When will this shit end?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

@eFestivals

 

funnily enough, the other worst-area in the south west is exeter. I wonder what they and bristol have in common?  

[stuartbert two hats]

12 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Is it interesting because it is called "The Average age of Deaths" and then plots the median age? 

To be fair, I was taught at school that the mean, median and mode were all different kinds of averages.  I know that the mean is generally taken to be "the" average, but given the audience at what people learn at school, I think we can give them that one - especially since  they've clarified which average they mean (pun not intended).

[Fuzzy Afro]

Median is a better average when it comes to death ages because they aren’t normally distributed. If you use mean, it’s skewed down by the odd child and young adult, whereas you don’t really have many 160 year olds dying from covid last time I checked 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

funnily enough, the other worst-area in the south west is exeter. I wonder what they and bristol have in common?  

Yeah, I wonder what situation would be like if Unis had stayed closed?

[Field Commander Jefferson]

6 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

And when does that end? (ie, when do we let the vulnerable population back into society...for the record, while age is a major risk factor, others increase risk substantially too...the estimated vulnerable population is at least 30%, many of whom have jobs, all of whom have lives...so how long do they live in this bubble you are proposing?)....Genuine question. 

Its a valid question as to when that would end but when does the current scenario end anyway?

At the moment we have students who are totally unaffected by this locked up in their dorms.

Where is this 30% figure coming from, the stats simply don't support that.

Please believe I'm not being contrary or flippant about the seriousness of the virus to some people but there has to be some perspective and a more sensible approach taken in line with the bigger picture

 .

 

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

To be fair, I was taught at school that the mean, median and mode were all different kinds of averages.  I know that the mean is generally taken to be "the" average, but given the audience at what people learn at school, I think we can give them that one - especially since  they've clarified which average they mean (pun not intended).

Ah, I was just being facetious! Median does still mean (no pun intended either) that half of the people that died were younger than 82.4. Mean and median are crude enough descriptors of mortality rates for this anyway (age-based stratification is a bit more informative in terms of assessing risk). What the above graph shows is that mostly, older people are at risk of dying more than younger people irrespective of the cause (Duh!). To be honest, what age the people that die are doesn't matter to me, it's the fact that they are dying and wouldn't have otherwise that I have an issue with (irrespective of how long the rest of their life may or may not have been). 

[DeanoL]

14 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Median is a better average when it comes to death ages because they aren’t normally distributed. If you use mean, it’s skewed down by the odd child and young adult, whereas you don’t really have many 160 year olds dying from covid last time I checked 

I get what you're saying but equally all it means is that half the people who died were over 82.4. And half were younger. 

And while that is a lot, if a disease came along which delivered half the death rate of COVID-19, and hit people exclusively 82.4 years and younger, we'd still be very, very concerned.

[FestivalJamie]

17 minutes ago, Field Commander Jefferson said:

At the moment we have students who are totally unaffected by this locked up in their dorms.

Selfish selfish selfish attitude.

I have a friend, same age as me, 19 years old, no underlying health conditions and she was on a ventilator with covid a few months ago. I also have an aunt who is in her 40s who is still suffering with long covid 6 months after infection (no health problems either).

To make a sweeping generalisation that most young people are “totally unaffected” is actually quite comical- because it’s completely wrong. And I’m sorry but it’s a very ignorant comment. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by FestivalJamie

[Fuzzy Afro]

ONS survey absolutely through the roof @Ozanne last week was a blip 

[gizmoman]

11 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Ah, I was just being facetious! Median does still mean (no pun intended either) that half of the people that died were younger than 82.4. Mean and median are crude enough descriptors of mortality rates for this anyway (age-based stratification is a bit more informative in terms of assessing risk). What the above graph shows is that mostly, older people are at risk of dying more than younger people irrespective of the cause (Duh!). To be honest, what age the people that die are doesn't matter to me, it's the fact that they are dying and wouldn't have otherwise that I have an issue with (irrespective of how long the rest of their life may or may not have been). 

But the age is important, if the cost of lockdown is an increase in suicide for example, you are saving a 80 year old who has maybe 5 years of possibly poor quality life left, at the cost of a young man of say 25, who has a whole life left to live. (just quoting a typical suicide case), it would be nice to not have any of these deaths but we are having to make hard choices and not all lives saved are the same. (and I say this as one of the older ones on here).

[FestivalJamie]

3 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

But the age is important, if the cost of lockdown is an increase in suicide for example, you are saving a 80 year old who has maybe 5 years of possibly poor quality life left, at the cost of a young man of say 25, who has a whole life left to live. (just quoting a typical suicide case), it would be nice to not have any of these deaths but we are having to make hard choices and not all lives saved are the same. (and I say this as one of the older ones on here).

Wow, the level of insensitivity today on this forum is through the roof!

If people actually followed the current rules a lockdown wouldn’t be needed, the economy could stay open and such high volumes of people wouldn’t be being hospitalised.

