Since when the South Koreans became far more subservient than the Member for Huddersfieldtowny44 wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:44Since when did moderators views trump those of the retired proletariat?Manoverboard wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:10No she can't.
Gill knows it, I know it and now you know it .... see my posting #4007.
My last chinese was a Vesta Chow Mien,, dont like all that foriegn muck, hell i'm from lancashire, give me fish n chips, black pudding and tripe n onions, done in milk obviously..
screwy wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 16:11My last chinese was a Vesta Chow Mien,, dont like all that foriegn muck, hell i'm from lancashire, give me fish n chips, black pudding and tripe n onions, done in milk obviously..
Lubbly Jubbly, we used to enjoy the treat of a Vesta Prawn Curry ... didn't know any better of course
Yes! save a sick bag for me... I can’t get within two metres of tribe or else I would be throwing up…the smell is awful.Stephen wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 16:24screwy wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 16:11My last chinese was a Vesta Chow Mien,, dont like all that foriegn muck, hell i'm from lancashire, give me fish n chips, black pudding and tripe n onions, done in milk obviously..Onelife wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:26
I only eat them as a laxative
…how do you get on with eating Chinese screwy?
The ones you get served in a tray, not the chinese you eat whole
No, I can't mention South Korea, I've been told !!towny44 wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:05
Gill, you can certainly quote S Korea, and I totally accept their statistics, as regards covid19 performance are much better than ours, as is Germany and I have absolutely no idea why, as I am sure our govt. would also agree.
I also accept that some of our performances have been poor, but few can be in any attributed to lack of govt action. Care homes is maybe one exception but I have yet to see any proof that the govt. specifically rejected testing of care home patients who had covid symptoms prior to being discharged. However it does appear that PHE allowed hospitals to discharge as many patients as possible from hospital in the early stages of the pandemic, presumably to free up beds for the expected overwhelming of hospitals ICU beds. Fortunately this did not happen, but the media would been baying for blood if it had and we had not made every effort to free up as many beds as we could have.
As far as your preoccupation with testing is concerned, this just seems like mathematic semantics. When we had limited testing capacity this did hurt us, but the govt have made massive strides to increase our capacity, and now that we have excess capacity the focus should be on whether we are testing in the right areas, and for swab tests this is now universal, anyone with symptoms can request a test. As regards the antibody test, this must be done in rigorously managed trials to try and give us some idea of just how many might have had the disease and could possibly have some immunity.
So knowing how many are being tested, now seems to me irrelevant.
What I can tell you for certain is that nursing home managers were pressured into taking theses patients against their better judgment...because of greedy care home bosses.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 16:46No, I can't mention South Korea, I've been told !!towny44 wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:05
Gill, you can certainly quote S Korea, and I totally accept their statistics, as regards covid19 performance are much better than ours, as is Germany and I have absolutely no idea why, as I am sure our govt. would also agree.
I also accept that some of our performances have been poor, but few can be in any attributed to lack of govt action. Care homes is maybe one exception but I have yet to see any proof that the govt. specifically rejected testing of care home patients who had covid symptoms prior to being discharged. However it does appear that PHE allowed hospitals to discharge as many patients as possible from hospital in the early stages of the pandemic, presumably to free up beds for the expected overwhelming of hospitals ICU beds. Fortunately this did not happen, but the media would been baying for blood if it had and we had not made every effort to free up as many beds as we could have.
As far as your preoccupation with testing is concerned, this just seems like mathematic semantics. When we had limited testing capacity this did hurt us, but the govt have made massive strides to increase our capacity, and now that we have excess capacity the focus should be on whether we are testing in the right areas, and for swab tests this is now universal, anyone with symptoms can request a test. As regards the antibody test, this must be done in rigorously managed trials to try and give us some idea of just how many might have had the disease and could possibly have some immunity.
So knowing how many are being tested, now seems to me irrelevant.
If I recall correctly, the government instructions for discharging patients to care homes didn't include the need for a Coronavirus test. At that time, I expect the hospitals were hard pressed, and tests weren't so readily available, so it seems that the hospitals just followed the advice they had been given, which we now know seeded C19 in many care homes.
I haven't got a preoccupation with testing, I've just been responding to other peoples posts, trying to get the point over that the amount of tests done is not the same as the amount of actual humans that have been tested. This information was provided to us at the start, but stopped being provided on or around 21st May. No explanation had been given why, and I think that if the information was deemed relevant at the start, it doesn't just suddenly become irrelevant. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that the figure is being hidden, for some reason.
