Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Coronavirus cases confirmed in the UK

1,679 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bee

 

@Arbenol

I answered your original question and now you are asking me lots more... 

I may come back to your post but I don't feel like going into it any further at the moment...( but ta for reply..)

except to say.... I wish we had taken the same approach as Sweden...

that's responding to what you said in your reply..(quote you)   ...."if NZ had adopted the same approach as Sweden I'd have been fine with that" 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
41 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Why do you think he's kowtowing to the media? That's not really his style. Do you think the media is scaring people into demanding further lockdowns? That's not my experience from those Brits I keep in touch with. And influence over public opinion is the media's only power. So how does the media influence his response if not via public opinion?

And who should he take advice from if not the (so-called) experts. Some bloke on Facebook?

I think he mangled his response from the start. They had no clear strategy and therefore could not establish clear and consistent processes to achieve it. You're an island and his failure to establish any kind of border security made any lockdown doomed to failure before it even started. I don't have any strong opinion on the best way to manage this situation (if NZ had adopted the same approach as Sweden I'd have been fine with that) but there is one thing that the more successful countries have in common. They established a strategy and all their processes and policies were consistently implemented to achieve that. Time will tell which is the best way - it's still too early to say. But I think we can say with some confidence that Boris' was not it.

Was it not proven that the virus had mutated on its journey across the world. as it travelled from east to west it had become more contagious. On shutting down the borders, you cant really do that in an open global £2.6Trillion economy, and anyway that wasn't the advice from the WHO. I'd also point out chinas neighbours are better accustomed to dealing with epidemics being exported out of china. with the last three coming from there. 

The Govt had a clear strategy at the start, we were going for herd immunity, and then the figure of 500,000 dead and health service collapse terrified them, (understandably) and it was this that set us down the path we've taken, basically an over reaction and a lot of it driven by a 13 year out of date faulty computer model and media hysteria.

Its striking to see respiratory disease remains at the levels expected for this time of year. so, its either Covid, influenza or one of the many respiratory illnesses people are dying from. so, now were locked in trying to cure death. which is doomed to fail so, obviously a change in how we count the deaths is needed, So from the 8th October Covid, influenza/pneumonia will be counted together, and no doubt in the new year the way we count cases will change to only those who require hospital treatment.

regardless of strategy we'll end up where we would have if we'd done nothing. 36,000 excess deaths in this pandemic is less than the 2018, 50,100 excess deaths with no pandemic.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
14 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The Govt had a clear strategy at the start, we were going for herd immunity, and then the figure of 500,000 dead and health service collapse terrified them, (understandably) and it was this that set us down the path we've taken, basically an over reaction and a lot of it driven by a 13 year out of date faulty computer model and media hysteria.

That's exactly the point I was making. They vacillated for too long and ended up doing nothing. I don't see how the media is responsible. Are you saying that the government was 'bullied'. Can you imagine that under Thatcher's rule. And as I said to Bee, the media's only power is influence of public opinion and I don't see many Brits clamouring for a lockdown and asking for more restrictions. I think you give them too much credit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19

High street Boots chemists are going to launch Covid tests for customers who want them.  Results for the nasal swab test will be given in 12 minutes and will cost £120.  Anyone tempted?  Wonder how many tests are legit.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

This data from Public Health England for flu, and other respiratory diseases, in 2019/20 doesn't tell us much at the moment, though some people may be able to extract some interesting information, but it will be interesting to look at the data for 2020/21 when it emerges next year, and compare the two data sets. Those wishing to view the mortality figures can go straight to page 51.

Flu in the UK

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
16 hours ago, Eldorado said:

20,890 new cases and 102 new deaths

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

Number of tests.

image.thumb.png.32ee383914207813f23e422f332735e0.png

image.png.901392470345060ad3d267e617f07970.png

Potentially have the capacity to detect 377,996 cases a day. in line with the capacity more cases can be detected.

