Jump to content

Forethat

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Forethat

  1. 2 hours ago, KKr said:

    Have to add that there seems to be a significant correlation between population density and Total Cases per million (about .58 if counting pop>1.000.000 and without normalising the data in the table) and hence huge differences in top 10 countries by population.
    Logical actually, big cities are (a) more prone to transmission and moreover are (b) likely to have higher testing and (c ) higher case numbers / million and therefore seem to be harder hit than the country side.
    So, one could say that the USA does a good job at identifying cases but is not up to scratch with other "developed" countries yet.
    In this context It would be interesting to get a more detailed overview of the USA and analyse pop/km2 to cases/million. 

    I've also looked at the population density factor. I got some interesting results (in particular since Sweden is claimed to be managing the pandemic in such wonderful way).

     

    806205636_Screenshot2020-04-19at07_45_50.thumb.png.dc5b4381227a97202a163e224b65f731.png

    • Like 2
  2. 13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

    Oh OK lets be semantic. 

    Trump did not sack everyone its just the department for preventing pandemics in the United States was dissolved. 

    Why can't you lot just read the links people provide to prove your incorrect twaddle?

     

    The Trump administration disbanded the “pandemic response” team, but some of the team members were re-assigned to roles that included pandemic response. Nothing else.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 5 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

    Since many there suffer from a recent resurgence of Ebola virus--it begs the question:

    If Ebola virus named after the Ebola River in Africa, why didn't WHO name Chinese Corona virus after Wuhan?  Did someone bribe the WHO into naming the virus with a non-locator?

    Politics.

     

    Quote

    "Health officials have faced a similar political tightrope recently, as the coronavirus first identified in the city of Wuhan, China, continues to be a source of growing concern. Mere weeks after it was first discovered and started spreading, it had already amassed an impressive array of sobriquets, such as “Wuhan flu”, “Wuhan coronavirus”, ”coronavirus”, “2019-nCoV”, and the rather long-winded “Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus”.

     

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200214-coronavirus-swine-flu-and-sars-how-viruses-get-their-names

  4. 3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

    And in case anyone thinks this virus is a bit of a nuisance, wait until next serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria outbreak

     

    This could be interpreted as 1) You don't understand the difference between a bacteria and a virus, in which case back to primary school.

    2) You think that bacterial infections spread like viral ones, mainly they don't.

    3)  Antibiotic-resistant bacteria outbreaks happen on a similar scale, not usually, they are currently restricted to particular "Hothouse" environments like hospitals.

    You could interpret it as a small blue rabbit sailing above the clouds on a toaster if you want to, but what I meant was:

     

    Not preparing for viral outbreaks has proven to be a bit of a nuisance (clearly). And it happened despite warnings for more than 40-50 years. Similar warnings have been given for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Perhaps we'll learn our lesson and ramp up our efforts to find a new antibiotic (the last class was registered 1987) because if you think this viral outbreak is a nuisance, a serious bacterial outbreak will be worse, if you ask me.

     

    Pulmonary infections like TBC is a great example. Not to mention the nuisance if E.coli would develop resistance against antibiotics. It WILL happen, even without the boost given by use of antibiotics, it's only a matter of time. But no one listens to the warnings. To my knowledge, only a handful of small biotech companies are currently researching Gram-negative bacteria (the ones that causes pneumonia, miningitis etc.). 

     

    https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330420/9789240000193-eng.pdf

     

    Quote

    Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today.

     

    - WHO

     

    One more thing:

    If you believe that bacterial outbreaks are "currently restricted to particular "Hothouse" environments like hospitals" you need to pay a little more attention. Why not begin by reading the global TBC report 2019?

     

    https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329368/9789241565714-eng.pdf?ua=1

  5. 29 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

    Every body could have acted sooner.  And every body could act later in opening things up.  Either end can help the illness and probably death rates and total numbers.  But who decides what and when?  And what will we do about similar things in the future as more people are crowded together, travel between states, and borders, and countries and continents makes spreading anything easier and quicker than in the old days.  look at the black plague.  Took a huge toll and of course took a while to spread by foot travelers, horse travelers, boats, etc.  There is little isolation and separation these days.   The human population could be in for a world of hurt

    Totally. And in case anyone thinks this virus is a bit of a nuisance, wait until next serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria outbreak... why not a flesh-eating one?

    • Like 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

     

    This appears to be a bit confusing. The person who I was having the light hearted exchange with on the topic which started with "I rest my case" was DPKANKAN. Yet above Forethat claims someone is making claims about HIS profession which was never part of the thread. Did I miss something, or is someone operating 2 identities at the same time, not I would assume the done thing. 

