Covid-19

[Grumps]

They also said the current lockdown would be 3 weeks which you quoted on here when I said lockdown would be at least 12 weeks or more.
I have also said footy wouldnt start again until at least March 2021 at which point it might be possible to call that season 19/21.

I've already asked you, very politely to stop mentioning me, or my opinions in your posts, as most of them you've twisted anyway, otherwise my reply will probably end up with the thread being locked, and that's not fair on others. So I'll ask again, please don't mention me, and I'll do the same with you. Thanks.

[Jakubclaret]

When it starts again you could start with several play off, top six but add points to what they already have, bottom 6 (example) same. several who could possibly get to 6/7/8 places same. Bottom of top six play off, one off game against the ones below now who could possible get in to those places. Straight in to new season after that but scrap cup (s)

Starting at November will depend of course on the virus, is it seasonal or not for example.

I hope they don't scrap the season to date and come up with some fair way to make it happen but think there is a good chance they will.

I just think holding fire until may & reassess it then would be the best idea, everybody could then focus on next season then. If you decide later on to continue by the time it finishes it could overlap into the next 1 or it would have at the very least shorten the rest times, make the decision ASAP write it off, another additional complication are the transfer windows as well to think about as well as the contracts, are the contracts on hold now or still running is another factor to think about.

[paulatky]

No. There are lots of opinions I disagree with on here and will argue against, quite heatedly sometimes. But they are opinions. I disagree strongly with paulatky's theory of global economic meltdown (sorry paulatky, just using that as an example). But I'm not calling him stupid.

But factual BS or using a fact that doesn't pertain to what's being talked about. That's what's stupid.

No problem with that thatdeberight.

Just genuinely hope we are all here to see how it pans out.

[paulatky]

I've already asked you, very politely to stop mentioning me, or my opinions in your posts, as most of them you've twisted anyway, otherwise my reply will probably end up with the thread being locked, and that's not fair on others. So I'll ask again, please don't mention me, and I'll do the same with you. Thanks.

Ok thats fine but dont rubbish what I say without expmainy why you think differently

[Lowbankclaret]

You are still making the argument that the total number of positive tests for coronavirus is the same as the total number of people with the infection. Or in other words, you are still making the argument that no-one suffers from this disease without symptoms, and that no-one who has had symptoms and recovered had coronavirus at all.

Do you have medical evidence for those claims? I can answer that for you - you don't. Those claims are nonsense. Which means your statisitcs are nonsense. You know that only the worst cases are reported - and yet you persist in extrapolating those worst case data over the population as a whole. I don't mind you knowing nothing about it yourself, but trying to frighten other people with your nonsense, claiming to be authoritative, is at best foolish. Please, just accept that you are not a professor of statistics, and you are not even a half-competent statistician (that's not an insult, there is no reason why people ought to be statisticians unless they're that way inclined), and stop peddling your nonsense numbers.

I think your drawing incorrect conclusions from that calculation. 40% of people either don’t get it or get no symptoms. Then it’s 17% of the 60% that show symptoms or are tested positive. So I am not sure where that calculation does not take into account what you are saying.
It certainly does not claim 17% of the population would die, that would be 11.3 million, so I humbly suggest your argument is not valid.

[dsr]

I think your drawing incorrect conclusions from that calculation. 40% of people either don’t get it or get no symptoms. 43% get it and show symptoms or are tested positive. So I am not sure where that calculation does not take into account what you are saying.
It certainly does not claim 17% of the population would die, that would be 11.3 million, so I humbly suggest your argument is not valid.

None of that makes sense. Believe me, I am a statistician and you are not, and you do not know what you are talking about. As I said, I am not trying to be insulting. Just a statement of fact, you do not understand statistics, they are not a simple and simplistic as you imagine them to be, and you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

There are three numbers here.

Number 1 - the number of deaths.
Number 2 - the number of people who have tested positive for coronavirus and who have recovered.
Number 3 - the number of people who have had coronovirus and have recovered but have not been tested.

(Let's ignore the possibility of number 4, the number of people who have died with coronavirus but have not been tested. That number is tiny.)

