Covid-19

[tiger76]

Coronavirus: Transport for London secures emergency £1.6bn bailout

Just announced on the Beeb https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-52670539

[tiger76]

Good grief another idiot running a country.

Austria's leader Kurz in social distancing row

Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has been criticised by opposition parties, after he visited a small Alpine community and a crowd of locals, disregarding social distancing rules.

Gatherings of more than 10 people are not permitted under Austrian regulations.

It was Mr Kurz’s first official trip outside Vienna for weeks. He was visiting Kleinwalsertal, a remote Austrian valley that has been particularly isolated during lockdown, as it is only accessible via a road through Germany.

There has been widespread criticism of Mr Kurz on social media.

In a Facebook post, Mr Kurz said residents had “gathered spontaneously”.

He said that his chancellery would work to try to prevent such situations happening in future.

[RingoMcCartney]

Interesting get out. You're basically saying that you've made every possible argument re: this as it's part of the "available facts". Even for you that's impressive goalpost shifting.

So you said
I didnt directly claim you said the Treasury Select Committee used raw mortality rates to draw conclusions and judgements on the UK government's handling of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic crisis.

But you also said:

So, the Treasury Select Committee did not as you claim,use raw mortality rates to draw conclusions and judgements on the UK government's handling of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic crisis.

That looks pretty direct to me.

Let's be honest, given the illustration above where you happily directly contradict yourself in an effort to not admit that you're wrong it's not really worth me digging the info out. Lots of people posted about it at the time but you'd continue to argue that black is white regardless.

Been here so many many times with you aggi. You've gone to your default position of , groundlessly, claiming I'm "goal post shifting.

Lets stop beating around the Bush.

This is about the 4th or 5th time of asking. rather than simply saying the TSC disagree with my approach and they "directly compared the UK to South Korea." Why not post a link? Then we can see what the context was. Were they comparing to make a judgement about the government's handling of the pandemic? Were considering other key factors when they made the comparison? Were they simply looking at something in isolation. Importantly, which members of the TSC made the comparison? Was it the Committee as a whole? Or was it a specific MP or a group of partisan MPs , with a political point scoring agenda?

Please post the link aggi.

[android]

I'm not Welsh!.......There are all kinds of areas, even entire States out here, who refuse to wear masks.
Probably because Domestos Don won't wear one...........It makes no sense whatsoever, this thing is going to drag on forever.

I know - it was a tongue in cheek answer to "Taffy" and as you seem to have a thing about Tories a reminder that Labour run Wales is even less enthusiastic about masks. Not a hot topic (masks) for me though so I will leave this one with you!

[TVC15]

Select Committees, Science and Coronavirus Committee: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j0nf via @bbciplayer

This is I believe the select committee meeting around comparisons and specific references to South Korea and requesting evidence / rationale as to why the government made a decision to not follow the strategy of South Korea in relation to testing.

[KateR]

I like this as we move forward

[KateR]

Select Committees, Science and Coronavirus Committee: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j0nf via @bbciplayer

This is I believe the select committee meeting around comparisons and specific references to South Korea and requesting evidence / rationale as to why the government made a decision to not follow the strategy of South Korea in relation to testing.

unfortunately it won't open for me

[RingoMcCartney]

Like you thinking the government is doing a good job on the pandemic then?

Theres a difference between having an opinion about how any government is generally performing, be it good , bad or indifferent. And using raw mortality rates in isolation as a blunt instrument. In order to draw a conclusion on how the government is performing while situation is still unfolding and more and more is being learned about the virus each and every day. But you knew that Marty.

[AndrewJB]

Does anyone know what the scientific advice was that persuaded the government to ask people to go back to work?

[dsr]

Does anyone know what the scientific advice was that persuaded the government to ask people to go back to work?

Probably something on the lines that people not at work have been catching coronavirus nearly as often as those who are, and that we need people back at work because there is no point stopping people dying of coronavirus if we can't then afford to treat their cancer, and that people of working age (under 50 at least) are pretty safe if they do get it.

