Home & Garden1 min ago
Who Can Blame Them?
the UK has the worst death record in Europe
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Too much emphasis has been placed on the Case Fatality Rate, but the "with/of" debate is also completely overblown. During the period when the epidemic was at its worst in the UK, more than twice as many people were dying per week as could be expected. That speaks to "of", not "with"; people weren't dying who were going to (soon) anyway. The UK isn't even the more horrific example in terms of excess deaths -- one can, for example, look at New York state to see something similarly horrific, if not more so.
Covid-19 is a serious health crisis by any sensible measure, and it hasn't even ended yet. The UK will be extremely lucky to have kept excess deaths to only tens of thousands. Thus far, I've been relieved to see that case numbers nationally are holding steady or declining over the last month, so it looks like the easing has been judged reasonably well so far. But, even if the disease turns out to be less harmful than feared, there had to be a serious and drastic response to a disease that was novel and seemed deadly. Even now the infection fatality rate for Covid-19 is an order of magnitude greater, at least, than any flu. There has been lots learnt over the last few months, both in terms of better treatment techniques and a better understanding of the risk.
https:/
https:/
Covid-19 is a serious health crisis by any sensible measure, and it hasn't even ended yet. The UK will be extremely lucky to have kept excess deaths to only tens of thousands. Thus far, I've been relieved to see that case numbers nationally are holding steady or declining over the last month, so it looks like the easing has been judged reasonably well so far. But, even if the disease turns out to be less harmful than feared, there had to be a serious and drastic response to a disease that was novel and seemed deadly. Even now the infection fatality rate for Covid-19 is an order of magnitude greater, at least, than any flu. There has been lots learnt over the last few months, both in terms of better treatment techniques and a better understanding of the risk.
https:/
https:/
NJ: consider what's happening in the US, where politicians went the opposite route. Confused and garbled messaging, deliberate undermining of health experts, and frankly not taking the threat seriously, has meant that the disease is now totally out of control and many more will die than should ever have been the case.
Nor is there anything sinister in the idea that exaggerating the threat is more effective than constantly mitigating it. It's unreasonable, for example, to expect people to tune into, or follow, a full discussion of the technical merits or otherwise of mask use; a message that states, in essence, that not wearing masks puts you and others at risk is far clearer, and more effective, than any equivocation.
Nor is there anything sinister in the idea that exaggerating the threat is more effective than constantly mitigating it. It's unreasonable, for example, to expect people to tune into, or follow, a full discussion of the technical merits or otherwise of mask use; a message that states, in essence, that not wearing masks puts you and others at risk is far clearer, and more effective, than any equivocation.
Tora,
In mid March the Government themselves were not clear, and the advice was uncommitted and contradictory. There were still rumblings of Herd Immunity.
Many people were still commuting to work, and going to crowded offices.
Obviously when lockdown did come everyone obeyed (except for a few of your Government chums).
In mid March the Government themselves were not clear, and the advice was uncommitted and contradictory. There were still rumblings of Herd Immunity.
Many people were still commuting to work, and going to crowded offices.
Obviously when lockdown did come everyone obeyed (except for a few of your Government chums).
I'm not altogether convinced that Gromit can hide behind government advice, though. It was understandable that the Government was going to defer on national action, but individually it was clear that people should have made the decision at least to cut back on high-exposure-risk activities like pubs, etc. Even when there was a low personal risk, the responsible course of action in early- to mid-March was to reduce the chance of catching the disease and/or passing it on to others as far as possible.
In the early days of course even some government critics, like the government, didn't see any case for lock downs at all and didn't see what the fuss was about
https:/
https:/
jim360
Going to work I was exposed to thousands of customers everyday. So going from there to the pub watching footy with 6-8 mates was not high exposure, and therefore not to be avoided.
As I say, Saturday when the pubs reopen will be high exposure, and I will avoid it.
That is not a contradictory position. Facts and learning change as the pandemic has gone on.
Going to work I was exposed to thousands of customers everyday. So going from there to the pub watching footy with 6-8 mates was not high exposure, and therefore not to be avoided.
As I say, Saturday when the pubs reopen will be high exposure, and I will avoid it.
