Forum menu
MCTD
That's what the figures say but the reality is likely to be different - on the course yesterday the trainer said (without reference or proof, but no reason to believe they'd lie) that for a death to be considered suicide coroners need to see certain things, and different coroners interpret that differently (eg: absence of a note)
He said that the true number has variously been estimated to between 4 and 10x higher, once you take accidental death, misadventure, etc.
Also there is often a desire for all to avoid a death by suicide verdict because of the stigma that is still involved for the relatives. If it's not totally clear, misadventure or accidental poisoning is easier to swallow (I'm so sorry, ....... but dark subjects need dark humour)
Also the 400K potential CV19 deaths..... 10's of thousands die every year because they cannot keep their homes warm and damp-free. Add another few hundred thousand to poverty and destitution, what will that be then?
I'm absolutely not saying we should do nothing and accept 400K, just that there is a balance and IDK where that balance is.
Also the 400K potential CV19 deaths….. 10’s of thousands die every year because they cannot keep their homes warm and damp-free. Add another few hundred thousand to poverty and destitution, what will that be then?
I’m absolutely not saying we should do nothing and accept 400K, just that there is a balance and IDK where that balance is.
For me, it's simpler to separate those two things as much as possible. I can see that restrictions have a direct impact on the number of COVID deaths. I don't think it follows directly that this is balanced with government policy on support (or otherwise) on poverty.
10’s of thousands die every year because they cannot keep their homes warm and damp-free. Add another few hundred thousand to poverty and destitution, what will that be then?
2020 has had a month and a half's worth of EXTRA deaths compared with past years. We will squeak under 100k extra deaths compare to past years - about 12.5% increase.
I’m absolutely not saying we should do nothing and accept 400K
We should not be leaving people to die of heat or food poverty anyway. Using Social Distancing as a public health measure for a relatively short period of time (18 months?) is no excuse for letting people die due to lack of income. That Social Distancing is drawing attention to our deficit of care for people struggling work and health wise is no reason for not doing it. The either/or argument as regards incomes and control over an epidemic is bogus. You do both. You stop people getting a potentially fatal disease, and you help them when they can't afford the staples of life. There is no either or. You do both. To a certain extent that is what has happening been happening this year... the government has introduced both controls and support well beyond what it does in a normal year. Should it over more support? Yes. Does that have to mean weaker controls? Absolutely not.
how many are 'of covid' and how many 'because of'?
As I said a few posts earlier, I think the impact of covid (poverty, suicide rates, etc.) are yet to come. Don't sign the scorecard yet
how many are ‘of covid’ and how many ‘because of’?
Read the thread. Search for comorbidity.
I think the impact of covid (poverty, suicide rates, etc.) are yet to come.
Absolutely true. But you seem to be suggesting that cost could be avoided by not controlling doing less to control the spread of the virus. Why do you think that to be the case? It makes no sense to me. The economic impact, and personal impact, of Covid is reduced by reducing the spread of the virus that causes it. Countries that have done worst at controlling the virus will suffer the most economic damage, and the most lives damaged by the indirect effects of that, not just the direct effects of the disease.
how many are ‘of covid’ and how many ‘because of’?
I don't think it matters. All of them are due to COVID.
Don’t sign the scorecard yet
It's just the opening nine.
and @kelvin
yes, we are doing both but i'm worried that post vaccination / back to normal, 'we' will all forget and that's when the trouble comes. End of UC uplifts, furloughs, etc. We'll stop reaching out to friends that might be struggling. That can't happen, or everything done during the crisis is for naught.
I'm equally worried that support (from government and each other) will be dropped/reduced when people start treating vaccination as a "return to normal", at a time when that support will be needed more than ever. I share you concern, and agree it should be top of the government's and our agendas from Christmas onwards, right through next year, and into the following year.
The first move will be the government being bounced into extending the (small) Universal Credit increase for a further 12 months (probably 6 months at a time... so two U-turns). That will have to happen. History suggests they will only do so on the eve of the current measures coming to an end. Why do anything preemptively, or even just in time, when you can get away with stressing everyone out with a late decision? That seems to be this government's way.
