Altyfans.co.uk - Altrincham Football Club Fans Forum

General Category => Non Altrincham FC Talk => Topic started by: admin on September 14, 2020, 04:09:05 PM

Title: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: admin on September 14, 2020, 04:09:05 PM
Please use this thread
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Steve from Sale on September 14, 2020, 08:51:30 PM
That was the thread I used sorry,as instructed, not the other ones relating to other news items.

Sorry if I have done something wrong!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 14, 2020, 11:23:45 PM
hmm, I can see problems arising when someone has a basically football related post but the current restrictions come into it. Where do you draw the line?  And if you start out with "good" intentions but get sidetracked?

Anyway, worth a try I suppose. Be interesting to see what actually happens...

And I notice the last post on this section before this thread was in May! The off topic section seems to work reasonably well on the Chester forum, but for whatever reason, the non-first team sections seem barely used on here. Anything that can be done?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 17, 2020, 12:54:37 AM
Well I don't know if I'm talking to myself here but anyway (perhaps that was the idea  :) )

Another 20 deaths today, and I can see weekly deaths going up to maybe 3 or 400 in an Autumn ripple due to delayed herd immunity, 500 tops and briefly (or about 5 per cent of the 1918 death rate from Spanish flu), and I can see the government panicking long before then and even more disruption. 1000 fans on October 3rd? Don't hold your breath!

How many posts before someone else posts, I wonder(assuming I keep posting!)? 20/ 30? any number? I wonder how Chester did it?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 17, 2020, 12:57:27 AM
It just occurred to me that the "associated discussion" is mainly football. Well done admin ;) Nah only joking, I know it's a hard job - you're damned if you do, damned if you don't sometimes.

Here's two of the thirty posts anyway, goodnight.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 17, 2020, 09:34:37 PM
I see in Sweden care homes will be open from October 1st. Sadly in this country I doubt I'll be able to spend Christmas with "Granny". Disgrace. Sweden also has the lowest cases/100,000 in Europe  and falling, as one might ext. Would love to know what the authorities do about, like, evidence and all that (and when they're having their fact finding mission to Sweden).

Well, this page could make an interesting virtual diary if nothing else!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on September 18, 2020, 11:31:09 AM
I'll join in with some COVID stuff, given I'm one of those who demanded your exile!

I see Connah's Quay manager and noted maniac Andy Morrison has bent the rules with regards pandemic protocols. What's your take, Hugh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54199351
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 18, 2020, 10:06:12 PM
Well, thank you for the exile, and welcome to the diary!  :)

Well, I see my bluff has been called, so here goes., in general terms I would say -

Whilst I don't know anything about Andy Morrison and his maniacal tendencies (though I seem to remember another Andy, Andy Green, who might merit that description!), in general terms I would say

It seems to me that the FAW are wise to call for the full facts before commenting, but in general terms.

1) Rules should be applied evenly to all teams. Whatever one might think of the particular rules put into place, if Connah's Quay or whoever have broken the rules, they should be dealt with appropriately, and I said about Brackley that it was a nonsense that they were able to have their fans singing "at" the Gateshead playoff when other clubs weren't.

2) I'm afraid I can't remember the second point if indeed there was one! (I deleted my text by mistake and had to rewrite it from memory)

3)People who test positive should be able to have a second test within two days or as soon as possible if it is going to affect them seriously, this should be by an independent laboratory, and this is because, as I understand it, there is a significant risk of false positives with these tests, and the same conditions which caused the first false positive may be still present at the same laboratory for a second test.

4) There seem to be rather a lot of symptoms, including, if I remember rightly, actual bedwetting. The headaches and upset stomach may of course be down to pre match nerves, though with some of their team having tested positive, it would seem perhaps rather self serving for their manager to claim that this theory must be right, although I would want to get all the facts about no player showing a temperature or "answering" that they displayed any symptoms. If they "answered", possibly disingenuously or through ignorance, that they displayed no symptoms, and if noone in authority noticed any symptoms, they could, of course, have got away with one, although if the symptoms are not serious enough to notice, then how serious is it?
In general terms, if someone is with this bug but asymptomatic, there is a very small chance of them passing it on, and when they do pass it on, it would almost certainly be to someone who they were in prolonged close contact with , indoors. And very few healthy people below a certain age die from it. So the risk was likely negligible, however they may have technically broken a rule, which is a matter for UEFA and their cup etc. once the full facts have been established.
5) What a cheek a Conservative party politician has coming over all furious about it after infectious people from hospitals were put back into care homes without testing under a Conservative government. Not that I want to get into politics, you understand, but just on this specific point.

Well, it was certainly an interesting story, which gave me plenty to think about, and may I respond with a question of my own - with the sad demise of Bury, Droylsden, Belle Vue and (arguably!) Macc in the last year, how many senior sports clubs do you expect to go under in the next year, and particularly in the North West, and considering that Droylsden, Belle Vue and Nantwich (had to releaseall their players) have been directly affected by the current situation (which may of course get worse, judging by the poll on the new season)?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on September 19, 2020, 10:26:20 AM
Oh, it's going to be absolute carnage, no doubt. I think the non league football landscape is going to change hugely in the coming 12 months. It gets worse the lower down you go though. The Counties have already lost two teams, FC Oswestry and Shelley and I expect there'll be many moire to come. There's certain things that can be done, streaming games etc, which have the potential to mitigate the losses. The lower down you go, the harder that gets though.

By the way, who do you mean by Belle Vue? There was never a club by that name?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 19, 2020, 04:51:52 PM
I was referring to Belle Vue greyhounds, they had to close recently. I understand the speedway went some time ago - I was asking about all sports. I don't particularly knowwhat's going on in other sports, but I happened to read about Belle Vue (the MEN I think) and they were a striking local example at a prominent venue. Still, if it's bad for football, I dare say it's bad for other sports.

I wonder if they'll keep the current structure for the National league, or even go ahead with the step 4 extra division. They might have trouble filling the places at steps 5 and 6. A pity if so, I thhink the planned changes could have been a platform for Northern League teams to finally progress up the pyramid.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on September 20, 2020, 10:13:36 PM
Well, the greyhounds demise was sped up by COVID, but the dog track was already scheduled for demolition so they were finished anyway. The speedway are fine by the way, they're playing fixtures (if that's the right term) in the shiny new stadium next door.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 20, 2020, 11:24:07 PM
Glad the speedway are ok, would have been a shame to lose the site completely.

One would assume there's not much left of greyhound racing now with multiple London sites also closing - unless they simply use different venues.

Didn't Winsford used to have something of the sort?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 20, 2020, 11:57:37 PM
Right, it's the end of the week, it's the "that political bug" section, so I guess I should say something on recent developments.

Firstly, on places I've been tracking.

Globally, there was an average of 5307 deaths/day over the last week, compared to 5757/day for the week before, and 5291/day the week before that, so pretty much stable - though how reliable the reported figures are is another matter - just look at Belarus!
Lockdown fanatics Peru have recorded 111 deaths/day, down from 129/day last week, from a population of 33m.
France saw 675 deaths, compared to 304 the week before, and 95 the week before that, so I may have to revise up my prediction of 500/week maximum for the UK slightly!
Brazil saw 5259 reported deaths last week, compared to 5008 the week before, and 5759 the previous week, so apparently fairly stable, and with a death rate marginally higher than the UK, though I suspect the diverse geography of such a large country could complicate things.
Our friends in Sweden were up 19 (approx equivalent to 128 in the UK), compared to 11 the week before, and 14 the week before that, though I hesitate to claim any trend in such small numbers.
Here in the UK, the figure for last week (Sun to Sat) was 163, compared to 74 the week before.

Well, what I will say with some certainty is that we will not see UK deaths increasing 3 fold per week over the next few weeks as in March when deaths rose from 14 on the 14th to 980 (reported) on Good Friday.
And that I know which of those countries I'd want to live in - Sweden!

Well, I'll be adding Belgium (9944 deaths) and Spain (30495 deaths) to my watch list and hope to update further in the future. Feel free to disagree - or leave me to write my own script. To the tumbleweed! Anyway, here are the bare facts, and people can draw their own conclusions.

Edit:France is now reading 31285 total deaths instead of 31585 as previously, ie 375 further deaths last week if this is right.

Even Whitty etc. are predicting "over 200 uk deaths/day" in November, or one fifth of April - let's see how this prediction holds up compared to others (1/2m deaths, Sweden will be a disaster etc.). We are locking down again for this?!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on September 25, 2020, 08:37:34 PM
So I am confused.How many deaths a day is acceptable? I don't have an answer to this but I'm aware of how many people a day die on the roads without us banning cars
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: JD on September 27, 2020, 10:50:54 PM
To get perspective you need to look at comparisons:

1% of deaths are with C19
In August C19 was the 24th most fatal illness/disease
More people are dying of flu/pneumonia
There is an average 1500-16-- deaths per day, C19 is involved in 25-30 of them
An increase in deaths with any respiratory disease is normal for this time of year
Several studies have estimated more deaths from the resu;ts of the lockdown than with C19 - at least 75,000, with an unnamed govt source suggesting 125k

SAGE said at the start of this that you cannot get rid of the virus; it is here to stay. All lockdowns do is increase the duration of this.

American studies have found you have over a 99.9% chance of survival IF you get the virus
Even Raab has said there is a 93% false positive rate, supporting American studies and the research iof such As Sunetra Gupta and the Oxford Uni Centre for Evidence based Medicine (I emphasize EVIDENCE!)

