advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
richardg said:
Aren't there more per million cases in Scotland than there are in England?
Click to expand...

(Putting aside your obsessive hatred of the SNP :rolleyes:)

The comprehensive number of deaths in Scotland from COVID-19, as of 3.5.20, is 2795.

The equivalent? figure for England and Wales (I haven't found England only data, yet), as of 1.5.20, is 33,408.

Scotland's population = circa 5.5 million.

England and Wales = circa 59 million.
 
richardg said:
Aren't there more per million cases in Scotland than there are in England?
Click to expand...
Quite similar according to the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/europe/united-kingdom-coronavirus-cases.html

But, as pointed out above, confirmed cases depends on the number of tests carried out. Number of deaths (per 100K population) is less confoundable and all three other nations are doing better on that score than England.

As an aside, why don't people do a bit of basic research themselves before posting rubbish? It's never been easier to fact check.
 
Last edited:
droodzilla said:
Quite similar accorsing to the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/europe/united-kingdom-coronavirus-cases.html

But, as pointed out above, confirmed cases depends on the number of tests carried out. Number of deaths (per 100K population) is less confoundable and all three other nations are doing better on that score than England.

As an aside, why don't people do a bit of basic research themselves before posting rubbish? It's never been easier to fact check.
Click to expand...
When the public enquiry begins, there can be no government or administration immune to scrutiny. Before we get to that, plenty of other bodies are going to have their say- those with the relevant scientific knowledge, local government, trade unions & professional bodies. They will head off any further political folly I trust.
 
SteveG said:
BTW if you think the comments from the usual SNP haters on here are bad you should see some of the spats between the Welsh and English at the moment. The difference in approach seems to be a bit more of a practical difficulty there as it seems quite a few people live in Wales but work in England (and while there will be some of that up here I doubt it's anything like as many).
Click to expand...

Always been the case though and mainly channelled via the rugby these days! The difference in Wales is that those wanting out of the UK are actually a small minority (Plaid had less than 10% vote share at the last GE). Most know the economy would last a month without needing a bailout. How would Scotland be looking right now with $0 to $30 oil? I doubt they could afford to furlough people for a start. EU bailout if qualified to join in the first place, God only knows what if not?
 
Ponty said:
Always been the case though and mainly channelled via the rugby these days! The difference in Wales is that those wanting out of the UK are actually a small minority (Plaid had less than 10% vote share at the last GE). Most know the economy would last a month without needing a bailout. How would Scotland be looking right now with $0 to $30 oil? I doubt they could afford to furlough people for a start. EU bailout if qualified to join in the first place, God only knows what if not?
Click to expand...
I watched your country’s political leader Mark Drakeford interviewed on Newsnight last night. What I heard was a practical, non partisan approach to protecting the Welsh public, explained in calm language that the majority of the viewers would have no difficulty understanding. I’ve also heard that from another leader.
Coming back to your point about the future economics of Scottish independence or for that matter Welsh independence/ Irish reunification- that’s all speculative and a handy distraction at the moment. Foreground, right now, is the challenge of dealing with the vast economic damage from Covid and the next wave of economic damage coming within six months from something else. Let’s get through this bit first.
 
droodzilla said:
As the government is fond of reminding us, the current situation is unprecedented. Common sense is not much use in such circumstances.

What the public needs is clear information about the nature and scale of the risk, delivered without political spin. We're getting the opposite of that and many people will die, through no fault of their own as a result.

The contrast with the approach in Germany and New Zealand (to pick just two of the many countries that have managed this better) could not be starker.
Click to expand...

According to David Spiegelhalter, if you’re fit and healthy and under 70, you’ve got no more chance of dying from C19 this year than anything else. There is probably a greater risk cycling to and from work than dying of C19.
 
Caledon1297 said:
(Putting aside your obsessive hatred of the SNP :rolleyes:)

The comprehensive number of deaths in Scotland from COVID-19, as of 3.5.20, is 2795.

The equivalent? figure for England and Wales (I haven't found England only data, yet), as of 1.5.20, is 33,408.

Scotland's population = circa 5.5 million.

England and Wales = circa 59 million.
Click to expand...
After starting lockdown much earlier, todays Malaysian statistics are deaths 0, total deaths 109, new cases 16
We have mostly gone back to work already. The huge UK death toll was unnecessary.
 
davidsrsb said:
After starting lockdown much earlier, todays Malaysian statistics are deaths 0, total deaths 109, new cases 16
We have mostly gone back to work already. The huge UK death toll was unnecessary.
Click to expand...
That’s going to be the crux: political actions/ preventable deaths. It’s notable that WHO urged countries to take scientifically validated measures to protect lives. Some political leaderships followed that advice and others chose not to, with starkly different death rates as a result. It seems no coincidence that the one leader who chose not just to ignore WHO guidance but to attempt to discredit WHO, is the one presiding over the highest death toll in the world.
 