Not really. The window for a positive test is pretty small,
Not the antibody test... which is what I think is important in prioritising the Pfizer vaccine and is OTC in France.
especially if you have no symptoms.
Again .. if someone had it and had no symptoms they are probably way down the priority list for the Pfizer vaccine.
So a negative test is meaningless for close contacts because you could still be brewing the virus rather than shedding it. It could send you back to work, and the next day you could be infecting your workmates.
Also, testing the close contacts of a positive/symptomatic person would have quickly overwhelmed laboratory capacity, which was creaking badly even with symptom-only testing. If people who had symptoms were having to wait 3-4 (or more) days for a result at one point, imagine throwing in 2 or 3x as many tests to process.
It seems to me that 2 negative tests a week apart have to be better than the current which is to not test anyone without symptoms. When Jnr was self isolating online attendance was about 50%... so I wonder where the other 500 UNTESTED kids were?
quickly overwhelmed laboratory capacity, which was creaking badly even with symptom-only testing
so back to my assumption...testing is being avoided. We were promised comprehensive testing for schools...etc. other countries do it... so how did even Dildo Hardon cock-it up so badly?
Let’s say your symptomatic person was negative, but instead of getting a result in 2-3 days, (immediately releasing them and all their close contacts from self-isolation), they had to wait more than a week. At that point they would actually be in a worse position because of increased testing.
so back to my assumption...testing is being avoided.
Obviously, in an ideal situation, we’d have had access to rapid, reliably accurate, testing from the word go. But that still isn’t an option, regardless of all the blather about moonshots etc.
Why not? What is it makes the UK so incompetent?
Why the word go? How about before sending kids back to schools?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55245417
Pressure building for tighter restriction in London. The speed/timing of the kick up I think it's worrying. I fear it is evidence that Londoners are not following the rules, so will they in tier 3?
so will they in tier 3?
If more places are shut, yes.
True Kelvin, but still plenty of places to break rules and mix, so weakening the effectiveness of the restrictions.
I fear it is evidence that Londoners are not following the rules, so will they in tier 3?
I had minor outpatient surgery on the 1st and forced to travel to London Bridge, the trains, tubes and streets were very empty with the majority wearing masks. I even - against my better judgement - walked into a shopping centre to get my second Starbucks cappuccino of the year only to experience no chance of bumping into someone it was so empty.
Yet here we are with an exponential rise. The cause - according to many the mad rush from weekend of November 27th to go Christmas shopping despite the lockdown. The borough next to mine has gone from 15 to 256 cases per 100,000 in 2 weeks.
The schools are showing more cases though, two in my borough now not opening again until January. I've no doubt London is heading into Tier 3. However, its the same 'ol story - why not just do it now before a weeks more damage occurs? A rhetorical question.
That Christmas travel "amnesty" looks more like a good idea Every. Single. Day.
That's it kryton. With a 5 yo and to 3 yo we spend a lot of time at playgrounds. Start of lockdown, playgrounds were very very busy at the weekend. By the end it was back to normal, pretty much just us and one or two others..... Clearly most people were shopping again.
Croydon increase is even bigger I think.. maybe over 3'weeks though so same rate ish ... Lots of people down the whitgift and Centrale centres getting their bargains obviously.
I’ve no doubt London is heading into Tier 3. However, its the same ‘ol story – why not just do it now before a weeks more damage occurs?
That Christmas travel “amnesty” looks more like a good idea Every. Single. Day.
Anecdote time: all Londoners I know (friends and family) think that it is over down there, and are heading out of London to be with (elderly) parents over Christmas. The government’s messaging about the holidays will kill people… I selfishly just hope it’s not more of my own family.
Aye, V day, another cringeworthy wartime reference that will cause yet more deaths.
That's not selfish, it's natural.
News in the Sandwich family is not good. My mother-in-law a sound woman of 93 sharp as a tack has gone down with COVID. We're all braced for the worst as she's not doing well though not on a ventilator yet (unlikely as the hospital have said that they will not aggressively treat her).