At the start of this we were advised tyou had to be in close contact, inside for a min 15mins to have a chance of catching this - we have since not been told otherwise.

Its all about perspective!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 28, 2020, 01:36:55 AM
Apparently there was a radio interview with Raab where he appeared surprised when told that the number of c.v. deaths for healthy people under 60 was 307! Quite a large per centage of the population presumably.

Funnily enough in my student days (as a cyclist angry at the behaviour of some motorists) I was somewhat in favour of banning cars, and limiting motor vehicles to about 8mph! So I understand how people can lose sight of the bigger picture when focusing too narrowly on on issue.

I hope to provide a fuller update tomorrow, and hope that things have sorted themselves out on the first team section, and that no one thought I was having a go at the ladies team or Brian Flynn - I haven't checked yet!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on September 28, 2020, 11:55:05 PM
A day late with my update this week, but I will follow a similar format - the Sunday to Saturday deaths for the UK, and the increase from last Sunday to this Sunday for other countries( as they may not update daily in the same way). I will also give what their daily death rate would be equivalent to in the UK (ie adjusted for population)

Just briefly, the idea of this is to try and get an idea of what approaches work, and where we might be headed, as well as give a bit of balance to some of the fear-mongering from the government and media (and many people are genuinely scared) . In answer to Cheshire Cat, I would put it the other way round - how many deaths (or cases if you're New Zealand) justify serious curtailing of basic freedoms (including a possible unprecedented peacetime cancellation of the season)? As JD pointed out, there is quite serious collateral damage from lockdowns, and they really should have historians and economists on Sage to enable a more balanced, holistic approach.

This week, I will start with the UK figures.

The UK saw 212 deaths reported last week, or 30/day, compared to 163 last week and 74 the week before that, so a slowing rate of increase. Just to give an idea of the "steep upward curve" we are on, here are the figures for the last 11 days, starting with Friday the 18th:
Friday - 27; Saturday - 54; Sunday - 18; Monday - 11; Tuesday - 37; Wednesday - 37; Thursday - 40; Friday - 34;Saturday - 35; Sunday - 17; Monday - 13.
It is worth pointing out also in the wake of the appalling scenes of uni freshers in Manchester who are virtual prisoners in their cramped accommodation, that' last I heard, only 3 people in the 15-18 age group (who were all seriously ill) have died of this cv, and no teachers are reported to have died from being infected by their pupils. Is this acceptable?

Global deaths were 5367/day, equivalent to 47/day in the UK. This is a marginal increase on last week, and similar to previous weeks, so clearly not spiralling out of control.

Next we move on to lockdown fanatics Peru, with 893 deaths last week, equivalent to 262/day in the UK. Whatever they're doing, it's not working!

Let's compare them to their more laissez-faire neighbours Brazil. They have had 749 deaths/day, equivalent to 239/day in the UK. So still high, but less than Peru, who would appear to be gaining little benefit from their draconian and ruinously expensive measures.

Moving on to Europe now, and a look at where we are allegedly headed. France saw 442 deaths, equivalent to 66/day in the UK. This represents a modest increase on their 375 deaths for the previous week, and 304 the week before that - a slowing rate of increase.

Spain, which had a particularly strict lockdown, suffered 737 deaths last week, equivalent to 153/day in the UK. So even lockdown idiots Spain are some way short of "over 200 deaths per day" at the moment, and are said to be already peaking.

Next on to two European countries with contrasting approaches but similar populations. Firstly Belgium, perhaps the most fanatical of lockdown zealots in Europe, saw 30 deaths total for the week,
equivalent to 25/day in the UK.

And finally, our friends in "disaster zone" Sweden, who sailed on serenely with 15 deaths, equivalent to 14/day in the UK - ie the number of deaths reported at the time South Shields played FC United in front of over 3,000, which therefore appears to be an acceptable number, at any rate to the authorities!

So, it would appear from thiese official figures that there are no great benefits from draconian lockdown restrictions, and the "over 200 deaths per day" for the UK may not be reached.

What I particularly want from the authorities is a clear idea of their end game, and when that might be reached. What we can say for certain is that if countries like New Zealand were to maintain a minimal number of cases, it would mean shutting themselves off from other countries which have many more cases, a dsurely unsustainable approach.

And if we were to listen to economists and historians, they could surely paint as scary a picture or worse than professor pantsdown - after all, we know what happened with the depression of the 1930's, and after the 2008 financial crisis. Crashing the economy never ends well!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 05, 2020, 09:30:55 PM
Last week the UK saw an average of 49 cv deaths/day reported, and an average weekly increase of about one and two thirds since weekly deaths moved over 100, compared to a near 3 fold increase per week in March to April. Total deaths last week were 346, still some way below my prediction of 500/week peak, so it is still not clear if the government's prediction of over 1400/week will prove more accurate. Still, it seems  likely that deaths will not start to fall significantly until November, and take some time after that to get to low levels. They may be just about low enough for the authorities to "save" Christmas. I was right about one thing, anyway, that the government panicked well before 500 deaths/week.

France and Spain are said to be ahead of us, so let's look at where they are to see where we might be going.

Spain reported an average of 122 deaths/day last weekequivalent to 177/day in the UK compared to 105 deaths/day last week, suggesting it is levelling off. Indeed, it has been claimed that deaths have already peaked in Spain, so we will see if this translates into a decrease in deaths over the next few weeks.

France meanwhile reported 72 deaths/day, equivalent to 75 deaths/day in the UK, compared to 63 deaths/day last week, so they also appear to be levelling off.

Moving on to "disaster zone" Sweden, they had exactly the same deaths as last week, equivalent to 14/day in the UK. Still, maybe they will see a huge surge next week, or next month, or perhaps next year. Maybe.

Lockdown idiots Belgium saw a big increase to 10 deaths/day, equivalent to 58/day in the UK, and quite a lot more than Sweden.

Brazil had 4576 reported deaths last week, compared to 5244 the week before. Average daily deaths equivalent to 209 in the UK

Reported Peru deaths were well down and equivalent to 118/day in the UK. However their total death rate is still much worse than Brazil's.

Global deaths were an average of 5,601/day, equivalent to 49/day in the UK, and coincidentally the same as the UK daily average. This was slightly up on last week, but within the range of the previous 3 weeks, so no exponential growth, and I expect some sort of global herd immunity in the next few months.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 13, 2020, 01:13:03 AM
Right, I'll start with the good news. Spain and France both saw a decrease in deaths. If that is where we're headed, hopefully the UK will peak soon, and in fact, UK deaths  and infections have been levelling off, and deaths in London appear to have already peaked. I would expect the UK to peak certainly within the next four weeks, and quite possibly within a week or two, and should peak a long way below the 200 deaths/day the authorities were warning of, though probably a bit over my own prediction of 500 deaths max in a week. Then it's a question of how quickly deaths (hopefully) come down to a level where the authorities end these damaging restrictions on watching our first team etc.

Onto the places I've been tracking, and I'll start with the country of the moment, lockdown zealots Spain. Having risen to 854 deaths last week from 737 the week before, it was down slightly to 843 this week. Significantly, this was before new restrictions in Madrid could have influenced things.This is equivalent to 175 deaths/day in the UK..

France also fell slightly to 500 deaths for the week compared to 503 the week before. Their daily deaths last week wereequivalent to 74/day in the UK. However their deaths have been up and down a bit, and actually recorded their highest deaths 2 weeks before that (675 in that week) so it remains to be seen how quickly passing a peak translates into a big drop in deaths.

Onto our friends in Sweden where they actually saw a reduction in their total deaths of one! No there's been no resurrection, what appears to have happened is that the figure was adjusted down three (similar to what happened in the UK though on a smaller scale), after which two deaths were recorded. It's safe to say that deaths remain very low at any rate in Europe's "disaster zone". Because there has been no significant increase with the colder weather in Sweden so far, I tend to think that it will not be a significant factor in the Uk, so hopefully we will see a significant drop over the next few months as was the case earlier this year, hopefully in time to allow us to see the Stockport match.

Lockdown nutters Belgium, on the other hand, saw a substantial increase to 131 deaths for the week (compared to 70 last week), equivalent to 110 deaths/day in the UK.

Here in the UK, (Sunday to Saturday), there were 443 deaths for the week, still below my 500 prediction but quite enough for the authorities to panic, as I also predicted! This equals 64 deaths/day, still a long way short of the 200 we were promised, and an increase of 28% on the week before, compared to an average increase of about one and two thirds in the three weeks prior to that, so hopefully levelling off.

In Brazil (where they have a lower total overall death rate than lockdown idiots Peru), deaths were down to their lowest for a while at 591/day, equivalent to 189/day in the UK. Given the size and nature of Brazil, I suspect that some areas of the country little affected previously are now experiencing a first wave.

Meanwhile, Peru themselves saw 558 deaths last week, equivalent to 164 deaths/ day in the UK. This was an increase from the previous week's total of 403 but well down from where they were 5 weeks ago with 1080 deaths.

Globally, things remain stable, with last weeks total of 38,915 - equivalent to 49/day in the UK -slightly down on the previous week when it was 39,207 and remaining within the range, in the 6 weeks I've been tracking it, of 37,038 to 40,300.

