Jump to content
Chrisp1986

When will this shit end?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

In a couple of weeks they’ll be correspondingly lower though just like they are now compared to two weeks ago. 

357 people did not die from corona yesterday. We know 0.1% of the population were infected last week, that’s 9500 a day which at a rough guess would then work out at 95 deaths a day at a 1% mortality rate, or 28 deaths a day at a more realistic 0.3%.

I’ve shown you factual data that shows some of those 357 deaths happened in March and April, there isn’t much more I can do than that.

We could always adopt the Spanish method and just not report them at all and say we have none, which would be as accurate as 357.

All you've proven is that we won't know how many have died from CV yesterday for a little while, I sincerely hope the trends do continue down although the 7 day rolling average of reported deaths is plateauing slightly. Those stats are reported that way by the government produce themselves every day.

 

I've also shown you over comparisons where the UK is categorically the worst country in Europe but you still tried to claim that those stats weren't relevant. Anything that shows how bad things are in this country and therefore how bad this government has been you come on here to defend or just claim it's not relevant. The baffling thing is you don't even watch the briefings yet come on to defend things that are said in the briefings that you don't even watch.

 

Reporting no deaths is the same as reporting the 357 of today? Right ok then.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

All you've proven is that we won't know how many have died from CV yesterday for a little while, I sincerely hope the trends do continue down although the 7 day rolling average of reported deaths is plateauing slightly. Those stats are reported that way by the government produce themselves every day.

 

I've also shown you over comparisons where the UK is categorically the worst country in Europe but you still tried to claim that those stats weren't relevant. Anything that shows how bad things are in this country and therefore how bad this government has been you come on here to defend or just claim it's not relevant. The baffling thing is you don't even watch the briefings yet come on to defend things that are said in the briefings that you don't even watch.

 

Reporting no deaths is the same as reporting the 357 of today? Right ok then.

I have and would only ever dispute data that is factually inaccurate.

Based on your preferred method of excess deaths, the U.K. is actually second to Spain when population adjusted but that is neither here nor there.

Reporting 0 deaths or 357 deaths for the previous day was is exactly the same if neither figure was actually accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

But then in a couple of weeks they may have been from yesterday. This excuse has been used for weeks. Every day for months the figures have been from ‘old’ deaths, so the comparison has been consistent through out. Are deaths ‘announced’ today higher than they should be in relation to the governments actions of late? Absolutely.

 

I'm waiting for you to now say we shouldn't pay attention to the daily death figures.

It's worth listening to the series 'More or Less' on Radio 4. This week's episode https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08fvs16  explains how death statistics are being presented and stresses the ONS is the most reliable source. More or Less sheds light on the way numbers are used to justify political positions across the spectrum.  They have been particulary diligent in demolishing the claims to be testing 100k people a day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I have and would only ever dispute data that is factually inaccurate.

Based on your preferred method of excess deaths, the U.K. is actually second to Spain when population adjusted but that is neither here nor there.

Reporting 0 deaths or 357 deaths for the previous day was is exactly the same if neither figure was actually accurate. 

I've given several different methods of presenting the deaths, all to combat you claiming none of them are relevant. Figures put together by the top academics in this country, but you claim to know better than them. In those 3 different graphs I posted the other day it showed the UK as worst hit in Europe which given we had more time to prepare is indefensible. But there you are again desperate to show the UK isn't as bad.

 

It isn't my preferred method, the excess deaths, that was the way to measure them as stated by the Chief Medical Officer, we can go back to total deaths if you like even though we are 2 weeks behind. Or was it 3 or even 4 weeks behind, I'm not sure you kept saying differently the other day.

Edited by Ozanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I have and would only ever dispute data that is factually inaccurate.

Based on your preferred method of excess deaths, the U.K. is actually second to Spain when population adjusted but that is neither here nor there.

Reporting 0 deaths or 357 deaths for the previous day was is exactly the same if neither figure was actually accurate. 