One thing they are badly advising is about going to work on a bike. Using just raw statistics, for a 20-30 year old, it would be safer to go by bus with a certainty of catching coronavirus than it would to cycle 5 miles each way daily. Either way the chance of dying based on raw statistics is about 1 in 15,000. And fit and healthy young people do rather better than that.

[TVC15]

Does anyone know what the scientific advice was that persuaded the government to ask people to go back to work?

Yes it went something like this :

Boris : “right scientist old chaps - say that you agree with me sending people back to work and it’s scientifically sound or you will be furloughed from Monday”

[Paul Waine]

But as Paul pointed out, if I understood it correctly, the ONS is saying that their testing was large and wide enough to have 95% confidence in their figures (within a narrow range). That's a very high degree of confidence.

And as Keith has pointed out, this is not necessarily inconsistent with a much, much higher number of us having already had the virus (you mentioned 25% and someone else a third). This could easily be the case, as there was plenty of time for the virus to have been and gone from these people in the period up to 27 April when the ONS survey started. I have no idea on the source for the 25% or third and any confidence levels in those estimates.

Sorry, guys, I went out for a cycle ride shortly after posting link to and extract from ONS report.

Android has it right, ONS has measured prevalence of people infected with covid-19 in the community (i.e. not hospitals, not care homes) in a 2 week period: 27 April to 10 May - which is 5 to 7 weeks after the lockdown started. ONS didn't need to survey hospitals and care homes because those figures are being directly reported. Similarly, deaths are reported and available to ONS through death certificates mentioning covid-19, in addition to the NHS tested positive figures.

Grumps has it right, on average only 3 people in every 1,000 we might meet in the community had the virus in that period up to last weekend.

Martin's figures don't tie up, because he's thinking about totals that are estimates of how many people have had the virus at any time and in all settings, community, hospitals and care homes.

Of the health care workers included in the survey who were working in patient/care facing roles 13 in every 1,000 had the virus and a further 2 in a 1,000 had the virus and weren't working at the time of the survey.

I can only make sense of these health care workers figures by assuming they were included in the ONS survey of people in the community, i.e. the survey asked "what job do you do?" And, 13 (in every 1,000) healthcare people were found to test positive for covid-19 and were still at work because they didn't know they had covid-19. I also make the assumption that the 2 (in a 1,000) were self-isolating and knew they had covid-19.

So, maybe it's not just 3 people in every 1,000 that we might meet in the community, maybe we should add to this the 13 healthcare workers who are still going to and from work (and no reason why they shouldn't) but they don't know that they have the virus.

Add it all up and take the high numbers from the ONS ranges, I make it somewhere around 4 in every 100 people we might meet in the community may be infected with covid-19 at this time.

How many passengers fit in a tube carriage? If it's 50 (I've never felt the need to count passengers) then, base don the ONS survey, statistically 1 will have covid-19 on that journey.

Sleep well. Stay safe, everyone.

[Paul Waine]

Probably something on the lines that people not at work have been catching coronavirus nearly as often as those who are, and that we need people back at work because there is no point stopping people dying of coronavirus if we can't then afford to treat their cancer, and that people of working age (under 50 at least) are pretty safe if they do get it.

One thing they are badly advising is about going to work on a bike. Using just raw statistics, for a 20-30 year old, it would be safer to go by bus with a certainty of catching coronavirus than it would to cycle 5 miles each way daily. Either way the chance of dying based on raw statistics is about 1 in 15,000. And fit and healthy young people do rather better than that.

Hi dsr, where do you get the cycle figures from? I know London cycling fatalities are much too high. I'm hoping massively improving them will be another benefit from covid-19. Creating proper, permanently segregated cycle paths would be a start. It would be great if the flatter parts of the country could go a little Dutch on cycling to work. So many personal and community benefits, if we can do this (even if covid-19 had never existed).