No surprise cases follow the ability to test.

image.thumb.png.176d88713809e6d63c131bafbab216e8.png

But the all important Deaths.

image.thumb.png.e1eaabcb7aaf8afe3d871f8e5ca1f394.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

interesting is Sweden's approach, and still people clamour to be locked down in the likes of the UK, incarcerated in their own homes. im starting to think these people are in general fearful of life and wonder how many times before the pandemic did they ventured out anyway.

 

image.png.d8a75435359e7f4e406c8b2dfcbf761a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

What I would like to see, but cannot find information for, at least not up to date, is what % of total covid deaths come from those under 65, and what % of those have one or more underlying health problems. Following the internal links from the link supplied by Eldorado I find this data for the US, but only dated mid May at the latest. However, that is past the main spike in deaths, so while old data it may not be that far off what it is now. The old data shows that those under 65 form 26% of all covid deaths across all ages, and that 89% of that 26% had one or more underlying health problems. Up to date data on this would help to understand what chance there is of a healthy person aged under 65 dying of covid.

I cannot present any data, but in the Telegraph this morning they said that there had been a change in the average age of death from 82.2 to 90, so would like to see the data for that as well, as it seems to indicate that at this point in time the majority of covid deaths are in those aged 90 and over. However, a jump in average age from 82.2 to 90 in just one week seems too much, and I would have thought to raise the average in only a week a more gradual rise would be seen.

Edited by Wepwawet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
12 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What I would like to see, but cannot find information for, at least not up to date, is what % of total covid deaths come from those under 65, and what % of those have one or more underlying health problems. Following the internal links from the link supplied by Eldorado I find this data for the US, but only dated mid May at the latest. However, that is past the main spike in deaths, so while old data it may not be that far off what it is now. The old data shows that those under 65 form 26% of all covid deaths across all ages, and that 89% of that 26% had one or more underlying health problems. Up to date data on this would help to understand what chance there is of a healthy person aged under 65 dying of covid.

I cannot present any data, but in the Telegraph this morning they said that there had been a change in the average age of death from 82.2 to 90, so would like to see the data for that as well, as it seems to indicate that at this point in time the majority of covid deaths are in those aged 90and over.

Instead of percentages, I see it like this:

Diabetic, 30-something years old, died the other day in my country. A girl, asthmatic, 17, died this week too.

They both had COVID. And they both could have lived for long decades more. But they're dead now. 

Imagine you've got asthma or diabetes and someone tells you that it's not really a problem if you die, since you weren't healthy anyway. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
19 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Instead of percentages, I see it like this:

Diabetic, 30-something years old, died the other day in my country. A girl, asthmatic, 17, died this week too.

They both had COVID. And they both could have lived for long decades more. But they're dead now. 

Imagine you've got asthma or diabetes and someone tells you that it's not really a problem if you die, since you weren't healthy anyway. 

 

In the early days a baby died of covid in the US, but later, after the media shroud waving, it was seen that they had other health problems. However, should the death of a baby be used as a datum point when it is an extreme outlier, even if this, or any other baby had no other health problems. If it were common for babies to die of covid then I'm sure ALL of us would be right behind ALL these measures. But I see no data to suggest that deaths of those under 65 are anything other than outliers. I am trying to determine the real chance of dying from covid if you are under 65. What, for instance, chance does a fit 25 year old with no health problems have of dying. This data exists somewhere, it must do, and all I want to do is see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

In the early days a baby died of covid in the US, but later, after the media shroud waving, it was seen that they had other health problems. However, should the death of a baby be used as a datum point when it is an extreme outlier, even if this, or any other baby had no other health problems. If it were common for babies to die of covid then I'm sure ALL of us would be right behind ALL these measures. But I see no data to suggest that deaths of those under 65 are anything other than outliers. I am trying to determine the real chance of dying from covid if you are under 65. What, for instance, chance does a fit 25 year old with no health problems have of dying. This data exists somewhere, it must do, and all I want to do is see it.

If all you wanted is to see COVID statistic, you'd search for it, it's all over Internet and you'd see it. But you obviously want to imply something, because it's impossible you don't know how to access COVID statistics, that are literally plastered everywhere. It's a problem to avoid it, actually, not to find it. 