That is not a contradictory position. Facts and learning change as the pandemic has gone on.
NJ, if the argument is that the UK has actually had far more cases of infection than it is reporting then one has to accept that the same applies to everywhere else, all being on the basis of asymptomatic and other uncounted cases. This still leaves the comparison unchanged except that the percentage drops from 14% (and 18%, 15%..) to something lower and from 0.5% to something minuscule. The unnecessary UK deaths are still horrendous and their count is unchanged.
I hold completely separate any discussions of politico-economic considerations, particularly any discussion of a possible conspiracy to terrify the public into submission. The life or death outcome and how that is decided or comes about is what I am upset over in this case - the stench of failure hits me.
The discussion of "excess deaths" as derived from comparisons of one year to the next is something I find uninteresting because it smacks of generated fog. That said, one can look into that as a parallel preoccupation. If we do then let's consider that the country that has the 0.5% Covid death rate I mentioned offers an interesting take. This year they have a negative "excess death rate" - they actually have fewer deaths than the same time last year and/or the corresponding average in recent years. It presumably follows that a country that has a bad outcome from dealing with Covid (the UK) suffers a jump in the overall death rate while a country which coped better actually had a "bonus" or "dividend" of additional lives saved, an increase in life expectancy outside the Covid cohort. On that observation one might conclude that the whole of society, Covid sufferers and non-Covid sufferers ended up on the losing side in a disorganised country - that has the feel of logic to it. The respective cultures drove one lower while the other was buoyed. Food for thought, innit ? Let's stop avoiding the uncomfortable conclusions and grasp the nettle, call a spade a spade.
I hold completely separate any discussions of politico-economic considerations, particularly any discussion of a possible conspiracy to terrify the public into submission. The life or death outcome and how that is decided or comes about is what I am upset over in this case - the stench of failure hits me.
The discussion of "excess deaths" as derived from comparisons of one year to the next is something I find uninteresting because it smacks of generated fog. That said, one can look into that as a parallel preoccupation. If we do then let's consider that the country that has the 0.5% Covid death rate I mentioned offers an interesting take. This year they have a negative "excess death rate" - they actually have fewer deaths than the same time last year and/or the corresponding average in recent years. It presumably follows that a country that has a bad outcome from dealing with Covid (the UK) suffers a jump in the overall death rate while a country which coped better actually had a "bonus" or "dividend" of additional lives saved, an increase in life expectancy outside the Covid cohort. On that observation one might conclude that the whole of society, Covid sufferers and non-Covid sufferers ended up on the losing side in a disorganised country - that has the feel of logic to it. The respective cultures drove one lower while the other was buoyed. Food for thought, innit ? Let's stop avoiding the uncomfortable conclusions and grasp the nettle, call a spade a spade.
// The discussion of "excess deaths" as derived from comparisons of one year to the next is something I find uninteresting because it smacks of generated fog. //
Hmm. It's arguably far more reliable a measure than the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) because:
1. CFR is too sensitive to factors such as testing rates, testing accuracy, testing criteria, etc etc;
2. CFR is therefore far too variable between countries to allow for a meaningful comparison;
3. All-Cause Excess Mortality takes into account the wider impact of the pandemic, eg deaths avoided because of less travel, or deaths added because of cancelled operations, and is therefore a more robust measure of the overall human cost;
4. The Background Death Rate is reasonably stable across countries (up to some local factors) that means it's actually possible to draw sensible comparisons.
None of this lets the UK "off the hook" either -- it's still among the most-affected countries by excess mortality rate.
Hmm. It's arguably far more reliable a measure than the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) because:
1. CFR is too sensitive to factors such as testing rates, testing accuracy, testing criteria, etc etc;
2. CFR is therefore far too variable between countries to allow for a meaningful comparison;
3. All-Cause Excess Mortality takes into account the wider impact of the pandemic, eg deaths avoided because of less travel, or deaths added because of cancelled operations, and is therefore a more robust measure of the overall human cost;
4. The Background Death Rate is reasonably stable across countries (up to some local factors) that means it's actually possible to draw sensible comparisons.
None of this lets the UK "off the hook" either -- it's still among the most-affected countries by excess mortality rate.
