Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, whitehorses said:

As I *understand it Germany reports deaths according to the underlying condition not Covid. Hence why their death rate seems lower. So if we do switch to that kind of reporting we’re not alone. 

*i don’t know if this is true though 

They have said that’s not the case. Appears to be down to the massive amounts of testing (almost 500,000 per week), so they have a more accurate count of infections. It’s notable that the two countries with the highest testing rates (South Korea & Germany) also have among the lowest fatality rates (even though infection rates are high enough). It’s probably the best estimate of the fatality rate among symptomatic patients (how many asymptomatic carriers there are is another matter). There’s other cultural contributors to the low death rate compared to Italy and Spain as well, both of those countries have a higher median age of cases, which obviously plays a role. The health service in Germany isn’t completely swamped yet either, so triaging patients based on probability of survival hasn’t happened either, which would spike fatalities massively (see Italy and Spain again)...so, lots of factors all adding up to why Germany is doing well.

Edited by Toilet Duck
Typos again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Germany is mainly the testing, but also their superior healthcare facilities. A 2011 survey found they had 29 hospital beds per 100,000 population - we had just 6, and if anything have gone backwards since.

Meanwhile we are still only testing 5,000 a day, despite promises of more - another symptom of our delay in adopting the consensus approach.

At least the police are being reminded that they’re there to enforce the law, not make it up: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/30/uk-police-guidelines-coronavirus-lockdown-enforcement-powers-following-criticism-lord-sumption?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Sorry, they did what?!

they did the same thing as they do every year.

It's a dangerous quarry, but also with added toxic water.

So the old bill throw dye in it every year to make it unappealing for swimming.

The papers, meanwhile, did the same thing as they do every day - sensationalise a story into bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

they did the same thing as they do every year.

It's a dangerous quarry, but also with added toxic water.

So the old bill throw dye in it every year to make it unappealing for swimming.

The papers, meanwhile, did the same thing as they do every day - sensationalise a story into bollocks.

Oh right. That's still mental! Doesn't it kill whatever lives in it? Surely a sign is good enough and if people still decide to jump it that's just their own fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Oh right. That's still mental! Doesn't it kill whatever lives in it? Surely a sign is good enough and if people still decide to jump it that's just their own fault?

there's nothing that lives in it. It's a toxic soup.

And the people who jump in often die, so it's less hassle for the old bill to dye it than to deal with a death because they haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nah.

The number of deaths is going to be just about the same no matter how much testing they do of the living.

The example of South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, who have both gone for mass testing in a big way, would suggest you are wrong. If you know more about where the virus is, you can more easily contain it and keep it away from the vulnerable, as well as prepare your hospitals for it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's nothing that lives in it. It's a toxic soup.

And the people who jump in often die, so it's less hassle for the old bill to dye it than to deal with a death because they haven't.

I guess I'm just amazed that people are that thick. But probably shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Brave Sir Robin said:

The example of South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, who have both gone for mass testing in a big way, would suggest you are wrong.

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Quote

If you know more about where the virus is, you can more easily contain it and keep it away from the vulnerable, as well as prepare your hospitals for it.

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whitehorses said:

As I *understand it Germany reports deaths according to the underlying condition not Covid. Hence why their death rate seems lower. So if we do switch to that kind of reporting we’re not alone. 

*i don’t know if this is true though 

I read an open letter from a bunch of top german experts to their government implying the opposite may be true.... that people who have the virus found in their system postmortem are being recorded as dying from it even though they may well not have. There was some very interesting question raised with sources etc, well worth a read. Not sure how big a pinch of salt to take it with though...

https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/

I have also read (more pinches of salt) that the virus has been downgraded by public health england and the government is over playing its severity to help ease any burdon on the NHS.  

Again all just food for thought. 

I do think we will start to see restriction slowly lifted in a staggered fashion by May sometime. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

To be fair you said "The number of deaths is going to be just about the same ", not "The actual death rate is going to be...".  Which isn't quite true either - if by mass testing and targeted quarantining you can keep the infection rate down, then your heath services are less likely to be overwhelmed, bringing the death rate itself down as well as the absolute number of deaths.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

 

Ah well this very much depends on how your containment goes after you have done your massive amounts of testing. If you approach it as doing loads to testing. locating cases, and isolating the most vulnerable while trying to keep some normality for the rest of the population, then you could get more infections compared to shutting down the whole country, but a much lower death rate because the vulnerable are shielded from it.

Of course, this is an extreme example but you could change the death rate with increased testing as a death rate is impacted by a huge amount of factors and at the moment, we are in the 10s thousands of cases so small variations have a large impact on the figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

nah.

The number of deaths is going to be just about the same no matter how much testing they do of the living.

If you know about more minor infections then the death rate appears lower. If you only know about more severe infection then death rate would appear higher.

Given equality of care the overall death rate should be fairly evenly distributed across the globe. But we all know we don’t get equal care... And some populations, elderly for example, will also skew that.

Edited by whitehorses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

As @stuartbert two hats has pointed out, you were previously talking about overall numbers of dead, now you're talking death rate of the infected, which are obviously very different.

But I'd argue you will do better even on the overall rate with extensive testing, as if you know more about who has and hasn't got it you can do a better job of keeping it away from those most at risk.

PS @eFestivals, typo in the Wyldes article, in the body you've got it rescheduling to a few days later in June...

Edited by Brave Sir Robin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...