So the calculation you want to make, the death rate, is Number 1 divided by (Number 2 + Number 3). The number of deaths divided by the number who have recovered. Do you agree?

But we don't know how many have had coronavirus and recovered without being tested. So you are ignorng number 3 and calculating Number 1 divided by Number 2, which gives the result of the number of deaths per proven completed cases of coronavirus, which is not the same thing as the number of actual cases of coronavirus.

So what you are doing is assuming that Number 3 is nil. Your number, unless no-one has ever had coronavirus and recovered without being tested, is demonstrably and wildly wrong.

[KateR]

No. There are lots of opinions I disagree with on here and will argue against, quite heatedly sometimes. But they are opinions. I disagree strongly with paulatky's theory of global economic meltdown (sorry paulatky, just using that as an example). But I'm not calling him stupid.

But factual BS or using a fact that doesn't pertain to what's being talked about. That's what's stupid.

Really, sorry but your post 3208 obviously confused me.

[Lowbankclaret]

None of that makes sense. Believe me, I am a statistician and you are not, and you do not know what you are talking about. As I said, I am not trying to be insulting. Just a statement of fact, you do not understand statistics, they are not a simple and simplistic as you imagine them to be, and you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

There are three numbers here.

Number 1 - the number of deaths.
Number 2 - the number of people who have tested positive for coronavirus and who have recovered.
Number 3 - the number of people who have had coronovirus and have recovered but have not been tested.

(Let's ignore the possibility of number 4, the number of people who have died with coronavirus but have not been tested. That number is tiny.)

So the calculation you want to make, the death rate, is Number 1 divided by (Number 2 + Number 3). The number of deaths divided by the number who have recovered. Do you agree?

But we don't know how many have had coronavirus and recovered without being tested. So you are ignorng number 3 and calculating Number 1 divided by Number 2, which gives the result of the number of deaths per proven completed cases of coronavirus, which is not the same thing as the number of actual cases of coronavirus.

So what you are doing is assuming that Number 3 is nil. Your number, unless no-one has ever had coronavirus and recovered without being tested, is demonstrably and wildly wrong.

I have no wish to have this debate all over again.

I just try to provide an alternative argument to those who say it will be a 1% death rate. Only 500,000 will die.

No one knows, I suggest a range of possible answers.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your modelling?

If I really wanted to scare people I would use the UK figures, because they are truely scary, but obviously far from the actual outcome in the UK.

A6D0785E-BF09-46C1-B1A1-5D6B079611FF.png (353.05 KiB) Viewed 2586 times

[KateR]

I am in total agreement with DSR, surely these are well known facts and can be the only numbers used if you really want to use numbers. For me there is only one relevant number and that is and always will be, the amount of deaths attributed to the evil virus.

Plus I want to add for anyone trying to use numbers and as a point to prove using the numbers as to, which countries did right and which were wrong and then use them to beat up any particular country or person, they will also be wrong when they/if use them.

[Jakubclaret]

I just disagree with someone who finds their own existence so important they'd rather everybody "indefinitely" scrat around looking for moss to eat than we accept that sad things happen and the remaining 99% get on with things normally.

I certainly don't think that highly of myself as an individual, let alone everyone else.

It won’t come to that & you know yourself it won’t, you know we are waiting until it peaks & drops the restrictions should then be eased, I’d love to be outside now but everybody’s in the same boat & it’s a case of sitting tight until it peaks & drops as frustrating as that is & becoming, the NHS current capacity & infrastructure wouldn’t be able to cope if we all carried on as normal. It’s good & well thinking you are immortal in some ways you are when you are young, if this infects the older generation with underlying health problems it’s very serious, I’m low risk I actually think the higher risks existence is more important than mine, because I know the chances are I’d get away with it.

[dsr]

I have no wish to have this debate all over again.

I just try to provide an alternative argument to those who say it will be a 1% death rate. Only 500,000 will die.

No one knows, I suggest a range of possible answers.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your modelling?

If I really wanted to scare people I would use the UK figures, because they are truely scary, but obviously far from the actual outcome in the UK.


