COVID 2019 Comorbidity with Diabetes

[jjraak]

I spent some time this morning looking at the number of COVID-19 deaths around the world. The UK's population is 20% of the US's population, yet for the last two weeks, UK deaths are close to 50% of US deaths. Why is that?

Total Deaths

February 27... UK 0... US 0
March 5... UK 1... US 12
March 12... UK 10... US 41
March 19... UK 144... US 206
March 26... UK 578... US 1,296
April 2... UK 2,921... US 6,081
April 9... UK 7,978... US 16,691

When did the UK begin "shelter in place" efforts? For us in Washington state, schools were closed beginning March 16, restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, etc. closed March 17 (though "take out" food is still okay). We're about three and a half weeks into this now, and it's already been decided to continue through May 4 which will be at total of 7 weeks.

We wandered into lockdown @Winnie53
24:march first full day of it, though other actions had been taken.

We wasted the time we did have to avoid being the new Italy.
Biggest danger we have is Hancock

Told us in Jan it was a ok.
Now you can see the panic in his eyes

Our HCP dying in larger numbers,
And he either doesn't bother counting them
Or is too terrified how we'll react at the high numbers

Nurses, doctors all now openly saying they are scared .

We have lost control of this for the moment.

And it Comes to something when President trump can Laud you on the one hand, and then bury you moments later and not even blink.

"Boris approval 300%"
"UK messed up, badly.went herd. Had to back track hurt them badly"... Says the wise one

Wales, Ireland already stated lock down goes on...ours once again pretending they have a clue and are looking at the science before doing exactly that.

Take care @Winnie53

 

[lindisfel]

There are nearly as many deaths per population in Cumbria as in London, we have a low population density.

Nobody seems to be able to give a reason.
Its not population here!
D.

 

[jjraak]

There are nearly as many deaths per population in Cumbria as in London, we have a low population density.

Nobody seems to be able to give a reason.
Its not population here!
D.

So sorry to hear that @lindisfel
Rather blinkered here at London Birmingham.

We live in London, have got family in Birmingham .. The world has just closed in.

I must take more notice of elsewhere in UK.

Testing times ahead I fear.

And if I could refer you to my previous post.
Major reason, I believe.
Didn't take it seriously. Didn't prepare.

Take care
Stay safe.

 

[Member496333]

That’s the thing, isn’t it?
You can pretend everything is ok if you don’t actually do enough tests to find out how widespread it really is...

Although is it not a matter of interpretation? Some might argue that if the number of new cases increases out of proportion to the morbidity rate, then it's actually not as serious as first thought, as opposed to more serious. I don't know if that's the case here, as I haven't seen all the data, but statistics can be interpreted in many ways. Some say the virus has been prevalent since late 2019, in which case it would stand to reason that the number of cases will increase dramatically with increased testing. In my mind that means little, since we don't know when or where these people contracted it.

The most important thing is the rate of death. And then, are people dying of CV-19, or are they dying with CV-19? Big questions that no one is able to answer and probably never will. Certainly the media don't seem interested in proper data analysis. They're more interested in painting a picture of bodies piled high in the streets. Not making light of the disease or denying any facts. I just think we should exercise calm reservation in how we interpret data. Especially when much of it is missing entirely. We in our circles know this better than most

Not looking for an argument, as I understand and respect the majority view. Just expressing my own

 

[Brunneria]

Although is it not a matter of interpretation? Some might argue that if the number of new cases increases out of proportion to the morbidity rate, then it's actually not as serious as first thought, as opposed to more serious. I don't know if that's the case here, as I haven't seen all the data, but statistics can be interpreted in many ways. Some say the virus has been prevalent since late 2019, in which case it would stand to reason that the number of cases will increase dramatically with increased testing. In my mind that means little, since we don't know when or where these people contracted it.

The most important thing is the rate of death. And then, are people dying of CV-19, or are they dying with CV-19? Big questions that no one is able to answer and probably never will. Certainly the media don't seem interested in proper data analysis. They're more interested in painting a picture of bodies piled high in the streets. Not making light of the disease or denying any facts. I just think we should exercise calm reservation in how we interpret data. Especially when much of it is missing entirely. We in our circles know this better than most

Not looking for an argument, as I understand and respect the majority view. Just expressing my own

I agree.

At this point endless speculation and assigning of political blame does more harm than good.

the UK policy of ‘do NOT bother your doc And only contact 111 if you need medical attention’ is a sharp contrast with other countries (such as US) where the advice is to seek medical attention at onset of symptoms.

makes comparison/interpretation impossible.

 

[zand]

Re the virus being in UK in 2019...
I thought they had traced patient zero from West Sussex who brought it into UK in Jan? Then followed lots of kids being off school with coughing in Feb.
There were alot of cases around the Brighton area early on and I believe the virus was widespread in Portsmouth by March 2nd..when I, my son, Mikel Arteta and 5 Portsmouth players came down with it.

 

[jjraak]

I agree.

At this point endless speculation and assigning of political blame does more harm than good.

the UK policy of ‘do NOT bother your doc And only contact 111 if you need medical attention’ is a sharp contrast with other countries (such as US) where the advice is to seek medical attention at onset of symptoms.

makes comparison/interpretation impossible.

Mmhh.

Captain's who sail their ships onto rocks, Lose command .

Health secretaries who fail to secure the safety of their staff, should to.

When you spot the problem, ignoring serves no one well.

It's that wait and see policy that had got us where we are .

 

[Brunneria]

Mmhh.

Captain's who sail their ships onto rocks, Lose command .