    Yes

  7. 11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

    If following someone from one topic to another purely to make the comments you have done here isn't stalking, then nothing is. 

    You tell me, you're the one who started this by making claims with regards to my profession. Me, on the other hand, I couldn't give a flying fig about you do. And you continue to stalk posters like this over and over again. And when someone calls BS you moan about..stalking? You're kidding, right? Here's a link for you:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/click-here-happiness/201903/what-is-self-awareness-and-how-do-you-get-it

     

    12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

    People who really have the type of important job you claim to have don't boast about it on Internet forums, don't use it to 'prove' they are right and all who disagree with them are, as you have put it, 'posting gibberish.'

    Have I ever told you what I do...? No. Yet you act as if I had. You boast about what I can disclose or not. Good lord...

     

  8. 29 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

    @Forethat,

    I only have an issue when people make claims about their profession which are so obviously false they wouldn't fool a five year old. 

     

    I said to you elsewhere that I'm done with your egoism and fantasies. It seems we must know add stalking to the list!!! 

    And as soon as someone calls you out on your atrocious behaviour YOU call "stalking"...? Cute.

    • Like 2
  9. 22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

    So you want us to believe you're a retired barrister. 

    You clearly have an issue with other posters profession. You claim that they lie, that they post false information. And you seemingly base your entire debate on making incorrect and derogatory statements (especially regarding other posters profession) and insults without being able to provide an ounce of evidence to support these claims. I actually wonder why on earth you are even allowed to post on this forum.

     

     

    • Thanks 2
  10. 3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

    @JonnyF,

     

    As you've brought Brexit up, remember that last December nearly 54% of voters voted for parties which promised a second referendum.

     

    You're getting more and more desperate in your attempts to present a man from a working class family as some sort of upper class, privileged toff merely because he used his education to good effect. 

     

    The more you post, the more it becomes apparent that you are scared he will lead Labour out of the mire Corbyn got the party into so they are a real threat to the Tories at the next election. 

     

    You also seem somewhat envious that he's made the most of the opportunities presented to him, from passing his 11 plus onwards.

     

    Here's hoping he makes the most of this opportunity so that Labour become a real opposition party. 

     

     

    After reading some of your posts on here I simply have to tell you:

    Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean he is wrong.

     

    It is evident that you fail completely to differentiate between disagreement and being incorrect. Once again; just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean he is wrong.

    • Like 1
  11. Extraordinary how people on here fail to read and comprehend what other posters write. This time it seems that someone has made that same fatal mistake. Again.

     

    As I wrote in an earlier post #13:

    "I should also point out that we have issued clear instructions to doctors that COVID-19 is an accepted direct or underlying cause when certifying death. With that in mind, I'm intrigued as to the notion that COVID-19 is 'mentioned' on the death certificate as oppose to stated as cause of death."

     

    The BMA guidance in question refers to a guidance issued by NHS which refers to...guess what? The instructions (or guidance, rather) WE have issued. ????

     

    It gets more than silly when I post information that is 100% accurate, only to see someone attempt to contradict that information by referring to another organisation; one that that operates under the very rules and guidelines I previously referred to. Especially when I work for the organisation in question. 

     

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

     

    I have absolutely no hope that every single poster on here will comprehend this, but for what it's worth:

     

    1. If every doctor issued death certificates and stated "COVID-19" as the direct cause of death (in cases where COVID-19 is proven and not) we wouldn't be having this conversation. When COVID-19 is the condition leading to the direct cause of death it will be entered on the death certificate as the condition leading to the direct cause of death. Like this:

     

    439620976_Screenshot2020-04-16at06_12_40.png.e1d79b89b7ce0800f95eb4d9d18aee0d.png

     

    2. When COVID-19 is not proven, you will have search far and wide to find a death certificate where COVID-19 is stated as the direct cause of death, even though that cause of death is allowed. This is the reason for the statistical conundrum. Our guidance:

    Quote

    For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.

     

    You're asking why the hospital only announce the numbers for the cases where confirmed COVID-19 was stated as the cause of death? Because a majority of patients who die in a care home, hospice or similar have not been tested and the doctor didn't put "COVID-19" as the condition directly causing death or condition leading to it! Note that a suspected condition isn't 'Notifiable'. That's the statistical conundrum. My best guess is that "COVID-19" is 'mentioned' in section II (see image above) on a majority of these cases. But I don't know. 

     

    To be perfectly honest, I'd be more worried about how many potential cases there are where COVID-19 is NOT mentioned on the death certificate.

  12. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and mine might not be the correct one, but...