[aggi]

Been here so many many times with you aggi. You've gone to your default position of , groundlessly, claiming I'm "goal post shifting.

Lets stop beating around the Bush.

This is about the 4th or 5th time of asking. rather than simply saying the TSC disagree with my approach and they "directly compared the UK to South Korea." Why not post a link? Then we can see what the context was. Were they comparing to make a judgement about the government's handling of the pandemic? Were considering other key factors when they made the comparison? Were they simply looking at something in isolation. Importantly, which members of the TSC made the comparison? Was it the Committee as a whole? Or was it a specific MP or a group of partisan MPs , with a political point scoring agenda?

Please post the link aggi.

There you go, it has been posted.

You seem to have glossed over that bit where you were blatantly lying for some reason. No surprise: as you say, we've been there many times before.

[aggi]

Probably something on the lines that people not at work have been catching coronavirus nearly as often as those who are, and that we need people back at work because there is no point stopping people dying of coronavirus if we can't then afford to treat their cancer, and that people of working age (under 50 at least) are pretty safe if they do get it.

One thing they are badly advising is about going to work on a bike. Using just raw statistics, for a 20-30 year old, it would be safer to go by bus with a certainty of catching coronavirus than it would to cycle 5 miles each way daily. Either way the chance of dying based on raw statistics is about 1 in 15,000. And fit and healthy young people do rather better than that.

Just wondering what you mean by the second paragraph? Are you suggesting the fatality rate for cycling is much worse than coronavirus so it's best not to cycle?

[dsr]

Hi dsr, where do you get the cycle figures from? I know London cycling fatalities are much too high. I'm hoping massively improving them will be another benefit from covid-19. Creating proper, permanently segregated cycle paths would be a start. It would be great if the flatter parts of the country could go a little Dutch on cycling to work. So many personal and community benefits, if we can do this (even if covid-19 had never existed).

Daily Telegraph had an article assessing coronavirus risk today, which said that bike fatalities are on average 30 per billion miles cycled.

[martin_p]

Theres a difference between having an opinion about how any government is generally performing, be it good , bad or indifferent. And using raw mortality rates in isolation as a blunt instrument. In order to draw a conclusion on how the government is performing while situation is still unfolding and more and more is being learned about the virus each and every day. But you knew that Marty.

Funny that, because you use the same ‘wait and see’ argument whatever the criticism of the government, whether it be the number dying, the timing of the lockdown, the messaging. Yet it doesn’t seem to apply to your opinion that the government is performing well on the pandemic. You must base that opinion on some specifics surely!

[Jakubclaret]

Probably something on the lines that people not at work have been catching coronavirus nearly as often as those who are, and that we need people back at work because there is no point stopping people dying of coronavirus if we can't then afford to treat their cancer, and that people of working age (under 50 at least) are pretty safe if they do get it.

One thing they are badly advising is about going to work on a bike. Using just raw statistics, for a 20-30 year old, it would be safer to go by bus with a certainty of catching coronavirus than it would to cycle 5 miles each way daily. Either way the chance of dying based on raw statistics is about 1 in 15,000. And fit and healthy young people do rather better than that.

That's assuming there are cycling on the road, I cycle quite regular & I do everything possible to avoid the road & that's wearing hi-vis & a helmet, I get what you are saying though the roads are death traps & it'd be preferable to hedge the bets on the bus. If you are that way inclined unfortunatel or foolhardy you'll catch the virus pretty much anywhere, as strange as it sounds you are probably better protected at work I've noticed hand sanitizer dispensers dotted all over the place, whether that's government or company policy I'm not sure but it's far more accessible than outdoors.

[martin_p]

Probably something on the lines that people not at work have been catching coronavirus nearly as often as those who are, and that we need people back at work because there is no point stopping people dying of coronavirus if we can't then afford to treat their cancer, and that people of working age (under 50 at least) are pretty safe if they do get it.