 

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I've given several different methods of presenting the deaths, all to combat you claiming none of them are relevant. Figures put together by the top academics in this country, but you claim to know better than them. In those 3 different graphs I posted the other day it showed the UK as worst hit in Europe which given we had more time to prepare is indefensible. But there you are again desperate to show the UK isn't as bad.

 

It isn't my preferred method, the excess deaths, that was the way to measure them as stated by the Chief Medical Officer, we can go back to total deaths if you like even though we are 2 weeks behind. Or was it 3 or even 4 weeks behind, I'm not sure you kept saying differently the other day.

This is like watching a good tennis match....😁

Shall we get the popcorn?

Pimms and Strawberries optional 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lads, ye have another letter/number to be arguing about as well...K! (Which has a big impact on R)...appears especially relevant for this virus and how we handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Lads, ye have another letter/number to be arguing about as well...K! (Which has a big impact on R)...appears especially relevant for this virus and how we handle it.

lots of K in Manchester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Lads, ye have another letter/number to be arguing about as well...K! (Which has a big impact on R)...appears especially relevant for this virus and how we handle it.

Go on then... what's K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Lads, ye have another letter/number to be arguing about as well...K! (Which has a big impact on R)...appears especially relevant for this virus and how we handle it.

Just read a bit about it, seems pretty interesting especially we relax certain measures.

 

@Zoo Music Girl - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases

Edited by Ozanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Go on then... what's K?

Basically it’s the amount of variation in R (kind of!)...diseases with a high K number have lots of people who contribute to its spread, diseases with a low one have super-spreaders...COVID has a low K number meaning that not everyone is driving the R number. Control super spreading events and you can control R!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Basically it’s the amount of variation in R (kind of!)...diseases with a high K number have lots of people who contribute to its spread, diseases with a low one have super-spreaders...COVID has a low K number meaning that not everyone is driving the R number. Control super spreading events and you can control R!

Thank you - that was a lot easier to understand than the Guardian! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont tell the government that will be mondays briefing number ...

Edited by crazyfool1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

from 5pm on weekdays ? and 4pm at weekends ? 

From 5pm on weekends.

That is to say, 5pm on Friday through to 10pm sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s one thing I’ve noticed since lockdown sex with strangers was made illegal, the amount of matches I’m getting on dating apps and old flames getting back in touch has flown right up. 
 

Just a shame I can’t do a thing about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, blutarsky said:

This is the recurring theme for me.

There are lots of lovely examples of businesses/organisations looking after staff, but sadly far, far more examples of people being treated as numbers/drones who need to be put back to work to keep the economy going. The human cost isn't factored into business reopening plans, and the government, by changing the guidance on May 31st, has been complicit in this happening, if not the architects of it. 

I personally have been fighting a battle to avoid returning to work in order to limit the risk of my pregnant wife contracting Covid. This is despite the fact there is ample resource in my workplace for other staff to cover me and prevent me having to physically attend work and allow me to continue to work from home. Fortunately I have just won that battle, for the time being, but many others will not be so lucky. 

It shouldn't have had to come to me presenting research around the increased risk of premature labour and complications in labour among Covid infected mothers to win that battle. 

8 hours ago, EasyUserName said:

The whole issue of working / companies during this situation is very complex. 

I sit on the opposite side to you, to a degree - I am responsible for organising work, managing schedules and staff. 

I'm not commenting on your personal situation, but I thought it might be interesting to add my feedback into the mix.  We have mostly shut-down, with only a very limited amount of work being carried out.  This could comfortably be said to be "essential" work and cannot be done from home.  This has clearly reduced the turn-over to around 10% of "normal".  Much of the company is on furlough.  There are a few people who did not qualify unfortunately, and some who are "needed" due to their skills. 


The first thing to note is that most of the people at our company on furlough seem unaware that there is a cost attached to the company, and that it is not "free".  Aside from the holidays being accrued (an unrecoverable cost of around 13% of a salary) there is a company national insurance issue for us too.  Due to the size, this cannot be claimed (for reasons that I can go into if people want but it is very technically boring).  We also pay pensions in a way that is slightly higher than the minimum, meaning that for us there is an unrecoverable cost of about 25% of a salary.  This is running at around £3,000 per month in unrecoverable costs to have people on furlough.  This has to be paid for on the much reduced turn-over, meaning the company is making a loss each month currently (of course there are all the other fixed costs to add to the mix here). 

