Coronavirus cases confirmed in the UK

[Duke Wellington]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

well, on THAT basis, if we 'let the virus go for it', we would have over 600,000 deaths. I think that's a TRIFLE extreme ? 

Well lets lockdown the UK during flu season?

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

Well lets lockdown the UK during flu season?

That would be doubling the entire UK annual mortality rate ? That's a bit.. extreme.. isn't it ? 

[Eldorado]

3,497 new cases and 9 new deaths

Coronavirus Cases: 365,174
Deaths: 41,623

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

[acute]

7 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

For almost a month now the UK has been running at 1000+ new cases per day with less than 10 deaths per day. Thats a death rate of less than 1% which is due to us learning more about how to treat people.

Isn`t it about time the lockdown completely ended and we let the virus go for it?

What a puerile thing to say.

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

3,497 new cases and 9 new deaths

Coronavirus Cases: 365,174
Deaths: 41,623

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Thats a death rate of 0.25% which is below that of winter flus.

Its time to open up everything and let it go for it. We dont cripple our economy for the flu every year, now we have succeeded in getting the death rate down having learned to treat people then it makes no sense to continue to cripple our economy.

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, I'm sure you've all heard that another Leading Scientitst has Warned that the UK is in Grave Danger of Losing Grip on the Fight against the Covi and that Britain will be an uninhabitable wasteland by the end of the year, or something not far off of that, thanks to yet another of these absurd and totally discredited (you'd have thought) computer projections .  Now, we could be generous and allow that he (I'm assuming it was a he, Leading Scientists usually are) does believe his computer projection, is genuinely concerned and does want to save humanity. But all these estimates, all these projections are based purely on numbers of "Cases", which as we all know are utterly meaningless really as they're not cases at all in the medical sense but are purely positive test results. And the test results are, as I'm sure we all equally know, so unreliable (they can detect if you may have had The Virus in the past but don;t now, and flag that as a positive result, or even if you may have had an ordinary cold, and identify that as a positive covi result (covipos)) that they're for any practical purpose useless. So does he genuinely not understand this, or does he claim to be psychic and know that there's a super new improved wave of Covi (Covi Mk 2) (Covid 20, I suppose) that will sweep the nation if we stop obeying Government orders and tell the panicky crew of Johnson, Hancock and Transport Secretary Shan't Crapps, who seem to be the ones in Cabinet that have Emperor-like powers to decree anything they like at the drop of a hat, what they can do with their orders that we must not do this, not do that, and must wear these little tokens of submission on our faces? Are they, these Leading Scientists, trying to terrify everyone, or is it the politicians that they're trying to panic into being utterly submissive and give complete power to the Experts? 

[Setton]

On 9/1/2020 at 7:18 PM, Zaphod222 said:

The CDC does not say "perfectly fit and healthy". The CDC says that no co-morbidities were recorded. You do know what co-morbidity means, don´t you.

You clearly don't. Co-morbidity just means another condition that also contributed to their death. Not that COVID didn't.

As in, if you get shot and bleed to death, both would be listed as cause of death.

Likewise, you get covid, which leads to a cytokine storm, which leads to excessive inflammation, which leads to organ failure. They will all be listed as your 'co-morbidities'. If you also had asthma before you caught covid, that will be on there too.

Either way, without covid, you wouldn't be dead.

On 9/12/2020 at 3:37 PM, Cookie Monster said:

For almost a month now the UK has been running at 1000+ new cases per day with less than 10 deaths per day. Thats a death rate of less than 1% which is due to us learning more about how to treat people.

Isn`t it about time the lockdown completely ended and we let the virus go for it?

No.

Because, as you know perfectly well, the fall in death rate is not mainly due to improved treatment but a change in who is being infected. The overwhelming majority of new cases are 20-30 year olds - one of the least vulnerable age groups. If you 'let the virus go for it', you'll be killing around 500,000 people. 

Less than 10,000 of those would be among the age group currently driving the increase in cases.

[Zaphod222]

5 hours ago, Setton said:

Because, as you know perfectly well, the fall in death rate is not mainly due to improved treatment but a change in who is being infected. The overwhelming majority of new cases are 20-30 year olds - one of the least vulnerable age groups. If you 'let the virus go for it', you'll be killing around 500,000 people. Less than 10,000 of those would be among the age group currently driving the increase in cases.

Pulling figures out of thin air. The death rates are all over the place world-wide, and there is no correlation to government imposed lockdowns.

[Setton]

3 hours ago, Zaphod222 said:

Pulling figures out of thin air. The death rates are all over the place world-wide, and there is no correlation to government imposed lockdowns.

Well, there wouldn't be. Lockdowns are to lower the infection rate, not the death rate.

[Zaphod222]

21 minutes ago, Setton said:

Well, there wouldn't be. Lockdowns are to lower the infection rate, not the death rate.

And trying to lower the infection rate forever is not only meaningless but counter-productive.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Zaphod222 said:

And trying to lower the infection rate forever is not only meaningless but counter-productive.

1. Nobody said it was forever.

2. It certainly isn't counter productive. The goal is to limit the spread (success) and prevent the health service being overwhelmed (success).

