When will this shit end?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Sorry, they did what?!

they did the same thing as they do every year.

It's a dangerous quarry, but also with added toxic water.

So the old bill throw dye in it every year to make it unappealing for swimming.

The papers, meanwhile, did the same thing as they do every day - sensationalise a story into bollocks.

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

they did the same thing as they do every year.

It's a dangerous quarry, but also with added toxic water.

So the old bill throw dye in it every year to make it unappealing for swimming.

The papers, meanwhile, did the same thing as they do every day - sensationalise a story into bollocks.

Oh right. That's still mental! Doesn't it kill whatever lives in it? Surely a sign is good enough and if people still decide to jump it that's just their own fault?

[whitehorses]

@Toilet Duck @Brave Sir Robin thanks both. Yes massive testing clearly helping death rate. 
I heard that about German reporting via an academic doing Covid modelling so took it at more-or-less face value. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by whitehorses

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Oh right. That's still mental! Doesn't it kill whatever lives in it? Surely a sign is good enough and if people still decide to jump it that's just their own fault?

there's nothing that lives in it. It's a toxic soup.

And the people who jump in often die, so it's less hassle for the old bill to dye it than to deal with a death because they haven't.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, whitehorses said:

Yes massive testing clearly helping death rate. 

nah.

The number of deaths is going to be just about the same no matter how much testing they do of the living.

[Brave Sir Robin]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nah.

The number of deaths is going to be just about the same no matter how much testing they do of the living.

The example of South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, who have both gone for mass testing in a big way, would suggest you are wrong. If you know more about where the virus is, you can more easily contain it and keep it away from the vulnerable, as well as prepare your hospitals for it.

[Zoo Music Girl]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's nothing that lives in it. It's a toxic soup.

And the people who jump in often die, so it's less hassle for the old bill to dye it than to deal with a death because they haven't.

I guess I'm just amazed that people are that thick. But probably shouldn't be.

[steviewevie]

Sweden seem to be doing the herd immunity thing we were planning on doing here..not closing schools or advising/enforcing social distancing.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, Brave Sir Robin said:

The example of South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, who have both gone for mass testing in a big way, would suggest you are wrong.

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Quote

If you know more about where the virus is, you can more easily contain it and keep it away from the vulnerable, as well as prepare your hospitals for it.

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

Edited March 31, 2020 by eFestivals

[Havors]

10 hours ago, whitehorses said:

As I *understand it Germany reports deaths according to the underlying condition not Covid. Hence why their death rate seems lower. So if we do switch to that kind of reporting we’re not alone. 

*i don’t know if this is true though 

I read an open letter from a bunch of top german experts to their government implying the opposite may be true.... that people who have the virus found in their system postmortem are being recorded as dying from it even though they may well not have. There was some very interesting question raised with sources etc, well worth a read. Not sure how big a pinch of salt to take it with though...

https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/

I have also read (more pinches of salt) that the virus has been downgraded by public health england and the government is over playing its severity to help ease any burdon on the NHS.  

Again all just food for thought. 

I do think we will start to see restriction slowly lifted in a staggered fashion by May sometime. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I guess I'm just amazed that people are that thick. But probably shouldn't be.

I think a big part of the problem is how inviting the water looks when it hasn't been dyed. It's not nicknamed the blue lagoon for nothing.

[zahidf]

 

 

Wonder when that fatigue will hit the UK

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Wonder when that fatigue will hit the UK

as soon as the sun comes out.  

[stuartbert two hats]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

To be fair you said "The number of deaths is going to be just about the same ", not "The actual death rate is going to be...".  Which isn't quite true either - if by mass testing and targeted quarantining you can keep the infection rate down, then your heath services are less likely to be overwhelmed, bringing the death rate itself down as well as the absolute number of deaths.

[Bovla]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

 

Ahhhh .... we're going at this from different statistical angles.

There's the average of how many times you'll throw a dice and get six, and then there's the probability of throwing a six on the next roll if you threw 6 on the last roll. 

Testing doesn't (much) change the death rate of those who are infected, it changes the numbers who get infected.

 

Ah well this very much depends on how your containment goes after you have done your massive amounts of testing. If you approach it as doing loads to testing. locating cases, and isolating the most vulnerable while trying to keep some normality for the rest of the population, then you could get more infections compared to shutting down the whole country, but a much lower death rate because the vulnerable are shielded from it.

Of course, this is an extreme example but you could change the death rate with increased testing as a death rate is impacted by a huge amount of factors and at the moment, we are in the 10s thousands of cases so small variations have a large impact on the figures.

[steviewevie]

I think school holidays and easter will be difficult for many with this lockdown, especially if weather improves.

[steviewevie]

The Malaysian government has urged women to dress up at home and avoid nagging their husbands in coronavirus lockdown advice

[whitehorses]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

nah.

The number of deaths is going to be just about the same no matter how much testing they do of the living.

If you know about more minor infections then the death rate appears lower. If you only know about more severe infection then death rate would appear higher.

Given equality of care the overall death rate should be fairly evenly distributed across the globe. But we all know we don’t get equal care... And some populations, elderly for example, will also skew that.

Edited March 31, 2020 by whitehorses

[whitehorses]

Thanks @Havorsinteresting. Yeah it got downgraded from being a HCID a few weeks ago - I don’t think that impacts how seriously we need to take it tho 

[Brave Sir Robin]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple maths and logic says i'm not.

Whether you do 1000 tests of the living or 1,000,000 tests of the living (with positive or negative results), those tests have no influence on how many who are infected will die.  The test results of the dead are completely independent of those tests (both positive & negative) of the living. 

As @stuartbert two hats has pointed out, you were previously talking about overall numbers of dead, now you're talking death rate of the infected, which are obviously very different.

But I'd argue you will do better even on the overall rate with extensive testing, as if you know more about who has and hasn't got it you can do a better job of keeping it away from those most at risk.

PS @eFestivals, typo in the Wyldes article, in the body you've got it rescheduling to a few days later in June...

Edited March 31, 2020 by Brave Sir Robin

[Havors]

35 minutes ago, whitehorses said:

Thanks @Havorsinteresting. Yeah it got downgraded from being a HCID a few weeks ago - I don’t think that impacts how seriously we need to take it tho 

Oh yeah totally agree. Even if that is all accurate we need to keep this going to ease the burden on NHS. I would say though it could mean this wont last as long June if we are lucky. 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

To be fair you said "The number of deaths is going to be just about the same ", not "The actual death rate is going to be...".  Which isn't quite true either - if by mass testing and targeted quarantining you can keep the infection rate down, then your heath services are less likely to be overwhelmed, bringing the death rate itself down as well as the absolute number of deaths.

that's not testing changing the death rate, that's testing changing the infection rate.

The death rate is a factor of the infection rate. The testing rate has no relationship to that.

because, if there's 50 deaths, there's 50 deaths. Testing 1000 people or 1,000,000 people doesn't alter the fact of 50 deaths.

[steviewevie]

Apparently goats are taking over.

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's not testing changing the death rate, that's testing changing the infection rate.

The death rate is a factor of the infection rate. The testing rate has no relationship to that.

because, if there's 50 deaths, there's 50 deaths. Testing 1000 people or 1,000,000 people doesn't alter the fact of 50 deaths.

But it does, that's the point - the infection rate and death rates do influence each other.  Testing helps targeted quarantining, targeted quarantining flattens the curve, flattening the curve reduces the burden on health services, which reduces the death rate.  It's not just rolling a dice - your chance of death is related to the availability of healthcare.

[Wellyboot]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Apparently goats are taking over.

I saw something about that actually  cute I thought