She has been part of my life longer than my own mother and we're all heartbroken. Herself is off to Ulster on Friday if there's a flight for a day trip to say goodbye from us all. 2020 can get to ****.
Anecdote time: all Londoners I know (friends and family) think that it is over down there, and are heading out of London to be with (elderly) parents over Christmas.
Anecdote time: I live in London and will not be travelling to my parents for Christmas, it’s just not worth the risk (only seen them for 2 hours outside since March).
Some people are respecting social distancing, some aren’t. Most do wear masks on public transport/trains and most do in shops though I try to avoid both, it’s probably no different from a lot of other parts of the country though for such a big conurbation the case rates per 100k have been lower than you would expect and nowhere near the 5-600 seen in other areas particularly in the North. (Currently my borough is at 117).
I’m glad we are moving into tier 3 now instead of waiting until January, that decision will save lives.
Sorry to hear that Sandwich, wishing your MIL all the best.
all Londoners I know (friends and family) think that it is over down there, and are heading out of London
Maybe you should tell them to watch the local news! Or send them this: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-tier-3-warning-coronavirus-cases-rising-b228912.html.
oh Sandwich mate I'm sorry.
I was going to respond to some of the other posts above, but it seems crass now. I think that's the point isn't it - it's all very well talking about statistics, and needing to balance the risk to the elderly with economic damage..... but when it comes down to it, it's peoples mums, dads, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers. And what would you do to protect them individually, vs what would we be prepared to do to protect them collectively.
I hope Mrs S can get a flight ok
Just heard from a lady friend of mine, just got out of hospital having been admitted with breathing difficulties. She's 35, and in otherwise good health. I've only heard of 3 of my pals having covid so far. 1 took best part of 4 months to recover properly, this one has been in hospital..
I thought this virus didn't badly affect the under 50s??
Sorry to hear above people's bad news.
Can anyone help me on rules. Kid teapot 2's classmate has tested positive so kid teapot has to isolate starting tomorrow. He is normally in a bubble with another kid in his class. Can we carry on in that bubble or not?
I’m glad we are moving into tier 3 now instead of waiting until January, that decision will save lives.
When was that announced?
I thought this virus didn’t badly affect the under 50s??
Who said that?
Sorry to hear that Sandwich.
When was that announced?
Apologies. I should have checked what I heard in conversation with somebody earlier today. Appears London is on watch, I hope they make the right decision early not dither and delay.
Can we carry on in that bubble or not?
The rules might be vague, but it’s called “isolate “ for a reason. If one of your bubble has it and the other doesn’t you risk contagion by meeting up. Please don’t.
I hope they make the right decision early not dither and delay.
I agree.
The rules might be vague, but it’s called “isolate “ for a reason.
What we got told wasn't particularly vague... we were told he mustn't leave the house AT ALL unless he develops symptoms but everyone else can carry on as normal unless they develop symptoms.
We were informed in the letter this was from PHE but of course they may be lying?
So his mother can continue to teach at another school, if he had siblings they can continue etc. but we could't get him tested legally, even if we pay as he can't leave the house.
I'm starting to question the letter as so far as I can see no legal action has been taken against parents kids who went and got a test and the next letter mentioned "more than zero" of these tested kids was positive and asymptomatic so if this letter was accurate surely they acted illegally in getting a test but nothing appears to have happened other than them then shutting down another year?
Plenty of parents get kids tested, but a negative test does not mean you don't have it, or that it that ends isolation.
And isolation is meant to mean isolation from everyone else - pretty impossible for most families and especially kids, but basically own room except for bathroom visits.
Yeah, I know no one actually does that and most simply can't.
I too have two of those letters for my girls - it's clear in the letter that the self isolation is for the child only. Makes some sense, otherwise one case would take out a hundred people e.g. class of 30 takes out 30 families.
If incidence was low and we had good track, test and trace it might make sense to isolate contacts of contacts but without out this is where we are.
I thought this virus didn’t badly affect the under 50s?