 

Those over 65 and those with health problems want to live too. 

It's grotesque to insist a disease is likely not deadly for the young and healthy while the immunocompromised are dying. 

COVID was also proven to leave damage, serious and lasting damage, even for the fit 25-year olds. 

Which makes them those unworthy ones with underlying health issues now. 

Do you understand that? That eugenic approach that asks from you to disregard the "weak" is producing the new "weak" by letting holy healthy people get infected and stuck with permanent damage. Even the asymptomatic cases.

It's so stupid that those who propagate it should be removed from the gene pool for stupidity, which is obviously much more dangerous than the infectious diseases alone. Not completely stupid people will protect the entire population from the infection, while the stupid ones will object. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
57 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

If all you wanted is to see COVID statistic, you'd search for it, it's all over Internet and you'd see it. But you obviously want to imply something, because it's impossible you don't know how to access COVID statistics, that are literally plastered everywhere. It's a problem to avoid it, actually, not to find it. 

 

Those over 65 and those with health problems want to live too. 

It's grotesque to insist a disease is likely not deadly for the young and healthy while the immunocompromised are dying. 

COVID was also proven to leave damage, serious and lasting damage, even for the fit 25-year olds. 

Which makes them those unworthy ones with underlying health issues now. 

Do you understand that? That eugenic approach that asks from you to disregard the "weak" is producing the new "weak" by letting holy healthy people get infected and stuck with permanent damage. Even the asymptomatic cases.

It's so stupid that those who propagate it should be removed from the gene pool for stupidity, which is obviously much more dangerous than the infectious diseases alone. Not completely stupid people will protect the entire population from the infection, while the stupid ones will object. 

I'm sure the information I asked for is out there, but not readily in the form I needed, a single percentage figure for the chances of a healthy under 65 year old dying from covid. There are figures that deal with tighter age groups, but not an overall one for the age range I need.

An example is from here https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

They give examples of the risk from dying of covid as opossed to normal risk, that is risk days per year, though they concentrate at the two extremes of age, those aged 5-14 and, in two seperate groups, those 65-74 and those aged over 90.

I'll quote this from the article:

 

Quote

 

For example, among nearly six million people aged 65-74 in England and Wales, 7319 were registered as dying from or with covid-19 over 16 weeks, a rate of around 124 in 100 000, or 1 in 807. We would normally expect around 26 617 deaths in this age group over this period, and so covid-19 represented a 28% increased risk. This is equivalent to around 31 days’ extra risk of dying during 112 days of the epidemic.

The second row of table 2 shows that three deaths from covid-19 have been recorded among over 7 million schoolchildren aged 5 to 14 (around 1 in 2.4 million), an extremely low risk that represents only 2% of the average normal risk faced by this group. This amounts to around two days’ extra risk of dying during the 112 days of the epidemic. In the same period this age group experienced 138 deaths from other causes.

At the other extreme, 2% (1 in 49) of all those aged over 90 in England and Wales were registered as dying with covid-19 in these 16 weeks; this represents around 4300 times the risk of catching and dying from covid-19 compared with 15-24 year olds. These 10 790 deaths can be compared with the average of 33 722 for this period over the past five years, so the potential exposure to covid-19 represents an additional 32% over normal mortality risk. So living through this 112 day period of the epidemic is as if these people have on average been exposed to an extra 36 days’ risk (32% of 112).

 

For a non health professional or statistician it is not so easy to get from this the information that I would like, and in fact they do not seem to address the under 65s as a whole, and I have found this in other places, hence the reason for my question, what is the % chance of a healthy person under the age of 65 dying from covid. There must be an answer, so let's make it easy and write: The chance of a person under the age of 65 dying from covid in the UK is   %. There, it just needs a number adding, nothing else, no insults, no misrepresentation, no distractions or emotional shroud waving, just a number that indicates the chance of death, nothing else as anything else is a topic I have not addressed.