All of this talk of do we lockdown or not lockdown is crazy. There’s a middle ground which germany and italy are achieving. There’s no reason why we can’t. But that starts with 100% of people masking up in indoor spaces, compared to the pathetic efforts we have at the moment. For test and trace to be resolved and for the problem with universities and schools to be addressed.

Closing things down is obviously not the ideal solution, but until people start to act responsibly, what choice do we have?

Edited October 9, 2020 by FestivalJamie

[Field Commander Jefferson]

7 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Selfish selfish selfish attitude.

I have a friend, same age as me, 19 years old, no underlying health conditions and she was on a ventilator with covid a few months ago. I also have an aunt who is in her 40s who is still suffering with long covid 6 months after infection (no health problems either).

To make a sweeping generalisation that most young people are “totally unaffected” is actually quite comical- because it’s completely wrong. And I’m sorry but it’s a very ignorant comment. 

Mate I'm sorry to hear about your friend, on the flip side I have a friend who missed months of crucial cancer treatment.

Amongst other things, the numbers of cancer screenings could turn out to be huge

Its a bad situation but I'm concerned we're so fixated on something that last month was only the 24th biggest cause of death that we're not seeing the bigger picture.

 

For example, there were 50,000 excess winter deaths caused by flu in 2017/2018 flu season

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Field Commander Jefferson

[zahidf]

I think the lockdown until there is a vaccine and ITS JUST THE FLU crowds probably need some sort of middle ground

 

What about blaming the govt for fucking up track and trace?

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, Field Commander Jefferson said:

Mate I'm sorry to hear about your friend, on the flip side I have a friend who missed months of crucial cancer treatment.

Amongst other things, the numbers of cancer screenings could turn out to be huge

Its a bad situation but I'm concerned we're so fixated on something that last month was only the 24th biggest cause of death that we're not seeing the bigger picture.

 

I don’t disagree with your sentiment at all, but just wanted to point out that none of the 23 causes of death that rank above covid have the ability to double or triple every couple of weeks.

 

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

Just now, FestivalJamie said:

Selfish selfish selfish attitude.

I have a friend, same age as me, 19 years old, no underlying health conditions and she was on a ventilator with covid a few months ago. I also have an aunt who is in her 40s who is still suffering with long covid 6 months after infection.

To make a sweeping generalisation that most people are “totally unaffected” is actually quite comical- because it’s completely wrong. And I’m sorry but it’s a very ignorant comment. 

Except it isn't wrong though is it? 86% of people don't know they have it. 

So while I'm incredibly sorry to hear about your aunt and friend, they are in a very small minority and I totally understand the reasons and passion in your post it is a fact that most people are unaffected by Covid, and many of those who are affected by it aren't severely poorly there are unfortunately always exceptions to the rule. You almost have to look at the numbers as just that numbers and take the personal element out of it - and I know that sounds horrible and harsh but it's what people have to do when making decisions. 

I hope both your aunt and your friends health improves. 

[FestivalJamie]

2 minutes ago, Field Commander Jefferson said:

Mate I'm sorry to hear about your friend, on the flip side I have a friend who missed months of crucial cancer treatment.

Amongst other things, the numbers of cancer screenings could turn out to be huge

Its a bad situation but I'm concerned we're so fixated on something that last month was only the 24th biggest cause of death that we're not seeing the bigger picture.

 

But cancer treatment only got cancelled because the UK didnt take the virus serious enough, so we had no choice but to cancel cancer treatments as we locked down too late and therefore everything had to turn to covid. Because yes the disease is that deadly! Had we locked down a week earlier we could have still carried on cancer treatments and other medical treatments because hospitals and staff wouldn’t have been as overwhelmed as they were. It’s the lack of strategy which is the issue here.

We’re heading down the same slippery slope as we were in March. Deaths appear to be doubling every 2 weeks. That makes in a month we will be seeing 280 daily deaths, 2 months 560. That’s without action, and without the population starting to act responsibly.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Field Commander Jefferson said:

Mate I'm sorry to hear about your friend, on the flip side I have a friend who missed months of crucial cancer treatment.

Amongst other things, the numbers of cancer screenings could turn out to be huge

Its a bad situation but I'm concerned we're so fixated on something that last month was only the 24th biggest cause of death that we're not seeing the bigger picture.

 

and if we don't stop the virus spread more even more people will miss out on cancer treatment as hospitals are full of covid and flu patients. Stricter lockdowns will help those needing cancer treatment.

I don't want a lockdown either, it is shit, and I particularly hate it for my kid who is missing out on life...but I think we have to try and follow the scientific consensus which is telling us further restrictions are needed, especially in certain areas.

Edited October 9, 2020 by steviewevie

[FestivalJamie]

I am by no means advocating a lockdown. But I think we will have no choice. When I go out to the shops and I see only 40% in a mask I know that a lockdown will be the only option. 