A6D0785E-BF09-46C1-B1A1-5D6B079611FF.png

If you use figures which you know are wrong then you do not get a reliable conclusion. Saying that you do not like the official statistics so you are using some different statistics which you know are wrong for this purpose, is not providing any sensible alternative view.

[Quicknick]

No it hasn't, I've lived through it this year, some things on on here are rumour, made up etc. This isn't, as I've experienced it first hand, only returning here the day before the island shut down.
It doesn't have a cool season in any case.

You've got a strange idea of hot, then. Early 20s isn't hot.

[Grumps]

You've got a strange idea of hot, then. Early 20s isn't hot.

It's never been early 20s Feb or March, when I was there it was between 28 and 31 everyday, dropping to about 18 to 20 at night. I know from speaking to people living there the temps haven't dropped in the past 2 weeks. Don't go off forecasts, they are temps in the shade, just take it from me, who has been there, its been hotter for the past 2 months than we will get in summer.

[JohnMac]

This afternoon a former Army colleague and friend succumbed to the Corvid-19 Virus.

He was admitted into hospital last Sunday, unconcious and suffering from pneumonia so he was put into an induced coma and started on a ventilator.

He seemed to be making progress up until Friday when they had to increase his oxygen and turn him onto his front. Yesterday evening they called his a wife who had been sent home to self isolate since Sunday. Bob had regressed to the point where they couldn't do anything medically to help him. She and their Son were allowed their only visit in order to say their goodbye as he wasn't expected to last the night.

He fought using the 1% chance they gave him and despite receiving every bit of Care, passed this afternoon.

This is so raw, we his Regimental family, will not be able to say farewell. His Wife and Son had to endure the past week apart, not even allowed to visit each other.

We are in the midst of something never experienced by any living generation, not even those around in World War Two.

This MUST be taken seriously, it becomes so real when it is personal.

Stay safe everyone.

[mdd2]

What many don't realise is that a ventilator is the term for a life support machine with people in what's known as a 'medically induced coma'.

Generally, I'd be surprised if over half make it in normal times anyway, so the figures might be fairly standard in terms of survival rates.

Patients don't tend to be in ICU unless they are critically ill anyway.

Figures much better than that for ventilator use but not all are used for pneumonia-these guys get ARDS which whenever it occurs in whatever clinical situation the death rate is high but at 30-45% a bit less than we see here.

[mdd2]

This afternoon a former Army colleague and friend succumbed to the Corvid-19 Virus.

He was admitted into hospital last Sunday, unconcious and suffering from pneumonia so he was put into an induced coma and started on a ventilator.

He seemed to be making progress up until Friday when they had to increase his oxygen and turn him onto his front. Yesterday evening they called his a wife who had been sent home to self isolate since Sunday. Bob had regressed to the point where they couldn't do anything medically to help him. She and their Son were allowed their only visit in order to say their goodbye as he wasn't expected to last the night.

He fought using the 1% chance they gave him and despite receiving every bit of Care, passed this afternoon.

This is so raw, we his Regimental family, will not be able to say farewell. His Wife and Son had to endure the past week apart, not even allowed to visit each other.

We are in the midst of something never experienced by any living generation, not even those around in World War Two.

This MUST be taken seriously, it becomes so real when it is personal.

Stay safe everyone.

Sorry JMAc I hadn't read your post when I was posting about this awful disease. Sounds like your friend developed ARDS like a school friend of mine did a few years ago. Sorry for your loss but if one person changes their attitude to their behaviour after reading this, then perhaps two or three lives may be saved and a small piece of good will have come from your loss and posting.

[JohnMac]

He tested positive for CV19 which was confirmed on Wednesday.

More news, he and his Wife were in Spain early March, stayed with friends one of whom has also tested positive.

[Inchy]

I have no wish to have this debate all over again.

I just try to provide an alternative argument to those who say it will be a 1% death rate. Only 500,000 will die.

No one knows, I suggest a range of possible answers.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your modelling?

If I really wanted to scare people I would use the UK figures, because they are truely scary, but obviously far from the actual outcome in the UK.


