from Indep:paddy no 11 wrote:Do they have any timeline on that?
'The Department of Health and Social Care is reportedly in negotiations with Roche to buy millions of the kits '
I believe the Germans are ahead in placing an order..
from Indep:paddy no 11 wrote:Do they have any timeline on that?
Can you imagine how much Roche must be coining it?Galfon wrote:from Indep:paddy no 11 wrote:Do they have any timeline on that?
'The Department of Health and Social Care is reportedly in negotiations with Roche to buy millions of the kits '
I believe the Germans are ahead in placing an order..
It's not like we started that length of time after the EU, we just took a lot longer about it. And I'm not condemning it, merely noting it, something to look back on for sure when we evaluate our decisions and execution.Galfon wrote:EU confimation 28 Apr, US last weekend - a bit behind but relying on own testing isn't a bad thing.
When the Mail reported that, they also roped in the study from a month back which suggested up to a third of the population had been infected at that point. And they put that number in the headline.fivepointer wrote:Interesting.......https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... d14may2020
"The first national snapshot of Covid-19 rates has revealed that 148,000 people in England were infected with the virus over the past two weeks.
The study, by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), tested 10,705 people in more than 5,000 households and estimated 0.27% of the population in England were currently positive for Covid-19. The analysis suggests about 148,000 people across the entire population would have tested positive on any day between 27 April and 10 May 2020.
The findings will inform the government’s next steps as it considers whether it is safe enough to further ease restrictions on socialising, businesses and schools in the coming weeks. Experts suggest the current rates of infection remain “some way off” what would be needed to lift the lockdown"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -two-weeks
Well done, you have competent leaders. Could we borrow some?Lizard wrote:3 consecutive days of 0 new cases here. 65 active cases. And most importantly, SCHOOL IS OPEN ON MONDAY!
Jinxed it. 1 new case here today.Son of Mathonwy wrote:Well done, you have competent leaders. Could we borrow some?Lizard wrote:3 consecutive days of 0 new cases here. 65 active cases. And most importantly, SCHOOL IS OPEN ON MONDAY!
Some thoughtsDonny osmond wrote:The death rate in England is just massively weird. Even allowing for all the mistakes, there must be some unspecified reason why it's so high.
It's even way higher than Scotland, Wales or NI afaik, and there's no earthly reason I can find that's been discussed that explains that.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
London.Donny osmond wrote:The death rate in England is just massively weird. Even allowing for all the mistakes, there must be some unspecified reason why it's so high.
It's even way higher than Scotland, Wales or NI afaik, and there's no earthly reason I can find that's been discussed that explains that.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
That would skew it, yes, but not to the degree we've seen. I'm thinking particularly about the diff between eng and Sco here.Mellsblue wrote:London.Donny osmond wrote:The death rate in England is just massively weird. Even allowing for all the mistakes, there must be some unspecified reason why it's so high.
It's even way higher than Scotland, Wales or NI afaik, and there's no earthly reason I can find that's been discussed that explains that.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Sorry Banquo, this was in response to your post above.Donny osmond wrote:All fair enough internationally, but I can't see them explaining the intra-UK differences.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Which figures are you referencing?Donny osmond wrote:That would skew it, yes, but not to the degree we've seen. I'm thinking particularly about the diff between eng and Sco here.Mellsblue wrote:London.Donny osmond wrote:The death rate in England is just massively weird. Even allowing for all the mistakes, there must be some unspecified reason why it's so high.
It's even way higher than Scotland, Wales or NI afaik, and there's no earthly reason I can find that's been discussed that explains that.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Layer on population densities then. Suspect you may have say a very high deathrate in Glasgow. Don't know about the role of care homes in the other countries and how they interact with the health system either.Donny osmond wrote:All fair enough internationally, but I can't see them explaining the intra-UK differences.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
England & Wales pop: 59mil with 47kDonny osmond wrote:This is from the FT (https://www.ft.com/content/40fc8904-feb ... 3e48bbc034):
In the official data, from the week ending March 20 to May 1, there have been 46,566 excess deaths in England and Wales, 3,710 in Scotland and 703 in Northern Ireland.
Ok, London has an outrageous figure but can that by itself explain the difference seen above? Maybe it can and I just can’t wrap my head around it, which wouldn’t be a first.
As Banquo says, within Scotland Glasgow has a much higher figure than the rest of the country, obvs pop density and all these other factors play a roll... it just seems weird that a country with as many well publicised health issues (I.e. comorbidities) as Scotland is apparently doing “better” (apologies for using that term) than England
Edited
That's more like it! Dunkirk spirit.Donny osmond wrote:That’s if the FT figures are correct. As an master internet debater i am now going to find some more hysterical death figures for England that justify what I said all along.