One thing they are badly advising is about going to work on a bike. Using just raw statistics, for a 20-30 year old, it would be safer to go by bus with a certainty of catching coronavirus than it would to cycle 5 miles each way daily. Either way the chance of dying based on raw statistics is about 1 in 15,000. And fit and healthy young people do rather better than that.

Yes, but a cyclist dying on his or her bike in all likelihood only kills the cyclist. Before lockdown a cyclist catching the virus would give it to three or four other people who’d all have a chance of dying as well.

I don’t know why people continue to make these irrelevant comparisons.

[dsr]

Yes, but a cyclist dying on his or her bike in all likelihood only kills the cyclist. Before lockdown a cyclist catching the virus would give it to three or four other people who’d all have a chance of dying as well.

I don’t know why people continue to make these irrelevant comparisons.

Irrelevant? How would you assess the relative risk of travelling by bus and by bike if you don't look at the (in my view relevant) risk of travelling by bus compared with travelling by bike?

[martin_p]

Irrelevant? How would you assess the relative risk of travelling by bus and by bike if you don't look at the (in my view relevant) risk of travelling by bus compared with travelling by bike?

Even if I were to do that I wouldn’t be using the bike stats from pre lockdown, they’re totally unrepresentative of the situation on the roads at the moment. You’re comparing cycling pre lockdown against bus travel during lockdown. But a quick check shows that U.K. cycling deaths average just under 100 a year. Over 30,000 have died of Covid in three months. I’d be taking my chance on a bike.

[aggi]

Irrelevant? How would you assess the relative risk of travelling by bus and by bike if you don't look at the (in my view relevant) risk of travelling by bus compared with travelling by bike?

Comparing them by just looking at the death rates per mile would be a terrible way to compare them though. You also need to take into account the health benefit of exercising Vs sitting on a bus for instance. This kind of thing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

If you look at fatalities per mile then being a pedestrian is worse than cycling on that broad brush measure but people wouldn't recommend that you should get the bus rather than walk.

[martin_p]

Comparing them by just looking at the death rates per mile would be a terrible way to compare them though. You also need to take into account the health benefit of exercising Vs sitting on a bus for instance. This kind of thing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

If you look at fatalities per mile then being a pedestrian is worse than cycling on that broad brush measure but people wouldn't recommend that you should get the bus rather than walk.

And it’s just looking at the risk to the individual not the risk to the people around the individual, which you need to do when you’re looking at an infectious virus. Plus the government is spending million on pop up cycle lanes that you’d need to take account of as well. In summary your comparison is spurious to say the least!

[dsr]

Even if I were to do that I wouldn’t be using the bike stats from pre lockdown, they’re totally unrepresentative of the situation on the roads at the moment. You’re comparing cycling pre lockdown against bus travel during lockdown. But a quick check shows that U.K. cycling deaths average just under 100 a year. Over 30,000 have died of Covid in three months. I’d be taking my chance on a bike.

That's a quick turn around. At 12.01 you're rebuking me for irrelevant comparisons because I compared the chances of a 20-29 year old with coronavirus to a person on a bike; at 12.12 you're comparing the chances of a person on a bike with the entire population especially including those in nursing homes.

Rather than posting the total number of deaths, it would be fairer to mention that 50 people between 20 and 29 have died with coronavirus in the past three months. It puts a slightly different complexion on the risk.

[martin_p]

That's a quick turn around. At 12.01 you're rebuking me for irrelevant comparisons because I compared the chances of a 20-29 year old with coronavirus to a person on a bike; at 12.12 you're comparing the chances of a person on a bike with the entire population especially including those in nursing homes.

Rather than posting the total number of deaths, it would be fairer to mention that 50 people between 20 and 29 have died with coronavirus in the past three months. It puts a slightly different complexion on the risk.

