Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
View attachment 11381As far as hospitalisations go, Iceland also had a bad time but Sweden far outstripped them.
It's taken a few weeks to realise you are actually a computer programmeBut cases is a difficult matrix to compare as there are different methods to count the cases depending on where there recorded. The easiest way to have a low case rate is to restrict number of tests conducted. Hospitalisation have similar issues if you don't test hospitalisation rates will be lower also if you do test do you count with covid or hospitalised because of covid. Whereas excess deaths is harder to skew.
Harms should also consider economic and societal. Look at the UK over the last century we had several pandemics but we got through them without mandatory lockdowns.lockdowns are a panic measure designed to buy time at a high economic, societal and health cost. Although we are on polar opposites on lockdowns can we agree that we need an independent public inquiry ASAP to assess the cost/benefits of the UK strategy, to see what we did well and what we need to do better next time so we're better prepared for the next one that will happen sooner or later.
The inquiry needs to be into how much of our money the tories stole to give to their mates for things they either failed to deliver or were useless when delivered. 37bn for track and trace? Thats about £700 per person in the UK, more like £1500 per tax payer!But cases is a difficult matrix to compare as there are different methods to count the cases depending on where there recorded. The easiest way to have a low case rate is to restrict number of tests conducted. Hospitalisation have similar issues if you don't test hospitalisation rates will be lower also if you do test do you count with covid or hospitalised because of covid. Whereas excess deaths is harder to skew.
Harms should also consider economic and societal. Look at the UK over the last century we had several pandemics but we got through them without mandatory lockdowns.lockdowns are a panic measure designed to buy time at a high economic, societal and health cost. Although we are on polar opposites on lockdowns can we agree that we need an independent public inquiry ASAP to assess the cost/benefits of the UK strategy, to see what we did well and what we need to do better next time so we're better prepared for the next one that will happen sooner or later.
they are = they'redepending on where there recorded.
Are you Donald Trump? What point is this trying to make?The easiest way to have a low case rate is to restrict number of tests conducted.
We had 'several' 'pandemics'? In the UK? In the last century? This makes me wonder whether you understand the meaning of the word 'pandemic', which is quite crucial in the context, but also quite common words like 'century' (which means one hundred years), and even 'several' (which means many).Look at the UK over the last century we had several pandemics but we got through them without mandatory lockdowns
When i made a comment earlier, suggesting that History might not be kind to us if we continued to demonstrate such high levels of stupidity, it was exactly examples such as the sentence you have ^above committed to posterity that i was thinking of.lockdowns are a panic measure designed to buy time at a high economic, societal and health cost.
This feels like blaming the people with no power for what the people with power did. Strong government comes from the population not being so easily manipulated into voting for known liars, strong government comes from the voters holding them to account. We knew what Johnson was and we gave him a bigger majority, we have a weak government because we are weak peopleStrong government comes from strong opposition holding them to account.
Is excess mortality not a good matrix for determining how well different strategies have performed to reduce harm?
1. The more testing performed the more positives are identified countries with good asymptomatic testing will find more than countries that don't for example.Jesus f**king Christ do you ever re-read what you've written?
they are = they're
Are you Donald Trump? What point is this trying to make?
We had 'several' 'pandemics'? In the UK? In the last century? This makes me wonder whether you understand the meaning of the word 'pandemic', which is quite crucial in the context, but also quite common words like 'century' (which means one hundred years), and even 'several' (which means many).
If i have misunderstood this sentence in some way, perhaps you could give some examples of some of the 'many' other 'pandemic' s we have faced over the last 'century' that seem to have passed me by.
When i made a comment earlier, suggesting that History might not be kind to us if we continued to demonstrate such high levels of stupidity, it was exactly examples such as the sentence you have ^above committed to posterity that i was thinking of.
Dude, did you ever consider that just because everyone who matters is in agreement about something, it doesn't mean they are wrong?
Quality adjusted life years would be a good measure with the caveat that it's just an estimate until confirmed through future mortality.How about reduction in life expectancy? Guess which of the Scandinavian countries fares worst!
1. You miss a vital piece of the logic here. More testing also means more negative results, which means the cases per capita should actually be lower the more testing of non-symptomatic people you do. More testing will mean more positives in total, but less based on population.1. The more testing performed the more positives are identified countries with good asymptomatic testing will find more than countries that don't for example.
2.notable virus outbreaks the UK delt with over the 20th century were 1918-19,1957-58, 1968
3. Last year the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory almost everyone was on agreement now it's the it's being investigated as a possible source.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab207/6375510Quality adjusted life years would be a good measure with the caveat that it's just an estimate until confirmed through future mortality.
Can you post the source please? Would be interesting to see the data.
1. Are you confusing the positivity rate (positive tests as a proportion of total tests) with confirmed case rate (number of positive tests as a proportion of the population)?1. You miss a vital piece of the logic here. More testing also means more negative results, which means the cases per capita should actually be lower the more testing of non-symptomatic people you do. More testing will mean more positives in total, but less based on population.
3. Who is investigating it as a possible source, and what other possible sources are they investigating? Investigating something doesn't mean it's true, otherwise we'd all be guilty without a court case.
Thank you some interesting stats there looking at the graphs Sweden is about mid table. Does anybody have access to quality adjusted life years. I would be interested to see this measure?
1. good point, yes I was. A country that tests more will have a much lower positivity rate but a higher per capita rate.1. Are you confusing the positivity rate (positive tests as a proportion of total tests) with confirmed case rate (number of positive tests as a proportion of the population)?
3. Yes under investigation as one theory but last year it was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. So movement has taken place. Another possible source is zoonotic escape.
That's who makes you think it's legitimate, sky news looking at it? I thought you meant governments or the WHO, not murdoch.Last year it was instantly dismissed now being looked in to. it absolutely doesn't prove the theory but it is no longer being instantly dismissed.
Sky news Australia have done interesting reports on the theory. There is no beyond reasonable doubt evidence but definitely needs further investigation.