Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Chalkythedog

War Hero
You'd think that after three weeks of a proper hard lockdown like that, that infections would fall to really low levels and three-or-four weeks after that deaths would be really low.

So six-weeks tops.

As a matter of interest, I wonder why this didn't happen?
Because lockdown is not a therapy. It's a punishment.
 
Because lockdown is not a therapy. It's a punishment.
A punishment for what ?

Actually it's a preventative measure to lower the spread of disease and hopefully stop the hospitals from getting swamped. However, I do agree that the terminology is wrong, for example the Wuhan lockdown was more apt in names terms.
 

Truxx

LE
You'd think that after three weeks of a proper hard lockdown like that, that infections would fall to really low levels and three-or-four weeks after that deaths would be really low.

So six-weeks tops.

As a matter of interest, I wonder why this didn't happen?
A really good question, I think that they were slow off the mark to begin with. Other than that I have no idea, but could certainly ask
 

Norsemaid

Clanker
Covid has overtaken flu for the NHS heebie jeebies about bed space n all although as down near my neck of the woods a nightingale hospital is now being used for patients with covid so I would have thought we don't need to worry as much about bed space . I mean. We need to be concerned about poorly people of course .
The thing is we see how America isn't having much fu n with covid seemingly running riot , although it wasn't slowing down much in the summer either, so doing nowt isn't helpful. So these measures in the U.K. seem to me to be about slowing down the rate of transmission to a comfortable level until the vaccines are in full swing .
Respiratory illnesses do seem More troublesome in the winter e.g. Cold s and flu and they have shown us that for decades , so for now these annoying but necessary restrictions are in place .
We either let it rip through the country ,restrict our movement so severely for months or take the middle ground until the vaccines are dished out.
 

WightMivvi

War Hero
He's got his eye on the post-covid investigation; it'll take a few years to do and will be published closer to the next election.
Save time and money. Give me £1m and I’ll produce a summary that’s good enough:

It was a new emerging disease.

Our epidemic plans were designed for a flu-type spread so were not fit for purpose. This was unavoidable.

We had enough PPE, but NHS logistics were crap. We solved that by deploying the army.

We used the best science available at the time. With hindsight, the best science was flawed but it was all we had to go on,

Alternatice approaches were discounted as the science was unproven.

yadda yadda yadda.
 
He's got his eye on the post-covid investigation; it'll take a few years to do and will be published closer to the next election.

Which is why he's not arsed about the 'invisible deaths' (cancer/suicides/stroke/heart attacks/etc); he's just arsed about covid and ensuring he does all he can to mitigate those - highly visible - deaths.

It's why they're not producing an impact statement; if they did it would be harder to lock us down knowing the consequences of that.
So I guess it goes something like this. Boris to says "business profits matter more than whether your granny lives". The investigation publishes it findings just before the election and they say "your granny died because of Boris and the Tories".

Boris gets kicked out and the new government is a Labour-Lib-Dem coalition. Six months later you're back in the EU and the ruling elites will make sure that you never, ever, ever, get another chance at a Brexit referendum again.
 

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19​



By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020

pasted-image-0


COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.

She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.

The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master’s candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand’s concluding remarks.
“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.


Source*: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

*now removed

This chart seems to show a completely different story, with a very noticeable spike in deaths in April.

Screenshot_2020-11-27 Weekly deaths in England and Wales 2020 Statista.png
 
Scaremongering or reality or pure BS ....the Fail is wallowing in misery as in predicted misery for the new year .



Judging from the reader comments some of them seem reasonable thought out ...as in throwing out conspiracy theory

cheers
 
Scaremongering or reality or pure BS ....the Fail is wallowing in misery as in predicted misery for the new year .



Judging from the reader comments some of them seem reasonable thought out ...as in throwing out conspiracy theory

cheers
Bozo moved right along to Easter in his little speech the other day without a pause, if you're optimistic you can think 2021.

Witless or Unbalanced were telling us why harsher tiers are needed to drive the virus down now so you fools can have Xmas. Then forgot the 2-3 week lag when it came to explaining how effective LD2 had been, obviously now we've flipped back to the deaths rate it isn't anymore; he must have rested his pen over the positive test results and missed it??
And naturally if you hug an oldster you will be responsible for their death.

