Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Talking about flu deaths I only found out during the pandemic that flu deaths are an estimate. The way they are calculated is that once the flu season is over experts compare death rates for the past few years and after some calculations and assessments a percentage of deaths are attributed to flu.

IIRC they use an algorithm called EuroMOMO to establish the significant number of excess deaths, and then another algorithm called FluMOMO to take out those attributable to extreme weather. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, madwullie said:

Yeah that's true. Total flu deaths are estimated after the fact based on excess deaths. Also doctors don't need a diagnostic test to put flu on a death cert, and we know they're lying b*****ds so I don't know how we can trust anyone. Wouldn't surprise me if there's never been any flu deaths. 

A lot of deaths for elderly people are put down to pneumonia, the thing that finally lets them go, whatever they were being treated for. They used to call it the old man's friend. My Dad went into hospital for the last time with a broken hip and died from pneumonia, if he had caught Covid and died from pneumonia I still think it's worth mentioning on the death certificate, especially when you're fighting a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

A lot of deaths for elderly people are put down to pneumonia, the thing that finally lets them go, whatever they were being treated for. They used to call it the old man's friend. My Dad went into hospital for the last time with a broken hip and died from pneumonia, if he had caught Covid and died from pneumonia I still think it's worth mentioning on the death certificate, especially when you're fighting a pandemic.

What if he hadn't caught covid, but died from pneumonia?

It would be assumed to be covid, and recorded on the death certificate as such, but it's really not helpful when you are fighting a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Donathan said:

 


Doctors will want to make them look worse to entice the government to impose draconian restrictions. Remember doctors care only about health, not the economy or society, so if doctors had their way we’d all be in DEFCON 5 level lockdown until the virus has been completely eradicated. It therefore follows that they have a vested interest in making it seem worse than it actually is.

 

That's insanely idealistic, Doctors wanted to get back on the golf course and to Florida holidays as soon as the rest of us. They also have a much better measure of risk versus flu etc, otherwise they'd be declaring an epidemic every Winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Also, haven’t seen some photo angle malarkey for a while. Check out these photos of Brighton’s friendly today, first game to have fans back in.

IMG_1095.jpg

IMG_1094.jpg

Fantastic to see. That’s the way crowds at stadiums should be whilst we’re in the mist of “covid panic”. Murrayfield was a pointless exercise and the crowd spacing that was there just wouldn’t be financially viable for 90% of Scottish clubs

Also I see the crowd at Brighton aren’t wearing masks yet the Murrayfield 600 with about 20 feet of freedom around them had to wear one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid being mentioned on death certificates is barely even used any more. Certainly not in the daily updates, and certainly not in any international comparisons.

Positive test and death within 28 days is the criteria for the daily update. It’s not unreasonable to assume Covid may have been a factor at that stage. Excess deaths catches everyone who died regardless of cause so no inflation there.

Flu deaths are often used as a comparison (nobody lost their mind ten years ago!!!!) but are not some bastion of credibility either where detailed post-mortems are carried out to determine if the flu was to blame for death. In fact they’re even less likely to be accurate as there’s no test to say someone had the flu within 28 days of dying. The tired arguments about it being old people who were ‘dying anyway’ also applies here, it’s predominantly elderly people who die of flu and there’s no differentiation between those with terminal cancers who happened to die with flu symptoms and healthy people who did.

This is just yet another straw man pushed by people desperate to think they’re right about this and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. It’s a waste of time to take them seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Murrayfield was a pointless exercise and the crowd spacing that was there just wouldn’t be financially viable for 90% of Scottish clubs

It wasn't meant to be a financial viable model, it was demonstration test using the minimum number of people they needed to work out the flows of people and identifying what procedures should be used to preserve social distancing a much as possible with far greater numbers. You numpty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It wasn't meant to be a financial viable model, it was demonstration test using the minimum number of people they needed to work out the flows of people and identifying what procedures should be used to preserve social distancing a much as possible with far greater numbers. You numpty.

Had they had them socially distanced over two or three blocks that would have made sense. You'd be able to scale that up.

Spreading 700 over a stand that holds 16,000 really was a bit pointless. 

Edited by Todd_is_God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Had they had them socially distanced over two or three blocks that would have made sense. You'd be able to scale that up.

Spreading 700 over a stand that holds 16,000 really was a bit pointless. 

I'm no expert like you, but I would guess that lower numbers are easier to control and monitor in a preliminary trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm no expert like you, but I would guess that lower numbers are easier to control and monitor in a preliminary trial.

Even a non-expert like yourself could have known that pre-arranging arrival times and then spreading 700 people across a big stand would pose no problems in terms of congestion in concourses, walkways and stairwells, never mind any pressure on the three toilet attendants per toilet, without even holding the event.

There were a number of elements of the 'test' that simply aren't scaleable, rendering it pointless.

Compare the two images below. One is a realistic test, the other is a joke

20200830_101054.jpg

20200828_200529.jpg

Edited by Todd_is_God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

Even a non-expert like yourself could have known that pre-arranging arrival times and then spreading 700 people across a big stand would pose no problems in terms of congestion in concourses, walkways and stairwells, never mind any pressure on the three toilet attendants per toilet, without even holding the event.

There were a number of elements of the 'test' that simply aren't scaleable, rendering it pointless.

Congestion was precisely what they wanted to avoid. I've no idea what expertise you have in crowd management trials to know what's scaleable  or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems overkill but if we assume that the government are viewing coronavirus as a high risk deadly virus it makes sense to start off too low rather than too high and work their way up. Similar to shoving too much weight on the bar and trying to bench press it to find your max rather than starting low and working up till you fail.

700 in that size of stadium seems too low a starting point to me but I understand the logic at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid being mentioned on death certificates is barely even used any more. Certainly not in the daily updates, and certainly not in any international comparisons.

Positive test and death within 28 days is the criteria for the daily update. It’s not unreasonable to assume Covid may have been a factor at that stage. Excess deaths catches everyone who died regardless of cause so no inflation there.

Flu deaths are often used as a comparison (nobody lost their mind ten years ago!!!!) but are not some bastion of credibility either where detailed post-mortems are carried out to determine if the flu was to blame for death. In fact they’re even less likely to be accurate as there’s no test to say someone had the flu within 28 days of dying. The tired arguments about it being old people who were ‘dying anyway’ also applies here, it’s predominantly elderly people who die of flu and there’s no differentiation between those with terminal cancers who happened to die with flu symptoms and healthy people who did.

This is just yet another straw man pushed by people desperate to think they’re right about this and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. It’s a waste of time to take them seriously.
There a number of different methods of calculating excess deaths - and it's different from country to country - so even it is not as reliable a method as some are making out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...