O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[Exiletyke]

Not sure what you're implying Grist?

Come come now WCM
it's not that difficult

[gm_gm]

"no idea" & "guess"
both informative standpoints

TBF Excile that is your problem, you don not read the whole post, instead you pick words out that suit you

[animallittle3]

I think this is where I differ from certain other posters; you see smoking guns, whereas I see newspaper chatter that is largely based upon the notion that there were and are easy solutions to the pandemic. Newspaper companies want to sell newspapers; wanting to inform may be secondary to that.

Take for example, PPE. I have pointed out earlier in this thread the massive task that our government and every other government in the world has faced to acquire it in quantity given the sudden massive demand. The Guardian article that you linked to yesterday illustrated the difficulties they have faced where, on the face of it, suppliers are putting sub-standard products into the market to take advantage of the situation. Despite that, the media approach the issue upon the basis that it can be solved with the click of a finger and the nod of a ministerial head. Poor government comms haven’t helped however.

I hope that we will have a Public Inquiry –informed by science- at the end of this in order to establish exactly what did happen, but, with respect, your post exemplifies an issue with such a venture, which is that some people have already decided what the outcome should be. In other words, if an inquiry concludes that the government made some mistakes, but largely did its best based upon the information and science available, there will be large swathes of their political opponents who will simply not accept it and who will, instead, insist that ‘the establishment’ and ‘money’ has distorted ‘the truth’.

In the event of the government being ‘acquitted’, I can pretty much guarantee that the media and Labour Party will wheel out people who have lost loved ones to Covid19 to make (understandably) emotional attacks upon that finding.

And the other issue with an Inquiry will be whether it has any sacred cows. If we are interested in the truth then there can be no stones unturned, including any that might be unpalatable. What do you suppose the response will be (from the Left in particular) if, for example, an investigation were to point to fault with the concept of the NHS or which suggested that some ethnic minority communities might have contributed to the high death rates within them for behavioural reasons? I would stress that I am not suggesting that either would prove to be the case (said Kerr from the middle of the minefield), but an inquiry needs to look at every possible issue, not just those that would afford ammunition to those who want to find fault with the government.

If an inquiry said the NHS wasn't fit for purpose and that it's far too expensive and expecting a government to fund it through taxation in this day and age is for the fairies it would send shockwaves across the country .

Labour wouldn't have it because it's their greatest achievement and the vast majority of the public wouldn't either because it's a sacred cow , never more so than right now .

Johnson would hyperventilate because his popularity would diminish , the man who got rid of the NHS when it saved his life .

However purely for the sake of argument let's say that's what the inquiry did decide .

Who'd have the balls to put it in to practice what came out of an Inquiry ?

Absolutely nobody and yet the country is choking it's self to death on a mountain of debt and compounded even more by the pandemic .

This is why the country is going to the dogs because no bugger has any ideas anymore or even the minerals to take anything on .

Is anyone really looking at the effects of automation and looking to tackle that or is that for someone else further down the road when their stint is over and they are going around US universities giving talks for £20k a night .

Meanwhile my grandson sits peacefully in his little chair oblivious to what lays ahead .

[great_fire]

The usual argument is that we don't spend as much on health as Germany and France and that's why our health service is not as good but as we've seen, countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore who spend less than us do better too.

I think the main problem is the 1940s-style structure which can't cope with the huge number of people using it, the massive amount of waste and too many layers of management who just get in each other's way.

France closed their last ward in 1975, have we even managed to close mixed-*** wards yet?

[rolymiller]

Are you a barrister or solicitor then? I'm intrigued Kerr.

[WanChaiMiller]

TBF Excile that is your problem, you don not read the whole post, instead you pick words out that suit you

The Barnsley Nitpicker.

[great_fire]

And people on here who criticised Trump for saying this:

President Trump said that the WHO's estimated death rate for the coronavirus of 3.4% is a "false number," asserting that the real number is "way under 1%" during an interview with Sean Hannity

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...20-3?r=US&IR=T

The death rate has been estimated at 0.35% to 0.5%, so it looks like he was completely correct.

[animallittle3]

And people on here who criticised Trump for saying this:



https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...20-3?r=US&IR=T

The death rate has been estimated at 0.35% to 0.5%, so it looks like he was completely correct.

Well for a start the virus hasn't gone anywhere and is still with us so until it's impossible to catch the virus I'd suggest a hunch about figures is simply that .

Secondly it will be interesting what happens he " Opens America Up "

Thirdly you can always play down death rates with statistics , try saying I was right we've only had 75k deaths and see how that plays out .

[wrinkly]

And people on here who criticised Trump for saying this:



https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...20-3?r=US&IR=T

The death rate has been estimated at 0.35% to 0.5%, so it looks like he was completely correct.

Didn't WHO report that 3.4% of people reported to have coronavirus had died but it was impossible to know the exact mortality rate because it was impossible to know how many people had the virus but were not reported (perhaps they didn't even know they had it)

Trump then said:

"Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number," Trump told the Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday night. "Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people who do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild. They'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor."

Hard to believe but it appears that Donald may not have grasped the exact meaning of the WHO report

[CAMiller]

Didn't WHO report that 3.4% of people reported to have coronavirus had died but it was impossible to know the exact mortality rate because it was impossible to know how many people had the virus but were not reported (perhaps they didn't even know they had it)

Trump then said:

"Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number," Trump told the Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday night. "Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people who do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild. They'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor."

Hard to believe but it appears that Donald may not have grasped the exact meaning of the WHO report

Where I am it's around 2% of the general population who have tested positive have died whereas 20% of those tested positive in Nursing Homes have died giving an overall figure of around 6%.