Squeaky bum time!

atush

Deleted_User said:

tigerspill said:

SeeMe said:

justme111 said:

Yes but why would our death count be so much lower than Italian or Chinese then ?🤔

Good Point.

You cant compare death counts between countries as they are all measuring them differently.
The Italians are including everyone who has CV19 symptoms.  For example if a patient died of cancer and had CV19, they are included.  They reckon only 12% of the reported CV19 deaths in Italy directly relate to the virus.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronavirus-patients-died-italy/

And the Chinese are not counting people who test positive among infected, unless they also display symptoms. 20% are asymptomatic and everywhere else they are counted. 

The key difference is in the number of tests between countries. And probably in the quality of tests

Very true.  Spain bought a lot of tests from China an d they are only 30% reliable.

Testing is key and how both Singapore and South Korea turned back the tide.  But they had reliable testing and did so from Day one. At least from Monday health workers will now be tested.

Thrugelmir

atush said:

Deleted_User said:

tigerspill said:

SeeMe said:

justme111 said:

Yes but why would our death count be so much lower than Italian or Chinese then ?🤔

Good Point.

You cant compare death counts between countries as they are all measuring them differently.
The Italians are including everyone who has CV19 symptoms.  For example if a patient died of cancer and had CV19, they are included.  They reckon only 12% of the reported CV19 deaths in Italy directly relate to the virus.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronavirus-patients-died-italy/

And the Chinese are not counting people who test positive among infected, unless they also display symptoms. 20% are asymptomatic and everywhere else they are counted. 

The key difference is in the number of tests between countries. And probably in the quality of tests

Testing is key and how both Singapore and South Korea turned back the tide.  But they had reliable testing and did so from Day one. At least from Monday health workers will now be tested.

That's the experience from previous bouts of Asian flu. The world has opened up since then. 

Dox

Fair_Flummoxed said:

Much is, understandably, being done by Government to support businesses and charities and the people employed by them to minimise the impact on them at this particularly difficult time since the restrictions have been Government imposed and peoples' livelihoods are at risk through no fault of their own.

I have heard nothing, so far, regarding helping people with private pensions who may have been saving for decades, who are about to retire and who - again through no fault of their own - have seen the values of their hard saved for pensions fall sharply.  In my case, the value of my fairly modest pension fell by £15K over a 12 day period at the start of this crisis (some four weeks ago).  I haven't dared look online again to see its value.  I have been contributing to a pension for 32 years and planned (past tense!) to begin drawing down on it in less than three years.  

As you rightly comment, the government has moved to support people's livelihoods, but why do you feel they should do the same for savings?  Pensions are no different from any other savings product in that you choose where (and indeed whether) to invest your funds. In common with most other savings products, values can and do fluctuate according to market conditions. That's all that has happened here, albeit with a sharp downturn. As others have said, if you intended to retire in 3 years, why were you still invested in volatile funds rather than derisking over the last few years? You are free to make your own choices, but the government isn't there to bail you out if you make choices which turn out to be wrong for your proposed end goals.

Albermarle

Thrugelmir said:

nicknameless said:

Testing shortage - what testing shortage?  Prince Charlie got one lol.

At 71 in the at risk category. 

What about Boris, he is only 55 ?

Thrugelmir

Albermarle said:

Thrugelmir said:

nicknameless said:

Testing shortage - what testing shortage?  Prince Charlie got one lol.

At 71 in the at risk category. 

What about Boris, he is only 55 ?

As Prime Minister seems appropriate. Given the people he is in contact with. 

shinytop

Albermarle said:

Thrugelmir said:

nicknameless said:

Testing shortage - what testing shortage?  Prince Charlie got one lol.

At 71 in the at risk category. 

What about Boris, he is only 55 ?

Because he's the effing Prime Minister!!! 

Someone asked the same question on Any Questions yesterday.  The government minister patiently explained some of of the priorities for testing, which of course included NHS workers but also included people considered key to the overall corona virus effort.  As the leader of the country I think our PM falls into that category.

crv1963

To me there seems a number of things that all need to be considered at the same time-
1) Is the test reliable- aka the Spanish problem only 30% accurate- so BoJo can't be hounded for not widening testing if he or his experts thought the tests inaccurate- wait until you do think they're accurate but don't apply criticism to others that do use them- no one wants to add to another countries woes especially a partner country.
2) Priorities over who to test- heir to throne and key Govt players who are playing a major role in the efforts to manage it are key players, so clearly their contribution is of a higher impact than mine as one of thousands of frontline staff.
3) Each country is measuring its' death rate/ incidence of infection according to its' own standards, some are good, some average and some poor, so direct comparisons are invalid. Like most plagues it is the final death toll and infection rate that can only be broadly guessed at. 

Albermarle

Someone asked the same question on Any Questions yesterday.  The government minister patiently explained some of of the priorities for testing, which of course included NHS workers but also included people considered key to the overall corona virus effort.  As the leader of the country I think our PM falls into that category.

Testing an NHS worker, to see if it would be OK or not for them to go back to hands on work is obviously important.

If the PM has mild symptoms , he will follow the usual advice to self isolate and soon get better in a few days . Having a test will not make a big difference one way or another, especially as he can work from home.

I suppose generally I am a bit sceptical about widespread testing being that useful in actually preventing anything .

PennyForThem_2

And as was pointed out very succintly:
A test is for a point in time - nothing to say that an hour later that person who tested negative doesn't become infected.

Ceme3000

I think the antibody test which shows you have previously been infected will be critical to the economy especially if science demonstrates that this group have immunity.   It would obviously mean that people in this position could return to work which in turn would start to get the economy turning again as their numbers increased.
If this lockdown continued I could easily envisage a system whereby some sort of certificate is given to you confirming you had passed an antibody test which would allow you to return to some degree of normality.