Covid-19

[Dy1geo]

Yep. Even worse than you thought. Germany with 7 (Seven!) times as many critical care beds.







... in 2010.

The discrepancy is real. It's the knee-jerk attribution of responsibility that's pathetic.

When we have got through this medical emergency we have to have a national debate about the Health and Social care service we want. It is easy to say tax the rich/tax dodgers etc but that won’t work, as there will always be someone who earns more than you, the reality is we all will have to pay more.

The NHS has to stop being a political football and I would personally get rid of NI and replace it with an employee and employer ring fenced Health Tax and to merge NI with Tax

[Jakubclaret]

Science will prevail.

Sooner or later, there will be a solution to this.

Mankind (or personkind to be PC) have survived worse with a lot less knowledge and resources than we have now around the globe.

(Probably)

True, but how long is a piece of string. A solution sooner than later is preferred.

[NewClaret]

So says the guy who's always right about everything, except when you're not.

Extract:

"But, according to figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the UK has just 6.6 ICU beds per 100,000 people, compared with Germany's 29.2, Italy's 12.5 and France's 9.7."

And those are up to date figures, whatever you think of aljazeera. Definitely nearer 5 than 7.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 47678.html

Maybe Channel Four News was right after all? Will you admit it though?

Don’t tell me the Guardian has been exaggerating the size of the problem to scaremonger? Shocking!

[NewClaret]

True, but how long is a piece of string. A solution sooner than later is preferred.

Suspect the Chinese or Russians will come up with a vaccine/antidote very soon!

[Gordaleman]

Don’t tell me the Guardian has been exaggerating the size of the problem to scaremonger? Shocking!

Ask thatedberight, he posted it.

[thatdberight]

So says the guy who's always right about everything, except when you're not.

Extract:

"But, according to figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the UK has just 6.6 ICU beds per 100,000 people, compared with Germany's 29.2, Italy's 12.5 and France's 9.7."

And those are up to date figures, whatever you think of aljazeera. Definitely nearer 5 than 7.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 47678.html

Maybe Channel Four News was right after all and your figure was wrong? Will you admit it though?

It really is difficult for you, isn't it? Just keeping up.

[Jakubclaret]

Suspect the Chinese or Russians will come up with a vaccine/antidote very soon!

Hope so, it will end the uncertainty surrounding lots of current issues.

[Gordaleman]

It really is difficult for you, isn't it? Just keeping up.

So you're still saying the Channel Four News figure is wrong and yours is right? What a surprise.

[thatdberight]

Don’t tell me the Guardian has been exaggerating the size of the problem to scaremonger? Shocking!

No. I'm sure it was reasonably accurate that Germany had 7 times as many. In 2010 when the article was printed.

And I'm sure the "Germany has 5 times as many" figure floating about now is broadly true as well.

[Gordaleman]

No. I'm sure it was reasonably accurate that Germany had 7 times as many. In 2010 when the article was printed.

And I'm sure the "Germany has 5 times as many" figure floating about now is broadly true as well.

If you believe that then, why did you criticise my accurate post? Just plain nastiness.

[Gordaleman]

I quoted the times...regards football being played behind closed doors.i was wrong in my observation.you were quick to Call me a Bullsh!tter I was also criticised....by your good self. I was only doing my best.

I didn't call you a bullshitter, I said the report was bullsit. Get it right.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

When we have got through this medical emergency we have to have a national debate about the Health and Social care service we want. It is easy to say tax the rich/tax dodgers etc but that won’t work, as there will always be someone who earns more than you, the reality is we all will have to pay more.

The NHS has to stop being a political football and I would personally get rid of NI and replace it with an employee and employer ring fenced Health Tax and to merge NI with Tax

The main problem is designing a way in which assets can be taxed. A sliding income tax (e.g. those who earn more pay more, those who earn less pay less) will have an effect on a wider number of people, and so create more discontent among voters. A sliding tax on assets however would affect a smaller number of people: the vast majority of people do not have substantial assets (e.g. most people do not own multiple properties, businesses, stocks etc.) or at least assets worth taxing. However, a small number of people globally have enormous assets. The difficulty is in how you can get at those assets. If the amount of government borrowing required to carry out these new economic agendas across the West becomes unsustainable over this period, my hope is that there will be a concerted global effort to get at them. I’m not holding my breath mind.