A6D0785E-BF09-46C1-B1A1-5D6B079611FF.png

Just want to point out you cannot rely on this website for number of patients who are critical. The number is far higher than stated in the UK

[paulatky]

Just want to point out you cannot rely on this website for number of patients who are critical. The number is far higher than stated in the UK

You are doing a great job Inchy ,thanks to all of you.

[Lowbankclaret]

Have any of you peeps read that the £2500 is still taxable and subject to Nat Ins.

Meaning you get £1700.

Most people will be f4cked.

2AFD2AF4-F0AA-4420-BBC7-BBB995E7A5F1.jpeg (181.45 KiB) Viewed 2292 times

[paulatky]

Have any of you peeps read that the £2500 is still taxable and subject to Nat Ins.

Meaning you get £1700.

Most people will be f4cked.

2AFD2AF4-F0AA-4420-BBC7-BBB995E7A5F1.jpeg

They would have had tax and NI deducted on it before.

[FactualFrank]

Have any of you peeps read that the £2500 is still taxable and subject to Nat Ins.

Yes, but surely that was a given anyway?

[Lowbankclaret]

Just want to point out you cannot rely on this website for number of patients who are critical. The number is far higher than stated in the UK

Yes I know, think we all do.
The UK data is crap, in my humble opinion. All of it.

Inchy, hope you got the equipment you need.

We are all 100% behind you. It’s only gunna get worse for a while.

[thatdberight]

Just want to point out you cannot rely on this website for number of patients who are critical. The number is far higher than stated in the UK

That is an unofficial site and the UK does not seem to release this number. That site asks for people to contribute sources so it's no more than a wiki.

Anyone trying to make out that the lack of data means anything more is simply trying to make trouble. I know you're not in that category.

[AndrewJB]

Two interesting and in depth articles on this site: https://bylinetimes.com/ The Covid-19 Special Investigation parr’s one and two.

[thatdberight]

Median UK earnings last year were just about £2.5k per month. Most people who are on the current scheme will therefore be on 80% of their normal earnings (slightly more net and there'll be some costs they may save). I couldn't comment on what that will mean to them in terms of making up the difference over the next three months because that's a lot of people and I have no data. I have no idea how anyone could comment across the piece.

[Erasmus]

Early days yet, but it does seem that Italy and Spain may have peaked in terms of the rise in infections. One would hope that this is also in the context of increasing numbers of test. We have been a little fortunate in as much as we were able to get isolation and distancing in place at an earlier stage in the progression of the infection. They sounded a warning for us.

Our numbers will probably keep going up for a week or two yet and then they will hopefully flatten and start to go down. From that point on, we will all be a little safer as long as we don't get silly and completely ignore the safety measures.

And a request to Paul and Lowbank. You may have deeply pessimistic views, but it's better not to post them. Nobody benefits and it just increases the pervasive sense of anxiety that does nobody any good. Think it, but don't say it or write it.

[thatdberight]

Two interesting and in depth articles on this site: https://bylinetimes.com/ The Covid-19 Special Investigation parr’s one and two.

Some interesting stuff. Ahmed is an interesting character himself whose views on 9/11 have proven controversial - labelled a government plant by some, a conspiracy theorist by others.

Those reports are interesting although the central proposition that economic affairs and health shouldn't be measured against each other isn't one I agree with. It's simply not true.

And when piece 3 is relying on such indistinct claims as; "... new reports from sources who claim to have attended a private Government briefing in February say that they heard Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings advocate a policy they described as amounting to “herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad”."

Sources claim
Say they heard
Advocate
A policy which amounts to

That doesn't seem entirely substantial.

[AndrewJB]

Some interesting stuff. Ahmed is an interesting character himself whose views on 9/11 have proven controversial - labelled a government plant by some, a conspiracy theorist by others.

Those reports are interesting although the central proposition that economic affairs and health shouldn't be measured against each other isn't one I agree with. It's simply not true.

And when piece 3 is relying on such indistinct claims as; "... new reports from sources who claim to have attended a private Government briefing in February say that they heard Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings advocate a policy they described as amounting to “herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad”."

