The UK response - Part II - read OP

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

So then there is the question, why have they not published all of the contracts awarded yet?

Coronavirus: Conservative councillor PPE contracts questioned



Surely they could have shown that all the experienced companies who provide PPE to the DHSC have been given contracts so we can stop this charade and see that only a minority of contracts seem dodgy. This government is either fond of the drama they can create by appearing incompetent, or they just are incompetent and we are seeing the results of this

A contract was awarded that saved the government money and delivered the goods on time? Where will this scandal end?

All the contracts will be published, but it takes time and there are more important things to worry about at the moment.

The reality is though, these are extreme times and need extreme measures. At the moment no one is in possession of all the facts and so we end up with the 1+1= Dominic Cummings response.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not very happy with the way coronavirus has been handled in the UK and especially here in England.What pisses me off though is now other EU countries have infection rates higher than the UK and have also had problems with ppe etc there's still the same little bunch plugging away what a bunch of gob****es the British are.Admittedly you're not one of the worst.

You have this same complaint every week.

And it's interesting that you focus your ire on those who comment in this thread and not at your asshat govt.

The obsequiousness in the face of Tory corruption is just bizarre. That you use Aegir as a posterboy for "telling it like it is", says it all.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You have this same complaint every week.

And it's interesting that you focus your ire on those who comment in this thread and not at your asshat govt.

The obsequiousness in the face of Tory corruption is just bizarre. That you use Aegir as a posterboy for "telling it like it is", says it all.

Oh the irony.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

Oh the irony.

Do explain...

JP Liz V1

UK had a concert, social distancing seated watching but bars packed

robinph

UK total deaths count reduced by 5000 after England decided that getting run over by a car two months after a positive covid19 test shouldn't be included in the stats:

BBC News - Coronavirus: England death count review reduces UK toll by 5,000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

Was very weird that they were deliberately trying to increase the numbers in a way that no other country was. Still over 41,000 deaths though.

Bit cynical

UK daily rate of cases now lower than Ireland:



[Source]

The difference is probably greater than indicated since the UK's rate of testing is much greater (see dotted line). For some reason Ireland appears to have lowered the amount of testing it is doing in the last 10 days by half, though the UK's was still higher before that.

devnull

The new methodology that has been put forward by the UK government is clearly aimed at doing one thing - making the death figures look as low as possible. .

Under the new figures, they are essentially stating that anyone who dies 28 days after a positive test cannot be considered a COVID-19 death it appears. That is outrageous because it grossly underestimates the deaths caused by the disease.

Someone who tests positive for coronavirus, is admitted to hospital 7 days later with worsening symptoms and remains in hospital and dies in hospital 22 days later, having never been released, now is no longer included in the figures.

There's one very simple transparent way to record the statistics. By counting the number of people who died with coronavirus on the death certificate. This should have been done from day one because it has the least opportunity to manipulate. The Government won't want to do this for obvious reasons.

The fact that someone can be diagnosed from coronavirus, still be hospitalised 28 days after their coronavirus test, because they have coronavirus and then be issued with a death certificate with coronavirus on, but is then excluded from official death figures because they didn't die quick enough, is so wrong.

Epidemiologists are already pointing out the serious issues with this new methodology which clearly is designed to understate the number of people who died from coronavirus.

devnull

devnull wrote: »

The new methodology that has been put forward by the UK government is clearly aimed at doing one thing - making the death figures look as low as possible. .

Under the new figures, they are essentially stating that anyone who dies 28 days after a positive test cannot be considered a COVID-19 death it appears. That is outrageous because it grossly underestimates the deaths caused by the disease.

Someone who tests positive for coronavirus, is admitted to hospital 7 days later with worsening symptoms and remains in hospital and dies in hospital 22 days later, having never been released, now is no longer included in the figures.

There's one very simple transparent way to record the statistics. By counting the number of people who died with coronavirus on the death certificate. This should have been done from day one because it has the least opportunity to manipulate. The Government won't want to do this for obvious reasons.