[thatdberight]

If you believe that then, why did you criticise my accurate post? Just plain nastiness.

You need to learn to read and understand.

[NewClaret]

No. I'm sure it was reasonably accurate that Germany had 7 times as many. In 2010 when the article was printed.

And I'm sure the "Germany has 5 times as many" figure floating about now is broadly true as well.

Oh, didn’t see the date, so we have more now than we did in 2010?? Or Germany has less?

[Zlatan]

Oh FFS just stop bloody bickering will you

[thatdberight]

Oh, didn’t see the date, so we have more now than we did in 2010?? Or Germany has less?

Certainly the gap has narrowed. Maybe both have grown, just ours by more. Definitive data isn't easily findable at first glance. We may have 6.6 critical care beds per 100,000. Or 14. Or some other number.

My point was narrow. We had a significantly lower provision than Germany in 2010. We still have that situation. The narrowing of the gap probably falls within the margin of error. My point is not that we're right or wrong to have such lower provision - just that the every-other-post political point made by this thread's resident least reliable poster (quite the accolade, considering) falls away. It wasn't the Conservatives who'd been in power for 13 years by 2010 when The Guardian's piece was written.

I didn't hide that. That's what I wrote in my initial response to that poster.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I was trying to demonstrate that in genetic terms a 5% difference is a Hugh difference.

May be it didn’t work.

I understand that, but my point (which damo_whitehead then also made) was that viruses tend to mutate into a less damaging form - which makes sense, as their job is to survive, which they wouldn’t do if they wiped out the host each time.

I don’t think we need to spend time worrying that this virus will get worse, such as in your 95% to 97.5% example. Maybe it will, but highly unlikely (albeit I’m not a virologist).

There are reasons to be positive, strange as it may seem (doesn’t change the fact though that recklessly going to the pub may kill people - I do not mean that kind of positive).

[NewClaret]

Certainly the gap has narrowed. Maybe both have grown, just ours by more. Definitive data isn't easily findable at first glance. We may have 6.6 critical care beds per 100,000. Or 14. Or some other number.

My point was narrow. We had a significantly lower provision than Germany in 2010. We still have that situation. The narrowing of the gap probably falls within the margin of error. My point is not that we're right or wrong to have such lower provision - just that the every-other-post political point made by this thread's resident least reliable poster (quite the accolade, considering) falls away. It wasn't the Conservatives who'd been in power for 13 years by 2010 when The Guardian's piece was written.

I didn't hide that. That's what I wrote in my initial response to that poster.

Got you, sorry, misunderstood.

My view is anyone complaining about the number of ICU beds, ventilators, PPE, whatever, needs to know what volumes we have held over the last 25 years to know if this government has underinvested or been negligent.

Your data, however inaccurate, certainly suggests the situation has got better and at least no worse over the last 10 years.

Either way, there won’t be a Govt in the world that will have the volume of equipment it needs to tackle this crisis at the outset, so they should be judged on how quickly they respond and get it in place.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Got you, sorry, misunderstood.

My view is anyone complaining about the number of ICU beds, ventilators, PPE, whatever, needs to know what volumes we have held over the last 25 years to know if this government has underinvested or been negligent.

Your data, however inaccurate, certainly suggests the situation has got better and at least no worse over the last 10 years.

Either way, there won’t be a Govt in the world that will have the volume of equipment it needs to tackle this crisis at the outset, so they should be judged on how quickly they respond and get it in place.