Sources claim
Say they heard
Advocate
A policy which amounts to

That doesn't seem entirely substantial.

Agreed on the Cummings bit. Not even a direct quote. What I found interesting was the modelling done on incorrect assumptions, which I’ve read elsewhere, and which if true is not a ringing endorsement of the people who did it.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yes, but surely that was a given anyway?

Seems pointless to say we are giving you £2500 but we are taking back £800 in tax.

Might as well say we are giving you £1700.

But that’s not a good story is it.

I think Paulsky yeast it right perhaps, things are going to crash.

[thatdberight]

The government's well-publicised offer is 80% of earnings, up to £2,500 per month, not a flat rate. Therefore the tax payable will be different for each person and depend on their earnings year to date.

It would be impossible to construct such an offer any other way.

[Tall Paul]

Seems pointless to say we are giving you £2500 but we are taking back £800 in tax.

Might as well say we are giving you £1700.

But that’s not a good story is it.

I think Paulsky yeast it right perhaps, things are going to crash.

Its more like £500 tax.

Why wouldn't it be taxable? Many people would end up taking home more than they would if they were working.

[Lowbankclaret]

Early days yet, but it does seem that Italy and Spain may have peaked in terms of the rise in infections. One would hope that this is also in the context of increasing numbers of test. We have been a little fortunate in as much as we were able to get isolation and distancing in place at an earlier stage in the progression of the infection. They sounded a warning for us.

Our numbers will probably keep going up for a week or two yet and then they will hopefully flatten and start to go down. From that point on, we will all be a little safer as long as we don't get silly and completely ignore the safety measures.

And a request to Paul and Lowbank. You may have deeply pessimistic views, but it's better not to post them. Nobody benefits and it just increases the pervasive sense of anxiety that does nobody any good. Think it, but don't say it or write it.

But it’s ok for people to say “it’s just like flu”

It’s just going to be old people who die so just let it happen, well that’s how it comes across.

It’s only 500,000 to die is ok.

Only 1% will die.

Why can I not question those views and offer another view.

We are 1 week into what’s looking like a 3-6 month lockdown.

[CombatClaret]

And when piece 3 is relying on such indistinct claims as; "... new reports from sources who claim to have attended a private Government briefing in February say that they heard Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings advocate a policy they described as amounting to “herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad”."

Sources claim
Say they heard
Advocate
A policy which amounts to

That doesn't seem entirely substantial.

It was good enough for The Times, a Murdock backed newspaper to run a story where Cumming argued that very point. To be printed that would need to have been quoted by someone and then confirmed by a second source also present.

[Lowbankclaret]

Its more like £500 tax.

Why wouldn't it be taxable? Many people would end up taking home more than they would if they were working.

It’s 80% max of your normal pay, how would anyone take home more.
I know I got this all wrong but I did think they meant 80% of take home pay. So if you normally took home £2000 you would get £1600.

What’s the point in the Gov giving you money and taxing it. That illogical.

They are giving money to take money back so not paying it to you. Your not earning it, they are not getting any tax, it’s an illusion.
They are just giving you £1700.

Going to be a lot of disappointed people out there.

[thatdberight]

It was good enough for The Times, a Murdock backed newspaper to run a story where Cumming argued that very point. To be printed that would need to have been quoted by someone and then confirmed by a second source also present.

It's never been run as a quote in any outlet. Always a summary of a perception.

[Paul Waine]

This afternoon a former Army colleague and friend succumbed to the Corvid-19 Virus.

He was admitted into hospital last Sunday, unconcious and suffering from pneumonia so he was put into an induced coma and started on a ventilator.

He seemed to be making progress up until Friday when they had to increase his oxygen and turn him onto his front. Yesterday evening they called his a wife who had been sent home to self isolate since Sunday. Bob had regressed to the point where they couldn't do anything medically to help him. She and their Son were allowed their only visit in order to say their goodbye as he wasn't expected to last the night.

He fought using the 1% chance they gave him and despite receiving every bit of Care, passed this afternoon.

This is so raw, we his Regimental family, will not be able to say farewell. His Wife and Son had to endure the past week apart, not even allowed to visit each other.