And how many died of coronavirus in the period that your bike death stats cover? How many bike deaths have there been since the start of lockdown? (probably significantly less than 50) And do your bike stats cover just 20-29 year olds, or are you assuming anyone 30 or over can’t ride a bike? Or is it, as I said, a completely spurious comparison.

[dsr]

And how many dies of coronavirus in the period that your bike death stats cover?

I don't know what proportion of 20-29 bike riders die each year, if that's what you're asking. The coronavirus death tally at present is about 1 person in 160,000 in that age group. Taking cyclists as a whole, counting those who cycle at least once a week, it appears that about 1 in 70,000 die each year.

Mind you, most of the 50 who died of coronavirus were already ill and some of them were dying anyway. Cyclists were (presumably) healthier.

[martin_p]

I don't know what proportion of 20-29 bike riders die each year, if that's what you're asking. The coronavirus death tally at present is about 1 person in 160,000 in that age group. Taking cyclists as a whole, counting those who cycle at least once a week, it appears that about 1 in 70,000 die each year.

Mind you, most of the 50 who died of coronavirus were already ill and some of them were dying anyway. Cyclists were (presumably) healthier.

You still haven’t got the stats for the same period as the coronavirus deaths then? You know, when there was significantly less traffic on the road, and more cycle lanes.

[AndrewJB]

Irrelevant? How would you assess the relative risk of travelling by bus and by bike if you don't look at the (in my view relevant) risk of travelling by bus compared with travelling by bike?

There are risks to everything, but you're not factoring in the significant health and financial benefits to cycling. When I worked in the CIty, a week of cycling saved me enough to cover my pool and gym membership, and the rest went into my piggy bank. Two months and I had enough to cover a full bike service. The risks themselves can be mitigated by how you conduct yourself on the road, and which routes you choose. Granted, you can never mitigate against a driver distracted by their phone who mows you down from behind, but lights, and a bit of hi viz, and that's less likely to happen too.

As for easing the lockdown, I've seen how much busier the roads are now, and public transport. I think it was a reckless move, and one not helped by the fact many people aren't covered by government financial support. Quite a few people have come out against it already, so I have my doubts the government's scientific advisors pushed for this. More likely to be the right wing press, and Tory backbenchers.

[dsr]

There are risks to everything, but you're not factoring in the significant health and financial benefits to cycling. When I worked in the CIty, a week of cycling saved me enough to cover my pool and gym membership, and the rest went into my piggy bank. Two months and I had enough to cover a full bike service. The risks themselves can be mitigated by how you conduct yourself on the road, and which routes you choose. Granted, you can never mitigate against a driver distracted by their phone who mows you down from behind, but lights, and a bit of hi viz, and that's less likely to happen too.

As for easing the lockdown, I've seen how much busier the roads are now, and public transport. I think it was a reckless move, and one not helped by the fact many people aren't covered by government financial support. Quite a few people have come out against it already, so I have my doubts the government's scientific advisors pushed for this. More likely to be the right wing press, and Tory backbenchers.

I have no doubt that economists would be involved too. As we have frequently been told, "austerity" cost 130,000 deaths. This economic hit is going to be far worse. So what is the point of saving 250,000 lives at the cost of 250,000 and making the rest of us poorer?

This we know for certain - lockdown will gain us nothing if it goes on until we find a vaccine. It will kill and/or ruin the lives of far more people than it will save. Timing and order of when we come out may be controversial, but it must happen, fairly soon, or it will have been counterproductive.

[Taffy on the wing]

I know - it was a tongue in cheek answer to "Taffy" and as you seem to have a thing about Tories a reminder that Labour run Wales is even less enthusiastic about masks. Not a hot topic (masks) for me though so I will leave this one with you!

I wasn't miffed about the Welsh thing by the way........And yes i do have a thing about Tories, i despise them for the most part!
As for the mask thing, it really should be compulsory around others....just plain common sense.

[Taffy on the wing]

Does anyone know what the scientific advice was that persuaded the government to ask people to go back to work?