It is worth repeating that the average age of people who die from cv is very high - apparently 82 now - and a large majority have preexisting health problems (as in "old sick people die after catching bug, shock horror, who would have thought it, hold the front page), that many more children will die from government lockdowns than will be saved (constituting in my view crimes against humanity), and that the side effects of lockdowns, including a massive increase in global poverty and child malnutrition, are horrendous.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 16, 2020, 09:19:44 PM
Sadly it appears, according to a mainstream national newspaper, that the authorities have told care homes (whose residents include Grandma) that they will need to make room for cv patients who've been discharged from hospital. One might reasonably wonder what they have against the elderly. I have long suspected that they would try and do "something" about the aging population, but it is still profoundly shocking to see it in action for real. This is (morally at least) criminal, and this is the second time this year. Enough!!!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: finnquark1 on October 17, 2020, 09:26:58 AM
Sadly it appears, according to a mainstream national newspaper, that the authorities have told care homes (whose residents include Grandma) that they will need to make room for cv patients who've been discharged from hospital. One might reasonably wonder what they have against the elderly. I have long suspected that they would try and do "something" about the aging population, but it is still profoundly shocking to see it in action for real. This is (morally at least) criminal, and this is the second time this year. Enough!!!

They're just "old sick people (who) die after catching bug, shock horror, who would have thought it, hold the front page".
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on October 17, 2020, 11:52:52 PM
It looks like your 500 deaths a week is going to be exceeded this week.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 18, 2020, 12:09:06 AM
Yes indeed, and it would be reassuring (and somewhat surprising) to know that the authorities were bang on with their predictions. Still expect it to be less than, rather than more than, their predicted 200 cv deaths/day (implying 1400 in a week) - which would still be quite a lot less than the 1000 plus per day we had one week in April - unless it reaches 900 more than 200/day of course!. Hope to update further next week... (I'm talking real time of course, not made up BST!)
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 18, 2020, 12:55:28 AM
Sadly it appears, according to a mainstream national newspaper, that the authorities have told care homes (whose residents include Grandma) that they will need to make room for cv patients who've been discharged from hospital. One might reasonably wonder what they have against the elderly. I have long suspected that they would try and do "something" about the aging population, but it is still profoundly shocking to see it in action for real. This is (morally at least) criminal, and this is the second time this year. Enough!!!

They're just "old sick people (who) die after catching bug, shock horror, who would have thought it, hold the front page".

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Like I say, women and children first is what they used to say. Adults should be prepared to put themselves at risk to save children. The point is not that old people don't matter, they absolutely do, I am 100 per cent against euthanasia, and there are good reasons why it as been repeatedly rejected by the authorities. The point is, that over 100,000 children are predicted to starve to death because of government lockdowns, compared to a tiny number who will die from cv; that the cuts (that inevitably follow) from crashing the economy kill quite a lot of people, according to main stream politicians, and, worldwide, inevitably lead to wars and starvation (think the 1930's, or the "Arab spring" after 2008 for a start). Our policy is protection of the most vulnerable groups. Placing infectious people from hospitals into care homes (whilst at the same time putting hugely damaging restrictions on healthy people) is the exact opposite of this. Instead, sack off lockdowns, use the money saved to keep the most vulnerable safe so far as reasonably possible (whilst allowing them to see their loved ones if they wish - people should not be forced to die alone without close family, and should be free to take their own risks)

There are good reasons why human rights have not been so comprehensively trashed before, and questions to be asked why there are shortages of intensive care beds when there are so many more in other European countries and months to prepare since April.

I suppose we are going to get a stage three lockdown thing in "Greater Manchester" next week, quite possibly about the time that cv deaths peak. And I suppose the authorities will claim it was their measures that made all the difference. I seem to remember that cv infections had peaked before the March lockdown...
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 20, 2020, 01:05:38 AM
This week, I'll start with the local situation before getting into the latest stats.

A (formerly) local publication has decided to betray the people of the region, publishing a document suggesting that the hospitals of the "Greater Manchester" region were set to run out of critical care beds, with 82% being used by Friday. It turns out that at the end of October last year (according to the NHS) 83.6% were being used. Furthermore, "cases in Manchester peaked on the 30th of September, with the seven day average having subsequently fallen 20% (although they have apparently risen slightly across the GM region). The sellouts at this publication have shamefully put pressure on local authorities to agree to an increased period of increased restrictions just when "cases" appear to be peaking.

On to the latest weekly figures, and it is now clear that my prediction of 500 deaths per week has been exceeded by some margin. I was of course working on the assumption that we were headed for (as the authorities told us) where France was (about 300 cv deaths/week at the time), and that this "Autumn ripple" would see far fewer deaths than in April, and indeed, arguments can still be made to a degree for both these assumptions. This prediction was in contrast to the well publicised prediction of the authorities of 200 deaths/day by November. My current working theory is that UK deaths will peak towards the end of this week. Further substantial increases this week (and based on the trends of previous weeks, I am assuming an increase of about 30% (tallying in fact with what we have seen for the total so far this week) would actually see the authorities with all their expertise closer than my prediction! If increases continue next week, the authorities may actually be right - although if deaths continue to increase after that, we would probably both have underestimated the actual rate.

I should provide the basis for my assumption that deaths will peak this week. Firstly, global deaths have remained stable in the seven weeks I've been tracking them, suggesting that deaths get to a certain level and fall back, rather than continuing to increase. Secondly, a peak this week would reflect the period of increasing deaths in March and April. Third, all the places outside the UK I've been tracking have seen decreases in recent weeks (with the exception of lockdown nutters Belgium).

It might be useful to give a bit of context for these predictions by considering other predictions that have been made. Firstly, and most notoriously, professor pantsdown telling us that we faced up to half a million deaths without any intervention - even though no one was proposing doing nothing. Of course, infections had already peaked by March the 23rd, so I assume that even with more limited, or indeed no intervention, it would have been wrong. I assume the closest to doing nothing was Belarus, and I'm pretty sure they haven't seen deaths anywhere near that rate, even if the official figures for that country do turn out to be understated. Then there's of course the 200 deaths per day prediction which will either be proved right or wrong in the next couple of weeks, but could still be an overestimate - but not as much as the imperial college one of course! We were previously told that we were headed for where France is headed. Our death rate has recently been slightly higher than France (but still in the ball park), and, as France has seen decreases in deaths in some recent weeks, if we are really headed where France is, we  can reasonably expect the same soon. The only prediction I can recall re. cv (though there are probably others) was a prediction of a vaccine for February or March (I think). It was claimed "today" that there would be no vaccine until Spring, so this could mean more or less correct, we will see - although it may be some time after a vaccine first becomes available before it changes much, and of course it may be of limited effects - if it was that easy, other bugs that come around every year would have  been dealt with.
And finally, a solution I could have suggested months ago and which it appears the authorities are finally looking into - that it is probably quite a good idea to take plenty of vitamin D3. Seems they're more interested in pushing vaccines and drugs for their mates in big pharma, at the cost of thousands of lives - or am I being too cynical?
Probably not - my lockdown notes from 16th April referring to those daily tv briefings read - " '5 tests' - heard that somewhere before! 'The way out of this is vaccines and...drugs'. no [orthomolecular] nutritional therapy then - disgrace!" Strewth, if it had been left to them, sailors would still be getting scurvy today!

On to this weeks figures, and it's a bit of a mixed bag, but I'll start with a summary of what good news there is. Global cv deaths were down for a second week in a row, and Brazil was down to its lowest deaths in the seven weeks I've been following it.

I'll start with the global figures then. There were 37,934 cv deaths reported globally in the last 7 days, or 5,419/day,equivalent to 47/day in the UK Previous weeks' totals, working back from last week are as follows: 38,915; 39,207; 37,568; 37,148; 40,300; 37,038.  So no clear downward trend, as the virus continues to work its way through the global population, but also no sign of an exponential rise. Incidentally, extrapolated to the UK population, this per centage of daily deaths would equate to 17,167 in a year, hardly in the territory of panic measures.

On to the next place I mentioned, Brazil, which saw 3,417 deaths last week, equivalent to 156/day in the UK. Previous weeks - 4,136; 4,576; 5,244; 5,258; 5,008; 5,759. So still high, but appears to be edging down, and still a lower overall death rate than lockdown fanatics Peru of course!

Peru themselves reported 479 deaths last week, equivalent to 141/day in the UK.. Previous weeks - 558; 403; 893; 776; 906; 1,080. So a significant drop from their peak, but current weekly death rate still only marginally lower than Brazil.

Moving on to the UK before comparing us to other European countries. Sunday to Saturday, there were 841 deaths reported (or 141/day), meaning there needs to be an increase of 110 this week (or 12%) for the authorities' prediction of 200 deaths per day to beat my own prediction of 500 in a week (or 71/day), or 559 for their prediction to be matched.

Our friends in Sweden obviously saw an increase on their minus one deaths last week, to 24 this week, equivalent to 23/day in the UK. Before last week, the figures were - 15, 15, 19, 11, 14. So this week was 5 above the highest since Istarted tracking them, not enough to draw too many conclusions, and may indeed be related to the low number reported the week before (-1), but nonetheless, something to keep an eye on.

Bad news from France as well, which reported747 deaths last week, equivalent to 111/day in the UK. Not a huge increase from their Autumn peak, but nonetheless well up from the week before. Previous weeks figures - 500, 503, 442, 675, 304, 95. So it remains to be seen how quickly numbers can come down after levelling off...

Spain reported 846 deaths, marginally up from the previous week, and equivalent to 176/day in the UK. Previous weeks - 843, 834, 737. So again looking more like a levelling off than a peak and trough.

Finally, lockdown idiots Belgium, who reported 217 deaths last week, continuing their upward trend, and equivalent to 182/day in the UK. Previous weeks' totals - 131, 70, 30.

