For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 354
  • 355
  • 356
  • 357
  • 358
  • 582
#1877015
MikeE wrote:
JAFO wrote:While I agree that demanding ID and health status of people sat outside sipping coffee is bonkers, their approach could help to explain why France has 87,000 active cases and the UK has 1.4 million.


According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Total tests UK - 321,188,533

Total tests France - 146,046,715

This is not the whole picture of course, but the more tests done the more cases are likely to be found.


@MikeE, so would twice the number of tests account for sixteen times the number of cases? Honest question.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877026
JAFO wrote:
MikeE wrote:
JAFO wrote:While I agree that demanding ID and health status of people sat outside sipping coffee is bonkers, their approach could help to explain why France has 87,000 active cases and the UK has 1.4 million.


According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Total tests UK - 321,188,533

Total tests France - 146,046,715

This is not the whole picture of course, but the more tests done the more cases are likely to be found.


@MikeE, so would twice the number of tests account for sixteen times the number of cases? Honest question.


A simple question for which I suspect there is a complex answer, including whether more of the tests have been conducted more recently rather than an even distribution since the pandemic began. As I said, this is not the complete picture and I am sure many other things are in play, but the greater number of tests in the UK is very likely to be a contributory factor to the greater number of cases recorded.

Regards

Mike
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877027
It's true but someone in my team has had it 4 times. No effect. He hasn't died 4x. It's like anything else. Have it and get over it. I've probably had it four times but don't test unless I have symptoms. I think it's only been picked up as his partner works for NHS so is testing twice a week mandatory or something. My whole team including me did however get knocked out Feb 2019. Including a 19 year old who got pneumonia go figure. Probably covid. Serious but now vacinated not so much. (Disclaimer oldest person in my team 50, higher ages I can understand... And please exclude the following).

We all have all sorts of illnesses all the time. Before covid we didn't care. It was even LMF not to come into work if you just had a cold (not correct but the case)

If it has no effect who cares if you have it or not. Would you notice without testing?

Covid is not the only show in town. Now we are mostly vacinated who gives.

Edited: im being an idiot. please see quotes for evidence
Last edited by StratoTramp on Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:45 am, edited 14 times in total.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877030
malcolmfrost wrote:I thought that at the very start we used the WHO definition and then changed to the 28 day one because that was used by most countries!


No, it was changed because that is what HMG wanted.

So, not someone who had a positive C19 test but was run over by a bus was counted as a C19 death, was the 'rational'

:roll: :roll:

That a lot of folks who died from C19 would have had a test more than 28 days beforehand as it takes 4-6 weeks from infection to dying will of course not have played a role in that decision.
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877033
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
VRB_20kt wrote:Is there a European standard definition for what constitutes a Covid death?


There is a WHO definition.

Lobbing people who have been tested out of the statistics who had a positive C19 test more than 28 days before, is not standard in that definition but actual practise in the UK.



I thought the UK used two figures in the stats - those who tested positive within 28 days of death and those who tested positive within 60 days. And of course as I understand it there is a difference between those who 'died of' and those who 'died with'.

Is there any suggestion that the way we record deaths actually suppresses the numbers compared to the way other countries record them, using the WHO definition? Given our deaths per million figure is already the highest in Europe (apart from Italy) that would be a serious concern.

Regards

Mike
#1877034
StratoTramp wrote:It's true but someone in my team has had it 4 times. No effect. He hasn't died 4x. It's like anything else. Have it and get over it.


Or, have it and don't - that's the great thing about epidemiology :thumright:

*the fact you know someone who has tested positive 4 times (asymptomatic - I guess not?) could mean they have various factors that predispose them to being infected. 5th time, with xyz variant could well be their last - either in the positive or negative sense of course.... :roll:
#1877040
StratoTramp wrote:We knew 97%+ of people at least had it and got over it before. That has only been increased by vaccination.

Sorry it is being used as an excuse now because people don't like a commute and WFH is easy. In the end you are cheating yourself as china will enslave you. Too short term.

The question is whether to demand reparations from China.

Que gas crisis, pre pie tin crisis, fuel crisis etc. Too much dependance on globalisation rather than home grown supply.


Oh - please share the peer reviewed quality scientific journal where that fascinating 97%+ statistic came from. I most certainly commented way back at the beginning of this pandemic that there should be regular randomised and statistically significant population serology done - since this is a "once in a hundred year" event.

Of course, those Bildeb gger idiots who run the world neverlisten to me.... :roll:

*btw, a 97% survival rate takes how many iterations before your population collapses?
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1877047
Too much dependance on globalisation rather than home grown supply. Why can't the UK make its own alminium or frack it's own gas.

Because having somebody else do it for you is a way of fiddling the green credentials........and that seems to matter far too much to the current ruling, and chattering, classes.
StratoTramp, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877050
Yep basically this.

4/10 top polluters not attending out little UK shindig. Despite us contributing less than 1% of global emissions

https://order-order.com/2021/10/18/four ... ing-cop26/

Why are we doing this? We have no effect. Patomine.
Last edited by StratoTramp on Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877053
Actually it’s because of the free market religion which means our major retailers buy wherever it’s cheap and don’t consider too much why it’s cheap. We also actively encourage “investment “ from abroad which is why almost all our infrastructure and industry is controlled from elsewhere
kanga liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877056
Agree. Brexit has stopped the race to the bottom. Pay more for your food. Shows who the real key workers are. People who pick your food and deliver it weird mix of left and right. Politically homeless.

People should value food and water more. Before buying other stuff.

I should add that despite being a "key worker" i think that all jobs that pay a mortgage are pretty key to the people than have to pay them.

We shouldn't have parked half the populations wages.
Flyingfemme, flybymike liked this
#1877066
@StratoTramp - you said before “ The risk is low. Get back in. Stop being cowards.”.

The vast majority on here have both the training and experience to quantify risk - to a degree that is quite simply incomparable with the general population.

It’s kinda a feature that defines “private pilots” and pilots in general, at least for the time being.

Going back to your 97% thing, that would basically mean that - if transferred to “survivable landings”, 3% of landings were fatal. The somewhat basic quants of that aren’t pretty…

If I had a 3% risk of death every time I got in my car - I certainly wouldn’t take my chances after #97 - and doubt I’d give a toss about being called coward for not doing so…. :roll:
StratoTramp, JAFO, kanga and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 354
  • 355
  • 356
  • 357
  • 358
  • 582