Coronavirus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dave2002
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 18009

    Originally posted by Zucchini View Post
    I don't think making fun on the back of people's fears and struggles as they cope with the omnipresent risk of death is a very good idea.
    Sorry - I was hoping to lighten the tone - if you are referring to msg 2749.

    However death is always an omnipresent risk, it's just the the odds for some of us have got a lot worse recently - and that certainly includes me, though some of my friends are at signicantly higher risk, based on the data and such theories as we have.

    I hope not too many people thought otherwise, or were significantly offended.

    Comment

    • LMcD
      Full Member
      • Sep 2017
      • 8416

      Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
      Sorry - I was hoping to lighten the tone - if you are referring to msg 2749.

      However death is always an omnipresent risk, it's just the the odds for some of us have got a lot worse recently - and that certainly includes me, though some of my friends are at signicantly higher risk, based on the data and such theories as we have.

      I hope not too many people thought otherwise, or were significantly offended.
      In my experience, attempts to lighten the tone on any subject are quite likely to be misconstrued or resented, but it won't stop me from trying when I feel it's necessary. My attempts at irony also get a mixed reaction as a rule.
      Although I don't fully understand everything about graphs, it is worryingly clear to me that some lines that should be heading downwards are stubbornly remaining more or less flat.

      Comment

      • Dave2002
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 18009

        One of the chief Swedish epidemiologists has said that he now thinks Sweden got some things wrong.
        The scientist behind Sweden’s light-touch coronavirus strategy has conceded that it led to “too many” deaths, in the first admission that the choice not to impose a general lockdown could have been a mistake. While its neighbours shut schools, restaurants and all but essential shops in early March, Sweden was the only rich European country to take a less coercive approach. Until now it has pursued a policy of “mitigation”, permitting most schools, bars, nightclubs and virtually all other


        Link to the Times.
        Last edited by Dave2002; 04-06-20, 10:58.

        Comment

        • Count Boso

          Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
          One of the chief Swedish epidemiologists has said that he now thinks Sweden got. Some things wrong.
          The scientist behind Sweden’s light-touch coronavirus strategy has conceded that it led to “too many” deaths, in the first admission that the choice not to impose a general lockdown could have been a mistake. While its neighbours shut schools, restaurants and all but essential shops in early March, Sweden was the only rich European country to take a less coercive approach. Until now it has pursued a policy of “mitigation”, permitting most schools, bars, nightclubs and virtually all other


          Link to the Times.
          Tegnell has been treated as a hero in Sweden up until now, so the fact that he's admitting to 'mistakes' is very significant. Certainly, comparing Scandinavian populations, population density and strategies this was looking to be undeniable, whether Denmark (lower population but much greater density than Sweden) or Finland+Norway (same population but lower density): both groups show a fractional number of deaths - I think barely 1,000 all together, compared with Sweden's 4,500. Will Sweden's economy/life recover faster? Will that "justify" the strategy in some circles?

          Comment

          • MrGongGong
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 18357

            Comment

            • Serial_Apologist
              Full Member
              • Dec 2010
              • 37621

              Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
              Sorry - I was hoping to lighten the tone - if you are referring to msg 2749.

              However death is always an omnipresent risk, it's just the the odds for some of us have got a lot worse recently - and that certainly includes me, though some of my friends are at signicantly higher risk, based on the data and such theories as we have.

              I hope not too many people thought otherwise, or were significantly offended.
              I sholdn't worry too much about it, let alone apologising, Dave.

              It was that selfsame spirit amid the omnipresence of death was probably one of the main things that got my parent's generation (and their parents') through WW2; and my estimation would be that it was its acceptance by those that had gone through it which helped make its own satirization in Beyond the Fringe in 1961 a key to the popularity 1960s satire - TTTWTW etc, and Fawlty Towers.

              The amount of confected outrage that would greet such shows, were they to be presented as new today, clearly indicates how far latter-day British culture has bought into the American way of constructing irony by-passes.

              Comment

              • Count Boso

                I'm not sure that my impression is right, but the infection rate seems to be going down while the death rate is rising, suggesting that the UK recovery rate may not be as good as elsewhere? Since they're not publishing the recovery rate it's hard to know.