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
typos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado

Seventeen hospital wards close due to coronavirus outbreaks

More than 600 patients are currently being treated for coronavirus in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde hospitals.

STV news: Link

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

believe it or not, this is an actual story.

UK only buying enough vaccines to protect the most vulnerable

No, really? The idea of targeting vaccines at those who they might (just might) benefit? What an utterly horrifying idea.  As I'm sure you may have worked out, this is very good news as it means that they wouldn't be able to force Bill Gates's little concoction on everyone. 

Edited by Space Commander Travis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spud the mackem

Covid 19 is attacking people of all ages randomly , some die some recover , and the medical profession haven't a clue how to stop it , and neither have the Gov't , who should have realised how serious this is and stopped all people from entering the U.K last January . Self isolation is not working by people (even Brits) from other Countries , as they walk through border security without being stopped as we haven't enough staff to control them ,so this virus isn't going away or ceasing for a Long ,Long time.  Pandemic is the wrong word ,it should be Plague .  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

This is an excellent article about what Johnson and his little team of bullies, in their superstitious awe of The Science! The Science!, want for us. 

Quote

 

Lewis’s point, like so much of what he wrote, was really rather profound. His original words — “Always winter and never Christmas” — were his way of showing how tyrants operate. They desire two things:

Firstly, they need to create perpetual oppression, a “new normal” which is depressing, ongoing, and which pulls everyone down into the resigned acceptance that there’s nothing they can do about it.

Secondly, they need to eradicate all attempts at celebration in the midst of the drudgery, because celebration reminds people of what life could be like and indeed what life should be like if it were not for the tyrants, and so is in danger of breaking the spell.

 

Always Covid & Never Christmas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
14 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

Covid 19 is attacking people of all ages randomly , some die some recover , and the medical profession haven't a clue how to stop it , and neither have the Gov't , who should have realised how serious this is and stopped all people from entering the U.K last January . Self isolation is not working by people (even Brits) from other Countries , as they walk through border security without being stopped as we haven't enough staff to control them ,so this virus isn't going away or ceasing for a Long ,Long time.  Pandemic is the wrong word ,it should be Plague .  

alternatively we can stop running around tearing our hair out and just accept that it's a thing, and make sure that resources are concentrated on those who are most affected by seasonal flu (which is what it is), i.e. overwhelmingly the elderly and immune-compromised (not even "just" the elderly, overwhelmingly those who have other conditions), and leave everyone else alone and stop panicking. And allow people to blinking well travel and conduct business and let life proceed as normal. 

Edited by Space Commander Travis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

From that article, here's some unintentional irony from the West Midlands Crime Boss.  

If we think there’s large groups of people gathering where they shouldn’t be, then police will have to intervene. If, again, there’s flagrant breaking of the rules, then the police would have to enforce." 

We’re sitting on a time bomb here. We’re getting very near the stage where you could see a considerable explosion of frustration and energy. Things are very on the edge in a lot of communities and it wouldn’t take very much to spark off unrest, riots, damage.”

Yes, Herr Commissioner, and Enforcing Rules against People who are Gathering where they Shouldn't Be would be very likely to spark it off, wouldn't it. And I sincerely hope it does. I hope we reach the threshold that well over 50% of the population no longer take any notice of these pompous twits.

Edited by Space Commander Travis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

Kings College London is in dispute with Oxford colleges findings and modelling. i alluded to this a few days back and across a few threads.

i know a few of you like Dr John Campbell.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, Space Commander Travis said:

 I hope we reach the threshold that well over 50% of the population no longer take any notice of these pompous twits.

I can assure you that well over 50% of the population are incensed with the actions of the pompous twits - the pompous twits, the Arrogant, Selfish and Stupid pompous twits, who disregard simple rules to reduce the spread of the virus and by doing so have brought these latest lockdowns upon us. 

Eventually something will snap.   And being Samhain, maybe it's time for a few wicker men to get rid of the useless ASSes who put their own hedonistic partying ahead of societal liberty or the health of themselves, family and friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.