Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 68
#1755412
Jim Jones wrote:First full day of clinics post lockdown. All via telephone to review treatment. New prescriptions generated so as to reduce the need to leave home and to take pressure off pharmacies. As they’re controlled drugs they have to be. printed, signed and sent to pharmacies by courier. (At least it keeps taxi companies busy for a while).

We’ve got 2500 service users to work through. :shock:

Was planning to work in Staffordshire next week to take over the contract there. No decision made yet if this is going to happen.

Not seeing our children and grandchildren now. Had a Zoom meeting last night. Hilarious and heartwarming .


Many thanks to you Jim, and all your colleagues, for continuing to support those who need it.

Best wishes

Mike
Flyingfemme, Paul_Sengupta, kanga and 4 others liked this
#1755422
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:It's the body scuttle RobP abhors, have to agree though I dislike that in cars too.


And the rattly, windnoisy, general flappiness that is in danger of masking the PSE system's divine soundtrack :evil:

Rob P
#1755424
I can assure those worried, that

a) I have not noticed any "body scuttle"
b) the exhaust soundtrack improves with the top down**

Regards, SD.. 8)

**Low speed "burble" enjoying the sun can be particularly satisfying after a proper blat about on my favorite curvy road...
#1755426
PaulB wrote:
spaughty wrote:The FT has an article on this behind a paywall, but here is the pre-print behind it.

It suggests that a large part of the UK population may have recovered already from the virus, and have immunity. Perhaps even 50%. That was the FT headline.

I can't comment on the accuracy, although Professor Gupta does appear to do this for a living.

I don't envy those in charge of public policy at the moment.


That paper has been criticised by some well qualified people..... here are two

This paper has not been peer reviewed and rests one one massive assumption unsupported by data, as pointed out to authors by
@timcolbourn

Really worrying it has had so much traction


Prof Martin McKee, Professor of Public Health


and the cited Tim Coulbourn (also a Professor of Global Health & Epidemiology at UCL)

Thanks Rob, yes looks like no empirical support for the Rho of 0.001 at all. This could be very dangerous given the sensational headlines that "50% could have already have had COVID19: that this work is generating.
@SunetraGupta
See first line of results:..


Those don't really appear to be criticisms of the paper. In particular, it will hardly come as a surprise to the authors that there is no empirical support for that number when the first line of their Results section reads:
"Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness."

The paper then tries to show that their assumption is consistent with the evidence.

It looks to me more like the criticism is aimed, correctly, at any notion of, "Oh! That's all OK then, we can relax now". But the paper doesn't advocate that, and in the FT Professor Gupta explicitly supported the lockdown. And I certainly never suggested that.

The impression I got was that we know very little about this virus. The number of people who have had contact with the virus could be anywhere from 0.01% of the population (confirmed cases) to 70% (the paper).

As I think Sir Patrick Vallance said a few weeks back, and as this paper says, a test for how many people have been infected and recovered, and how immune they became, would be immensely helpful.
#1755476
skydriller wrote:
a) I have not noticed any "body scuttle"


Scuttle shake.

Patently you just aren't trying hard enough :lol:

skydriller wrote:**Low speed "burble" enjoying the sun can be particularly satisfying after a proper blat about on my favorite curvy road...


Not jealous at all :wink:

Rob P

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/conver ... hate-them/
#1755513
More or Less is almost worth the licence fee on its own.

The more drama-prone journos and presenters should be made to listen to that week's episode at the start of EVERY working day.

Rob P
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1755517
Jim Jones wrote:Really good gen here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gwy8

More or Less, Radio 4 Coronavirus Special


Good, intelligent and thought provoking piece, which I enjoyed, once he ironed out the initial sound imperfections from under his duvet.

Took me a moment though to clock the notion that averaged out over the year the percentage of deaths from coronavirus would, be no greater than flu deaths in a bad year because those that would have died from flu throughout the year will have all been polished off in the concentrated period of the coronavirus outbreak.

If you get my drift.

Peter :P
#1755527
PeteSpencer wrote:Took me a moment though to clock the notion that averaged out over the year the percentage of deaths from coronavirus would, be no greater than flu deaths in a bad year because those that would have died from flu throughout the year will have all been polished off in the concentrated period of the coronavirus outbreak.

I read a piece on the BBC website which made comparisons with flu, putting the number of flu deaths at 8000 annually. An interesting point made was that whilst the cause of these deaths is flu, of those dying with covid 19 the cause of death cannot be attributed solely to the virus, some would have died even had they not contracted covid 19.

Consequently direct comparisons are difficult.
PeteSpencer liked this
#1755530
PeteSpencer wrote:
Jim Jones wrote:Really good gen here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gwy8

More or Less, Radio 4 Coronavirus Special


Good, intelligent and thought provoking piece, which I enjoyed, once he ironed out the initial sound imperfections from under his duvet.

Took me a moment though to clock the notion that averaged out over the year the percentage of deaths from coronavirus would, be no greater than flu deaths in a bad year because those that would have died from flu throughout the year will have all been polished off in the concentrated period of the coronavirus outbreak.

If you get my drift.

Peter :P



I think the figures were about the risk of death in a normal year at a particular age were the same as the risk of death in a Corvid month.

He wouldn’t be drawn on whether that would effect the total deaths on a Corvid year. But the implication is that excess deaths will be high.

It’s a while since I did stats...
#1755570
That's true... everyone seems to count stuff slightly differently

The ONS influenza data looks at excess mortality. That said the University of Oxford Vaccine knowledge group estimate that

In the UK it is estimated that an average of 600 people a year die from complications of flu.
#1755575
PaulB wrote:That's true... everyone seems to count stuff slightly differently

Is that not partly why the Italian death rate is significantly higher than , say, Germany?

Again I'm sure I read the Italians are testing everyone who dies, the Germans are not.

Therefore the likelihood is that many more of those dying in Germany are likely to have it than is recorded and in Italy the deaths the virus is 'responsible' for is likely to be fewer than recorded?
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 68