The fact that someone can be diagnosed from coronavirus, still be hospitalised 28 days after their coronavirus test, because they have coronavirus and then be issued with a death certificate with coronavirus on, but is then excluded from official death figures because they didn't die quick enough, is so wrong.

Epidemiologists are already pointing out the serious issues with this new methodology which clearly is designed to understate the number of people who died from coronavirus.

So where is your criticism of the Welsh, Scottish and NI governments?

This is what they have been doing all along and it is simply a case of England doing the same.

devnull

Aegir wrote: »

So where is your criticism of the Welsh, Scottish and NI governments?

This is what they have been doing all along and it is simply a case of England doing the same.

My criticism applies to anyone doing it. It's a completely flawed methodology when we know that from a positive test to recovery doesn't always happen within 28 days.

robinph

devnull wrote: »

My criticism applies to anyone doing it. It's a completely flawed methodology when we know that from a positive test to recovery doesn't always happen within 28 days.

They are now taking into account what it says on the death cert. Previously they just counted if they had ever tested positive and ignored if they were run over by a bus or not, or recovered from covid19 and then died from whatever other condition they might have been suffering from.

A Dub in Glasgo

The weekly figures take into account COVID-19 on the death certs although this tally is not what is generally reported

Up to 31 July (2 Aug for Scotland)



Information from ONS, NRS and NISRA

devnull

devnull wrote: »

My criticism applies to anyone doing it. It's a completely flawed methodology when we know that from a positive test to recovery doesn't always happen within 28 days.

Is there a standard way of doing this? How does this compare with the US, or France for example?

It seems there is no global standard for recording Covid deaths.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Is there a standard way of doing this? How does this compare with the US, or France for example?

It seems there is no global standard for recording Covid deaths.

It's difficult, because different countries have different systems in place for recording deaths.

Plus, comparison with other countries is not actually the main purpose of collecting the data; the main point it to get data which will be useful in managing the pandemic in your own country, and for future planning.

From this point of view data which you get soon has much to recommend it, even if it it's not strictly comparable with the data that is available soon in other countries.

For what it's worth, I think that for international comparisons the preferred metric is excess deaths. But this takes a while to compile and refine.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

A contract was awarded that saved the government money and delivered the goods on time? Where will this scandal end?

All the contracts will be published, but it takes time and there are more important things to worry about at the moment.

The reality is though, these are extreme times and need extreme measures. At the moment no one is in possession of all the facts and so we end up with the 1+1= Dominic Cummings response.

That is what you took from that story and not my quote, which I was asking you about? It is impossible to have a coherent and intelligent debate about things when you are facing someone who either posts one liners that adds nothing to the debate or ignores what you are trying to point and and tries to shift the discussion.

You ignore and shift the focus when you don't have an answer and it is leading to people replying with more hostility to your posts. Don't think it is not being noticed.

Also, other than pointing out in a discussion about people not following lockdown guidelines that Cummings not adhering to them allowed other to do the same, which as far as I know you have not disputed or shown links that this is not true contrary to the polls that show this, you are the only one that keep bringing up his name. You seem obsessed with him.

When there is a connection with Cummings and the response it will be highlighted, as it was for the contract on Brexit work that was changed to corona-work of his longtime colleague, but other than that we aren't really concerned with him and trying to tie everything to him. You on the other hand keep trying to show the criticism is led by our dislike for him. That is another interesting observation.

Bit cynical wrote: »

UK daily rate of cases now lower than Ireland:

[Source]

The difference is probably greater than indicated since the UK's rate of testing is much greater (see dotted line). For some reason Ireland appears to have lowered the amount of testing it is doing in the last 10 days by half, though the UK's was still higher before that.

Well we did have a spike and a lockdown in 3 counties here. If it didn't go higher it would have been a scandal surely? As for the tests, at this stage it is about targeted testing and not the amount of tests. If there is a national flareup of the virus then you need to ramp up tests again but as the virus spread is slowed you can relax the amount of tests being done, right?

devnull wrote: »

The new methodology that has been put forward by the UK government is clearly aimed at doing one thing - making the death figures look as low as possible. .