So it remains the case that none of the European countries I have been tracking have seen an Autumn death equivalent to over 200 in the UK, and I remain hopeful that we can peak well below this level, though obviously 200/day (or more) can't be completely ruled out. I think April levels can though.

I should also say that I suspect that coming in and out of lockdowns is similar (and approximately equivalent) to yoyo dieting - ie you gain weight. Trying to suppress a virus, it would appear, simply prolongs things, and means that people do not have a chance to build up their immune systems so much as a result of decreased contact with germs, and are thus less well equipped to fight off infections when restrictions are eased. And with herd immunity delayed and the lower risk Summer months wasted when tis might have been achieved with decfreased risk, it seems that lockdown obsessed countries may see higher deaths overall. Why else are there such high deaths in Belgium and Peru? Answers on a post card.

And New Zealand and China can't close their borders to the rest of the world forever can they? They will surely have to bite the bullet sooner or later.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 23, 2020, 12:42:18 AM
GM's hospitals "very far from being overwhelmed".

As barmy new restrictions come into force today, it'll be interesting to see if this business does peak around now.

I've no problem with my predictions being held to account, I just hope that people are watching some of these other predictions as well!

I hear someone called David Rose has provided some perspective on this lockdown madness.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on October 23, 2020, 11:02:58 PM
I'm not expecting the new restrictions to make a massive difference. The figures started rising in mid September. Pubs have been open since early July.

I think its more likely to be spreading in schools rather than pubs. The government doesn't want to close schools rightly in my opinion because it has little effect on the kids themselves but they are going to take it home. .

Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 24, 2020, 09:21:06 PM
Danish mask study refused publication by medical journals!

Looks like we'll have to wait and see if it tells pro-maskers what they want to hear. Whatever the truth of the  matter - and naturally we have our suspicions - I hope that if people learn nothing else from this lockdown malarkey (not to be confused with Mullarkey who is much better), they learn that there is no such thing as "the science". Apart from repeatable laboratory experiments and the like, scientists will have different opinions on matters relating to their field, money and politics will be an issue etc. Anyone too convinced about popular scientific opinion or non-scientific computer modelling should take a look at the "science" in an encyclopaedia from 1906 - quite an eye opener, I assure you!

Meanwhile, our friends in "disaster zone" Sweden are removing restrictions on over seventies (who have "suffered enough") - in the name of public health! Deaths remain low in the country, although to be fair, they're not very high here, with cv deaths currently less than one sixth the level of the worst week in April, and hospitalizations for all respiratory diseases in October within the normal bounds for the time of year.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 24, 2020, 09:54:39 PM


I think its more likely to be spreading in schools rather than pubs. The government doesn't want to close schools rightly in my opinion because it has little effect on the kids themselves but they are going to take it home. .


Patients under investigation for cv in the North West "dropped considerably" in the week to October 18th. (the Royal College of General Practitioners) - before "tier three restrictions"!

As for schools, my understanding is that no teacher has died from cv after catching it from her pupils. In any case, when I went to see my friend in Wales, who is n a vulnerable group, she had been seeing her grandchildren in the garden rather than having them inside, and I dare say other vulnerable people are making similar decisions. Either way, I can't imagine households remaining couped up at home together for large amounts of time is going to help.

Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on October 24, 2020, 11:55:54 PM
A lot of kids are picked up from school by their grandparents and then driven home. Stand outside any primary school and you can see it for yourself.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 27, 2020, 11:28:15 PM
A lot of kids are picked up from school by their grandparents and then driven home. Stand outside any primary school and you can see it for yourself.

Schoolchildren Seem Unlikely to Fuel Coronavirus Surges - the New York Times, October 22

Thought you might like to know.

Anyhow, if it is true that no teacher has died (anywhere) after being infected by her pupils, and if only a tiny number of healthy people under 60 have died from cv, it is reasonable to suppose there is some truth in this headline, and that quite a lot of 60 year old grandparents will not consider themselves to be particularly vulnerable.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 28, 2020, 01:27:19 AM
A day late this week, and relatively short. Just briefly, I would say that, besides cv mortality rates, I would consider the following information useful:
Total daily respiratory deaths; total daily deaths; the corresponding information for previous years; breakdowns by country and regions of cv mortality now compared to the Spring outbreak (ie is there evidence of herd immunity). Though I suspect I will have to do a bit of digging to get this information.
 Also, in line with my longstanding position, I would urge people towards good nutrition and supplements as a way of combatting many diseases (including this virus), eg by having plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables (and water), and high strength supplements of nutrients such as vitamins C and D3.

This week, I will list the places in order from highest mortality to lowest for easier comparison. Furthermore, I hope to look at additional changes to the format next week.

With the worst death rate this week are lockdown covidiots Belgium, whose 49 deaths/ day are equivalent to 289 deaths/day in the UK. It would appear they are some way off herd immunity.

Second worst are fellow lockdown zealots Spain, whose daily deaths of 140 equate to 203/day in the UK. This is another increase after briefly falling, and if we see cv rising in a similar way to other respiratory diseases in the winter months, there could still be further rises, although this is by no means certain.

Then follows France, with 183/ day, equivalent to 193 deaths/day in the UK. This is also a substantial rise on last week.

In fourth place (out of eight) is the "world beating" United Kingdom, with 166 deaths/day. Sadly it does not look like peaking quite yet, though whether it is justification for trashing our rights and our economy is another matter, and the exit plan still looks hazy at best. It looks like the authorities' prediction of 200 deaths/day could be an underestimate - although numbers remain well below the April peak.

Next is Brazil with 435 deaths/day, equivalent to 139 deaths/day in the UK, and another substantial drop. Could it be that the politician who suggested Winter weather as a factor was on to something?

Just ahead of them are neighbours and lockdown zealots Peru, with 56 deaths/day, equivalent to 115 deaths/day in the UK, and also down on last week. Although they still have a very high total death rate.

Much lower still is the global death rate of 5,644/day, equivalent to 49 deaths/day in the UK, and up on last week, though still well within the bounds of previous weeks.

The winners, naturally, are Sweden. They seem to have been adjusting their figures down again, but I think they had 4 deaths/day last week, equivalent to 24 deaths/day in the UK. And don't forget, they ended restrictions on over 70's last week, and this in the name of public health rather than for political reasons. All this with limited measures well short of the lockdown idiots in other countries, so that they now enjoy relative normality, and apparently a degree of herd immunity.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on October 28, 2020, 06:10:52 PM
A lot of kids are picked up from school by their grandparents and then driven home. Stand outside any primary school and you can see it for yourself.

Schoolchildren Seem Unlikely to Fuel Coronavirus Surges - the New York Times, October 22

Thought you might like to know.

Anyhow, if it is true that no teacher has died (anywhere) after being infected by her pupils, and if only a tiny number of healthy people under 60 have died from cv, it is reasonable to suppose there is some truth in this headline, and that quite a lot of 60 year old grandparents will not consider themselves to be particularly vulnerable.

I'm sure that a lot of 60 year old people don't consider themselves to be vulnerable, me included, hopefully we won't be. There may well be some truth in the headline because it very carefully uses the words "seems unlikely" Not "is unlikely" or "is highly unlikely" They're not very confident are they?

You have probably noticed, but I'd like to point out that our infection rates are still rising sharply, as they are in most of the north of the country. There's a two to three week lag for corresponding deaths so there's no chance whatsoever of peak deaths being reached by the end of next week. If the Tier 3 restrictions have the desired effect perhaps we will see some change in the infection rate but I have my doubts simply because there is still plenty of interaction going on whether people are following the rules or not.

The NHS are better equipped to help people this time around. They know what practices and drugs have a positive effect and so for the time being at least more people are surviving. This could all change of course as they become bed blockers and the numbers of available beds hits rock bottom.

Much as I miss not being there I'm happy to watch the matches being streamed for the time being.

One thing that I think ought to be happening that I believe isn't is looking at the cost of all this both in economic terms and in damage to health as a result of too much focus on Covid. At the end of the day there is going to be a hefty bill to pay. I think Boris is desperate to get to the New Year and a vaccine to become available.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 29, 2020, 08:06:41 PM

"Professor Wendy Barclay, a SAGE member...said none of the current restrictions appeared to be having a significant impact on the spread of the virus" I think your doubts could be right! It will be interesting to see what happens in two weeks...
For what it's worth, my source cites data from gov.uk, concluding that there has been "no sign of further growth" in UK daily positive tests for over a week (as of yesterday), even allowing for reporting delays", and that hospital admissions are "flat since October 21st", with hospital deaths "below the 5 year average in week 42". As I have said, Sweden's cv deaths remain low, but if our failure to reach a purported herd immunity level, as seems to have happened in Sweden, is a factor, and if people's immune systems have been weakened by a lack of the usual social interaction (as I have long feared), then it is likely enough that hospital deaths could end up worse than average. In any case, the main justification for lockdowns was to stop hospitals being overwhelmed, and there are questions to be asked over why the number of intensive care beds in the UK lags behind that of other countries (ie making such an overwhelming more likely), and why, even in a normal year, hospitals have been badly stretched in recent times. More money, or fundamental changes (or both)? Lessons must be learnt.

They definitely need economists and historians on SAGE. The economy was looking a bit shaky even before March, and if there are cast iron rules of history about economic crises, for example, these should be taken into account.