German Intensive Care Unit beds:

Source: OECD Perspectives>Acute Beds

FE65462E-B769-4926-8C00-C48CD6FB10D5.png (371.5 KiB) Viewed 3258 times

https://data.oecd.org/healtheqt/hospital-beds.htm

[Paul Waine]

The main problem is designing a way in which assets can be taxed. A sliding income tax (e.g. those who earn more pay more, those who earn less pay less) will have an effect on a wider number of people, and so create more discontent among voters. A sliding tax on assets however would affect a smaller number of people: the vast majority of people do not have substantial assets (e.g. most people do not own multiple properties, businesses, stocks etc.) or at least assets worth taxing. However, a small number of people globally have enormous assets. The difficulty is in how you can get at those assets. If the amount of government borrowing required to carry out these new economic agendas across the West becomes unsustainable over this period, my hope is that there will be a concerted global effort to get at them. I’m not holding my breath mind.

Hi HMHobs, so, am I confused, do you want the UK government to find a way to collect tax on assets around the world, even on people who don't have any connection with the UK?

What's the point of an asset tax, if "vast majority of people do not have substantial assets?" How will taxes be paid by those people?

Taxation has got to be paid by everyone - baring those with very little. There's no other way to collect the taxes the people want the gov't to spend.

[Paul Waine]

UK Intensive Care Unit beds:

FD0DD7B6-8537-4F56-889F-449B17BDEAB1.png

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/w ... -Ja7T2.pdf

I hate stats but you could work out the beds for 1000 population from this.

Edit: nothing better to do 4123 +3423 = 7546 total adult critical care beds.

UK population = 66.44 million

That can’t be right?


German Intensive Care Unit beds:

Source: OECD Perspectives>Acute Beds

FE65462E-B769-4926-8C00-C48CD6FB10D5.png

https://data.oecd.org/healtheqt/hospital-beds.htm

If we are comparing the UK's health service with the health service in Germany (or any other major European country), we should also compare the way those different health services are funded.

On this basis, the German insurance based system, where the state doesn't own the hospitals and doesn't employ the doctors and nurses has better outcomes than the NHS which is solely taxpayer funded. So, let's copy the German system and we can solve our problems.

[thatdberight]

Edit: nothing better to do 4123 +3423 = 7546 total adult critical care beds.

UK population = 66.44 million

That can’t be right?

Sounds broadly consistent with the stats that are bandied about.

The graph is obviously a different measure but again shows broadly the discrepancy versus Germany.

But 'critical care' beds vs. 'intensive care' beds vs. 'acute' beds? We'd need clinicians and health economists present to sort that all out. I'm certainly neither.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Hi HMHobs, so, am I confused, do you want the UK government to find a way to collect tax on assets around the world, even on people who don't have any connection with the UK?

What's the point of an asset tax, if "vast majority of people do not have substantial assets?" How will taxes be paid by those people?

Taxation has got to be paid by everyone - baring those with very little. There's no other way to collect the taxes the people want the gov't to spend.

Hi (again ) Paul.

I’m not suggesting we get rid of income tax. What I’m saying is that government revenues from income tax as a proportion of wealth have been decreasing decade on decade. More and more wealth is now contained in assets other than wealth generated through income. So in order to fund government spending worldwide, it is in the collective interest of governments globally to tax assets. It needs to be a global effort because the individuals/organisations of individuals holding the assets are not beholden to any one government.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

[quote=thatdberight post_id=1236656 time=1584750831 user_id=3353
.

[dsr]

I hate stats but you could work out the beds for 1000 population from this.

Edit: nothing better to do 4123 +3423 = 7546 total adult critical care beds.

UK population = 66.44 million

That can’t be right?

You're right in that it isn't right.

What the figures mean is that there are 4,123 "working" beds of which 3,423 are occupied (83%); the other 700 (17%) are currently empty. That's fairly typical, in fact probably the 83% occupancy is a bit on the low side.

[thatdberight]

Well OECD is saying in 2018 we had roughly 2 ICU beds per 1000 people and Germany had roughly 6.

But 7000 odd ICU beds between 66.44 million can’t equate to 2 beds per 1000. I think I’m getting something wrong here though.