[quillius]

13 hours ago, Setton said:

You clearly don't. Co-morbidity just means another condition that also contributed to their death. Not that COVID didn't.

As in, if you get shot and bleed to death, both would be listed as cause of death.

Likewise, you get covid, which leads to a cytokine storm, which leads to excessive inflammation, which leads to organ failure. They will all be listed as your 'co-morbidities'. If you also had asthma before you caught covid, that will be on there too.

Either way, without covid, you wouldn't be dead.

No.

Because, as you know perfectly well, the fall in death rate is not mainly due to improved treatment but a change in who is being infected. The overwhelming majority of new cases are 20-30 year olds - one of the least vulnerable age groups. If you 'let the virus go for it', you'll be killing around 500,000 people. 

Less than 10,000 of those would be among the age group currently driving the increase in cases.

it is near impossible to determine if the death rate has changed, I say this because we were not testing in the early days, if we were and lets say for example we actually had 100,000 new cases per day then that would lower the death to be far closer to that of today.....Unless we were and continued to test everyone from the start then its impossible to determine an accurate death rate....

 

so many unknowns

[Setton]

29 minutes ago, quillius said:

it is near impossible to determine if the death rate has changed, I say this because we were not testing in the early days, if we were and lets say for example we actually had 100,000 new cases per day then that would lower the death to be far closer to that of today.....Unless we were and continued to test everyone from the start then its impossible to determine an accurate death rate....

 

so many unknowns

But what we do know, for certain, are the following points:

1. The overwhelming majority of new cases are aged 20-30.

2. There have been no dramatic changes in treatment available.

3. The death rate is lower among younger people.

4. Therefore, if the virus is allowed to spread freely through the population, as advocated by @Cookie Monster, the death rate will rise dramatically.

5. @Cookie Monster is full of crap.

[quillius]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

But what we do know, for certain, are the following points:

1. The overwhelming majority of new cases are aged 20-30.

2. There have been no dramatic changes in treatment available.

3. The death rate is lower among younger people.

4. Therefore, if the virus is allowed to spread freely through the population, as advocated by @Cookie Monster, the death rate will rise dramatically.

5. @Cookie Monster is full of crap.

1. only as per those tested....be interesting to see the breakdown of tests per age group..ie if 80% of tests are carried out on 20-30 year olds then the infection rate will 'appear' much higher in that age group...without the stats for testing you cant be definitive 

2. agreed, hence why I dont think the appearance of a lower death rate is down to better treatment...or at least we just dont know.

3. see point one...we just dont know, although it appears this way

4. we cant be sure. but it would be a big gamble

5. I like Cookie Monster......I dont think he is full of crap at all.....especially compared with some posters I wont mention

[Setton]

1 minute ago, quillius said:

1. only as per those tested....be interesting to see the breakdown of tests per age group..ie if 80% of tests are carried out on 20-30 year olds then the infection rate will 'appear' much higher in that age group...without the stats for testing you cant be definitive 

As you only get tested if you have symptoms, the majority of tests will also be among whichever group gets the majority of infections.

 

Quote

2. agreed, hence why I dont think the appearance of a lower death rate is down to better treatment...or at least we just dont know.

Which was @Cookie Monster 's justification for letting the virus run its course.

See point 5.

Quote

3. see point one...we just dont know, although it appears this way

No, we do know this. Among those tested and confirmed to have the virus, far fewer 20-30 year olds die than over 85s.

Quote

4. we cant be sure. but it would be a big gamble

Yes we can. The current increase in cases are young people. They are least at risk. If more at risk people are infected, more people will die.

Quote

5. I like Cookie Monster......I dont think he is full of crap at all.....especially compared with some posters I wont mention

Well point 2 you seemed to agree.

[quillius]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

As you only get tested if you have symptoms, the majority of tests will also be among whichever group gets the majority of infections.

 

Which was @Cookie Monster 's justification for letting the virus run its course.

See point 5.

No, we do know this. Among those tested and confirmed to have the virus, far fewer 20-30 year olds die than over 85s.

Yes we can. The current increase in cases are young people. They are least at risk. If more at risk people are infected, more people will die.

Well point 2 you seemed to agree.

no we dont know, we can only infer. Does everyone get symptoms? does everyone get tested once they have symptoms?

I stand by that unless we test everyone and know exactly how many have/dont have it and then how many deaths this leads to you simply cannot be definitive.....we can only guess, and whilst some of the stats point that way there are many other factors that come into play...ie lots of youngsters have had it and had no symptoms, people aged over 80 always get symptoms and hence a test/or in reverse....chop and change it as you wish and when you do that effects the outcome

 

ps I dont disagree that so far the stats we have suggest as you say, my point is we dont know for sure.

As for Cookie, my not agreeing with a point he makes doesnt mean he is full of crap- I normally disagree with a lot more of what you post so I guess that makes you even more full of crap  

 

[Space Commander Travis]

So pompous, blustering threats once again from some pompous, blustering old twit of a Minister quoted in the paper, let me see who it is, oh, it's the Justice Secretary, someone no one's ever heard of before, blustering pompously that "we have to control The Virus" or face the threat of a national lockdown, blah blah, all these usual fatarsed bluster. Well, try it, Herr Minister, see how far you get. i don't think the people, having seen through the lies that you scared everyone* with before, will be so meek and willing to agree with your blustering coercion this time, you pompous little twit. 