 My newspaper is suggesting that a safe effective vaccine could become widely available by March, though another cites a study saying that any vaccines may need to be taken twice a year. A glaring omission in  the study was the role played by T-cell immunity. Sources from Bill Gates' mates at Imperial College London were cited. Just saying, like...
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on October 29, 2020, 10:31:56 PM

"For what it's worth, my source cites data from gov.uk, concluding that there has been "no sign of further growth" in UK daily positive tests for over a week (as of yesterday), even allowing for reporting delays",


That's a staggering statement. It's completely at odds with the stats the government is publishing. Can you share the source?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: rorysgrandad on October 31, 2020, 11:05:10 PM
Just a quick observation on today’s announcement by the PM.
If this DEADLY virus requires action to prevent widespread devastation, why are we waiting until Thursday to introduce the measures?
WILL ANYONE STILL BE ALIVE BY THEN?

Concerned of Timperley.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on October 31, 2020, 11:51:48 PM
I understand the authorities are now predicting a peak of 500 UK cv deaths/day (less than half of April's worst week) but remaining at that level for months. So if the present pattern continues that suggests a peak maybe on Tuesday week -,  just after the latest pointless lockdown starts (to "save Christmas", just in case anyone still thought this was about "the science" - a courtesy that notoriously wasn't extended to Muslims earlier this year). So at any rate the authorities have covered themselves.

Meanwhile, in Sweden (where all restrictions have been removed from over 70's), cv deaths predictably remain low, whilst in the "world beating" UK, the elderly continue to be prevented from seeing their relatives in their final days. An absolute disgrace, and I hope people will be held to account for this. You know, the authorities really should send that fact finding mission to Sweden.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 01, 2020, 12:11:15 AM

"For what it's worth, my source cites data from gov.uk, concluding that there has been "no sign of further growth" in UK daily positive tests for over a week (as of yesterday), even allowing for reporting delays",


That's a staggering statement. It's completely at odds with the stats the government is publishing. Can you share the source?


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases)

I think it is referring to the second graph on this page.

It's worth remembering that politicians are expert at telling "the truth" - not actual lies, but selected facts that support their argument but may give a misleading picture. Io be fair, plenty of people besides politicians may fall into this trap, that's why it is important to be indefatigable in going after the real truth, why I am tracking data from countries like Sweden and France, checkable data to see if things stack up.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 01, 2020, 12:27:30 AM
Just a quick observation on today’s announcement by the PM.
If this DEADLY virus requires action to prevent widespread devastation, why are we waiting until Thursday to introduce the measures?
WILL ANYONE STILL BE ALIVE BY THEN?

Concerned of Timperley.

Doubtless this delay is 100 percent supported by "the science".  And I dare say further lives can be saved if you switch allegiance to Barnton for the duration of a Cheshire Senior Cup tie, though I doubt this will take place now - to save lives obviously, and never mind all the deaths from stress that will be caused by  these countless assaults on our liberty.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 01, 2020, 01:04:51 PM
The delay is because the power to make law without it passing through parliament was only granted for a finite period of time and that time has now expired.

So the proposals announced yesterday have to be voted on and labour have announced they will provide their backing. Not suprising really because they wanted it to happen a month ago
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 01, 2020, 01:24:28 PM
Thanks for the link Hugh. I will keep an eye on that chart.

Pure speculation on my part but I can only think that the medics think they know how many of those 20,000 cases translate into hospital attendees and then icu bed occupants based on historical data. They also know what the time lag is.

Add in the fact that the Health Service is better at keeping people alive now but they are likely to need a bed for longer because they don't end up in the mortuary and you can start to see why there is likely to be increasing pressure on bed space.

I think we are more akin to France rather than Sweden. The population density just isn't there in Sweden. Even in Stockholm there's a lot more space which will help to keep infection rates at a level that can be coped with.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 01, 2020, 09:18:32 PM
Probably are more like France in some ways. Still, I seem to remember that when Sweden's course of action was fed into the infamous Imperial College London computer model, it predicted many more deaths than have actually transpired. There is a suspicion that the goalposts have been moved after the event. Also, if different rules make a difference, it seems odd that, as I understand, there is a large urban area straddling the borders of Sweden and one of its neighbours and yet the cv infection fatality rates are not very different across the border.

Oh well, we keep buggering on, keep asking questions etc. I dare say David James would love all this ("yes it was a clean sheet, but did I have any real saves to make?")
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 03, 2020, 11:42:46 PM
Have to post full update tomorrow (lousy 12h shifts) but briefly, cv deaths seem to be levelling off a bit. Try telling that to the lemmings in Westminster!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 05, 2020, 02:01:47 AM
4000/day is nonsense, they used old data and a dodgy cut off point. Never happen.

"We do not have hospitals full of respiratory patients to any extent greater than usual for November".  - Dr Mike Yeadon. Further info welcome - if it's not being withheld!

I suspect mass testing data is also unreliable, surprisingly enough. Also including total deaths UK equivalent this week.

Today's deaths suspiciously high in the UK - wednesday normally lower than tuesday

Belgium 543/day, 68126 total uk equivalent. their strict lockdown means high deaths now, high deaths total

France - 336/day, 38538 total uk equivalent. both france and belgium saw big increases on last week.

then "world beating" uk with 259/day,46555 total.

then spain, 234/day, 52166 total uk equivalents.a total worse than us from a lockdown zealot, but daily deaths only slightly up.

Brazil - 138/day, 51084 uk equivalent. slightly less deaths than last week.

peru stay ahead of them with  ;)112/day, 70864 total uk equivalent. a slight decrease on last wee, but their death rate is the worst, from the worst lockdown zealots.

the global rate finally moved up significantly as the majority of the world's population moves towards winter, to 59/day uk equivalent (49 last week), total deaths equivalent to 10492, still lower than others.

Swweden's figures jumped about but may be 9/day, uk equivalent, total 39,915 uk equivalent, Whilst sweden' total rate is low, their deaths appear to have jumped alarmingly so far this week. we'll see if they stay ahead of other countries...
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 06, 2020, 07:25:01 PM
Its good to see Traffords figures subsiding. If we can keep it up for another three weeks we might not end up being put back in Tier 3.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 07, 2020, 01:17:01 PM
May interest you to know that Ross County played a Scottish Prem game in front of 300 home fans last night.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 07, 2020, 07:16:44 PM
Yes, I heard they were letting 300 in - the magic of Ross-shire! I suspect I would have struggled to get a ticket though (even if I lived there) - despite Dingwall having about half the population of Lymm! A bit shocked at the results of my poll - fully half expecting it to be next season before we can attend our matches, which would be a disaster. Of course it's only supposition at the moment that there'll be a game changing vaccine by March. Much better looking at other options for now. Learning to live with it? targeted protection? Hasn't done Sweden, South Dakota etc. any harm anyway.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 07, 2020, 07:20:58 PM
Shouldn't be for all Gtr Manchester anyway (a made up area which only by chance didn't include places like Wilmslow). It should be at least borough level, and I would go further - North and South Trafford perhaps? And after all, if they had the pre-74 government areas, what would they have done?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 07, 2020, 07:40:01 PM
Yes, I heard they were letting 300 in - the magic of Ross-shire! I suspect I would have struggled to get a ticket though (even if I lived there) - despite Dingwall having about half the population of Lymm! A bit shocked at the results of my poll - fully half expecting it to be next season before we can attend our matches, which would be a disaster. Of course it's only supposition at the moment that there'll be a game changing vaccine by March. Much better looking at other options for now. Learning to live with it? targeted protection? Hasn't done Sweden, South Dakota etc. any harm anyway.

I don't think a complete ban on attendees at football matches makes sense, but what you've said there is patently untrue. The Dakotas are enduring an absolutely horrific surge. To quote Vox; "North and South Dakota now have four to five times the weekly (US) average for daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people."

Meanwhile Sweden, who you consistently hold up as a positive example in this thread, has not done well at all, especially in comparison to its Scandinavian neighbours. As Time magazine tells us "As of Oct. 18, Sweden’s per-capita death rate—58.6 per 100,000 people—was among the highest in the world. And from early September to early October, average daily cases nationwide rose by 173%, with particularly dramatic increases in cities such as Stockholm and Uppsala."

Or as the British Medical Journal said back in September; "Compared with its neighbours Sweden has been unsuccessful in preventing deaths—Finland, for example, has had 343 deaths, which equals 62 deaths per million population." Essentially, Sweden had a death toll almost 10 times higher than their nearest neighbours.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: rorysgrandad on November 07, 2020, 08:05:37 PM
Shouldn't be for all Gtr Manchester anyway (a made up area which only by chance didn't include places like Wilmslow). It should be at least borough level, and I would go further - North and South Trafford perhaps? And after all, if they had the pre-74 government areas, what would they have done?
The government pre 1974 would have had the same ignorance and prejudices against the North of England as they do now. The present incumbents were unaware Wigan was in Greater Manchester. It doesn't concern them one jot if they get their facts straight. You'll just do as you're told. The covid tests in Liverpool are senseless and wholly unreliable. It'd be cheaper and more accurate to give everyone a new penny and ask them to chose heads or tails. That'd be 50% right. Crazy times.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 07, 2020, 08:19:59 PM
My prediction of 13 October was that I expected deaths to peak "certainly... within the next four weeks", and "should peak a long way below... 200 deaths/day. The second part is obviously wrong (at least according to the official figures), but then again so is the initial prediction of the authorities of 200 deaths/day by November - it was above this in October, and some way above it by November.

