RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sure, operational rules and guidelines are in for a shake-up, certainly in a country which has responded very poorly. I assumed Galfon was talking more about high-level/strategic approaches to pandemics, worldwide.

I wasn't referring to that, hence not quoting it
My kids met up in Laandan as per new guidance....and Clapham Common was seething with bodies. A pub not far from me has opened its beer garden as a takeaway.

I fear our people's 'common sense' is not a thing.

Fair enough - completely different point!

Yeah, London. They haven't gone completely insane in my neck of the woods, just on the edge of London, but yeah, I hate to think what's going on centrally. My Oyster card will continue to gather dust for a while.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -be-worlds

...
But Swedish authorities have argued that the country’s higher death rate will appear comparatively lower in hindsight. Efforts to contain the virus are doomed to fail in many countries, and a large percentage of people will be infected in the end. When much of the world experiences a deadly second wave, Sweden will have the worst of the pandemic behind it.
...
There are good reasons for countries to begin easing their restrictions. It will take several years to tally the total number of deaths, bankruptcies, layoffs, suicides, mental health problems, losses to GDP and investments, and other costs attributable not just to the virus but to the measures used to fight it. It should already be obvious, however, that the economic and social costs of lockdowns are enormous: estimates from the OECD suggest that every month of pandemic-related restrictions will shrink the economies of advanced countries by two percent.
...
Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 reflects the country’s distinctive culture, and aspects of it may not be easy to replicate elsewhere. In particular, reliance on official recommendations and individual responsibility may not travel well beyond Scandinavia. Sweden is a special country characterized by high levels of trust—not just between people but between people and government institutions. Swedes were primed to take voluntary recommendations seriously in a way that citizens of other nations may not be
...

1) If we pursue a herd immunity policy (as Sweden's apparently is), and if current UK levels of infection are approx 10% of the population (as per Eugene's post), then by the end of it the total deaths will be many times what we are currently seeing, making the 250k number very feasible.

2) Sweden's approach may not be the worst in the world, there may be some things we can learn from it, but if you compare any of their numbers with South Korea's (or Singapore's, or NZ's, or Taiwan's) it's odd (to say the least) to recommend it as the strategy to follow.

3) The article in Foreign Affairs was produced by the Swedish Ratio Institute, so may not be taking an entirely unbiased view of Sweden's strategy.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -be-worlds

1) If we pursue a herd immunity policy (as Sweden's apparently is), and if current UK levels of infection are approx 10% of the population (as per Eugene's post), then by the end of it the total deaths will be many times what we are currently seeing, making the 250k number very feasible.

2) Sweden's approach may not be the worst in the world, there may be some things we can learn from it, but if you compare any of their numbers with South Korea's (or Singapore's, or NZ's, or Taiwan's) it's odd (to say the least) to recommend it as the strategy to follow.

3) The article in Foreign Affairs was produced by the Swedish Ratio Institute, so may not be taking an entirely unbiased view of Sweden's strategy.

I haven't gone through all of the last 4 pages since the post but...

1. Sweden doesn't have a herd immunity policy. They have social distancing which people actually abide by and 55% of their households are single person, and they have traditions of compliance with government direction that we just don't have. It means that they haven't needed to lockdown. They haven't just let the virus run rampant though.
2. The death toll for Sweden is clearly not the best. It's not the worst either though. What it and the UK demonstrate is that there is no magic to any one policy. It's about keeping the number of sick and dying people to manageable levels. A lockdown is no more than a brake which helps you get there but you still need a strategy for getting out of it and if you go into it too late you'll have a huge number of deaths from virus circulating in the population. Sweden hasn't needed that brake.
3. It seemed pretty measured to me.

Donny osmond wrote:Just to revive my tired old shit from the other day BUT with an "interesting" new angle....



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:I'm not about to claim to understand what 'lived density' means, and this may be nothing more than a confirmation that you can prove anything with statistics. Just thought it was interesting.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I'm not about to claim to understand what 'lived density' means, and this may be nothing more than a confirmation that you can prove anything with statistics. Just thought it was interesting.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

How many people might live in a given cell whilst it's still considered empty I don't know, but you might reasonably ignore the population of some areas of the Scottish highlands

Donny osmond wrote:Just to revive my tired old shit from the other day BUT with an "interesting" new angle....



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I'm not about to claim to understand what 'lived density' means, and this may be nothing more than a confirmation that you can prove anything with statistics. Just thought it was interesting.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

How many people might live in a given cell whilst it's still considered empty I don't know, but you might reasonably ignore the population of some areas of the Scottish highlands

Sound like a Lions selector now.

Stones of granite wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Just to revive my tired old shit from the other day BUT with an "interesting" new angle....



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

That's the danger of copying stuff from fringe groups Facebook pages Donny. That image is a fabrication. Genuine Government briefing slides include a note showing the source of the data. United against Separation haven't given a source for it's origin either, instead giving a link to the NRS site, which obviously isn't going to include slides purporting to be from COBRA.

Fake news.

Donny osmond wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Just to revive my tired old shit from the other day BUT with an "interesting" new angle....



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

That's the danger of copying stuff from fringe groups Facebook pages Donny. That image is a fabrication. Genuine Government briefing slides include a note showing the source of the data. United against Separation haven't given a source for it's origin either, instead giving a link to the NRS site, which obviously isn't going to include slides purporting to be from COBRA.

Fake news.

Fair enough, it doesn't look right and the numbers are different from official numbers.

Didn't get it off Facebook tho, and I don't follow United against Separation. Interesting that you do, tho [emoji6] someone has to watch to watchmen, eh?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Stones of granite wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: That's the danger of copying stuff from fringe groups Facebook pages Donny. That image is a fabrication. Genuine Government briefing slides include a note showing the source of the data. United against Separation haven't given a source for it's origin either, instead giving a link to the NRS site, which obviously isn't going to include slides purporting to be from COBRA.