Ponty said:
According to David Spiegelhalter, if you’re fit and healthy and under 70, you’ve got no more chance of dying from C19 this year than anything else. There is probably a greater risk cycling to and from work than dying of C19.
Click to expand...
Health is a public good. It's not about individual risk but the impact on society as a whole.

Also, Spiegelhalter was scathing about the government's use of statistics on Marr last Sunday.

But, even assuming your quoting him correctly, this glosses over so many critical issues as to be useless. For example, many people under 70 aren't fit and healthy but nevertheless lead outwardly normal lives (diabetics being an obvious example). What happens when we all start mixing together again using only "common sense" as our shield? How do employers manage a mixed workforce, some of whom are vulnerable and some aren't? What rights will a vulnerable worker have to walk away if the employer doesn't implement proper social distancing measures. What about public transport (bus driving is now one of the most dangerous occupations in the UK)?

These, and many others, are not questions which a good dose of "British common sense" can answer. They require clear guidance, setting out people's rights and obligations, all backed up by the best scientific evidence available. The government has fallen way short of that and thousands of people will dies as a result.

English exceptionalism is proving to be a fatal illness.
 
Last edited:
droodzilla said:
Health is a public good. It's not about individual risk but the impact on society as a whole.

Also, Spiegelhalter was scathing about the government's use of statistics on Marr last Sunday.

But, even assuming your quoting him correctly, this glosses over so many critical issues as to be useless. For example, many people under 70 aren't fit and healthy but nevertheless lead outwardly normal lives (diabetics being an obvious example). What happens when we all start mixing together again using only "common sense" as our shield? How do employers manage a mixed workforce, some of whom are vulnerable and some aren't? What rights will a vulnerable worker have to walk away if the employer doesn't implement proper social distancing measures. What about public transport (bus driving is now one of the most dangerous occupations in the UK)?

These, and many others, are not questions which a good dose of "British common sense" can answer. They require clear guidance, setting out people's rights and obligations, and backed up by the very best scientific evidence available. The government has fallen way short of that and thousands of people will dies as a result.

English exceptionalism is proving to be a fatal illness.
Click to expand...

Staying alive carries risk. People eat too much, drink too much, smoke etc whilst very clear govt guidance tells them not to. Common sense and personal responsibility will be paramount.
 
Ponty said:
Staying alive carries risk. People eat too much, drink too much, smoke etc whilst very clear govt guidance tells them not to. Common sense and personal responsibility will be paramount.
Click to expand...
That suggests you think people are responsible for their comorbidities? T2 diabetes, perhaps, but definitely not T1; and what about asthma?
 
Ponty said:
Staying alive carries risk. People eat too much, drink too much, smoke etc whilst very clear govt guidance tells them not to. Common sense and personal responsibility will be paramount.
Click to expand...

No equivalence between what you describe and people being at risk, or put at risk even, in this situation.
 
droodzilla said:
Health is a public good. It's not about individual risk but the impact on society as a whole.

Also, Spiegelhalter was scathing about the government's use of statistics on Marr last Sunday.

But, even assuming your quoting him correctly, this glosses over so many critical issues as to be useless. For example, many people under 70 aren't fit and healthy but nevertheless lead outwardly normal lives (diabetics being an obvious example). What happens when we all start mixing together again using only "common sense" as our shield? How do employers manage a mixed workforce, some of whom are vulnerable and some aren't? What rights will a vulnerable worker have to walk away if the employer doesn't implement proper social distancing measures. What about public transport (bus driving is now one of the most dangerous occupations in the UK)?

These, and many others, are not questions which a good dose of "British common sense" can answer. They require clear guidance, setting out people's rights and obligations, and backed up by the very best scientific evidence available. The government has fallen way short of that and thousands of people will dies as a result.

English exceptionalism is proving to be a fatal illness.
Click to expand...
If society could run purely on common sense, we wouldn’t need government. Common sense in the context of Johnson’s address= abdication from responsibility.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
That suggests you think people are responsible for their comorbidities? T2 diabetes, perhaps, but definitely not T1; and what about asthma?
Click to expand...

Of course, protect those who need protecting. For the vast majority, it is suggested that C19 presents no greater risk of death than anything else.
 
Ponty said:
Staying alive carries risk. People eat too much, drink too much, smoke etc whilst very clear govt guidance tells them not to. Common sense and personal responsibility will be paramount.
Click to expand...
For a lot of people, this means taking personal responsibility for answering the question, “Risk my life/ others’ lives by going to work, or lose my job and take my chances with universal credit?” Common sense is of limited help to individuals in making that choice. Common sense would suggest that if it falls to individuals to make that choice, we’re going to get another peak, and lots of people who have no choice in the matter are going to die.

So we should use what means we have - extension of the furlough scheme at the very least - to let people make a free choice.

The analogy I keep seeing is with blackouts during the war. Do you say, It’s up to you to take individual responsibility, or do you ask everyone to help out and make sure they have the means to do it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top