However the second part could prove true. Even if deaths reach 1,000/day, that would still suggest a peak in about two weeks assuming a 50-60 per cent increase per week, as has been seen since 12th September. But will it peak before then? Friday's number had the feel of a peak about it, and indeed, deaths peaked on a Friday in April - Good Friday, appropriately enough, at least according to PHE figures supplied at the time. Also, my source points to figures showing that cv hospital admissions flat-lined from 25th October to 3rd November. See https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare) - first graph. Allowing for a three week lag, that would suggest cv deaths peaking three weeks after 25th October, ie some time around the end of next week, assuming this levelling oof of hospital admissions isn't just a blip.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 07, 2020, 09:03:49 PM
Yes, I heard they were letting 300 in - the magic of Ross-shire! I suspect I would have struggled to get a ticket though (even if I lived there) - despite Dingwall having about half the population of Lymm! A bit shocked at the results of my poll - fully half expecting it to be next season before we can attend our matches, which would be a disaster. Of course it's only supposition at the moment that there'll be a game changing vaccine by March. Much better looking at other options for now. Learning to live with it? targeted protection? Hasn't done Sweden, South Dakota etc. any harm anyway.

I don't think a complete ban on attendees at football matches makes sense, but what you've said there is patently untrue. The Dakotas are enduring an absolutely horrific surge. To quote Vox; "North and South Dakota now have four to five times the weekly (US) average for daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people."

Meanwhile Sweden, who you consistently hold up as a positive example in this thread, has not done well at all, especially in comparison to its Scandinavian neighbours. As Time magazine tells us "As of Oct. 18, Sweden’s per-capita death rate—58.6 per 100,000 people—was among the highest in the world. And from early September to early October, average daily cases nationwide rose by 173%, with particularly dramatic increases in cities such as Stockholm and Uppsala."

Or as the British Medical Journal said back in September; "Compared with its neighbours Sweden has been unsuccessful in preventing deaths—Finland, for example, has had 343 deaths, which equals 62 deaths per million population." Essentially, Sweden had a death toll almost 10 times higher than their nearest neighbours.

Yes, I did hear something about Scandinavia.

 I mean, we can all cherry pick figures, I dare say I'm guilty of this myself at times. You could count Scotland as an honorary Nordic country (Shetland was Norwegian a few hundred years ago after all) and get a different picture again. My idea though was to present data from countries with different approaches (Brazil and Peru), and from countries which might indicate how we are doing and where we are going (France). I've got to draw the line somewhere or I'll be there all day, and others can say if they think the places chosen are self serving - robust criticisms serve a better understanding of the situation at the end of the day.

Since you mention Scandinavia, this is my understanding from what I remember. Norway has a lower percentage of the population that is elderly than Sweden - ie less deaths (average age for cv deaths, it is worth repeating, is over 80 globally, ie people who were likely to die soon anyway). Norway had a more severe flu season than Sweden last Winter, ie less "dry tinder" likely to die from a Spring bug.
And a large, fairly homogeneous urban area which straddles Sweden and one of its neighbours (I think it is the Oresund region which includes part of Denmark) had seen little difference in cv deaths on different sides of the border, despite differing restrictions, which one would not expect to happen if different restrictions had a big effect on results. I understand there was an issue with high numbers of deaths in Stockholm care homes early in this outbreak, so obviously Sweden did not get everything right. However I would maintain that more broadly, their approach has been vindicated, and has certainly defied the prediction of that computer model. (Professor Ferguson's ICL one)

For me, a key point is that Sweden's death numbers are massively different from what professor pantsdown's notorious computer model would have predicted. It must be emphasized that computer models are fundamentally different from actual science using real time clinical data on the ground (and why are we finding relevant data in the UK is hard to get hold of - or that a Danish study on general use of masks is hard to get published?)

Even if Sweden could have done better on the narrow criterion of cv deaths by locking down, they still might have been justified in their approach. They took a much lower economic hit, and might even have avoided recession if other countries had followed their lead, with the knock-on effect of less cuts. And cuts, as Labour was fond of telling us, cost lives. On a global scale, it is expected that many millions of people will starve, like, to death, because of government lockdowns. Whilst not the only consideration, it absolutely should be a major consideration, as well as the wars etc. that history suggests come from crashing the economy. And the malign changes to politics and culture that come from prolonged use of totalitarian measures.

As for South Dakota, I haven't been following them closely thus far, however, I would assume that their surge - and cv death rates - are less than we are seeing from Europe's worst lockdown idiots Belgium.

And Sweden's cv deaths and death rate continue to compare favourably to countries that I have been following, though obviously I will keep an eye on it.

My position from the start has been that if Sweden is not the disaster that Ferguson predicted then harsh lockdowns were wrong, rather than Sweden having to do better than any particular given country.

Nb I checked, and South Dakota's cv death rate is currently equivalent to 41,420 in the UK. Terrifying. Maybe I'll revise my view when they have a much higher death rate than lockdown maniacs Peru and Belgium.

If you're talking about net harm rather than just one bug which is going round, one could probably argue the approach of Sweden and South Dakota hasn't done them any harm. Anyway, I am arguing that. Maybe I should have been clearer in my previous post, but that's where I'm coming from.

And of course Sweden's death rate would be among the highest in the world wouldn't it? Just not as high as the countries I've been following. As I posted previously, the global death rate is equivalent to 10,492 UK deaths, Sweden's death rate is equivalent to 39,915 UK deaths, and the UK is, of course, worse again. And then there's lockdown nuts Peru...
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 07, 2020, 09:58:12 PM
If you want to make the economic argument then that's another matter. But I don't think you can really have a multi page thread where you argue lockdowns don't work, get proved wrong then say "I was only talking about the economy." Come on, that's a bit of a pivot. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith, but I'm a bit irritated that you've deployed a huge strawman to accuse me of cherry picking figures.

Quote
we can all cherry pick figures, I dare say I'm guilty of this myself at times. You could count Scotland as an honorary Nordic country (Shetland was Norwegian a few hundred years ago after all) and get a different picture again.

Well, no. If you called Scotland a Nordic country because part of it was Norwegian a thousand years ago then that would be ridiculous as it doesn't share the important social or demographic traits relevant in this scenario. It's not cherry picking to compare Sweden with its nearest neighbour.

Quote
As for South Dakota, I haven't been following them closely thus far, however, I would assume that their surge - and cvdeath rates - are less than we are seeing from Europe's worst lockdown idiots Belgium.

You assume very wrong. In the last seven days, South Dakota's COVID death rate is nearly eight times that of Belgium's in the same period. (Belgium 93 per million, South Dakota 724 per million). This is also significantly worse than Belgium at its peak.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 07, 2020, 10:33:05 PM
I haven't been following South Dakota enough to make meaningful judgment on the past week. However, I do know that, according to Worldometer, South Dakota's latest increase in deaths is given as 13, Belgiums's as 377. From thirteen times the population. (377 over 13 is 29, rather more than thirteen.

Yes, I've been proved wrong on some points. The authorities have mostly been proved wrong, and Professor Ferguson has definitely been proved wrong. I am trying to work out what's going on at the end of the day, same as them, so all information and constructive criticism is very much welcome.And regardless of previous predictions, I will categorically state that the 4,000 deaths a day prediction of the authorities is ludicrous, and will never happen, probably not even with serious fiddling of the figures. Worth noting also, that estimates for "Spanish" flu deaths 100 years ago vary widely, and there is likely to be a lack of certainty about the toll from covid-19 as well.

As it happens, my reasons for being sceptical of the strategy of the authorities has long been that Sweden has not been the disaster predicted by Ferguson, and that crashing the economy costs lives, and I accept all responsibility if I have not made this clear from the start of this thread. Anyhow, worth remembering that lockdown fanatics Belgium and Peru have the worst cv death rates among major countries. I don't think this is disputed. I dare say I have modified my argument as fresh data comes in (the scientific method) - a "pivot" if you like. But the jury appears very much still out on lockdowns, and I don't accept that the experience of Finland changes that. And as I say, little difference between the Danish and Swedish sides of Oresund from what I've heard, despite different rules. Like with like...

P.s. thread to end as soon as we're all allowed back into matches at Moss Lane - sometime next season apparently!  :)
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 08, 2020, 01:01:33 PM
Keep posting. It's interesting to hear your thoughts on these matters in here. I disagree with you a lot but I think you're coming from a genuine place. That said, we probably have more agreements than we realise. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we're both of the opinion getting football fans back in (to some degree) would be a good idea and present minimal risk for a start!
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 08, 2020, 08:37:08 PM
Minimal risk? That would involve lockout. Acceptable risk is a phrase I can identify with
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 09, 2020, 09:31:31 PM
Belgium and South Dakota

Latest worldometer numbers:

South Dakota - one more death

Belgium - 347 more deaths.

Still not convinced, I'm afraid. Will try and keep an eye on it.

Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 09, 2020, 11:34:32 PM
Belgium and South Dakota

Latest worldometer numbers:

South Dakota - one more death

Belgium - 347 more deaths.

Still not convinced, I'm afraid. Will try and keep an eye on it.

Hugh, you've either wildly misread or misrepresented the figures. The number you quoted for Belgium there is for two days. They had 199 deaths yesterday and 148 today which presumably is where you got your 347 from. The figure for South Dakota isn't "one" and it doesn't say that on Worldometer anywhere. Indeed, the latest daily death tolls it gives are both 13 for November 7th and 8th. They haven't even released today's numbers so you can't compare them. Belgium does indeed have a slightly higher death rate in recent days, although it's not nearly the difference you indicate above.