It was actually their Corporate sponsors' advice.....more an order really.

[Bfcboyo]

I wasn't miffed about the Welsh thing by the way........And yes i do have a thing about Tories, i despise them for the most part!
As for the mask thing, it really should be compulsory around others....just plain common sense.

It's not like a Welshman to harbor a grudge. They should forgive the English for their past sins next millennium, hopefully. The Tories may have to wait a few though.

[Grumps]

Sorry, guys, I went out for a cycle ride shortly after posting link to and extract from ONS report.

Android has it right, ONS has measured prevalence of people infected with covid-19 in the community (i.e. not hospitals, not care homes) in a 2 week period: 27 April to 10 May - which is 5 to 7 weeks after the lockdown started. ONS didn't need to survey hospitals and care homes because those figures are being directly reported. Similarly, deaths are reported and available to ONS through death certificates mentioning covid-19, in addition to the NHS tested positive figures.

Grumps has it right, on average only 3 people in every 1,000 we might meet in the community had the virus in that period up to last weekend.

Martin's figures don't tie up, because he's thinking about totals that are estimates of how many people have had the virus at any time and in all settings, community, hospitals and care homes.

Of the health care workers included in the survey who were working in patient/care facing roles 13 in every 1,000 had the virus and a further 2 in a 1,000 had the virus and weren't working at the time of the survey.

I can only make sense of these health care workers figures by assuming they were included in the ONS survey of people in the community, i.e. the survey asked "what job do you do?" And, 13 (in every 1,000) healthcare people were found to test positive for covid-19 and were still at work because they didn't know they had covid-19. I also make the assumption that the 2 (in a 1,000) were self-isolating and knew they had covid-19.

So, maybe it's not just 3 people in every 1,000 that we might meet in the community, maybe we should add to this the 13 healthcare workers who are still going to and from work (and no reason why they shouldn't) but they don't know that they have the virus.

Add it all up and take the high numbers from the ONS ranges, I make it somewhere around 4 in every 100 people we might meet in the community may be infected with covid-19 at this time.

How many passengers fit in a tube carriage? If it's 50 (I've never felt the need to count passengers) then, base don the ONS survey, statistically 1 will have covid-19 on that journey.

Sleep well. Stay safe, everyone.

The other news with this survey is that it continues. The ONS will continue to swab and in some cases conduct blood tests, so they can have an up to date reading on how prevalent the virus is within the community. In time they will also be able to break down the results region by region.

If the numbers stay low or decrease, this should give confidence to those people who have been so scared by all the reporting, to start living their lives again. Even if it was 5 in every thousand who had the virus you run a very small risk in coming in contact with one of those 5, and if on your daily walk you only see 10 people the risk lessens drastically again.

I know public transport, and the workplace is a different matter, but with care, and proper procedures put in place, we should, slowly be able to start living our lives again.

[Grumps]

So... The city with the busiest public transport system, the parks where everybody gathers in groups, seems to be the place you're least likely to catch the virus....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... sf-twitter

[martin_p]

So... The city with the busiest public transport system, the parks where everybody gathers in groups, seems to be the place you're least likely to catch the virus....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... sf-twitter

Good news if that’s what the London rates are now down to, but the rest of the country has always been two or three weeks behind. But it does say to me that another three weeks of lockdown under the pre-easement rules might well have seen this thing off, at least so there wouldn’t be another spike. As it is I fear rates will rise, particularly outside London, hope I’m wrong.

[Grumps]

Good news if that’s what the London rates are now down to, but the rest of the country has always been two or three weeks behind. But it does say to me that another three weeks of lockdown under the pre-easement rules might well have seen this thing off, at least so there wouldn’t be another spike. As it is I fear rates will rise, particularly outside London, hope I’m wrong.

I knew I could rely on you to see the downside

[RingoMcCartney]

There you go, it has been posted.

You seem to have glossed over that bit where you were blatantly lying for some reason. No surprise: as you say, we've been there many times before.