 

Some of the work that we do is restarting, and it is an essential part of the restarting process of these other business that it is carried out.  I am finding some resistance from people about coming off furlough.  I do understand about the risk of exposure, but it is a bit of an unsolvable problem here.  This work must be done.  There is no way to make it 100% exposure free as it involves leaving your house to do it.  I have no doubts that some of the people I manage feel that they are battling me.  I understand some people have specific issues, but I can say from personal experience that others in the company I work for are not so charitable about having to go to work whilst others are not.  We have a childcare issue with one person, and it is causing some resentment on a level I've not heard of before. 

 

I know this doesn't relate directly to your situation but I can see how someone would say that we're uncaring, and that they're fighting us.  I contrast this with the people who did not qualify for furlough, who due to their economic situation are unfortunately desperate to work  even at the risk of exposure, and I can't help but generalise that I find people's attitude depends a lot on if they are getting government support care of furlough, or not.

 

At the end of the day, the situation is rubbish for everyone, but as this business slowly goes under (some £10,000 in unrecoverable furlough costs soon + the other losses) it starts to drift into that morally difficult area of what value does risk to life have?  When does the human cost really run up against the economic costs?  (I mean really and not just cosmetically, as in economic costs mean no jobs and all that entails).

 

I didn't mean to hijack your comment, as your situation seems unfair, but who knows what is happening in the company unless you're on the other side of the desk. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The situation you describe is very different to what @blutarsky is saying though. You're talking about people who cannot work from home, not people who can but are being forced back. This despite the government advice that people who can work from home should do so.   ...

 

5 hours ago, blutarsky said:

That's exactly it. There are parts of my job I can't do from home, but there is a significant chunk of it which can, and which I have been doing from home since March. I still have to work from home, but was being forced into physically go in to do the other parts of the job on a rota, which could easily be covered by other staff. We're literally talking about 50 hours work over the next five weeks which was being covered by a team of six people. Of those six I am the only one with a legitimate healthcare concern meaning I was reticent about going back. My colleagues supported me, and they are now going to work 10 hours each, rather than eight, yet the employer was insisting I physically go in. That's not being a compassionate or flexible employer. 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

7 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

... Also what do you think people should do about the lack of childcare if told to go back to work? Bring the kid along? 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

There’s one thing I’ve noticed since lockdown sex with strangers was made illegal, the amount of matches I’m getting on dating apps and old flames getting back in touch has flown right up. 
 

Just a shame I can’t do a thing about it. 

Must just be me missing out on missing out then :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Wow do you work in the 1950s? Schools are closed for most year groups or didn't you hear? Even Boris said the other day that not having childcare should preclude people from having to be forced back to work. Really hope the people bothering you with this trivial issue find another job at a more progressive company soon. Most people would put the welfare of their kids ahead of your company's profit margins I'm afraid and rightly so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EasyUserName said:

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Wow. Whilst it might not directly be your companies issue you have a duty of care to your employees and also as a human a morale duty to date about them and their family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Generally because the ‘caveat’ is normally a significant piece of information. From this article:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-05/death-toll-coronavirus-uk-friday-5-june-covid-19/

NHS England announced 123 new deaths of people who tested positive for Covid-19, bringing the total number of confirmed reported deaths in hospitals in England to 27,282. Of the 123 new deaths announced on Friday 19 occurred on June 4, 50 on June 3, 23 June 2 while seven people who had tested positive for Covid-19 died on June 1.The figures also show 19 of the new deaths took place in May, four occurred in April, and the remaining one death took place on March 25.

 

the reason for the long delay for some of those is postmortems.

It's no surprise to me that some are taking a long time. Last September it was taking over a month for postmortems in some parts of the country, so is bound to be taking even longer now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...