                Comment

                • ardcarp
                  Late member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 11102

                  and Fawlty Towers
                  Basil is a caricature of the worst sort of Brit, but is FT really satire? More farce really, but none the worse for that.

                  Comment

                  • Bryn
                    Banned
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 24688

                    Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
                    Basil is a caricature of the worst sort of Brit, but is FT really satire? More farce really, but none the worse for that.

                    Comment

                    • ardcarp
                      Late member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 11102

                      OK. From the link above....the goal of Fawlty Towers is not to critique the society in which it was created, Cleese’s farcical approach lends itself to social satire.

                      I was probably trying to put 'satire' into a political box. But it still begs the question as to when comedic send-ups of social stereotypes become satire.

                      Dancing on the head of a pin, as usual.

                      Comment

                      • johnb
                        Full Member
                        • Mar 2007
                        • 2903

                        Originally posted by Count Boso View Post
                        I'm not sure that my impression is right, but the infection rate seems to be going down while the death rate is rising, suggesting that the UK recovery rate may not be as good as elsewhere? Since they're not publishing the recovery rate it's hard to know.
                        The good news is that today's figure for deaths of 176 is much lower than the trend for a Thursday.
                        The bad news is that the figure for England included in the 176 is 149. That is lower than the hospital deaths published by NHS England (155), never mind care home deaths.

                        So it is highly likely that today's figure of 176 includes a correction for duplicate counting of deaths between PHE and NHS England and the underlying daily figure is probably more like 260. (These corrections happen every so often.)


                        EDIT/CORRECTION: My apologies - in the above two paras I was talking cr*p. I mistook 115 for 155 when reading the figures for NHS England. I would have deleted those paras if they hadn't been quoted by teamsaint.

                        I don't think the daily deaths are going up but the seven day rolling average appears to be levelling out - which is concerning.
                        Last edited by johnb; 04-06-20, 23:33.

                        Comment

                        • teamsaint
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 25200

                          Originally posted by johnb View Post
                          The good news is that today's figure for deaths of 176 is much lower than the trend for a Thursday.

                          The bad news is that the figure for England included in the 176 is 149. That is lower than the hospital deaths published by NHS England (155), never mind care home deaths.

                          So it is highly likely that today's figure of 176 includes a correction for duplicate counting of deaths between PHE and NHS England and the underlying daily figure is probably more like 260. (These corrections happen every so often.)

                          I don't think the daily deaths are going up but the seven day rolling average appears to be levelling out - which is concerning.
                          I have it on very good authority that a certain west country hospital has modelling which predicts its peak in mid June, and that this is still their expectation.
                          I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                          I am not a number, I am a free man.

                          Comment

                          • johnb
                            Full Member
                            • Mar 2007
                            • 2903

                            Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
                            I have it on very good authority that a certain west country hospital has modelling which predicts its peak in mid June, and that this is still their expectation.
                            My apologies, what I wrote in that post was wrong. I've amended the post.

                            Comment

                            • LMcD
                              Full Member
                              • Sep 2017
                              • 8416

                              It was suggested on a BBC news bulletin yesterday that the virus can be spread if you talk to somebody while travelling by public transport. While it's clearly possible, and a potentially helpful piece of advice, let's not forget that this is the UK we're talking about - a country famous for its lack of passenger-to-passenger chat during bus and train journeys - a long-established habit greatly strengthened by the rise of mobile telephony. .

                              Comment

                              • Old Grumpy
                                Full Member
                                • Jan 2011
                                • 3601

                                Originally posted by LMcD View Post
                                It was suggested on a BBC news bulletin yesterday that the virus can be spread if you talk to somebody while travelling by public transport. While it's clearly possible, and a potentially helpful piece of advice, let's not forget that this is the UK we're talking about - a country famous for its lack of passenger-to-passenger chat during bus and train journeys - a long-established habit greatly strengthened by the rise of mobile telephony. .
                                Yeah, but one (not you or me obviously) might be talking loudly on one's mobile telephone, whilst sat next to AN Other

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X