So according to the Telegraph the most recent COVID data shows

[Pokster]

a steep decline in positive tests since lockdown was eased including a 40% drop in the past week.

But we should ‘follow the science’ despite it now being clear that the scientists hadn’t a f*cking clue and lacked the humility to admit it.

Stupid, spineless, fat, blithering idiot and his grinch faced mong should be horse whipped for what they have done to our economy imo.

So what do you think we should have done?

The lockdown started too late which is why we have some of the worst figures in the western world

And it takes around 7-14 days for the virus to show up, so there is nothing in the data that says we should have eased lockdown earlier

[barrybueno]

So what do you think we should have done?

The lockdown started too late which is why we have some of the worst figures in the western world

And it takes around 7-14 days for the virus to show up, so there is nothing in the data that says we should have eased lockdown earlier

The real problem with the death toll figures is that they are complete bullshít. If we had confidence in those figures we could at least then come to some conclusions of how well/badly we've done as a country. They even quote UK figures on the telly every day rather than just England. Anything for a bigger number...

[IUFG]

The real problem with the death toll figures is that they are complete bullshít. If we had confidence in those figures we could at least then come to some conclusions of how well/badly we've done as a country. They even quote UK figures on the telly every day rather than just England. Anything for a bigger number...

I'm not sure we can call out the ONS on the overall number of recorded deaths, b.

Whether they are COVID related or not is debatable, but we can't really argue about excess mortality rates during this period. And in any case, herd immunity IS the answer to shít like this...

www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

[Burney]

I'm not sure we can call out the ONS on the overall number of recorded deaths, b.

Whether they are COVID related or not is debatable, but we can't really argue about excess mortality rates during this period. And in any case, herd immunity IS the answer to shít like this...

www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Even excess death figures are questionable, I'm afraid. There are enormous problems in comparing this data: accuracy of raw data; differences in reporting between using death occurrence data (as most EU countries do) or registration data (as we in the UK do) can mean long lags in reporting; how 'normal' deaths are measured; even differences in how we define the week!
In fact, one of the few things on which everyone now agrees is that it's imperative that international/national statistical agencies should publish improved measures of excess mortality and standardise on how they do it.
In short: attempting to judge anything from the numbers as we have them now is a mug's game.

[IUFG]

Even excess death figures are questionable, I'm afraid. There are enormous problems in comparing this data: accuracy of raw data; differences in reporting between using death occurrence data (as most EU countries do) or registration data (as we in the UK do) can mean long lags in reporting; how 'normal' deaths are measured; even differences in how we define the week!
In fact, one of the few things on which everyone now agrees is that it's imperative that international/national statistical agencies should publish improved measures of excess mortality and standardise on how they do it.
In short: attempting to judge anything from the numbers as we have them now is a mug's game.

I would have thought that counting deaths would be quite easy - simply based on whether a human being is either dead or not.

Don't tell me that death is now also non-binary

[WES]

I would have thought that counting deaths would be quite easy - simply based on whether a human being is either dead or not.

Don't tell me that death is now also non-binary

To be clear, I’m not questioning the number of deaths, I’m questioning the idea that the only way to avoid them is by a full lockdown (which the scientists told us we needed) rather than a more intelligent, evidence-based lockdown, and how many deaths we might have ultimately experienced without a full lockdown.

And I’m pointing out that the reason we didn’t explore a different approach is because the scientists couldn’t admit they didn’t know and the Prime Minister lacked the balls to call them on it.

The fat, blithering idiot.

[IUFG]

To be clear, I’m not questioning the number of deaths, I’m questioning the idea that the only way to avoid them is by a full lockdown (which the scientists told us we needed) rather than a more intelligent, evidence-based lockdown, and how many deaths we might have ultimately experienced without a full lockdown.

And I’m pointing out that the reason we didn’t explore a different approach is because the scientists couldn’t admit they didn’t know and the Prime Minister lacked the balls to call them on it.

The fat, blithering idiot.

As I see it, I'm sure if we had locked down earlier, people whould have just ignored it earlier. The lockdown wasn't to save lives, rather to ensure OUR NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It wasn't. And won't be.

An epidemic (or pandemic) has a lifespan and will naturally fade away and the weaker version of the virus survives and will be around for ever - Spanish 'Flu is still around and is currently known as Influenza.

[Burney]

I would have thought that counting deaths would be quite easy - simply based on whether a human being is either dead or not.

Don't tell me that death is now also non-binary

Counting them is one thing. Determining whether they are excess deaths based on an average over at least five years while taking in account all factors that might cause anomalies during those five years (weather, other disease outbreaks, etc) is quite another and again - obviously due to differing local factors - there are significant variations between countries in how this is calculated.

Basically, trying to make sense of the whole thing on a national scale - let alone an international one - is a fúcking nightmare.

[IUFG]

Counting them is one thing. Determining whether they are excess deaths based on an average over at least five years while taking in account all factors that might cause anomalies during those five years (weather, other disease outbreaks, etc) is quite another and again - obviously due to differing local factors - there are significant variations between countries in how this is calculated.

Basically, trying to make sense of the whole thing on a national scale - let alone an international one - is a fúcking nightmare.

I think the maths is quite easy, tbh. Actual number of deaths in a current period compared to the average number of total deaths from the same periods, from the last five years.

Agreed - it is defining what counts as a 'normal death' that is tricky



It's relating deaths directly to C-19 which is the bullshít bit.