RugbyRebels

paddy no 11 wrote:Do they have any timeline on that?

from Indep:
'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..

They would be, we took much longer to approve the Roche kit

EU confimation 28 Apr, US last weekend - a bit behind but relying on own testing isn't a bad thing.

Galfon wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Do they have any timeline on that?

from Indep:
'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..

Can you imagine how much Roche must be coining it?

Still, got to be done, we need this.

Also got the tamiflu gig after buying patent from Gilead! Now there's a conspiracy - never mind your 5G

Galfon wrote:EU confimation 28 Apr, US last weekend - a bit behind but relying on own testing isn't a bad thing.

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.

I might not quite agree all these days later, and let's be honest all these days later than even the Trump administration, is only a bit behind. But there could be good reasons

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

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

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.

3 consecutive days of 0 new cases here. 65 active cases. And most importantly, SCHOOL IS OPEN ON MONDAY!

Lizard wrote:3 consecutive days of 0 new cases here. 65 active cases. And most importantly, SCHOOL IS OPEN ON MONDAY!

Well done, you have competent leaders. Could we borrow some?

Having a 2,000 km wide moat also helps. That and being absent from many maps.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Lizard wrote:3 consecutive days of 0 new cases here. 65 active cases. And most importantly, SCHOOL IS OPEN ON MONDAY!

Well done, you have competent leaders. Could we borrow some?

Jinxed it. 1 new case here today.

I find it interesting that the reaction from US and UK folk has been "Can we have your sensible leader?" rather than "Can we elect our own sensible person as leader." I mean I know it's tongue in cheek but it's a bit telling about distrust in the systems, isn't it?

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

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

Some thoughts
1- Population health- death rate still hugely skewed to those with co-morbidities
2- COVID patients going into hospital too late; owing to 'protect the NHS' being over-sold possibly
3- False negatives being sent into the community, especially care homes
4- Infection control in hospitals- the already (non Covid) ill being infected in hospitals and sent out again, to both infect and get very ill themselves (see also 3)
5- ICU invasive treatment. 65% dying on ventilators. See point 2.

In the case of Germany, there was a definite difference in intensive care treatment; they imaged 'everyone's' lungs, and had individual proning plans (turning them a lot) and non-invasive oxygenation. Don't know about the population health there tbh, but there was talk that initially it was a much younger demographic said to have been infected, though that jars with the average age stat. The German system allows for more local flexibility, rather than the one-size fits all approach taken in England.

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

London.

Mellsblue wrote:

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

London.

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.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

All fair enough internationally, but I can't see them explaining the intra-UK differences.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:All fair enough internationally, but I can't see them explaining the intra-UK differences.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Sorry Banquo, this was in response to your post above.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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

London.

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.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Which figures are you referencing?

London has everything against it:
Huge, densely populated city
Relatively high use of public transport
Global hub
Late into lockdown compared to rest of the country.

Donny osmond wrote:All fair enough internationally, but I can't see them explaining the intra-UK differences.

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.

Epidemic analysis by numbers is an area where we can all excel in conjecture and ignorance....see Neil Ferguson, and it was his job.

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

Donny 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

England & Wales pop: 59mil with 47k
Scotland pop: 5.5mil with 4k

I haven’t done the maths but it doesn’t look that much different to me.

Add in the fact that London’s pop is nearly double that of Scotland and that London, particularly, and numerous English hotspots are a few weeks ahead of Scotland.

It’s really not that much use looking at death tolls, even ones that should be comparable, and saying x did better than y.

As you were chaps, I’ve made a booboo... by using an actual calculator I have deduced that Scotland’s population is just under 10% of England, and our death rate is about 8% of England’s which small of a difference could easily be explained by, as MB succinctly put it, London. Plus 1 or 2 other variables like hospital size etc.

Typed while MB was exploding my overnight theory!!

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.

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.

That's more like it! Dunkirk spirit.