Under the new figures, they are essentially stating that anyone who dies 28 days after a positive test cannot be considered a COVID-19 death it appears. That is outrageous because it grossly underestimates the deaths caused by the disease.

Someone who tests positive for coronavirus, is admitted to hospital 7 days later with worsening symptoms and remains in hospital and dies in hospital 22 days later, having never been released, now is no longer included in the figures.

There's one very simple transparent way to record the statistics. By counting the number of people who died with coronavirus on the death certificate. This should have been done from day one because it has the least opportunity to manipulate. The Government won't want to do this for obvious reasons.

The fact that someone can be diagnosed from coronavirus, still be hospitalised 28 days after their coronavirus test, because they have coronavirus and then be issued with a death certificate with coronavirus on, but is then excluded from official death figures because they didn't die quick enough, is so wrong.

Epidemiologists are already pointing out the serious issues with this new methodology which clearly is designed to understate the number of people who died from coronavirus.

So in a case like this,

Coronavirus: Kate Garraway opens up on husband's battle with 'evil virus'

TV presenter Kate Garraway has said it is "a miracle" her husband is still alive after his "extraordinary battle" with the "evil" coronavirus.

Speaking on ITV's Good Morning Britain, Garraway confirmed her partner Derek Draper was put into an induced coma with the virus, nearly 10 weeks ago.

The cause of death will need to specify "coronavirus" if he were to pass away on the death certificate if he is to be counted among the statistics.

I don't think there is a foolproof way of determining the correct number as that time has passed. If they didn't test patients going to care homes for the virus then they didn't test them after they died so we will never know the true number. One way is to look at excess deaths during that time as all countries in the northern hemisphere was past the flu season where you see a spike in deaths when this happened. Add in less people dying from road traffic accidents as they were driving less and it is one way to try and determine the impact. But the UK government has stayed away from this as well for understandable reasons.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's difficult, because different countries have different systems in place for recording deaths.

Plus, comparison with other countries is not actually the main purpose of collecting the data; the main point it to get data which will be useful in managing the pandemic in your own country, and for future planning.

From this point of view data which you get soon has much to recommend it, even if it it's not strictly comparable with the data that is available soon in other countries.

For what it's worth, I think that for international comparisons the preferred metric is excess deaths. But this takes a while to compile and refine.

It is interesting that the countries that have populist leaders who seem to be not qualified for the job were also the ones obsessed with international comparisons. The UK was quick to show the deaths compared to Italy and Spain until that comparison wasn't in their favour any longer when it was quickly stopped.

People were telling them it is not fair to make international comparisons but they insisted on doing it. Look at Trump focusing on statistics as well that make the US appear sensible in their response. The similarities are striking.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

It is interesting that the countries that have populist leaders who seem to be not qualified for the job were also the ones obsessed with international comparisons. The UK was quick to show the deaths compared to Italy and Spain until that comparison wasn't in their favour any longer when it was quickly stopped.

People were telling them it is not fair to make international comparisons but they insisted on doing it. Look at Trump focusing on statistics as well that make the US appear sensible in their response. The similarities are striking.

Mmm. You've only proved half your thesis here. You've pointed to populist leaders appealing to international comparisons, but you haven't pointed to other leaders not doing so.

My suggestion is that any government will highlight international comparisons that reflect well on them, or appear to do so, and will try not to draw attention to international comparisons which don't.

Joe_ Public

Dont see what's particularly wrong with making international comparisons. They obviously come laced with caveats but they would still be of interest and limited use, no? In the uk case, when they were dropped from the daily briefings, it just told us they were as interested in the spin as the reality, but we knew that already.

For me the real connector between the populist leaders is in how they not only dismissed and underplayed the virus to begin with, thus ensuring they were critically unprepared to fight it, but then boasted about what a fantastic job they were doing at every available opportunity. Johnson, Trump, Bolsonaro, all of a piece in this regard to varying levels.