You talked about cherry picking numbers earlier but you put a lot of stock in figures from very short time frame and compare random countries to one another. Statisticians don't work this way. They look at as much data as possible to get an idea of things. I'm not actually arguing with any of your other points RE economy, personal freedoms, projections. I'm just pointing out that your numbers are dead wrong and the areas you're promoting as doing well are objectively not.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 10, 2020, 06:14:14 PM
Here's some relevant stats. The story so far: Figures from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Deaths per million population
Norway52, Denmark 129, Finland 65, Estonia 57, Latvia 55, Sweden 598.
So four times worse than Denmark and ten times worse than the rest.

I think we have to grit our teeth and continue with the current strategy until the vulnerable groups can access a vaccine.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 10, 2020, 11:09:27 PM
A few points to make before I get into this week's update

A more information becomes available about the recent increases in cv deaths, I will this week list countries in order of their IFR rate for total deaths, rather than in order of deaths for the last week, so we can start to get an idea of whose cv strategy has been successful over all.

I will also continue to monitor the situation in South Dakota, which famously didn't lock down. Today: South Dakota recorded 4 deaths, whilst lockdown fanatics Belgium, with about 13 times the population, recorded 161 deaths. Still not convinced by Belgium,

One of the points I was going to make was that it is becoming clear that it was madness to continue with lockdown restrictions into the summer months. It turns out that in fact Finland (which didn't have a particularly severe lockdown) actually eased their restrictions earlier than other countries - some time in May, so far as I can gather. They were also very well prepared, after various problems with Mother Russia over the years. They now have a low IFR, as has been helpfully pointed out.

As for the disaster of our own second lockdown, it seems that this may have been largely due to NHS staff absenteeism, particularly in the North East, and due in no small part to track and trace contacts,

And finally, as we enter the catastrophe of another "lockdown", I recall that the highest deaths were recorded in April (according to info at the time anyway) 18 days after lockdown on 23rd March - so less than three weeks. I will be watching closely to see how soon deaths peak this time, but, whether last week, this week, or a week or two later (which would mean my prediction of a peak by around today would be wrong), it seems increasingly clear that a peak is coming soon, and very likely at a time which would suggest that lockdown happened once again after infections peaked.

The country with the worst total ifr rate this week (obviously one of the lockdown zealots) is Belgium, with total deaths equivalent to 75,639 in the UK, deaths last week equivalent to 1,073/day.

Next highest, the other lockdown fans, is Peru, with deaths equivalent to 71,611 (UK) and last week equivalent to 107/day as they move into their Summer.

Then follows Spain, who also locked down too hard, with total deaths equivalent to 56,432 (UK) and daily deaths last week equivalent to 614.

After that, Brazil, with total deaths equivalent to 51,827  (UK), and daily deaths last week equivalent to 106, now just ahead of their lockdown loving neighbours Peru, and with a much lower overall death rate.

Third lowest out of these seven is the "world beating" UK, with 48,888 total (to Saturday, the others are to Sunday) and 387 deaths/day last week - still a long way to 4,000 then.

In second place is France with total deaths equivalent to 42,099 in the UK, and daily deaths last week equivalent to 509/day.

The winners, once again, are Sweden, with total deaths equivalent to 40,480 in the UK, and deaths equivalent to 81/day. Sweden has apparently finally seen a significant increase in daily deaths, although is still doing better than the other countries I've been tracking, and certainly better than the countries that locked down too hard and too long.

Globally, total deaths are at a far lower ifr rate, equivalent to 10977 UK deaths, and 69/day, compared to 59/day last week, another significant increase, but not huge.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 10, 2020, 11:22:33 PM
Here's some relevant stats. The story so far: Figures from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Deaths per million population
Norway52, Denmark 129, Finland 65, Estonia 57, Latvia 55, Sweden 598.
So four times worse than Denmark and ten times worse than the rest.

I think we have to grit our teeth and continue with the current strategy until the vulnerable groups can access a vaccine.

108 Belarus. If you believe them.

See previous post for more on Finland. I understand Denmark and Norway took a similar route. Basically we locked down for too long in the Summer. What we need is historians, economists and other experts on SAGE rather than apparently epidemiologists with a narrow focus on one disease being mainly responsible for these huge decisions.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 10, 2020, 11:29:15 PM
Belgium and South Dakota

Latest worldometer numbers:

South Dakota - one more death

Belgium - 347 more deaths.

Still not convinced, I'm afraid. Will try and keep an eye on it.

Hugh, you've either wildly misread or misrepresented the figures. The number you quoted for Belgium there is for two days. They had 199 deaths yesterday and 148 today which presumably is where you got your 347 from. The figure for South Dakota isn't "one" and it doesn't say that on Worldometer anywhere. Indeed, the latest daily death tolls it gives are both 13 for November 7th and 8th. They haven't even released today's numbers so you can't compare them. Belgium does indeed have a slightly higher death rate in recent days, although it's not nearly the difference you indicate above.

You talked about cherry picking numbers earlier but you put a lot of stock in figures from very short time frame and compare random countries to one another. Statisticians don't work this way. They look at as much data as possible to get an idea of things. I'm not actually arguing with any of your other points RE economy, personal freedoms, projections. I'm just pointing out that your numbers are dead wrong and the areas you're promoting as doing well are objectively not.

That's why I've been doing this weekly.

South Dakota as of now is 540 deaths total. Let's check again next week.

Obviously the global rate is much lower as most of the countries I've been tracking have a severe demographic crisis of aging populations.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 12, 2020, 06:11:57 PM
You still seem to be avoiding the fact that Sweden is doing far worse than all the countries that surround them.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on November 12, 2020, 06:32:21 PM
567 deaths in South Dakota and yet they have a death rate of 641 per million people. Clearly no-one lives there.

Just checked, population is 900, 000 of which the largest city is Soiux Falls, similar size population to York.

Their death rate is comparable with ours despite most of them being a good deal more than two metres apart

Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on November 15, 2020, 10:42:28 PM
You still seem to be avoiding the fact that Sweden is doing far worse than all the countries that surround them.

He's also ignored the fact half his numbers were simply made up (ie the Worldometer figures above where he claimed South Dakota had a death rate of 1 for a certain day when it was in fact 13 according to his own source). He pivots from point to point and clearly isn't engaging in good faith. I don't have the time or patience to sit here fact-checking him ad infinitum but I think it's clear to any observers he's either got an agenda or his reasoning abilities are way off.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 18, 2020, 12:18:47 AM
Belgium and South Dakota

Latest worldometer numbers:

South Dakota - one more death

Belgium - 347 more deaths.

Still not convinced, I'm afraid. Will try and keep an eye on it.

Hugh, you've either wildly misread or misrepresented the figures. The number you quoted for Belgium there is for two days. They had 199 deaths yesterday and 148 today which presumably is where you got your 347 from. The figure for South Dakota isn't "one" and it doesn't say that on Worldometer anywhere. Indeed, the latest daily death tolls it gives are both 13 for November 7th and 8th. They haven't even released today's numbers so you can't compare them. Belgium does indeed have a slightly higher death rate in recent days, although it's not nearly the difference you indicate above.

You talked about cherry picking numbers earlier but you put a lot of stock in figures from very short time frame and compare random countries to one another. Statisticians don't work this way. They look at as much data as possible to get an idea of things. I'm not actually arguing with any of your other points RE economy, personal freedoms, projections. I'm just pointing out that your numbers are dead wrong and the areas you're promoting as doing well are objectively not.

That's why I've been doing this weekly.

South Dakota as of now is 540 deaths total. Let's check again next week.

South Dakota now reading 644 total deaths, an increase of 104 since a week ago. Still a lower rate than Belgium, just. For what it's worth.

Of course, high population density and interconnectivity could be a factor in Belgium's high IFR (though perhaps not in Peru, who also locked down hard, long and diastrously).

To be honest, I'm not particularly surprised if other people couldn't find the "one" figure for S Dakota deaths mentioned last week (and I will cheerfully retract it), the numbers seem to jump about in odd ways occasionally, and the figure was given for illustrative purposes only, probably not particularly helpful, thinking about it, with the numbers involved. So far as I know, I did see the "one", but have no way of verifying it now. The only reason I referred to it is because some sort of a terrifying surge in cv deaths was mentioned in S Dakota, so I simply looked at the total and new additional deaths given by a Bing search, which usually corresponds to Worldometer figures (I mostly check Bing's figures against the Worldometer page but may not have done so in this instance). The above figures should hopefully give a better idea, and clearly shows that, whilst not particularly low, it is not any sort of "Professor Ferguson" disaster, which is one of the main points I've been trying to make about not locking down - that even disregarding all other considerations, it still works better than some countries. Finland was also addressed in another post, and, as stated, they have in any case handled this better than the UK.

And according to my source,Sweden's higher death rate is largely due to a run of mild flu seasons. See   https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-dry-tinder-accounts-for-many-covid-19-deaths/ (https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-dry-tinder-accounts-for-many-covid-19-deaths/)


Something I probably should clear up is, I said "see below for more on Finland" last week, whereas "see previous page" would have been more accurate, where I had just posted a long post, which, among other things, made the point that locking down so long into Summer was stupid, that Finland had had a (soft) lockdown at the right time and finishing before Summer, and that this was a better approach than some other countries.

The point about demography is, many developing world countries with a much smaller elderly population have, as a result, a lower IFR (and some, of course, have more sunshine and therefore more vitamin d). It is worth repeating, the average age of death globally from cv is over 80 - 82.4 years, the last I heard.

And I would certainly encourage fact checking in general, that is how we arrive at (hopefully) accurate information. And I would welcome a few more facts from the authorities as well, who, along with sections of the media, have behaved disgracefully through this.