//Karl 19,28, what a brilliant post and so very very true You deserve best answer of the week , and a fanfare of trumpets. well spoken.//
Except that it is factually incorrect in at least one very important respect. Still, never mind. What is it they say - you can fool some of the people all of the time....
I'm not doubting it's a nasty disease, Jim. But I seriously question the strategy for dealing with it. This country (and most others) has had its economy effectively closed down for three months. The wealth accumulated over th epast ten years has been squandered in those months. Its health service has had vast amounts of its resources diverted to tackle the virus at the expense of just about everything else. It is now quite clear that far more damage will follow than the virus would cause. There has been little thought in the public's mind about the very serious - in fact disastrous - economic consequences that will follow from that strategy. The government has shown no sign of emphasising it or even mentioning it.
//Nor is there anything sinister in the idea that exaggerating the threat is more effective than constantly mitigating it.//
I completely disagree. It wasn't being done instead of mitigating it. It wasn't "either" "or". I don't suggest the threat should be trivialised. But there is something sinister about a government frightening its people by deliberately exaggerating a threat in order to get them to comply with measures which they probably would not agree to do if the threat were presented at its real level. Especially when some of the measures were muddled, garbled, wrongly implemented and of little effect anyway.
The UK needs to recover from its mistakes. It needs to reopen its economy pronto and it needs to do so without hindering the effective running of businesses with pettyfogging rules which will be of little benefit. It also needs to get its children back to school. The greatest scandal in this entire fiasco is that children can go shopping, to a theme park, to the zoo, to the seaside. From next week they can go to McDonalds, to a cafe, to a restaurant but the schools cannot cope with keeping them "safe" in the same way as all those establishments can.
The disease has not gone away. It won't go away until it's ready. Those people who wish to hide under the bed can continue to do so (so long as they don't expect the taxpayer to pay their wages). But it is simply unsustainable to continue the way we are.
Except that it is factually incorrect in at least one very important respect. Still, never mind. What is it they say - you can fool some of the people all of the time....
I'm not doubting it's a nasty disease, Jim. But I seriously question the strategy for dealing with it. This country (and most others) has had its economy effectively closed down for three months. The wealth accumulated over th epast ten years has been squandered in those months. Its health service has had vast amounts of its resources diverted to tackle the virus at the expense of just about everything else. It is now quite clear that far more damage will follow than the virus would cause. There has been little thought in the public's mind about the very serious - in fact disastrous - economic consequences that will follow from that strategy. The government has shown no sign of emphasising it or even mentioning it.
//Nor is there anything sinister in the idea that exaggerating the threat is more effective than constantly mitigating it.//
I completely disagree. It wasn't being done instead of mitigating it. It wasn't "either" "or". I don't suggest the threat should be trivialised. But there is something sinister about a government frightening its people by deliberately exaggerating a threat in order to get them to comply with measures which they probably would not agree to do if the threat were presented at its real level. Especially when some of the measures were muddled, garbled, wrongly implemented and of little effect anyway.
The UK needs to recover from its mistakes. It needs to reopen its economy pronto and it needs to do so without hindering the effective running of businesses with pettyfogging rules which will be of little benefit. It also needs to get its children back to school. The greatest scandal in this entire fiasco is that children can go shopping, to a theme park, to the zoo, to the seaside. From next week they can go to McDonalds, to a cafe, to a restaurant but the schools cannot cope with keeping them "safe" in the same way as all those establishments can.
The disease has not gone away. It won't go away until it's ready. Those people who wish to hide under the bed can continue to do so (so long as they don't expect the taxpayer to pay their wages). But it is simply unsustainable to continue the way we are.
The British governments claim of fame.( The NHS didn't get overwhelmed. No it didn't, because most patients were shipped off to care homes,( they did get overwhelmed) No figures for the people who died at home from the virus, people who were told, either their not ill enough to be admitted, or no ambulance available, and we will never no that figure. Who needs a travel industry that will kill thousands more in the coming months, and infect thousands more.
