RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.[/img]

Interesting. Although I don't understand why the others are either coming back to the normal range or never left it - I think we need more information before we believe those graphs!

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I saw the Euromomo site a few days back but don't have the stats chops to interpret it beyond it looks like we're doing spectacularly badly compared to everyone else.

There are lots of types of death which should be down as a result of lockdowns: traffic deaths; other infectious disease; industrial injury and no doubt more (murder, suicide, drug overdose are all debatable whether they are net gains or losses, and may differ country to country). Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that the countries who are doing well with Covid 19 aren't massively outside normal rates for deaths.

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.

Which Tyler wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.

Here's our ones straight from the ONS figures, as I;'ve done for the last couple of weeks:
Covid 19.jpg
For the sake of comparison (or those who prefer the stats as a bar graph of whole numbers, going down to 0) for week 16 (ending 17 Apr) the average death rate is 10,497 - so that's 213% of the average for the week.

ETA: I'm having a play with Euromomo - Conway has smoothed those graphs (obviously) I'll see if I can extract the same data as I have for ourselves from there - when I have time. Worth pointing out that Euromomo is comparing "Z-score" rather than simple number of deaths in a week compared to the average for that week. I haven't got my head around how it calculates the "Z-score" yet.

ETA2: Z-score seems to be the number of deaths compared to the standard deviation of the number of deaths - both figures look to have been tinkered with and weighted for population size. There's simply no way I can marry their figures for England & Wales to the ONS figures. Basically, the stats they use are too complicated for me and they don't provide any raw data

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It really does make you wonder how China, S Korea etc kept their R0 rate so low without lockdown....

Below the headline numbers, cracks are starting to show at federal level with increasing calls that the fallout from the economic downturn will be worse than COVID if lockdown is reimplemented and polls showing the population is becoming less accepting of social distancing measures and less worried about COVID as this drags on. No great surprise as behavioural scientists have warned of this since the start but a worry in what will be a long battle before life goes back the normal.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Aye. It just shows how important it is to actually isolate.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Aye. It just shows how important it is to actually isolate.

Or that we just need to crack on and let a lot of people die, nobody really knows. But the isolation looks the better/fairer play for now

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Aye. It just shows how important it is to actually isolate.

Or that we just need to crack on and let a lot of people die, nobody really knows. But the isolation looks the better/fairer play for now

The way our society currently works allows for a field day when it comes to pandemics:

Mass transit used considerably
Open plan offices
High international and national travel
Population not used to containment

We have a good health service but unless we make serious changes to how we operate, back to normal exposes us to huge risk.

Banquo wrote:Boris taking 3 months paternity leave apparently. Good on him, showing the way in a modern family.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Boris taking 3 months paternity leave apparently. Good on him, showing the way in a modern family.

Weirdly Downing Street was staying mute on whether he'd attend PMQs today, which just seemed daft, no chance he can have put the hours in to be on top of the information and then be ready to stand and answer questions for an hour. But 3 months is going to prove problematic if there's not a decision making process approved in his absence, he's got both the pandemic and Brexit to attend to and there just isn't the time to hope things get magically better whilst we're in limbo (even if in the normal way it's likely many things would improve if government did less)

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote: Aye. It just shows how important it is to actually isolate.

Or that we just need to crack on and let a lot of people die, nobody really knows. But the isolation looks the better/fairer play for now

The way our society currently works allows for a field day when it comes to pandemics:

Mass transit used considerably
Open plan offices
High international and national travel
Population not used to containment

We have a good health service but unless we make serious changes to how we operate, back to normal exposes us to huge risk.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote: Or that we just need to crack on and let a lot of people die, nobody really knows. But the isolation looks the better/fairer play for now

The way our society currently works allows for a field day when it comes to pandemics:

Mass transit used considerably
Open plan offices
High international and national travel
Population not used to containment

We have a good health service but unless we make serious changes to how we operate, back to normal exposes us to huge risk.

Absolutely. Business as usual needs to change.

Work from home should continue wherever possible. Distance between workers should be maximised. Teleconferencing should replace face-to-face meetings. Hand shaking should be discouraged. Government should encourage/assist businesses to make these changes.
New arrivals to the country should be checked for temperature and tested for the virus (when available).
Masks should be encouraged especially where close contact is unavoidable eg public transport.
Hand gel dispensers should be available on public transport.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It really does make you wonder how China, S Korea etc kept their R0 rate so low without lockdown....

Below the headline numbers, cracks are starting to show at federal level with increasing calls that the fallout from the economic downturn will be worse than COVID if lockdown is reimplemented and polls showing the population is becoming less accepting of social distancing measures and less worried about COVID as this drags on. No great surprise as behavioural scientists have warned of this since the start but a worry in what will be a long battle before life goes back the normal.