In terms of being symptomatic at the time the numbers are typically lower and the symptoms typically milder the younger you are I think. Longer term symptoms are at around 10% of those symptomatic last I heard. I haven't heard much said about 'long covid' recently but I'll be honest - it's these effects that I'm most scared of. I'm otherwise generally very healthy in my later 40s, live in an area of otherwise low prevalence, and I'm aware I'm a bit irrational about it. 🙄
It certainly doesn't kill many under 50s but there are a lot more ill people than dead ones.
Juniors secondary now closed, albeit having online classes until the 18th. I’ve got to admit it’s quite impressive, teachers on the computer I suppose with 30 kids on the screen in front of him, full days / normal lessons scheduled.
Well done them. My lad went back to onsite learning today, as his group have finished their isolation. The mixed learning didn't go that well... including a teacher just cancelling the feed to home learners because they couldn't work out how to unmute themselves. The whole class being at home is more likely to be made to work... I feel, Kryton.
I too have two of those letters for my girls – it’s clear in the letter that the self isolation is for the child only. Makes some sense, otherwise one case would take out a hundred people e.g. class of 30 takes out 30 families.
If incidence was low and we had good track, test and trace it might make sense to isolate contacts of contacts but without out this is where we are.
That would depend why they are being told to self isolate wouldn't it?
If they wanted to stop the spread of the virus then they would take out 100
As it is the siblings go into school and spread before showing symptoms. In our case OH goes into a primary school... if he'd had the virus she'd have been shedding before potentially having symptoms. Jnr can't get tested as he had no symptoms... so 2 weeks later he's back, no idea if he had it or not or any of the other kids.
In many ways no way any further than March when one of his friends mothers had something with all the symptoms...
I think that’s the point isn’t it – it’s all very well talking about statistics, and needing to balance the risk to the elderly with economic damage….. but when it comes down to it, it’s peoples mums, dads, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers.
I hate to go on especially when others have news like sandwich, but it's not statistics. I'm pro science; pro lockdown; I get it and agree. But lockdown doesn't damage the balance sheet on an academic level, it damages livelihoods, increases poverty, and will cost lives just as Covid does. But it won't be the elderly disproportionately, it'll be the poor, the disadvantaged, mentally ill, inner city kids.....etc.
We can all relate to the risk to our Mums or Grannies. If as a (generally) middle class middle aged forum we just view the others as 'statistics' we're missing the point, bigly.
Don't think anyone is missing the point here with maybe a few exceptions.
Ignore it, let it rip, whatever = NHS overwhelmed, your not able to treat a even a fraction of covid cases and you lose everyone having heart attacks and gaming down the stairs too.
Lockdown completely = treat everyone normally using the NHS for at least a while, but economy crashes big style, country collapses, followed by NHS and everything else in the end, massive fallout right across society
Try and tread a middle path = pretty much what we're trying to do, though the way the government keep ****ing things up we're likely experiencing a higher death toll at a higher cost than would be otherwise resulting from competent governance. But hey - as the saying goes 'they voted for it'.
Well there's a thing - London surge is mostly in Secondary schools, thats'll be why we are seeing some of them are moving online next week albeit thats the schools choice, why doesn't this chaotic government mandate it where possible as is happening in Wales?. Adult cases are flat so maybe that mitigates Tier 3 in London.
So what about this:
Kay Burley agrees to be off air for six months after COVID-19 breach
A small number of Sky News staff attended a social event in London on Saturday evening during which COVID-19 guidelines were breached.
As a result of an internal review Sky News presenter Kay Burley has agreed to be off air for six months, and political editor Beth Rigby and correspondent Inzamam Rashid have agreed to be off air for three months.
Three people who've talked about not much more than COVID for a year and have criticised Cumminga activities vehemently go on a rule breaking bender. FFS!
Is it just me or are cases going up again? Todays cases and deaths are both nearly 25% up on the same day last week....overall trend of cases seems to be upwards rather than downwards for the past week
Its different parts of the country causing it.
In the North its by far decreasing, Kirklees as an example has dropped loads and still is.
South Wales and the South like London, Kent, Essex way are increasing quite a lot.
Get that lot into T3, T2 obviously doesn't cut the mustard or they're too used to T1 from before that everyone's still mixing it up.