Health policy is often guided by creative exaggeration. Smoking doesn't always kill; unsafe sex isn't necessarily going to lead to you catching an STD, etc. But by overstating the risks more people are minded to make the ultimately saner decisions. Moreover, in Covid-19's case this is even more important because the risk is not necessarily to you but to others. I can't say I've ever been worried for my own health as a result of Covid-19, both because my chances of catching it in the last four months have been extremely low and because I don't have the underlying conditions that would make me vulnerable -- but I'm living with people who I would guess are in a more vulnerable position, and I don't apologise for having no desire to needlessly expose them by needlessly exposing myself.
As a separate point, it's at least a little misleading to say that neither the public nor the Government have given thought or attention to the economic consequences. Many of the public have already had their livelihoods affected drastically, both in the UK and elsewhere, and the very reason the Government was dithering over early action was because they were well aware of what the economic consequences were likely to be. Hence, also, the extensive interventions from what is now likely to be the most socialist Tory Government in history. Covering wages, bailing out (some of) the self-employed, etc etc.
It's also a question of what made sense at the time. In retrospect, the Government was too far behind the curve, so that it was after all forced to lock down for longer and in a more widespread way. But they can be excused at least for wanting to delay for precisely the economic concerns that you highlight.
I suppose what I'm arguing is that the mistakes came before the lockdown decision, rather than the lockdown itself.
As a separate point, it's at least a little misleading to say that neither the public nor the Government have given thought or attention to the economic consequences. Many of the public have already had their livelihoods affected drastically, both in the UK and elsewhere, and the very reason the Government was dithering over early action was because they were well aware of what the economic consequences were likely to be. Hence, also, the extensive interventions from what is now likely to be the most socialist Tory Government in history. Covering wages, bailing out (some of) the self-employed, etc etc.
It's also a question of what made sense at the time. In retrospect, the Government was too far behind the curve, so that it was after all forced to lock down for longer and in a more widespread way. But they can be excused at least for wanting to delay for precisely the economic concerns that you highlight.
I suppose what I'm arguing is that the mistakes came before the lockdown decision, rather than the lockdown itself.
//I hold completely separate any discussions of politico-economic considerations,//
Well you shouldn't. The two are inextricably linked. A patient dying from a disease that was not properly treated because of the emphasis on treatment of Covid treatment is just as dead. And they will become more prevalent as the socio-economic problems kick in.
As an aside Iceland has a population near enough the same as my local authority area. My area has 600 fewer reported cases. But it's a silly comparison - just as silly as comparing Iceland to the UK.
Well you shouldn't. The two are inextricably linked. A patient dying from a disease that was not properly treated because of the emphasis on treatment of Covid treatment is just as dead. And they will become more prevalent as the socio-economic problems kick in.
As an aside Iceland has a population near enough the same as my local authority area. My area has 600 fewer reported cases. But it's a silly comparison - just as silly as comparing Iceland to the UK.
Togo, I believe Iceland is open to any Schengen and/or UK originating passengers plus Icelandic nationals coming from anywhere - arrivals have to submit to a Corona test or else go into quarantine for 14 days. Positive test results lead to isolation until recovered.
NJ, agreed it is silly comparing Iceland and the UK. My contention is that the UK needs something to aspire to, Iceland would not be a bad role model. Silly again, far too ambitious, reliably achieving mediocrity would be more realistic. Still, it's embarrassing for the UK to be so backward.
NJ, agreed it is silly comparing Iceland and the UK. My contention is that the UK needs something to aspire to, Iceland would not be a bad role model. Silly again, far too ambitious, reliably achieving mediocrity would be more realistic. Still, it's embarrassing for the UK to be so backward.
When it comes to general healthcare, Karl, the UK is mediocre compared to many advanced countries. It has a Health Service which is not and never has been the "envy of the world". Although it has highly skilled and dedicated staff, it is a cumbersome and inefficient organisation and many of its shortcomings have been exposed during this crisis. In fact, most things (with one or two exceptions) that the government has its fingers in are similarly unfit for purpose. But the NHS won't change because too many people seem to idolise it and changing it to something more suitable is akin to tying a litter of puppies in a sack and dropping them into the canal.
Latest Posts
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News1 min ago
Body & Soul1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Amazon Refund...does It Exist?
How it Works4 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|