Contrast with, say, Macron who had the humility and maturity to stand before the French public and say sorry they'd got it wrong and explained how they were going to put it right. Open to correction, but i think last i saw, his approval rating was good.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dont see what's particularly wrong with making international comparisons. They obviously come laced with caveats but they would still be of interest and limited use, no? In the uk case, when they were dropped from the daily briefings, it just told us they were as interested in the spin as the reality, but we knew that already.

For me the real connector between the populist leaders is in how they not only dismissed and underplayed the virus to begin with, thus ensuring they were critically unprepared to fight it, but then boasted about what a fantastic job they were doing at every available opportunity. Johnson, Trump, Bolsonaro, all of a piece in this regard to varying levels.

Contrast with, say, Macron who had the humility and maturity to stand before the French public and say sorry they'd got it wrong and explained how they were going to put it right. Open to correction, but i think last i saw, his approval rating was good.

The thing that is a bit annoying at this stage is that people continually cite problems that are widespread in pretty much every country in Europe and claim that they are unique to Britain.

I don't mind balanced considerations made on consideration of the fact, but much of the criticism on this thread is simply criticism for criticisms sake.

For example, the virus is more prevalent in many other European countries including Ireland, yet we're still bemoaning Britain at this stage. This is even more bizarre when we know many of the posters don't live in the UK but yet obsessively criticise everything that the UK happens to do in respect to the virus!

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

The thing that is a bit annoying at this stage is that people continually cite problems that are widespread in pretty much every country in Europe and claim that they are unique to Britain.

I don't mind balanced considerations made on consideration of the fact, but much of the criticism on this thread is simply criticism for criticisms sake.

For example, the virus is more prevalent in many other European countries including Ireland, yet we're still bemoaning Britain at this stage. This is even more bizarre when we know many of the posters don't live in the UK but yet obsessively criticise everything that the UK happens to do in respect to the virus!

You know what the more annoying thing is at this stage, and at every stage going back months on this thread, is that when a poster makes a critical observation of the uks corona response - in the uk thread of all places, the utter impudence! - it is then extrapolated by other posters as implying it is unique to the UK. The laziest and most pathetic of all the straw men wheeled out on this thread - and god knows, there have been many.

theological

Bit cynical wrote: »

UK daily rate of cases now lower than Ireland:



[Source]

The difference is probably greater than indicated since the UK's rate of testing is much greater (see dotted line). For some reason Ireland appears to have lowered the amount of testing it is doing in the last 10 days by half, though the UK's was still higher before that.

Enzokk wrote: »

Well we did have a spike and a lockdown in 3 counties here. If it didn't go higher it would have been a scandal surely? As for the tests, at this stage it is about targeted testing and not the amount of tests. If there is a national flareup of the virus then you need to ramp up tests again but as the virus spread is slowed you can relax the amount of tests being done, right?

A perfect example of this is above. A poster makes a perfectly rational point that the UK seems to be doing a better job at managing the spread of new cases and testing more of the population, and we have Enzokk claim that this is somehow not notable.

Why is it not notable? Because Enzokk doesn't want to accept the conclusion because it doesn't fit with their agenda.

The reality is that the UK has managed to contain the spread of the virus. New daily cases on the KCL tracker are at the same level as they were at the start of July. I would hope for a further decline. The UK R is at 0.9 which means hopefully it will continue to decline.

The fact is that the UK is doing better than most other European countries at this stage in the pandemic.

Christy42

I find it amusing how in the US threads we need to use deaths per capita and yet here cases per capita seems to be favoured. I wonder why.

I am also worried about what is going on at home but the UK is still on another level.

Remember you can still check pretty much any week you like and the UK will have a lot more deaths than any country in the EU.

Did they include all the early nursing home deaths when they scrubbed off 5000 deaths I wonder or do corrections only happen one way?

Like the US sticking deaths under the flu, get them under a different category and we can ignore them.

robinph

Christy42 wrote: »

I find it amusing how in the US threads we need to use deaths per capita and yet here cases per capita seems to be favoured. I wonder why.

I am also worried about what is going on at home but the UK is still on another level.

Remember you can still check pretty much any week you like and the UK will have a lot more deaths than any country in the EU.