Actually ENGLAND population is 55.98 million

The graph says "Acute" care, the other stat is "Critical" care. Very different definitions.

[thatdberight]

You're right in that it isn't right.

What the figures mean is that there are 4,123 "working" beds of which 3,423 are occupied (83%); the other 700 (17%) are currently empty. That's fairly typical, in fact probably the 83% occupancy is a bit on the low side.

The 4,000 is round about the figure most often quoted at 6.6 per 100,000 population or thereabouts.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Deleted the image because I don’t want to spread false news/panic. As thatdberight says, critical care could mean something different in NHS-speak to intensive care.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

I’m sure someone here said they’d studied statistics,

66.44 million/1000 = 66440

66440/7546 (total adult critical care beds) gives 8.8 beds per 1000 people.

So, for every 1000 people in the country we have about 9 beds?

(Although much less because many will already be occupied)

[dsr]

I’m sure someone here said they’d studied statistics,

66.44 million/1000 = 66440

66440/7546 (total adult critical care beds) gives 8.8 beds per 1000 people.

So, for every 1000 people in the country we have about 9 beds?

There are not 7,546 beds. There are 4,123 beds.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Yes so 4123 open and 3423 occupied, means 4123 in total. Was trying to work out what we had per 1000 overall but perhaps a job for the morning! Don’t think these figures can be right nationwide, possibly have more beds available.

[dsr]

Yes 4123 open and 3423 occupied, was trying to work out what we had per 1000 in total but perhaps a job for the morning! Don’t think these figures can be right nationwide, possibly have more beds available.

These are the intensive care beds.

[thatdberight]

Yes so 4123 open and 3423 occupied, means 4123 in total. Was trying to work out what we had per 1000 overall but perhaps a job for the morning! Don’t think these figures can be right nationwide, possibly have more beds available.

It's about 6 or 7 per 100,000. Obviously there are many more general/acute beds.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

x/y = z/w

(x/y) x w = z

4123 (total england critical beds) / 55,980,00 (popn of England) = z / 1000 [where z is number of critical beds]

(4123/55,980,00) x 1000 = 0.07~

z = 0.07

so, 0.07 / 1000 or 7 / 100,000 as TBR says.

What are the OECD figures coming from? Surely, we have more beds.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

It makes sense for 5000 ventilators, enough for about 4000 people + extra demand (in normal times)

[NottsClaret]

Interesting figures and something else to think about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

[Lowbankclaret]

Good morning everyone.

Happy Saturday, it’s a real shame we are all not starting our normal football routines.

Big big shout out to all our NHS workers, at this time they will be our heroes.

Let’s have a nice to be nice day!!!

[Zlatan]

Interesting figures and something else to think about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

I’ve been saying this all along...

[Lowbankclaret]

Interesting figures and something else to think about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

I think this is a fast moving situation, one where people will get creative.
I have read they are moving ventilators from operating wards to increase capacity.

One where countries react in ways we don’t know yet.
I am guessing but expecting China has ramped up production of ventilators to support its own requirements which is hopefully reducing.
I am hoping that they can start to supply other countries soon, but it’s a guess.

Hopefully we can expand our capacity quickly to cope.

[thatdberight]

I know exactly what you meant. You realised you were wrong but tried to wriggle out of it.

Yor figures were ten years out of date and you won't admit it. Simple. That's why your addition of 2010 was added later. This was your original post.

thatdberight wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:47 pm
As sure as day follows night and vice versa, more garbage from everybody's favourite fact-free poster.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... uk-problem
"The UK has 3.5 beds per 100,000 people, which is at the bottom end of the scale for developed countries. Germany has 24.6 per 100,000"

You're right. I wanted to rope you in.

(This was edited)

[Paul Waine]

Hi (again ) Paul.

I’m not suggesting we get rid of income tax. What I’m saying is that government revenues from income tax as a proportion of wealth have been decreasing decade on decade. More and more wealth is now contained in assets other than wealth generated through income. So in order to fund government spending worldwide, it is in the collective interest of governments globally to tax assets. It needs to be a global effort because the individuals/organisations of individuals holding the assets are not beholden to any one government.

????

Which government's revenues from income tax as a proportion of wealth have (sic) been decreasing decade on decade? What does this mean?

Income tax is charged on income. Income arises from 2 sources: 1) employment (including self-employment) and 2) income earned by the assets you own. The latter can be split into a) dividends, interest, rents (less costs to maintain "working assets" and b) capital gains on the sale of assets at a higher price than the asset was acquired. (Have I missed any other sources of income)?

So, although there are some different rules on how different sources of income are taxed - and different allowances - generally, these incomes can be taxed and are taxed (putting aside "tax havens").

"More and more wealth is now contained in assets...." - I don't understand what you are saying: all assets have always been "wealth" (less any liabilities to own/acquire those "assets").

It seems that you are making an argument to "tax assets" in addition to taxing the income earned by those assets. Are you referring to financial assets? If it was "stocks and shares" what tax would you be collecting today when the stock markets are down, let's say 30%? And, the "stocks and shares" are not paying any dividends because the businesses are losing money? Or, are you thinking about things such as property? Let's say you've got a house worth £10 million (I'm assuming you only propose to tax the wealth of the "wealthy"). So, set the tax at 10%, where does the home owner get the money from to pay the £1 million tax? or set it at 1%, it's still the same question, where do they get the £100,000? And, what if they need to spend some money on maintaining their property? Or, let's think about one of the country's "favourite" billionaires, Richard Branson and Necker Island. How much tax would you charge on Necker Island - aside from the tax that may have been made by selling holidays on Necker Island (because that would be income tax)? Let's say you set a tax bill of £5 million a year on the owner of Necker Island. How much do you think Necker Island would be worth, if all it is is a tax bill of £5 million? My answer is pretty simple, it would be worth £nil. It would no longer be "an asset" - instead, if it can't earn income and tax is only charged on that income, it will be a liability. Best "tax dodge" in the world - don't own "Necker Island." So, how much tax will the gov't collect then?

[quoonbeatz]

Interesting figures and something else to think about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

A massively irresponsible headline and article.

[NottsClaret]

A massively irresponsible headline and article.

Have to say, it struck me as unusual to have such prominence on the BBC. I guess this time next year we’ll see for certain.

[Gordaleman]

You're right. I wanted to rope you in.

(This was edited)

What you actually mean is you were wrong and still won't admit it. That's the simple truth.

[FactualFrank]

Ah so a few of you are still stamping your feet and crying at each other over who is right and wrong.

Good grief.

[quoonbeatz]

Have to say, it struck me as unusual to have such prominence on the BBC. I guess this time next year we’ll see for certain.

All about 'balance' with them isn't it!

Next year would have been a better time to run with it but not whilst there are still people not taking this situation seriously.

[tim_noone]

All about 'balance' with them isn't it!

Next year would have been a better time to run with it but not whilst there are still people not taking this situation seriously.

Unbelievable people aren't taking things seriously. Correct! crazy......

[Gordaleman]

Ah so a few of you are still stamping your feet and crying at each other over who is right and wrong.

Good grief.

No, I'm not stamping my feet, just pointing out that when I reported on a Channel Four news item, that we only a fith of the ICU beds that Germany has, I was told it was wrong and I was abused by someone using a ten year old newspaper item as his proof. He later realised his error but because he's 'Always right', he wouldn't admit it and still won't.

[thatdberight]

Ah so a few of you are still stamping your feet and crying at each other over who is right and wrong.

Good grief.

Frank. I apologise to you and everyone else for the noise. But if just one person zones out of the dangerous messages given by one poster on here, even if it's only because of the noise, even if they think I'm in the wrong, it will be worth it.

[conyoviejo]

Microvitum.. Interesting read..

https://www.dadaveda.com/about/microvita-mystery-life/