When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

Who Dares Gins.

[steviewevie]

name the film...?

[e9t3]

38 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

🤣

Healthcare professionals aren't in danger of running out of masks now? The first post was end of Feb.

[stuie]

5 minutes ago, e9t3 said:

Healthcare professionals aren't in danger of running out of masks now? The first post was end of Feb.

Yes but both posts by U.S. Surgeon General and totally contradict each other! 

[shoptildrop]

Just now, stuie said:

Yes but both posts by U.S. Surgeon General and totally contradict each other! 

It's just like here though, the only reason they didn't push the masks is because there was a PPE shortage... now they have tried to be clear that using non-surgical or face covering can be used

It's just a response that was necessary at the time, as look at anti bacterial gel - you couldn't get that Feb/March it was like gold dust!! So I see why they said it, but problem is because they did downplay it a certain contingent of folk now don't see the importance masks can play in certain setting

[Ozanne]

 

[Cream Soda]

35 minutes ago, e9t3 said:

Healthcare professionals aren't in danger of running out of masks now? The first post was end of Feb.

He also said they are not effective so its no wonder some people don't want to wear them now.  

[Cream Soda]

26 minutes ago, shoptildrop said:

It's just like here though, the only reason they didn't push the masks is because there was a PPE shortage... now they have tried to be clear that using non-surgical or face covering can be used

It's just a response that was necessary at the time, as look at anti bacterial gel - you couldn't get that Feb/March it was like gold dust!! So I see why they said it, but problem is because they did downplay it a certain contingent of folk now don't see the importance masks can play in certain setting

Exactly.  I remember people here saying the same back in Feb/March, like Dr Hilary Jones who reaches a massive audience on ITV saying there's no point getting one as it won't do anything, etc.  Then they wonder why people don't feel the need to wear one.  

[steviewevie]

yeah, but the mask thing...do they give us a false sense of security? Like, I wear one to a pub or restaurant, I pull it down to eat or drink, then put it back on, then again, and again...touching my face and that area countless times with my hands all covered wtih droplets of coronavirus filled mucus.

[steviewevie]

[Cream Soda]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, but the mask thing...do they give us a false sense of security? Like, I wear one to a pub or restaurant, I pull it down to eat or drink, then put it back on, then again, and again...touching my face and that area countless times with my hands all covered wtih droplets of coronavirus filled mucus.

Yeah I get wearing them on public transport etc but wearing them in a situation like what you describe doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, but the mask thing...do they give us a false sense of security? Like, I wear one to a pub or restaurant, I pull it down to eat or drink, then put it back on, then again, and again...touching my face and that area countless times with my hands all covered wtih droplets of coronavirus filled mucus.

handle it by the strings only dont touch the mask ..... sanitise or wash hands if you do  touch it ... I wore a shield for my shift today and it made me realise how often I touch my face .....

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

oh, sorry, that's just two words....back to the drawing board.

Fuck Boris Johnson!

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Fuck Boris Johnson!

genius.

You should work for Cummings.

[steviewevie]

Madchester on TOTP tonight.

[Zoo Music Girl]

To be fair to the experts who were saying masks were ineffective way back in Feb/March, the WHO didn't recommend them for public use back then. Think that came in late April/May at best.

[Cream Soda]

15 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

To be fair to the experts who were saying masks were ineffective way back in Feb/March, the WHO didn't recommend them for public use back then. Think that came in late April/May at best.

I think it was even later than that, lots of places brought them in before the WHO advised to do so.  

[rascalpete]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I’m here, not been in the best of moods today so just getting through the day.

 

I did watch the briefing. What a shit show. Boris stumbling over words, joking about cricket puns and barely hearing one of the questions. He’s awful, a wet flannel would do better than him. 

Wait. What? There was a briefing?!

Hope you are ok, stick with it

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Anyone watching Celebrity Googlebox?

Nick Grimshaw has got a fu**ing point!

[shoptildrop]

2 hours ago, Cream Soda said:

Exactly.  I remember people here saying the same back in Feb/March, like Dr Hilary Jones who reaches a massive audience on ITV saying there's no point getting one as it won't do anything, etc.  Then they wonder why people don't feel the need to wear one.  

I didn't wear one early days as a) didn't want to take masks for people who needed it as availability poor and b) people were keeping their distance so I felt a bit safer in the settings I was in.

Now I have found anti-viral coated snod that is produced locally which is washable and easy for me to wear. Since Cummings episode a lot of people have given up, so now wear my mask every time I go shopping and simply don't go anywhere else..