We are in the midst of something never experienced by any living generation, not even those around in World War Two.

This MUST be taken seriously, it becomes so real when it is personal.

Stay safe everyone.

My condolences, for your regimental family's loss, JohnMac. I attended a funeral a few years back, the deceased had served in the Army 35+ years earlier. His regimental friends were at his funeral to mark his passing "to the green fields beyond." RIP to your friend.

[thatdberight]

The government's well-publicised scheme runs via company payroll and is subsidising the employer not the employee directly. I'm sure anyone seeking to comment on it, 9 days after it had been announced, would know these basic details. Some people may also be eligible for some other "normal" state benefits in respect of the shortfall the 80% would leave them with.

[thatdberight]

An employee on the most common tax code on a week 1 basis earning £2,500 per month would indeed, as Tall Paul said, take home £2,000.

[Lowbankclaret]

£1700 will not pay my bills before I pay for food.

And millions will be in the same position.

[dsr]

Have any of you peeps read that the £2500 is still taxable and subject to Nat Ins.

Meaning you get £1700.

Most people will be [deleted].

2AFD2AF4-F0AA-4420-BBC7-BBB995E7A5F1.jpeg

Seems pretty obvious to me. Sopmeone with gross salary £3,000 p.m. would have got typically £2,335 net. Are you suggesting that the government should have given him a pay rise to £2,400 when he isn't working?

[Paul Waine]

Seems pointless to say we are giving you £2500 but we are taking back £800 in tax.

Might as well say we are giving you £1700.

But that’s not a good story is it.

I think Paulsky yeast it right perhaps, things are going to crash.

Hi Lowbank, gov'ts will always work in pre-tax figures if they are dealing with income. The payments are based on 80% of salary - with a cap - so, easier to compare like with like. Plus, people can have different tax situations. Why should, let's say a salesperson, receive £2,500 a month for 3 months and later in the year picks up some very significant sales commission - which may happen, when lost sales while we are in lockdown get replaced with "extra sales" when things start up again - and not be assessed on the full payment for tax purposes?

Based on your view, the gov't pay out could have been pitched as 80% of after tax salary - but, again, it can be different for different people.

And, you know, I really do think most people understand their pay and tax situation better than you suggest above.

[taio]

Seems blatantly obvious it would be gross since the scheme applies to PAYE.

[Tall Paul]

It’s 80% max of your normal pay, how would anyone take home more.
I know I got this all wrong but I did think they meant 80% of take home pay. So if you normally took home £2000 you would get £1600.

What’s the point in the Gov giving you money and taxing it. That illogical.

They are giving money to take money back so not paying it to you. Your not earning it, they are not getting any tax, it’s an illusion.
They are just giving you £1700.

Going to be a lot of disappointed people out there.

The government arent giving you money, they're giving it to your employer via the PAYE scheme.

The majority of people (those who earn £30k a year or less) will be getting 80% of their normal take home pay, near as dammit.

There's bugger all to spend it on anyway.

[dsr]

£1700 will not pay my bills before I pay for food.

And millions will be in the same position.

You could perhaps cut back a bit on money spent on leisure activities, eating out, clothes shopping, motor expenses, etc? If you didn't have any of those expenses, of course, you can't save money on them.

[thatdberight]

If someone normally took home £2,000 they will take home £1,600 roughly if they are on the government-funded "furlough" scheme.

[thatdberight]

You could perhaps cut back a bit on money spent on leisure activities, eating out, clothes shopping, motor expenses, etc? If you didn't have any of those expenses, of course, you can't save money on them.

Perhaps cutting off one's broadband.

I live in hope.

[dsr]

Perhaps cutting off one's broadband.

I live in hope.

Now, now.

[thatdberight]

Now, now.

Damn. I was hoping for sooner than that!

[CombatClaret]

It's never been run as a quote in any outlet. Always a summary of a perception.

Yes I know, someone summed up his sentiments with the quote and a second person will have confirmed that quote was an accurate description.
So whether he said it in 14 worlds like the quote or 400 the message was that.