The government have a massive responsibility in this too, the messaging has been left right and centre since the start. Lack of focus on ventilation and too much focus on sanitisation and cleaning. Test and track messed up. Schools and universities major Superspreaders.

But until the public take this seriously I am confident we will have a second lockdown. If the government can’t take responsibility, as a society we all need to do the best we can.

People keep commenting about the volume of asymptomatic people. Well ZOE estimates it’s 20%, despite some other nonsense news articles I’ve read saying it’s as high as 80%. But this is what makes the virus so deadly is that 20% of people who have it don’t know as there are NO symptoms. That puts the rest of the population at risk. If that person with no symptoms doesn’t wear a mask they are then an asymptomatic superspreader. This could infects hundreds of others potentially and end up increasing hospital admissions. It’s a slippery slope. People having the attitude “this doesn’t affect me im young and healthy” is selfish- and exactly is the reason why we are heading into the situation we are heading into.

 

[st dan]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think the lockdown until there is a vaccine and ITS JUST THE FLU crowds probably need some sort of middle ground

 

What about blaming the govt for fucking up track and trace?

My main issue with the ‘middle ground’ approach is that you’re not effectively tackling either end of the stick (fighting the virus vs the economy/livelihoods) so then neither end up winning and you’ve somehow managed to mess everything up from all angles. 
For me I would prefer either one or the other, if we’re going to lockdown again then let’s do it properly. If not, then let’s try to live as much of a ‘normal’ life as we can.
It’s clear that as a nation we cannot effectively manage this ‘middle ground’ approach we are currently in. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by st dan

[FestivalJamie]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and if we don't stop the virus spread more even more people will miss out on cancer treatment as hospitals are full of covid and flu patients. Stricter lockdowns will help those needing cancer treatment.

I don't want a lockdown either, it is shit, and I particularly hate it for my kid who is missing out on life...but I think we have to try and follow the scientific consensus which is telling us further restrictions are needed, especially in certain areas.

Agreed. I don’t think we need a lockdown either, but only if we all start taking responsibility now.

[Freddyflintstonree]

4 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Agreed. I don’t think we need a lockdown either, but only if we all start taking responsibility now.

Haven't we been saying this for months?

[FestivalJamie]

Just now, Freddyflintstonree said:

Haven't we been saying this for months?

Unfortunately, yes. But for some reason most people have just decided the whole situation doesn’t concern them anymore.

[eFestivals]

Just now, FestivalJamie said:

But for some reason most people have just decided the whole situation doesn’t concern them anymore.

to be fair, it's hard to back a plan that clearly hasn't/isn't working. 

 

[FestivalJamie]

Just now, eFestivals said:

to be fair, it's hard to back a plan that clearly hasn't/isn't working. 

 

Of course, and that’s why there’s fundamental issues with the government’s response in all of this. I’m really worried for the next few months, I think they are going to be rough

[efcfanwirral]

3 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

I am by no means advocating a lockdown. But I think we will have no choice. When I go out to the shops and I see only 40% in a mask I know that a lockdown will be the only option. 

The government have a massive responsibility in this too, the messaging has been left right and centre since the start. Lack of focus on ventilation and too much focus on sanitisation and cleaning. Test and track messed up. Schools and universities major Superspreaders.

But until the public take this seriously I am confident we will have a second lockdown. If the government can’t take responsibility, as a society we all need to do the best we can.

People keep commenting about the volume of asymptomatic people. Well ZOE estimates it’s 20%, despite some other nonsense news articles I’ve read saying it’s as high as 80%. But this is what makes the virus so deadly is that 20% of people who have it don’t know as there are NO symptoms. That puts the rest of the population at risk. If that person with no symptoms doesn’t wear a mask they are then an asymptomatic superspreader. This could infects hundreds of others potentially and end up increasing hospital admissions. It’s a slippery slope. People having the attitude “this doesn’t affect me im young and healthy” is selfish- and exactly is the reason why we are heading into the situation we are heading into.

 

Agreeing with you on how asymptomatic makes it so dangerous, but I'd guess it'll end up being more than 20% asymptomatic in the wider world outside the ZOE study (or even the wider real numbers) just because there will be loads of people who pick it up without being contact traced so would never get tested, so would never know they had it. Especially if asymptomatic can lead to transmission - there surely would be loads of asymptomatic -> asymptomatic chains where none of themwould ever know they had it.

I imagine loads are in a similar position to me - I won't be in contact with anyone who has it because I won't be meeting up with people until it's over, but if I picked it up in the supermarket and got no or mild symptoms I wouldn't get a test, I'd just isolate it out if symptoms showed (unless I needed the hospital).

Maybe wishful thinking as it may be dangerous having infected people going around without symptoms BUT on balance the positives are more Asymptomatic = more people kicking it either through natural immunity or just having good immune systems, which even if it doesn't mean the same next time they pick it up, it still indicates less people being susceptible. Back in March it was just a hopeful theory but now is pretty proven