Indeed. Which is why governments decided, rightly or wrongly, to delay lockdowns at first (to varying degrees). Sadly, this has potential to get worse.

I don't think anyone trusts the data out of China.

South Korea more so, but their level of aggression in hunting down the infected and isolating them quickly is a clear indicator of how to proceed. New Zealand too have had a lot of success it would appear in isolating this. Historically, evidence from the US during 1919/20 suggests that a hard lockdown actually improves the future economic outlook (versus early exit and reentry I suppose).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It really does make you wonder how China, S Korea etc kept their R0 rate so low without lockdown....

Below the headline numbers, cracks are starting to show at federal level with increasing calls that the fallout from the economic downturn will be worse than COVID if lockdown is reimplemented and polls showing the population is becoming less accepting of social distancing measures and less worried about COVID as this drags on. No great surprise as behavioural scientists have warned of this since the start but a worry in what will be a long battle before life goes back the normal.

Indeed. Which is why governments decided, rightly or wrongly, to delay lockdowns at first (to varying degrees). Sadly, this has potential to get worse.

I don't think anyone trusts the data out of China.

South Korea more so, but their level of aggression in hunting down the infected and isolating them quickly is a clear indicator of how to proceed. New Zealand too have had a lot of success it would appear in isolating this. Historically, evidence from the US during 1919/20 suggests that a hard lockdown actually improves the future economic outlook (versus early exit and reentry I suppose).

It's clear that delaying lockdown was a bad decision. We increased infections tenfold in just over ten days and we're only just (maybe) stabilising the disease (that is, bringing down the daily increases), but at a much higher level than it would have been had we acted sooner.

South Korea is the obvious example of how to manage Covid-19 without complete lockdown.

But when the cases get too high, lockdown is essential, and a short hard lockdown is better for the economy in the long run than a longer, leaky lockdown.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Indeed. Which is why governments decided, rightly or wrongly, to delay lockdowns at first (to varying degrees). Sadly, this has potential to get worse.

I don't think anyone trusts the data out of China.

South Korea more so, but their level of aggression in hunting down the infected and isolating them quickly is a clear indicator of how to proceed. New Zealand too have had a lot of success it would appear in isolating this. Historically, evidence from the US during 1919/20 suggests that a hard lockdown actually improves the future economic outlook (versus early exit and reentry I suppose).

It's clear that delaying lockdown was a bad decision. We increased infections tenfold in just over ten days and we're only just (maybe) stabilising the disease (that is, bringing down the daily increases), but at a much higher level than it would have been had we acted sooner.

South Korea is the obvious example of how to manage Covid-19 without complete lockdown.

But when the cases get too high, lockdown is essential, and a short hard lockdown is better for the economy in the long run than a longer, leaky lockdown.

In hindsight its hard to disagree that we should have locked down sooner. The decision making process that led to that is something for the post crisis review.

You could add Sweden to the list as well, although I'm wary at directly comparing countries as there are significant differences.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The way our society currently works allows for a field day when it comes to pandemics:

Mass transit used considerably
Open plan offices
High international and national travel
Population not used to containment

We have a good health service but unless we make serious changes to how we operate, back to normal exposes us to huge risk.

Absolutely. Business as usual needs to change.

Work from home should continue wherever possible. Distance between workers should be maximised. Teleconferencing should replace face-to-face meetings. Hand shaking should be discouraged. Government should encourage/assist businesses to make these changes.
New arrivals to the country should be checked for temperature and tested for the virus (when available).
Masks should be encouraged especially where close contact is unavoidable eg public transport.
Hand gel dispensers should be available on public transport.

Healthcare? Primary School Education? Secondary Education? Tertiary Education? Pubs? Restaurants? Gyms?Pro Sports?

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It's clear that delaying lockdown was a bad decision. We increased infections tenfold in just over ten days and we're only just (maybe) stabilising the disease (that is, bringing down the daily increases), but at a much higher level than it would have been had we acted sooner.

South Korea is the obvious example of how to manage Covid-19 without complete lockdown.

But when the cases get too high, lockdown is essential, and a short hard lockdown is better for the economy in the long run than a longer, leaky lockdown.

In hindsight its hard to disagree that we should have locked down sooner. The decision making process that led to that is something for the post crisis review.

You could add Sweden to the list as well, although I'm wary at directly comparing countries as there are significant differences.

add Sweden to the list of what?

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
In hindsight its hard to disagree that we should have locked down sooner. The decision making process that led to that is something for the post crisis review.

You could add Sweden to the list as well, although I'm wary at directly comparing countries as there are significant differences.

add Sweden to the list of what?

The list of where an alternative approach has been taken. For comparison, albeit with a big caveat that its a very different country.