Did they include all the early nursing home deaths when they scrubbed off 5000 deaths I wonder or do corrections only happen one way?

Like the US sticking deaths under the flu, get them under a different category and we can ignore them.

The 5000 deaths removed from the count seem to be just from the last 2 months, not from any of the early cases...

...goes off to try and re-locate the chart I saw on twitter a second ago.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1293600762841501698

and source from page 12 here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908781/Technical_Summary_PHE_Data_Series_COVID-19_Deaths_20200812.pdf

Christy42

robinph wrote: »

The 5000 deaths removed from the count seem to be just from the last 2 months, not from any of the early cases...

...goes off to try and re-locate the chart I saw on twitter a second ago.

Sorry. I was referring to the fact that at the start of the pandemic the UK was under counting deaths intentionally by only counting hospital deaths. I am wondering if they ever saw the need to count those people since they are so eager to get the correct number out.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

A perfect example of this is above. A poster makes a perfectly rational point that the UK seems to be doing a better job at managing the spread of new cases and testing more of the population, and we have Enzokk claim that this is somehow not notable.

Why is it not notable? Because Enzokk doesn't want to accept the conclusion because it doesn't fit with their agenda.

The reality is that the UK has managed to contain the spread of the virus. New daily cases on the KCL tracker are at the same level as they were at the start of July. I would hope for a further decline. The UK R is at 0.9 which means hopefully it will continue to decline.

The fact is that the UK is doing better than most other European countries at this stage in the pandemic.

@Joe_Public: You live in Ireland however, where's your concern about what is happening at home? Look at your posts on this forum for posterity.

Of course I'm concerned about whats happening in ireland. But this isnt the ireland thread and i dont follow the ireland thread because it is too busy and difficult to keep up with. Just because i post something here doesnt mean i think the uk is unique in having issues or that ireland is somehow some exemplar of success. I'm somewhat reassured by the response here that any outbreaks can be quickly identified, traced and dealt with. But yes, i am concerned and always have been.

robinph

Christy42 wrote: »

Sorry. I was referring to the fact that at the start of the pandemic the UK was under counting deaths intentionally by only counting hospital deaths. I am wondering if they ever saw the need to count those people since they are so eager to get the correct number out.

I don't recall those ever having been added into the PHE numbers and were only ever shown in the ONS weekly stats. Possibly just because PHE doesn't cover care homes(?) but not sure.

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

I find it amusing how in the US threads we need to use deaths per capita and yet here cases per capita seems to be favoured. I wonder why.

I am also worried about what is going on at home but the UK is still on another level.

Well, both daily deaths and daily cases are important. Daily cases per capita have to be interpreted more carefully as the number of tests and the way they are targeted has an impact on the figure, but the figures respond fairly quickly to changes in the environment. On the other hand, daily deaths per capita is a lagging indicator.

Christy42

robinph wrote: »

I don't recall those ever having been added into the PHE numbers and were only ever shown in the ONS weekly stats. Possibly just because PHE doesn't cover care homes(?) but not sure.

Or they only care about errors in a single direction.

robinph

Christy42 wrote: »

Or they only care about errors in a single direction.

I don't think it was care home deaths, but there was a change they made to the counting relatively early on around about the peak when they started adding in some new count that hadn't been included before.

Maybe they are only doing corrections in one direction, but why then were they continuing to count everyone who had ever tested positive regardless of the actual cause of death and had to be persuaded to change the method to match what everywhere else was doing? Yes, the government are a bunch of <insert multiple expletives here>, but I don't see this change as being part of any conspiracy. It's just a correction of some previous stupid idea that someone in PHE had to try and make sure they counted everything, when actually they then ended up counting things that were irrelevant.

hmmm

Has this been mentioned on this thread? Huge and I think super-important study
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/201893/largest-study-home-coronavirus-antibody-testing/

100,000 people tested, random selection
11 different tests compared to ensure results were as accurate as possible
6.4% infected - well short of herd immunity
32% were completely asymptomatic
Extrapolated means 3.4m infections in the UK
0.9% fatality rate (I can't recreate the numbers, but this is what the authors say)