* well, everyone except those who read up about it in sources in sources other than "trusted sources", meaning the State Propaganda Service (BBC) and the Guardian, and so realised that the "menace" of this terrifying mystery Chinese virus was nothing of the kind right from the start 

[Setton]

52 minutes ago, quillius said:

no we dont know, we can only infer. Does everyone get symptoms? does everyone get tested once they have symptoms?

I stand by that unless we test everyone and know exactly how many have/dont have it and then how many deaths this leads to you simply cannot be definitive.....we can only guess, and whilst some of the stats point that way there are many other factors that come into play...ie lots of youngsters have had it and had no symptoms, people aged over 80 always get symptoms and hence a test/or in reverse....chop and change it as you wish and when you do that effects the outcome

Your claims here only support my point further. If lots of young people aren't tested and elderly people are, that only lowers the death rate for young people and increases it further for older ones.

Quote

As for Cookie, my not agreeing with a point he makes doesnt mean he is full of crap- I normally disagree with a lot more of what you post so I guess that makes you even more full of crap  

See, the difference is I actually provided evidence that demonstrates he is full of it. 

As soon as you actually do that for one of my posts, feel free to make the same claim 

[Space Commander Travis]

I mean really, do all you people with your earnest quoting of "cases" and your earnest arguing about "cases" and how we must stop the spread of this disease and all the rest of it really believe that you can stop a Disease simply by ordering people not to do things? Why do people not understand that "cases" mean nothing, and that the only possible thing that Governments can do is accept that it's a thing and learn to live with it? Do you really believe that you can eventually win if you just keep up the fight, forever if necessary?

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, quillius said:

no we dont know, we can only infer. Does everyone get symptoms? does everyone get tested once they have symptoms?

I stand by that unless we test everyone and know exactly how many have/dont have it and then how many deaths this leads to you simply cannot be definitive.....we can only guess, and whilst some of the stats point that way there are many other factors that come into play...ie lots of youngsters have had it and had no symptoms, people aged over 80 always get symptoms and hence a test/or in reverse....chop and change it as you wish and when you do that effects the outcome

 

ps I dont disagree that so far the stats we have suggest as you say, my point is we dont know for sure.

As for Cookie, my not agreeing with a point he makes doesnt mean he is full of crap- I normally disagree with a lot more of what you post so I guess that makes you even more full of crap  

 

Its okay he is just desperately trying to get my attention as he enjoys me lol.

[quillius]

21 minutes ago, Setton said:

Your claims here only support my point further. If lots of young people aren't tested and elderly people are, that only lowers the death rate for young people and increases it further for older ones.

See, the difference is I actually provided evidence that demonstrates he is full of it. 

As soon as you actually do that for one of my posts, feel free to make the same claim 

you missed the part that said 'or in reverse' which would have the opposite effect...what I was showing you is that there are factors that could change the figures/stats as they stand. it was an example...

 

I have done many time sin the past.......guess you just cant remember.....  

[quillius]

31 minutes ago, Montmorency the Dog said:

So pompous, blustering threats once again from some pompous, blustering old twit of a Minister quoted in the paper, let me see who it is, oh, it's the Justice Secretary, someone no one's ever heard of before, blustering pompously that "we have to control The Virus" or face the threat of a national lockdown, blah blah, all these usual fatarsed bluster. Well, try it, Herr Minister, see how far you get. i don't think the people, having seen through the lies that you scared everyone* with before, will be so meek and willing to agree with your blustering coercion this time, you pompous little twit. 

* well, everyone except those who read up about it in sources in sources other than "trusted sources", meaning the State Propaganda Service (BBC) and the Guardian, and so realised that the "menace" of this terrifying mystery Chinese virus was nothing of the kind right from the start 

is that 747400? 

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

But what we do know, for certain, are the following points:

1. The overwhelming majority of new cases are aged 20-30.

2. There have been no dramatic changes in treatment available.

3. The death rate is lower among younger people.

4. Therefore, if the virus is allowed to spread freely through the population, as advocated by @Cookie Monster, the death rate will rise dramatically.

5. @Cookie Monster is full of crap.

Not necessarily @Setton. You point (1), in tandem with (3), kinda negates point    (4)

[Setton]

46 minutes ago, quillius said:

you missed the part that said 'or in reverse' which would have the opposite effect...what I was showing you is that there are factors that could change the figures/stats as they stand. it was an example...

An example you have no evidence to support. I have plenty of evidence to support my position.

[Setton]

39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Not necessarily @Setton. You point (1), in tandem with (3), kinda negates point    (4)

No, it doesn't at all. This is not complicated.

Currently young people are catching it. 

Young people have low death rate.

Therefore deaths are low.

You let the virus spread freely, older people will catch it.

Older people have a higher death rate.

Therefore the death rate will rise significantly.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Setton