You're choosing not to take my words in which the spirit and context they were said. If you claim to know what my "approach" is then naturally you know what it isnt. I concede that taking my 2 quotes and looking at them side by side you could definitely argue that I'm contradicting myself and "lying" . However, if someone (you) claims that you (me) stand for something, and some else disagrees with it (TSC). If you then in the normal way that people interact , and given where we we were in the conversation. Just to emphasise and drive home what my opinion is. I, with sarcasm, to then point that fact TSC would never use raw mortality rates to make a judgement. . Something that you and I both know the TSC wouldn't do , and you and I both know you didnt say they would. In a face to face conversation youd know exactly where I was coming from. In real life you in debate you often hear "so you're saying that........!?" Knowing full well that the other party didnt literally say "it" And you know that.

Anyway Believe this or not, upto you.

I chose not to use the iplayer on principle. You know my views on the BBC.

So I'm definately not prepared to go through rigmarole of the signing up / logging in process.

But if either you can summarise who said what, and the context that would be good. I'm genuinely not trying to be awkward. Genuinely.

Let's have a look at a bit more detail and we can progress.

[RingoMcCartney]

Funny that, because you use the same ‘wait and see’ argument whatever the criticism of the government, whether it be the number dying, the timing of the lockdown, the messaging. Yet it doesn’t seem to apply to your opinion that the government is performing well on the pandemic. You must base that opinion on some specifics surely!

As I said , theres a difference between having an opinion about how any government is generally performing, be it good , bad or indifferent.

But drilling down on a single aspect without consideration of other factors that may , given time , prove critical, is misguided and uninformed.

If you think that, generally, the government's handling of this unprecedented global pandemic is bad. Fine.

[Swizzlestick]

You surely can’t exist

[martin_p]

You surely can’t exist

I’m convinced he is a figment of his own imagination.

[martin_p]

As I said , theres a difference between having an opinion about how any government is generally performing, be it good , bad or indifferent.

But drilling down on a single aspect without consideration of other factors that may , given time , prove critical, is misguided and uninformed.

If you think that, generally, the government's handling of this unprecedented global pandemic is bad. Fine.

But why do you think the government is generally doing a good job on the pandemic? You can’t pluck opinions out of thin air, they’ve got to be based on something.

[Paul Waine]

And how many died of coronavirus in the period that your bike death stats cover? How many bike deaths have there been since the start of lockdown? (probably significantly less than 50) And do your bike stats cover just 20-29 year olds, or are you assuming anyone 30 or over can’t ride a bike? Or is it, as I said, a completely spurious comparison.

Hi martin, I'm a lot older than 30 - I'm 66. Yes, I can still ride my bike. I was out yesterday exercising on my bike. Cycling is very good for my health.

I used to live in Netherlands (I had a bike before I went to live there). You will see people in their 80s riding their bikes every day and in all weathers.

[FactualFrank]

I’m convinced he is a figment of his own imagination.

[TheFamilyCat]

Is Ringo really trying to build an argument based on the number of fatalities being irrelevant?

[TVC15]

How can a thread on something so horrible end up at times so hilarious ?!!!!

[Swizzlestick]

Basically when you have zingers like “I chose not to use the iplayer on principle. You know my views on the BBC.”

[ksrclaret]

I love how much of a laughing stock Wrongo has become on this board.

[TheFamilyCat]

Basically when you have zingers like “I chose not to use the iplayer on principle. You know my views on the BBC.”

They send you to prison for not having a license, you know

[TVC15]

Watch him sign up to iPlayer quicker than a rat up the proverbial drain pipe when someone posts a link of Jeremy Corbyn tripping up over his cat.

[CombatClaret]

Already seeing the Manchester Uni Study projecting 25% of population infected already being pulled apart.

The principal claim is that "unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases", meaning that "29% of the population may already have had the disease."
Most estimates from the US, EU, UK are closer to 10x.