I'm a bit nervous about work as I've said a few pages back but I'm hoping I can push the WFH case so they can keep their desired 50% capacity within the office  

[Ozanne]

U.K. figures for 3rd July.

[Superscally]

20 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I don’t think we’re seeing anywhere near 140-210 actual deaths on any given day now, the case numbers haven’t been nearly high enough to support those sorts of numbers for a long while.

There were way less than that reported yesterday, let alone actually happened.

That's because we're 14 days down the line. There were still 137 reported yesterday. Sorry dude, you're just not getting the maths/situation right (please don't imagine me sounding like a prick writing that, it's not how I mean it). Let's just say that yesterday's actual deaths were 140. Some of those will be reported in a day, more on day 2, more on day 3, maybe less on day 4 and 5, then the odd ones on the rest of days 6-14. This will be the same for the figures announced today, tomorrow etc. The figure reported yesterday is likely pretty accurate for the figure a couple of days ago and seeing as case numbers aren't declining dramatically any more, it's probably accurate form today. 

Ignore case numbers, they're not relevant as there are huge numbers of undiagnosed cases. The only stat that matters is tested death numbers.

[Superscally]

16 hours ago, zahidf said:

Its also less deaths than last friday

but i wouldnt look at daily deaths anyway

7 day average. That's your boy.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

11 minutes ago, Superscally said:

That's because we're 14 days down the line. There were still 137 reported yesterday. Sorry dude, you're just not getting the maths/situation right (please don't imagine me sounding like a prick writing that, it's not how I mean it). Let's just say that yesterday's actual deaths were 140. Some of those will be reported in a day, more on day 2, more on day 3, maybe less on day 4 and 5, then the odd ones on the rest of days 6-14. This will be the same for the figures announced today, tomorrow etc. The figure reported yesterday is likely pretty accurate for the figure a couple of days ago and seeing as case numbers aren't declining dramatically any more, it's probably accurate form today. 

Ignore case numbers, they're not relevant as there are huge numbers of undiagnosed cases. The only stat that matters is tested death numbers.

I don’t know, I’m pretty sure it’s you who isn’t getting the maths but I’m also a bit lost on the point you’re actually making? 

Deaths are reported 7 days a week and death figures are based on the number of recorded deaths for the previous 24 hours.

The date those deaths actually happened will have been at some point in the past, this is variable because the time it takes to record a death is variable. Most will have happened in the week beforehand, but some will stretch back further and in some cases go back a month or longer.

This is of course variable, but there is a rough correlation to the numbers filtering through.

The daily death numbers we see all relate to deaths that happened in the past at a time when infections were higher, none of those deaths happened on the day they reported.

Infection numbers are based on the day the test was taken and are therefore more up to date and accurate.

Infections are dropping and have been dropping since the peak. If infections are dropping deaths are dropping.

If infections are dropping and the data is up to date, but the data on deaths is lagged then the amount of people that actually died on any given day will be lower than the number reported.

What is it about that that I’m not understanding?

Edited July 4, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Superscally]

12 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I don’t know, I’m pretty sure it’s you who isn’t getting the maths but I’m also a bit lost on the point you’re actually making? 

Deaths are reported 7 days a week and death figures are based on the number of recorded deaths for the previous 24 hours.

The date those deaths actually happened will have been at some point in the past, this is variable because the time it takes to record a death is variable. Most will have happened in the week beforehand, but some will stretch back further and in some cases go back a month or longer.

This is of course variable, but there is a rough correlation to the numbers filtering through.

The daily death numbers we see all relate to deaths that happened in the past at a time when infections were higher, none of those deaths happened on the day they reported.

Infection numbers are based on the day the test was taken and are therefore more up to date and accurate.

Infections are dropping and have been dropping since the peak. If infections are dropping deaths are dropping.

If infections are dropping and the data is up to date, but the data on deaths is lagged then the amount of people that actually died on any given day will be lower than the number reported.

What is it about that that I’m not understanding?

I've explained it dude! Trust me. Currently there are roughly what the reported 7 day averages dying every day. Infection rates aren't dropping significantly. Deaths aren't dropping significantly. You had me so worried I'd been an idiot I've just confirmed this with my pal who's one of PHE's main epidemiologists. You're correct that at this exact point in time deaths will be lower, but you're making out like this is a significant fall, when in reality it's likely to be a single figure change, i.e. not very much and in three or four weeks they'll likely be higher.

Infection numbers are almost COMPLETELY irrelevant and are a feature of tests performed. They'd only be a viable stat if everyone got tested every day. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.🙂