Health secretaries who fail to secure the safety of their staff, should to.

When you spot the problem, ignoring serves no one well.

It's that wait and see policy that had got us where we are .

Who is suggesting a wait and see policy?
I see a government that has from the very beginning followed guidance from the medical and scientific community, changing tack when a better one has been presented. Are they right or wrong? Only those in the know, know, and those people are not the non-experts sitting at home being fed media sound bites.

I am very amused by this discussion, actually.
This is the first time in my entire life that I find myself presenting apologist arguments for any political decisions, and any government policy.
I dislike discussing politics intensely, and I usually steer well clear of anyone with whatever axe to grind taking pot shots from a position of 'sofa expert'.

Instead, I try hard to stick with the actual stats, on the understanding that they automatically come with limitations and should be treated with extreme care, while acknowledging those limitations.

So that is what I am saying:
The stats are incomplete.
Therefore drawing conclusions (no matter how tempting) is unwise.
Using incomplete information and incomplete stats to take pot shots for political reasons is the kind of 'wartime profiteering' that I find particularly repugnant.

 

[Bill_St]

The FT gives some excellent charts - the slope of the graph is the vital aspect.
https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

John Burn-Murdoch has some excellent twitter threads explaining the comparisons of trajectories and how they take into account the population size.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1248730804513058816

https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1244519429825802240

 

[Bill_St]

A useful comparison of our sub-regions with other international regions. Lots of data here but the rate of change and levels can be seen for comparison - again thanks to John Burn-Murdoch

 

[Bill_St]

And the lower half.

 

[jjraak]

Here's an interesting read from anyone who thinks Hancock is the best choice
And should stay in place.

BBC News - Coronavirus: NHS workers' lives at risk over PPE shortages, says BMA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52252470

 

[lucylocket61]

Here's an interesting read from anyone who thinks Hancock is the best choice
And should stay in place.

BBC News - Coronavirus: NHS workers' lives at risk over PPE shortages, says BMA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52252470

Hancock has also said today that he is unaware of a link between the deaths of healthcare workers, and lack of PPE. He wants an investigation.

I am wondering what planet some politicians are on.

 

[jjraak]

Hancock has also said today that he is unaware of a link between the deaths of healthcare workers, and lack of PPE. He wants an investigation.

I am wondering what planet some politicians are on.

Once again public opinion and people acting responsibly have forced the government's hand.

Behind the curve as ever.

 

[lindisfel]

God forbid we should go over a 1000 deaths a day! If it does it shows politicians were into using the very best of modellers!
Or ignored them!
D.

 

[Member496333]

Hancock has also said today that he is unaware of a link between the deaths of healthcare workers, and lack of PPE. He wants an investigation.

I am wondering what planet some politicians are on.

To be fair it is possible for healthcare workers to contract the virus outside of their place of work. Of course we can only speculate if that is the case here, but people will make their minds up anyway. Goes with the territory.

 

[lucylocket61]

To be fair it is possible for healthcare workers to contract the virus outside of their place of work. Of course we can only speculate if that is the case here, but people will make their minds up anyway. Goes with the territory.

true, but anyone with an ounce of ability to reason will know that viral load is a thing, and that if someone is exposed for several hours a day to the virus, there is a very very strong likelihood that they didnt then catch it elsewhere. Suggesting that they did is, at best, an attempt at deflection.

 

[Bill_St]

Here's an interesting read from anyone who thinks Hancock is the best choice
And should stay in place.

BBC News - Coronavirus: NHS workers' lives at risk over PPE shortages, says BMA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52252470

It is utterly impossible for one guy to do that sort of job alone.
He requires a large team.
Any success - or failure - will reflect the ability of those team members.
When he quotes figures and timescales, they are just those he has been given.
To attempt to replace both leader and the whole team would create an ever greater disaster.

Replacing Hancock would just bring in someone with even less experience and knowledge of that team.
This is not the time to undermine him or discuss replacement.
And let’s face it, who is likely to improve matters even in the long term?

We are stuck with what we have got for the duration.

 

[jjraak]

true, but anyone with an ounce of ability to reason will know that viral load is a thing, and that if someone is exposed for several hours a day to the virus, there is a very very strong likelihood that they didnt then catch it elsewhere. Suggesting that they did is, at best, an attempt at deflection.

So could they get sick elsewhere, quite possibly.
Could they be more at risk because of the work they do, clearly
Does too little PPE create uncertainty concern and unnecessary danger, undoubtedly

Should they not have the best shot at surviving as we can give them...?

Absolutely

 

[jjraak]

It is utterly impossible for one guy to do that sort of job alone.
He requires a large team.
Any success - or failure - will reflect the ability of those team members.
When he quotes figures and timescales, they are just those he has been given.
To attempt to replace both leader and the whole team would create an ever greater disaster.

Replacing Hancock would just bring in someone with even less experience and knowledge of that team.
This is not the time to undermine him or discuss replacement.
And let’s face it, who is likely to improve matters even in the long term?

We are stuck with what we have got for the duration.

A decent point.

But is NOT the job of leaders to LEAD.

Clearly worthy of debate.

And would not that send a message that this IS war and hard decisions will be made.

we must do what we can for those in the front line.
arguable a new boss might inspire, might lead, ,might get the job done
and get back the confidence of those currently sadly let down by him.

but you may well be right we may and will be stuck with him for now as no one can take that decision without Boris being back at the helm, and maybe beyond, sadly.

Be sad to see a ship in danger of sinking, because we couldn't take away the power to keep making bad decisions.