     

    I mostly play golf for fun these days and I tend to enjoy the game more when I have a caddie. My general view is that many players focus too much on the result, despite being unable to break par. If, for any reason, one still wants to focus on the result - find a caddie you're comfortable with, someone who understands your ambitions and your game OR play at military courses where caddies are not compulsory.

     

    I have fun as he** playing with a caddie in Thailand. And considering how some (notice the word 'some') people behave on the course, I think of caddies as more of course marshalls whose role it is to make sure the place is not wrecked.

     

    And I have to add, it DOES help to get the attention of the caddie if you can speak Thai...that's a fact.

    • Like 1
  13. 22 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

    Yes that is true.  Part of the difficulty is when does Cov-19 become the cause rather than a contributing factor.  Initially when deaths were being reported it would often refer to "underlying medical conditions".  So at some point it has to be considered the reason for the death rather than just contributing to it.  I know a few people who received a letter from the government saying they were in the high risk category.  These tended to be those with respiratory problems but also one I know who is a cancer survivor.

    From a death certificate perspective (and ultimately a data entity) where cause of death is entered, COVID-19 will never be entered as the condition leading directly to death. This will be 'pneumonitis', 'sepsis', 'acute renal failure' or similar in most cases involving a SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19 will be entered as the condition leading to the direct cause of death on the death certificate if the infection has been confirmed (tested). If SARS-CoV-2 is NOT confirmed, COVID-19 will be indicated as a suspected significant condition contributing to death. 'Suspected' is the keyword here, caused by the lack of testing.

     

     

     

     

    • Thanks 1
  14. 5 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

    I like how another poster put it in another thread, something to the effect of "China has miraculously decreased deaths in other countries due to diabetes, heart disease and other ailments to near zero!"

     

    Sadly, what it will come down to is how to sensationalize the virus as much as possible, with actual facts and science being pretty much a lost priority at this point

    Valid point. 

     

    I believe there could be a statistical quality issue in both China and the UK - but for two completely different reasons. If I may speculate; It is in the interest of China to reduce the official fatality numbers. In the case of the UK I think it's the lack of testing that creates a situation where doctors have NO CHOICE but to state that COVID-19 is suspected to have contributed to death. Had the person been tested and found SARS-CoV-2 positive it would have been a completely different matter. This is what creates the statistical conundrum (although not understood by all posters on here).

     

    Stating COVID-19 as a suspected contributing factor is probably what the data analyst in the OP refers to when stating the COVID-19 is 'mentioned'.

     

     

     

    • Like 2
  15. 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

    Be assured, hospitals report exactly the data statisticians need to make detailed and accurate analysis of causes of mortality.

     

    Statistics plays a very significant part in disease control and public health planning.

    Be assured, death certificates (including cause of death) are issued by doctors and no one else...at least in the UK.

     

    I should also point out that we have issued clear instructions to doctors that COVID-19 is an accepted direct or underlying cause when certifying death. With that in mind, I'm intrigued as to the notion that COVID-19 is 'mentioned' on the death certificate as oppose to stated as cause of death. 

     

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  16. 7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

    Indeed.

    Throwing a hand grenade into the care home does not mean they all died because of it.

    Some of them might have had a heart attack before it went off.

    Luckily, the hand grenade attacks are scarce. The statistical issue however, which was the one I addressed, is that cause of death is a medical term that doesn't take into account a media hype around a virus - when someone dies their cause of death is based on medical terms, nothing else. A suspicion is exactly that - and not statistically valid.

     

    Having said that, if a nursing home reports a fatality caused by COVID-19 the fatality should be included in the stats. If it is a 'suspicion' it shouldn't. 

    • Like 1
  17. On 4/6/2020 at 10:58 PM, donnacha said:


    Your trust in the official narrative, despite it changing every day, is touching.

    So, what are you going to do tomorrow, when they reveal that, yes, he is on a ventilator?

    Are you going to return to this thread and apologize, profusely, for failing to absorb what I have been saying clearly and repeatedly: that the news is being managed by drip-feeding a few details at a time, but that we can already logically deduce what is happening.

    Of course you won't. You will disappear and pretend you never took the ridiculous position you are now so vehemently defending.
     

    I suspect (I could be wrong) that YOU are the one who will disappear and pretend YOU never took the ridiculous position you so vehemently defended.

     

    Small advice: next time, publish and share information that you KNOW to be true, instead of picking fights with someone who works in a government organisation and have first hand information.

     

    Humble Pie time...don't you think?

     

    @Opl

    @TopDeadSenter

    @Logosone

×
×
  • Create New...