New York in parts. Experts said Hong Kong and Japan would be hard hit. Some in the media have been waiting for Japan as they've done nothing of what you're supposed to.
I've said before with Germany's loose lockdown, many flaunting and football still continuing like UK is that the huge testing could've played a big part. I can see each country skewing younger initially. Those that get tested will take the isolation seriously even if some of the larger population don't. What I've heard is there was some contact tracing but how much? Some Germans would get a home visit to be tested if someone they knew or come into contact with was positive or in hospital. It seems Germany got the testing ramped up just in time to stop going out of control.
Perhaps how the older people live, residential areas, care homes and how they're structured and society in general is a massive factor In Germany. In March I've said multiple times we have to test people regularly who work and visit elderly people. Did Germany do focused testing in these areas or just been lucky or circumstances are different.
It might be the same for many people across Europe but UK has in my experience whether rich or poor, so many elderly people babysitting children, picking them up from school and many as teens they live with their grand parents due to falling out with their parents or parents splitting up.
R is at 0.71 as of yesterday.I saw something on the news last night about the German r number increasing to around 2.
But cannot find any supporting news sites or articles today. Did I dream that?
Mandatory? It's still a case of you being the weird one if you are wearing a mask.Most of those stats are just skewed because NY/Italy didn't have time to test younger people. Germany it seems just got a bit lucky to start with and then did testing well.
Japan is explained by mask-wearing culture. No other explanation, as they did nothing in the hope of organising the olympics.
Is there mandatory mask wearing anywhere in UK, shops or public transport?
Well that explains a lot. From all the unfortunate mistakes from your government, that is in top 3, I would argue.Mandatory? It's still a case of you being the weird one if you are wearing a mask.
I've seen single digits of people wearing masks but I've not been into London for months.
Edit, talk about timing i pressed submit and then got a notification pop up that we've just made them mandatory on transportation