It is a legitimate point that I have not been covering countries with low IFR's, so to clarify, what I am attempting to do is:

1) Look at places which have not locked down (Sweden and Brazil). Quite frankly, the yardstick, and my starting point is the ICL computer model which informed the original lockdown (we had more dodgy data for this one apparently), which as I remember, had Sweden having about 85,000 cv deaths from the course they followed;

2) Look at places that have done the opposite and locked down too  long and too hard (Belgium and Peru);

3) look at large European countries (France, Spain, the UK) for fairly obvious reasons. Spain and France had been said to be where the UK was headed (in terms of IFR) at the time I started discussing them.

Obviously any detailed information on other countries or other approaches would be welcome. The first thing is to find out how to deal with this bug. And then to establish if the price is worth it.

For my part, I haven't got time to cover endless countries and approaches, but will instead (hopefully) update later under the same format. At any rate, this rolling weekly approach should provide fairly accurate information. Whilst countries can update at different times or revise figures, hopefully it will average out over a number of weeks.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on November 21, 2020, 05:37:41 AM
I see UK cv deaths now appear to be dropping, as well as "cases" (positive test results), this time even sooner after lockdown was imposed than in March. Cases were also dropping in Manchester well before tier 3 restrictions were imposed. What we need is an end to lockdown, that ruinously expensive denial of basic human rights with its catastrophic collateral damage. Or if we are going down the no risk route, perhaps we should have a 4mph speed limit, close those problematic night clubs permanently, stop the sale of alcohol, tobacco, chocolate, energy drinks....

If last Friday 13th turns out to be the highest reported deaths, turns out my "4 weeks" prediction until deaths peak that I made on 13th October wasn't too far off (yes, technically another failure, but how close were other people's predictions? And what about some of the dodgy predictions we've had from the authorities?)

So deaths never got anywhere near 4,000 per week and, let's face it, were never going to, as was clear before 5th October, lockdown day.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on December 17, 2020, 04:24:03 PM
I see the king of Sweden has commented today that they have got it wrong
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on December 19, 2020, 12:07:17 AM
And now they are shutting bars early, reducing the number of people who can sit together in restaurants and asking people to wear facemasks on public transport.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on December 19, 2020, 11:59:24 AM
And now they are shutting bars early, reducing the number of people who can sit together in restaurants and asking people to wear facemasks on public transport.

But they're doing so well, lockdown has no impact etc etc
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: rorysgrandad on December 19, 2020, 03:25:27 PM
To get perspective you need to look at comparisons:

1% of deaths are with C19
In August C19 was the 24th most fatal illness/disease
More people are dying of flu/pneumonia
There is an average 1500-16-- deaths per day, C19 is involved in 25-30 of them
An increase in deaths with any respiratory disease is normal for this time of year
Several studies have estimated more deaths from the resu;ts of the lockdown than with C19 - at least 75,000, with an unnamed govt source suggesting 125k

SAGE said at the start of this that you cannot get rid of the virus; it is here to stay. All lockdowns do is increase the duration of this.

American studies have found you have over a 99.9% chance of survival IF you get the virus
Even Raab has said there is a 93% false positive rate, supporting American studies and the research iof such As Sunetra Gupta and the Oxford Uni Centre for Evidence based Medicine (I emphasize EVIDENCE!)

At the start of this we were advised tyou had to be in close contact, inside for a min 15mins to have a chance of catching this - we have since not been told otherwise.

Its all about perspective!
Agreed. I think more and more people are feeling the same way. You've got to look at the bigger picture and not just covid 19.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on December 20, 2020, 05:10:04 AM
And now they are shutting bars early, reducing the number of people who can sit together in restaurants and asking people to wear facemasks on public transport.

But they're doing so well, lockdown has no impact etc etc

Yes, they are doing well. Deaths among under 80's in Sweden from July 2019 to July 2020 average or below 5 year average. Deaths for over 80's only up about one per cent, and obviously they've avoided some of the problems of full lockdowns as well. I presume you're still interested in statistics?

If we're going to be democratic about this, the king of Sweden (who could formerly walk casually amongst the general population as I remember) is just one individual, same as the rest of us. If we're going to pay attention to him, I dare say I could quote (for example) Prince Charles on all sorts of things.

Also Belarus has less excess deaths than the UK. See https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/19/how-belarus-exposes-the-lockdown-lie/ (https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/19/how-belarus-exposes-the-lockdown-lie/)

All rational Altrincham supporters should support a push for a full return of spectators asap, and the current restrictions represent crimes against humanity so far as I am concerned, and we will be pushing for them to be treated as such.

Sorry, but I've had enough of "this nonsense", and I suspect many more will have too in the coming months as the madness becomes ever more apparent. No more mister nice guy from me, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on December 23, 2020, 11:20:08 PM
South Dakota's death rate is currently 50% higher than ours and that's in a very sparsely populated state. Carry on as normal won't win an election even if it is four years away

Meanwhile the number of cases needing hosital treatment for Covid is due to rocket. Whether they get it or not remains to be seen. That doesn't mean I think it is acceptable for other people with serious conditions to lose out.

The government is reacting to the figures. The figures are provided by the public.

The coverage provided by Alty TV is good enough for me for the time being.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: cheshire cat on December 30, 2020, 11:12:44 PM
Every cloud............... Edgeley Park without any supporters might not be so bad. Is Hugh OK?
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on January 03, 2021, 11:02:52 PM
Belgium and South Dakota

Latest worldometer numbers:

South Dakota - one more death

Belgium - 347 more deaths.

Still not convinced, I'm afraid. Will try and keep an eye on it.

Hugh, you've either wildly misread or misrepresented the figures. The number you quoted for Belgium there is for two days. They had 199 deaths yesterday and 148 today which presumably is where you got your 347 from. The figure for South Dakota isn't "one" and it doesn't say that on Worldometer anywhere. Indeed, the latest daily death tolls it gives are both 13 for November 7th and 8th. They haven't even released today's numbers so you can't compare them. Belgium does indeed have a slightly higher death rate in recent days, although it's not nearly the difference you indicate above.

You talked about cherry picking numbers earlier but you put a lot of stock in figures from very short time frame and compare random countries to one another. Statisticians don't work this way. They look at as much data as possible to get an idea of things. I'm not actually arguing with any of your other points RE economy, personal freedoms, projections. I'm just pointing out that your numbers are dead wrong and the areas you're promoting as doing well are objectively not.

That's why I've been doing this weekly.

South Dakota as of now is 540 deaths total. Let's check again next week.

Obviously the global rate is much lower as most of the countries I've been tracking have a severe demographic crisis of aging populations.

South Dakota now up to 1446 deaths as of 29/12/2020.
That puts their death rate just below that of Belgium (which I'm afraid can't just be dismissed as some seem to want to, and previously locked down hard). II don't know for certain, but I would suggest that this may be to do with this virus being more dangerous in cold weather, and South Dakota, in America's "ice box, having bitterly cold winters (it appears to have peaked in early December), and possibly with it being less affected in the Spring. Their deaths, btw, have reduced in each of the last 3 weeks, from 162 down to 65 (though this last could have been affected by reduced holiday reporting), and, so far as I know, with still no lockdown or severe restrictions.
Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on January 03, 2021, 11:22:36 PM
South Dakota's death rate is currently 50% higher than ours and that's in a very sparsely populated state. Carry on as normal won't win an election even if it is four years away

Meanwhile the number of cases needing hosital treatment for Covid is due to rocket. Whether they get it or not remains to be seen. That doesn't mean I think it is acceptable for other people with serious conditions to lose out.

The government is reacting to the figures. The figures are provided by the public.

The coverage provided by Alty TV is good enough for me for the time being.

I thought the figures were provided by counting the number of deaths within 28 days of a positive (mostly pcr) test result, that is, differently to respiratory deaths in all previous years. This means that "cv" deaths are overstated - some will be deaths where it wasn't the main cause, others will have had nothing  to do with cv at all. The only question is how many, whether you believe the information I heard that the true number is less than half the daily official figures, or think it is nearer to the figures given (and I when recently reading a pre-March piece on Spanish flu, what struck me was how widely estimates of deaths varied, from (as I remember) 25m up to 100m). At any rate, if the official figures are anywhere near correct, it must be a very very clever virus as it has apparently managed to reduce deaths due to a number of other common illnesses this year.

So far as I can tell, the problem in  hospitals is largely due to testing healthy staff for cv, something which I understand is never normally done with these respiratory diseases, and which as far as I'm concerned should stop at once  - far more dangerous to deprive the nhs of workers who are not actually showing symptoms of cv. asymptomatic transmission seems to be vanishingly rare, and something that was primarily promoted by China (and by extension the CCP).

It should also be noted that Finland, previously noted for its low IFR, has been adding vitamin D to basic foods - absolutely something that should be done here (the recent rigged test - which used far too low a dose -notwithstanding, and as long as people can opt out).

I now await the total excess deaths for the year - some of which will have of course been caused by lockdowns and people not accessing  vital treatment because of them or simply through fear of going to hospitals.

ps Alty tv has been rather good lately hasn't it - and Stockport tv yesterday!

Title: Re: COVID-19 and associated discussion
Post by: Hugh on January 03, 2021, 11:25:53 PM
Every cloud............... Edgeley Park without any supporters might not be so bad. Is Hugh OK?
Yes, I've not snuffed it from cv quite yet, just tired from work and things.  Vit D and other supplements appear to be doing the job so far but it's early days.

I'd rather be at Edgely Park though! Be nice to see Alty take on County a couple of times before they get back into the fl...