IDS is suggesting SAGE is in charge:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith: SAGE to blame for forcing England into Tier 3 - YouTube

And for some reason the WHO seem to think proof of something is required and not just relying on being told its right.
WHO needs 'more than press release' on Oxford jab, says vaccines chief (msn.com)

They really need to follow this wise advice.
How To Be More Obedient - YouTube
 
This chart seems to show a completely different story, with a very noticeable spike in deaths in April.

View attachment 524321

Yeah there is no debate about the excess deaths. That presentation at JHU was drivel and has been replaced by a mea culpa about the mistakes.

The UK excess death stats are here:

En1H7NAXYAMr0AQ.png
 
It hasn't actually been a "lockdown" in the UK and transmission of the virus is extremely hard to stop. That's it.
??

Just luck the hospitals weren't overwhelmed then?
Coz its coming:
Covid: Hospitals could be overwhelmed without new tiers, says Gove - BBC News
Any day now.
And obviously Vit D doesn't work at all so here have some.
Covid: Free Vitamin D pills for 2.5 million vulnerable in England - BBC News
Yeah there is no debate about the excess deaths. That presentation at JHU was drivel and has been replaced by a mea culpa about the mistakes.

The UK excess death stats are here:

View attachment 524324
So on a par with 2017 at this time of year then, but not as bad as 2018:
1606546837522.png

Kinda what you'd expect with a new deadly virus.
 
??

Just luck the hospitals weren't overwhelmed then?
Coz its coming:
Covid: Hospitals could be overwhelmed without new tiers, says Gove - BBC News
Any day now.
And obviously Vit D doesn't work at all so here have some.
Covid: Free Vitamin D pills for 2.5 million vulnerable in England - BBC News

So on a par with 2017 at this time of year then, but not as bad as 2018:
View attachment 524325
Kinda what you'd expect with a new deadly virus.

Are you somehow ignoring the huge spike in deaths this year?

What, precisely, is your point? What do you think the government should do?
 
You'd think that after three weeks of a proper hard lockdown like that, that infections would fall to really low levels and three-or-four weeks after that deaths would be really low.

So six-weeks tops.

As a matter of interest, I wonder why this didn't happen?


Here's a theory:

Because, restricting people's movements as is/was being done isn't going slow the spread by anything like a meaningful amount - not while you allow nearly every household to visit a common space that involves pretty close proximity, and many surfaces and objects that will be touched by multiple visitors. If the virus was bright green, and visible to the naked eye, perhaps - within a week - supermarkets would be covered in green to at least shoulder level?

Mum comes home from doing the shopping alone and washes her hands, but her clothes and hair have traces of green. A bit of normal social interaction with the other members of the household, and...

Meanwhile, Granny Vulnerableperson receives a box of groceries from the nice man in the van. A box which has been filled from the supermarket...

Prof Fucknut's modelling of the spread (as well as being buggy as f**k) was naive and unrepresentative of human behaviour. All it really showed was that less interaction means reduced transmission to some degree. The numbers were meaningless.
 
Here's a theory:

Because, restricting people's movements as is/was being done isn't going slow the spread by anything like a meaningful amount - not while you allow nearly every household to visit a common space that involves pretty close proximity, and many surfaces and objects that will be touched by multiple visitors. If the virus was bright green, and visible to the naked eye, perhaps - within a week - supermarkets would be covered in green to at least shoulder level?

Mum comes home from doing the shopping alone and washes her hands, but her clothes and hair have traces of green. A bit of normal social interaction with the other members of the household, and...

Meanwhile, Granny Vulnerableperson receives a box of groceries from the nice man in the van. A box which has been filled from the supermarket...

Prof Fucknut's modelling of the spread (as well as being buggy as f**k) was naive and unrepresentative of human behaviour. All it really showed was that less interaction means reduced transmission to some degree. The numbers were meaningless.

I'm not saying your theory is incorrect, but we've a wealth of contact tracing data now and gov/scientists should have a fair idea what drives the coronavirus.

And often 'intuition' just doesn't work. People intuitively feel safer wearing masks, for example, which may lead them to get lax on social distancing/hygiene measures.

Intuitively I felt that going to the gym everyday was putting myself at risk of the corona; it's full of 'kids', lots of social distancing breaches, people sweating, touching stuff and breathing heavily. But I still went five times a week. I know - we've a deadly pandemic - crazy, right?

But gyms are staying open no matter what tier; I suspect because contact tracing has shown them not to be baaaaaaaad.

I suspect supermarkets are like that.
 

Latest Threads

Top