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.
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.
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
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 .
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.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.
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.
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.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.
It is utterly impossible for one guy to do that sort of job alone.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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?