Fake news.

Fair enough, it doesn't look right and the numbers are different from official numbers.

Didn't get it off Facebook tho, and I don't follow United against Separation. Interesting that you do, tho [emoji6] someone has to watch to watchmen, eh?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't follow United against Separation, I don't think my blood pressure could take it. They have a habit of fabricating stuff and passing it off as official, which gets picked up by the gullible and reposted. This has happened several times, and it took me a while to discover the source. Now when I see something suspect, UaS Facebook page is the first place I go to check.

Incidentally, I think the UK Government has been highly culpable of massaging the figures as well. All of the UK briefings have concentrated on what they call deaths where COVID has been proven by a test, or listed as a factor. I think we all know that the real figure to be concerned about is the excess deaths above the 5 year average, which the ONS also publish but which is never talked about.

Up to week 18, the accumulated excess deaths in England was 44,890 which is quite a bit more than the 28K figure they use. For Scotland it was 3,722 and for Wales 1,839.

This means that the accumulated excess deaths for Scotland, Wales, and England so far are 689, 592 and 801 per million respectively.

You can check these numbers on the ONS website at
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ed-by-week

morepork wrote:Out of interest, how does one find something "interesting" if they do not know what is being presented?

Mellsblue wrote:I have to say, I think the Scottish govt have done a superb job. Given COVID-19 disproportionately affects the obese, those with low vitamin D and the poor it’s a miracle any of you are still alive.

Stones of granite wrote: I don't follow United against Separation, I don't think my blood pressure could take it. They have a habit of fabricating stuff and passing it off as official, which gets picked up by the gullible and reposted. This has happened several times, and it took me a while to discover the source. Now when I see something suspect, UaS Facebook page is the first place I go to check.

Incidentally, I think the UK Government has been highly culpable of massaging the figures as well. All of the UK briefings have concentrated on what they call deaths where COVID has been proven by a test, or listed as a factor. I think we all know that the real figure to be concerned about is the excess deaths above the 5 year average, which the ONS also publish but which is never talked about.

Up to week 18, the accumulated excess deaths in England was 44,890 which is quite a bit more than the 28K figure they use. For Scotland it was 3,722 and for Wales 1,839.

This means that the accumulated excess deaths for Scotland, Wales, and England so far are 689, 592 and 801 per million respectively.

You can check these numbers on the ONS website at
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ed-by-week

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:Out of interest, how does one find something "interesting" if they do not know what is being presented?

If something has a sort of interestingy feel or look you don't have to understand it to be find it interesting. Think drag queens, or astrophysics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:Out of interest, how does one find something "interesting" if they do not know what is being presented?

If something has a sort of interestingy feel or look you don't have to understand it to be find it interesting. Think drag queens, or astrophysics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

At what point does interestingly become anecdotal, and what is the threshold for actual authority on this scale?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -be-worlds

1) If we pursue a herd immunity policy (as Sweden's apparently is), and if current UK levels of infection are approx 10% of the population (as per Eugene's post), then by the end of it the total deaths will be many times what we are currently seeing, making the 250k number very feasible.

2) Sweden's approach may not be the worst in the world, there may be some things we can learn from it, but if you compare any of their numbers with South Korea's (or Singapore's, or NZ's, or Taiwan's) it's odd (to say the least) to recommend it as the strategy to follow.

3) The article in Foreign Affairs was produced by the Swedish Ratio Institute, so may not be taking an entirely unbiased view of Sweden's strategy.

I haven't gone through all of the last 4 pages since the post but...

1. Sweden doesn't have a herd immunity policy. They have social distancing which people actually abide by and 55% of their households are single person, and they have traditions of compliance with government direction that we just don't have. It means that they haven't needed to lockdown. They haven't just let the virus run rampant though.
2. The death toll for Sweden is clearly not the best. It's not the worst either though. What it and the UK demonstrate is that there is no magic to any one policy. It's about keeping the number of sick and dying people to manageable levels. A lockdown is no more than a brake which helps you get there but you still need a strategy for getting out of it and if you go into it too late you'll have a huge number of deaths from virus circulating in the population. Sweden hasn't needed that brake.
3. It seemed pretty measured to me.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I don't follow United against Separation, I don't think my blood pressure could take it. They have a habit of fabricating stuff and passing it off as official, which gets picked up by the gullible and reposted. This has happened several times, and it took me a while to discover the source. Now when I see something suspect, UaS Facebook page is the first place I go to check.

Incidentally, I think the UK Government has been highly culpable of massaging the figures as well. All of the UK briefings have concentrated on what they call deaths where COVID has been proven by a test, or listed as a factor. I think we all know that the real figure to be concerned about is the excess deaths above the 5 year average, which the ONS also publish but which is never talked about.

Up to week 18, the accumulated excess deaths in England was 44,890 which is quite a bit more than the 28K figure they use. For Scotland it was 3,722 and for Wales 1,839.

This means that the accumulated excess deaths for Scotland, Wales, and England so far are 689, 592 and 801 per million respectively.

You can check these numbers on the ONS website at
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ed-by-week

Agreed about the excess deaths being the most important number.

Where on that ONS page do you get the excess numbers split for England, Scotland and Wales? I've been struggling to find them.

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:If something has a sort of interestingy feel or look you don't have to understand it to be find it interesting. Think drag queens, or astrophysics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

At what point does interestingly become anecdotal, and what is the threshold for actual authority on this scale?

You set your own limits, chief. We've been around the merry-go-round on this thread many times with what figures we look at and why.

I did have the Brucie bonus of finding out what lived density is, so it turned out to be more interesting than it started.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk