Covid-19

[1HappyClaret]

I did not know that all the care home deaths in the government figures we see have all had a Covid test.

[Wile E Coyote]

Check out the ONS site Happy. Your assertion of what is counted as a Care Home Covid death is not correct as I read it.
The ONS state a Care Home Covid death is counted in the figures we see if the Home says Covid is suspected.
They make it clear that there does not have to have been a Covid test, mention of the virus on the death certificate or a doctors examination.
I am happy to be corrected if you read the information and can point out where it says different or I have misinterpreted it.

they are classing care home deaths as covid even though many are definately not.

[Elizabeth]

Yes, just see it at the bottom. I agree, based on this evidence as we read it there will be many more Care Home deaths and as the ONS are counting differently their figure of Care Home Covid deaths as declared by the Homes should be available I would hope.

[Elizabeth]

Just seen your post Wile.

Are you saying the Homes are saying Covid is suspected when the death will be caused by something else?

[dsr]

Where does it say that.

It doesn't need to say that. There is nothing else it could be.

[Jakubclaret]

And in English that means what ?

I assumed it'd be self explanatory, basically to summarise for now it's a case of sitting tight & adhering to all instructions with no cutting corners. We need to adopt a reclusive lifestyle longterm if we are serious about reducing the death toll & increasing public health, the other post was aimed at conveying the point when it comes to life & death the golf is secondary, to be honest I'm surprised golf was even used as an example, I couldn't think of a more low risk sport if I tried there's nothing stopping people playing golf it's quite minimal contact & distance reaching.

[TVC15]

And breath !

[dsr]

I assumed it'd be self explanatory, basically to summarise for now it's a case of sitting right & adhering to all instructions with no cutting corners. We need to adopt a reclusive lifestyle longterm if we are serious about reducing the death toll & increasing public health, the other post was aimed at conveying the point when it comes to life & death the golf is secondary, to be honest I'm surprised golf was even used as an example, I couldn't think of a more low risk sport if I tried there's nothing stopping people playing golf it's quite minimal contact & distance reaching.

But we still have the problem that old people have been advised for many years that to stave off dementia and ageing, they need to keep active, they need to get out and about, they need to be sociable, they need to do as much as they can or they will lose the ability. If old people are told to sit inside, alone, and not leave the house, then all we are doing is refilling the nursing homes with people who have become institutionalised too early.

When it comes to life and death, the quality of life does need to be taken into account.

[Elizabeth]

As there are some pretty rude responses going on here Wile I'm going off now. Hope you see my question

[Jakubclaret]

But we still have the problem that old people have been advised for many years that to stave off dementia and ageing, they need to keep active, they need to get out and about, they need to be sociable, they need to do as much as they can or they will lose the ability. If old people are told to sit inside, alone, and not leave the house, then all we are doing is refilling the nursing homes with people who have become institutionalised too early.

When it comes to life and death, the quality of life does need to be taken into account.

I agree to a certain degree, given the choice that's down to them, do you wish to stop indoors & stay safe or do you wish to go outside to possibly have a better time but potentially expose yourself to the virus, I think relaxing in the conservatory with a cup of tea & a paper will be the preferred choice. Right now old people don't feel safe outside (or even inside) I don't blame them, I wouldn't encourage them to go out if there are happier indoors leave them to it.

[dsr]

I agree to a certain degree, given the choice that's down to them, do you wish to stop indoors & stay safe or do you wish to go outside to possibly have a better time but potentially expose yourself to the virus, I think relaxing in the conservatory with a cup of tea & a paper will be the preferred choice. Right now old people don't feel safe outside (or even inside) I don't blame them, I wouldn't encourage them to go out if there are happier indoors leave them to it.

The conservatory? At a quick estimate, from last time you toured Burnley, would you care to estimate how many houses have a conservatory?

I took my Mum out last week. Not supposed to, but I did. The minimal risk of catching anything from a cyclist riding past 6 feet away is worth it compared with the actual risk of actual physical loss of condition and actual loss of enjoyment of life because she wasn't getting out. I live with her so she isn't stuck indoors alone; but I could see the difference. How much worse for the single old people.

[Jakubclaret]

The conservatory? At a quick estimate, from last time you toured Burnley, would you care to estimate how many houses have a conservatory?

I took my Mum out last week. Not supposed to, but I did. The minimal risk of catching anything from a cyclist riding past 6 feet away is worth it compared with the actual risk of actual physical loss of condition and actual loss of enjoyment of life because she wasn't getting out. I live with her so she isn't stuck indoors alone; but I could see the difference. How much worse for the single old people.

I agree with you & I understand the benefits outweigh the risk assessment in your example stated, the conservatory was more aimed towards carehomes, I'd leave it to entirely their choice, I wouldn't encourage somebody to go out & then they catch the virus I'd feel responsible, for now I think it's more sensible that old people are confined indoors for the foreseeable future unless they choose to go out & run the risk & then it's their risk their choice.

[martin_p]

It doesn't need to say that. There is nothing else it could be.

Are you under the impression that the test actually happen at the pop up test centres? It’s just a way of collecting the swabs. People are no more tested at the majority of test centres than they are at home. It’s only when the swab gets to the lab that people are tested. So the number can only represent either the number of swabs they’ve collected, and there’s absolutely no reason why that wouldn’t include those they’ve received by post, or the number of actual tests done which again would include all swabs however collected.

[dsr]

Are you under the impression that the test actually happen at the pop up test centres? It’s just a way of collecting the swabs. People are no more tested at the majority of test centres than they are at home. It’s only when the swab gets to the lab that people are tested. So the number can only represent either the number of swabs they’ve collected, and there’s absolutely no reason why that wouldn’t include those they’ve received by post, or the number of actual tests done which again would include all swabs however collected.

If the government was making the most elementary and obvious double count on a subject that hundreds of journalists are just panting to catch them out on, then one of the journalists would have seen it.

Which means there is a reason why they wouldn't do it. Whatever your views on Tory politicians, even you would surely concede that they don't lie on matters where they are absolutely certain to be caught out.

[Grumps]

I agree with you & I understand the benefits outweigh the risk assessment in your example stated, the conservatory was more aimed towards carehomes, I'd leave it to entirely their choice, I wouldn't encourage somebody to go out & then they catch the virus I'd feel responsible, for now I think it's more sensible that old people are confined indoors for the foreseeable future unless they choose to go out & run the risk & then it's their risk their choice.

You obviously don't understand the aging process at all, it might be better if you just stayed off the topic for a while.

[Lowbankclaret]

I did not know that all the care home deaths in the government figures we see have all had a Covid test.

It is as far as I understand it, all gov figures have to have tested positive to be counted.

There was a detailed graphical explanation yesterday, I thought I had done a screenshot, but didn’t.

It was showing the massive number of deaths per week being higher than the norm but Covid cases being within the norm.

The disparity is likely caused by Covid but some indirectly like people not going to hospital with heart attacks.

Wish I could find this morning. Apologies.

[Spijed]

It's utterly stupid that if someone gets killed in a road traffic accident or commits suicide but is found to have the virus in their blood that goes on the death certificate.

[AndrewJB]

If the government was making the most elementary and obvious double count on a subject that hundreds of journalists are just panting to catch them out on, then one of the journalists would have seen it.

Which means there is a reason why they wouldn't do it. Whatever your views on Tory politicians, even you would surely concede that they don't lie on matters where they are absolutely certain to be caught out.

Are you serious? They lie all the time, and a compliant press goes along with it. I’ve been complaining about this set up for years. Look at yesterday’s headlines - they’d make Pravda editors blush. Sending forty thousand test in the post is not testing forty thousand people, and yet those papers went along with it. It’s not journalism. It’s not holding truth to power. It’s propaganda.

[Grumps]

It's utterly stupid that if someone gets killed in a road traffic accident or commits suicide but is found to have the virus in their blood that goes on the death certificate.

I think it's still the case that the deaths are described as people dying, who have tested positive for Covid-19, not that have actually died from it.
It was said yesterday by the CMO that everybody going into hospital is now tested for Covid-19
Does that mean then that every death in hospital will be added to the Covid figures?

[claretandy]

This just about covers it, bid red bus anyone ?

Classic Dom.

[nyclaret]

Nick Cohen hitting the nail on the head:

“Good government in these circumstances would have been next to impossible. Now the pandemic has hit, it is impossible. Everyone involved in the fatal failure to contain the virus in February and early March is covering their backs. You do not, however, need to stare too hard at Johnson’s belated statement on 21 March that “we’re taking away the ancient, inalienable right of free-born people of the United Kingdom to go to the pub” to know that the ideology of the Brexiters is out of time. Johnson did not act until the pandemic had engulfed us because his puffed-up nationalism held that the Brits, so favoured by providence, would refuse to imitate the cowed continentals. We stood alone in 1940. We stood up for ourselves in the Brexit referendum. Why couldn’t we stand at the bar now?”

[Paul Waine]

I agree to a certain degree, given the choice that's down to them, do you wish to stop indoors & stay safe or do you wish to go outside to possibly have a better time but potentially expose yourself to the virus, I think relaxing in the conservatory with a cup of tea & a paper will be the preferred choice. Right now old people don't feel safe outside (or even inside) I don't blame them, I wouldn't encourage them to go out if there are happier indoors leave them to it.

I'm 66 Jakub. I've got a number of friends in their 70s (I also have friends much younger than me). One of them got a kayak for her 75th birthday - and recently broke a hip when she fell playing walking netball. Your "remedy" to avoid coronavirus will only result in more people dying a lot earlier than they would if they can keep active, get out and about, socialise, exercise etc. etc.

The thing that will make us all much safer is switching off the BBC with all it's "how X died of covid-19" stories.

Stay safe, everyone.

EDIT: added the second "f" to "off."

[Spijed]

I think it's still the case that the deaths are described as people dying, who have tested positive for Covid-19, not that have actually died from it.
It was said yesterday by the CMO that everybody going into hospital is now tested for Covid-19
Does that mean then that every death in hospital will be added to the Covid figures?

I presume if they die it'll be classed as the cause of death.

[Paul Waine]

Are you under the impression that the test actually happen at the pop up test centres? It’s just a way of collecting the swabs. People are no more tested at the majority of test centres than they are at home. It’s only when the swab gets to the lab that people are tested. So the number can only represent either the number of swabs they’ve collected, and there’s absolutely no reason why that wouldn’t include those they’ve received by post, or the number of actual tests done which again would include all swabs however collected.

Hi martin, I notice you are interested in methods of counting tests. But, what exactly are you aiming to count? The number of tests arranged on a particular day? The number of test swabs issued on a particular day? The number of test samples collected on that day? The number of swabs received at the labs? The number of swabs tested and results collated on that day? The results distributed to (a) the person tested and (b) their GP and other medical people who need to know and (c) employer, whether NHS, care home, other essential worker employer?

Does it matter that some people need to be tested twice? Does it make a difference if the person is tested once on Monday and a second time on Tuesday? Is that one person tested on Monday and one person tested on Tuesday? So, what is the number that matters if both tests were on the Monday?

It seems to me, once you understand what you are trying to measure that you count the way the gov't is counting, including swabs issued for home testing on the day they are posted out.

Yes, I'm sure there will be follow up on tests issued but not received back. Maybe some of these ordered the tests because a member of the household "had symptoms." Maybe the person got tested and was confirmed not to have covid-19, so, should the others, with no symptoms still do the test - and clog up a very busy system?

[Elizabeth]

Just to clarify that grumps, there will be many people going into hospital who will test negative . If they die they won't be counted.
I know this seems obvious but thought I post it anyhow

[Grumps]

Just to clarify that grumps, there will be many people going into hospital who will test negative . If they die they won't be counted.
I know this seems obvious but thought I post it anyhow

Nothings obvious to some on here

[FactualFrank]

The thing that will make us all much safer is switching of the BBC with all it's "how X died of covid-19" stories.

I agree with this. The one thing people can do to feel better is watch much less of the news. And also rarely come onto this thread.

[AndrewJB]

Hi martin, I notice you are interested in methods of counting tests. But, what exactly are you aiming to count? The number of tests arranged on a particular day? The number of test swabs issued on a particular day? The number of test samples collected on that day? The number of swabs received at the labs? The number of swabs tested and results collated on that day? The results distributed to (a) the person tested and (b) their GP and other medical people who need to know and (c) employer, whether NHS, care home, other essential worker employer?

Does it matter that some people need to be tested twice? Does it make a difference if the person is tested once on Monday and a second time on Tuesday? Is that one person tested on Monday and one person tested on Tuesday? So, what is the number that matters if both tests were on the Monday?

It seems to me, once you understand what you are trying to measure that you count the way the gov't is counting, including swabs issued for home testing on the day they are posted out.

Yes, I'm sure there will be follow up on tests issued but not received back. Maybe some of these ordered the tests because a member of the household "had symptoms." Maybe the person got tested and was confirmed not to have covid-19, so, should the others, with no symptoms still do the test - and clog up a very busy system?

The only reason the government added the postal kits sent out to the total (for the first time) was so they could claim to have over hit their target. Perhaps if the government devoted as much time to fighting the virus as they do lying to attempt to bolster their image, we wouldn't have such a high death rate.

[Mala591]

Does anyone know the number of positive tests (so far) within the Burnley Borough boundaries? Every NHS number is linked to a postcode so this info. must be available somewhere.

[CombatClaret]

"The thing was, I was in denial"

The PM not taking his own illness seriously and not understanding why he wasn't getting better despite the strength of his character is the perfect metaphor for the government's reaction.

[tiger76]

This is an interesting development.

Rival group to UK government's scientific advice set up

A lack of transparency over the advice guiding the UK government's coronavirus response has spurred a former chief scientific adviser to create his own "independent" group.

Sir David King said he was worried about the lack of transparency around the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) committee and keen to "demonstrate what independent science advice looks like".

“When I was in government I was facing you guys (the press) myself as chief scientific adviser.

"I don’t see that Sir Patrick (Vallance) is being allowed to come onto broadcasting corporations... to say what his advice is independently," he said.

Sir David raised concerns about Boris Johnson's chief adviser Dominic Cummings attending Sage meetings.

Sir David said his group "is really there to illustrate the importance of transparency".

"That’s how you gain the trust of the public," he said.

[Devils_Advocate]

Ive been clear about my concerns on what I see as the govt hiding behind the idea of 'following the science' when they potentially have undue influence on the scientific advice and where there is a lack of transparency

That said im far from convinced this move from King will be a useful and a positive one and there is danger it just becomes partisan and we end up with two sets of scientific groups contradicting each other. If this happens we are just back to whose side you areon will likely decide whose science you choose to believe

What we need is to demand transparency and honesty from our govt and the advisory groups they use and to me this move from King detracts from this position and will just force the govt to become even more defensive and a closed shop

Just my initial thoughts and hope that I am wrong and it is of use

[Grumps]

Ive been clear about my concerns on what I see as the govt hiding behind the idea of 'following the science' when they potentially have undue influence on the scientific advice and where there is a lack of transparency

That said im far from convinced this move from King will be a useful and a positive one and there is danger it just becomes partisan and we end up with two sets of scientific groups contradicting each other. If this happens we are just back to whose side you areon will likely decide whose science you choose to believe

What we need is to demand transparency and honesty from our govt and the advisory groups they use and to me this move from King detracts from this position and will just force the govt to become even more defensive and a closed shop

Just my initial thoughts and hope that I am wrong and it is of use

I've worked with scientists, and if they are 100% sure of their findings they will stick with their findings when questioned, , whether it be a chief constable, barrister or QC, or judges at the highest courts in the land, they will not be swayed. I would expect the scientists in this instance to be exactly the same, whoever is in the meeting

If however, they are not 100% certain of their findings, that might be a different matter.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm 66 Jakub. I've got a number of friends in their 70s (I also have friends much younger than me). One of them got a kayak for her 75th birthday - and recently broke a hip when she fell playing walking netball. Your "remedy" to avoid coronavirus will only result in more people dying a lot earlier than they would if they can keep active, get out and about, socialise, exercise etc. etc.

The thing that will make us all much safer is switching off the BBC with all it's "how X died of covid-19" stories.

Stay safe, everyone.

EDIT: added the second "f" to "off."

Just to clarify again, my "remedy" is to give the old people a freedom of choice, if you wish to go outside do so by all means but be aware you are potentially exposing yourself to the virus or equally if you wish to remain indoors where you feel safer do so by all means, I don't see the sense encouraging old people outside if the prospect frightens them or unsettles them just so there could have some exercise or socialise or obtain some vitamin D, what's beneficial is peace of mind & to feel safe & not pressured, I'm championing freedom of choice not just shoving old people outside when we believe it will benefit them but in truth it scares the s**t out of them, I hope I've cleared any misunderstandings up.

[taio]

I've worked with scientists, and if they are 100% sure of their findings they will stick with their findings when questioned, , whether it be a chief constable, barrister or QC, or judges at the highest courts in the land, they will not be swayed. I would expect the scientists in this instance to be exactly the same, whoever is in the meeting

If however, they are not 100% certain of their findings, that might be a different matter.

I doubt that's how it's playing out - I just can't see the scientists saying they are 100% certain on a new pandemic and where they are constantly saying they are learning all the time. Their advice will come with many caveats and they will be doing their utmost to balance the risks to best effect.

[Grumps]

I doubt that's how it's playing out - I just can't see the scientists saying they are 100% certain on a new pandemic and where they are constantly saying they are learning all the time. Their advice will come with many caveats and they will be doing their utmost to balance the risks to best effect.

They will, but certain things will be 100% and when they are, I wouldnt see them budging.... Its down to others to balance risk when they have the facts

[Elizabeth]

Mala, go on the ONS site.
It's not easy to navigate but a quick looked for the Borough of Burnley showed 32 deaths involving Covid. They calculate the figure based on 100,000 people so the number will be lower in real terms.
As explained further up the thread the ONS figures are calculated differently than the daily government figures we see.
Their figures are involving Covid and not necessarily people who were actually tested. If my reading of the site is correct if Care Homes in Burnley said they suspected residents died of the virus they are counted in the ONS figures even if they did not test positive and covid was not on the death certificate.
As always I stand to be corrected.
I did not look for the ONS figures on the number of positive tests so far for each Borough. I've left that for you.
This figure was for a period up to 17/4. I can't remember when the period started, I think it might have been for a month. Again the details are on the site

[Lowbankclaret]

You can put your postcode in here and it will tell you how many deaths in your Ward.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... tput-areas

Think section 6

[Elizabeth]

Just been on the Metro newspaper on line site, put my post code in and delighted to find out 0 deaths in my ward. March 1-April 17

[tiger76]

Death toll in England rises by 327
A further 327 people with coronavirus have died in England, bringing the total number of confirmed hospital deaths in the country to 21,180.

Of the 327 new deaths announced:

56 occurred on 2 May
125 occurred on 1 May
43 occurred on 30 April
The figures also show 95 of the new deaths took place between 1 April and 29 April, with eight deaths occurring in March.

Figures published today show 8 April remains the day with the highest number of hospital deaths - 867.

Fourteen more people have died in Wales, taking the total number of deaths to 983.

In Scotland, 12 further deaths were announced, bringing the total to 1,571.

Five further deaths were confirmed in Northern Ireland, bringing the total to 381.

The latest UK-wide figures - which use a different timeframe to those of the individual nations - will be published later.

The UK-wide figure now includes deaths in care homes and the community as well as hospitals.

[tiger76]

A further 315 deaths across the UK
A total of 28,446 people have now died with coronavirus across the UK, an increase of 315 on Saturday’s figure.

That number includes deaths in hospitals, care homes and the community, but only for those who have tested positive for Covid-19.

[tiger76]

The latest figures show testing has fallen to 76,496 tests in the 24 hours up to 09:00 BST on Sunday.

That's a drop of more than a third on the 122,000 tests carried out on 30 April.

Earlier this week, we heard the health secretary say the UK had met its target of carrying out 100,000 tests-a-day by the end of April.

However, the government came in for considerable criticism for including 40,000 tests which were dispatched and may not have been taken.

Prof Stephen Powis, the medical director for NHS England, says he anticipates that testing capacity "will continue to increase".

[martin_p]

If the government was making the most elementary and obvious double count on a subject that hundreds of journalists are just panting to catch them out on, then one of the journalists would have seen it.

Which means there is a reason why they wouldn't do it. Whatever your views on Tory politicians, even you would surely concede that they don't lie on matters where they are absolutely certain to be caught out.

Again, where have I said they are double counting?

Edit - just re-read your last paragraph! You are joking right! It’s only last week that the PM said we’d entered lockdown earlier in the curve than Spain and Italy that basic research proved wrong. But his supporters don’t seem to care.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, I notice you are interested in methods of counting tests. But, what exactly are you aiming to count? The number of tests arranged on a particular day? The number of test swabs issued on a particular day? The number of test samples collected on that day? The number of swabs received at the labs? The number of swabs tested and results collated on that day? The results distributed to (a) the person tested and (b) their GP and other medical people who need to know and (c) employer, whether NHS, care home, other essential worker employer?

Does it matter that some people need to be tested twice? Does it make a difference if the person is tested once on Monday and a second time on Tuesday? Is that one person tested on Monday and one person tested on Tuesday? So, what is the number that matters if both tests were on the Monday?

It seems to me, once you understand what you are trying to measure that you count the way the gov't is counting, including swabs issued for home testing on the day they are posted out.

Yes, I'm sure there will be follow up on tests issued but not received back. Maybe some of these ordered the tests because a member of the household "had symptoms." Maybe the person got tested and was confirmed not to have covid-19, so, should the others, with no symptoms still do the test - and clog up a very busy system?

I’m not looking to count anything. I merely said that the government stated 73k people were tested and a lot of (seemingly) government supporters want to dispute the figure. They must think the government are lying to us!

[CombatClaret]

Our "Success"

EXFnpR7XsAEihXS.jpg (252.05 KiB) Viewed 2700 times

[aggi]

One of the big troubles the government has is the clarity around its messaging and a policy of spin over honesty. Stuff like the below, the convenient counting methods for tests, the multiple stories around the Brexit procurement shceme, etc don't help to engender trust in the government. Obviously this isn't ideal when it is important that everyone follows their instructions

[tiger76]

One of the big troubles the government has is the clarity around its messaging and a policy of spin over honesty. Stuff like the below, the convenient counting methods for tests, the multiple stories around the Brexit procurement shceme, etc don't help to engender trust in the government. Obviously this isn't ideal when it is important that everyone follows their instructions

Clear communication has been a major problem from this government ever since this outbreak begun in earnest,i genuinely do wonder if the left hand knows what the right hand is doing,no doubt a nameless civil servant will be hung out to dry.

[Grumps]

One of the big troubles the government has is the clarity around its messaging and a policy of spin over honesty. Stuff like the below, the convenient counting methods for tests, the multiple stories around the Brexit procurement shceme, etc don't help to engender trust in the government. Obviously this isn't ideal when it is important that everyone follows their instructions

This isn't meant as a political post. I have family and friends over 70. Since the start of lockdown we have all thought it was ok for fit and well over 70s to go out as long as they abide by the guidelines
I don't know where we've got it from, but it must have been the message at some point, mustn't it?

[TVC15]

Around mid March the media was full of stories that over 70s were going to be placed on a 12 week or 4 month lockdown. Matt Hancock is even quoted as saying this.

The over 70s were mentioned before there was any reference to this 1.5m shielded population.

I know that we told our parents this and my in laws who are both over 70 but healthy still think they are in the lockdown period of not leaving their home.
I also remember the debate about how healthy some over 70s were and that this was not a great for them being placed on lockdown whilst other people under 70 could be far more vulnerable / less fit. Again this was before the 1.5m had been defined.

With everything that has subsequently happened it’s hard to remember everything that was actually implemented. But the gov website picture above suggests that it was at the very least under serious consideration.

[ksrclaret]

It was definitely announced as all over 70's ought to isolate. I remember listening to the conference whilst driving home from work just before we closed.

The government's messaging has been, at best, confused and unclear throughout this.