That quote doesn't say that population density is a major factor for the spread of coronavirus.oldbluefox wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 14:51"Deprived areas tend to have higher population densities than richer areas therefore people in these areas are more likely to have contact with an infected person when they leave their homes for exercise, medical care, food shopping, etc. The higher the population density the more difficult maintaining social distancing is likely to be".Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 14:11"Population density is a major factor"
It may be a factor - but it's your opinion that it's a major factor - but as I said we don't have to caveat everything we say
Prof Dave Gordon, Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute and Director of the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research, University of Bristol
"Population density is a well-recognised association with the spread of respiratory pathogens".
Prof Keith Neal, Emeritus Professor of the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases, University of Nottingham
It's hardly just an opinion, it's a major factor.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... privation/
If I 'leapt' on anything negative, I'd be posting news several times a day with new negative events. However, I don't, as I know people don't really like it, so I just respond to other peoples tweets.Mervyn and Trish wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:22I don't disagree with that. What I did point out is that you never quote any example of how they have handled it well but leap on anything you can find that suggests they've handled it badly. For example your regularly voiced opinion that they locked down, in your view, too late. And your determination to undermine the fact that we have carried out more tests than anyone else.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 13:56The government is responsible for our coronavirus response and must be held accountable for the outcome, good or bad.
I presume you mean my reference to population density. There are numerous scientific references that support that.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 13:56You once again say that I present my opinions as established facts, yet in the very next sentence you present your own opinion as an established fact.
the information about the amount of people tested was given in a daily slide up until 21st May.Mervyn and Trish wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:41Again you have chosen selected data.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 14:11You don't know that. It is speculation and it is not substantiated by the figures last time they published tests and people tested. One figure was not double the other.
It has been widely reported and I have not seen a denial by the government. As shown in the slide I posted, the amount of people tested was approx 57% of the amount of tests done.
The figures on the gov.uk website, which took me less than a minute to find, up to 2nd June, show 1,770,451 cumulative tests in what they call Pillar 1 swab tests, carried out on 1,267,099 people. That is approx 72%.
Rather more than your chosen figure. A lot more than 50%. They don't need to deny it. The numbers are there on a public website.
It is Pillar 2 that are currently unavailable but it seems a reasonable assumption that the testing methodology is the same since they are also swab tests.
Gill, my assumption would be that by the 21st May test availability had begun to exceed demand, therefore knowing the number of tests done was by then irrelevant. Which is the point I have been unsuccessfully trying to get you to understand over recent posts.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 16:46No, I can't mention South Korea, I've been told !!towny44 wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:05
Gill, you can certainly quote S Korea, and I totally accept their statistics, as regards covid19 performance are much better than ours, as is Germany and I have absolutely no idea why, as I am sure our govt. would also agree.
I also accept that some of our performances have been poor, but few can be in any attributed to lack of govt action. Care homes is maybe one exception but I have yet to see any proof that the govt. specifically rejected testing of care home patients who had covid symptoms prior to being discharged. However it does appear that PHE allowed hospitals to discharge as many patients as possible from hospital in the early stages of the pandemic, presumably to free up beds for the expected overwhelming of hospitals ICU beds. Fortunately this did not happen, but the media would been baying for blood if it had and we had not made every effort to free up as many beds as we could have.
As far as your preoccupation with testing is concerned, this just seems like mathematic semantics. When we had limited testing capacity this did hurt us, but the govt have made massive strides to increase our capacity, and now that we have excess capacity the focus should be on whether we are testing in the right areas, and for swab tests this is now universal, anyone with symptoms can request a test. As regards the antibody test, this must be done in rigorously managed trials to try and give us some idea of just how many might have had the disease and could possibly have some immunity.
So knowing how many are being tested, now seems to me irrelevant.
If I recall correctly, the government instructions for discharging patients to care homes didn't include the need for a Coronavirus test. At that time, I expect the hospitals were hard pressed, and tests weren't so readily available, so it seems that the hospitals just followed the advice they had been given, which we now know seeded C19 in many care homes.
I haven't got a preoccupation with testing, I've just been responding to other peoples posts, trying to get the point over that the amount of tests done is not the same as the amount of actual humans that have been tested. This information was provided to us at the start, but stopped being provided on or around 21st May. No explanation had been given why, and I think that if the information was deemed relevant at the start, it doesn't just suddenly become irrelevant. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that the figure is being hidden, for some reason.
What is clear is that if you were right that every person tested counted as two tests then the number of tests would be double the number of people. It never has been. That's not an opinion. It's simple maths.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 17:21the information about the amount of people tested was given in a daily slide up until 21st May.Mervyn and Trish wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 15:41Again you have chosen selected data.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 14:11You don't know that. It is speculation and it is not substantiated by the figures last time they published tests and people tested. One figure was not double the other.
It has been widely reported and I have not seen a denial by the government. As shown in the slide I posted, the amount of people tested was approx 57% of the amount of tests done.
The figures on the gov.uk website, which took me less than a minute to find, up to 2nd June, show 1,770,451 cumulative tests in what they call Pillar 1 swab tests, carried out on 1,267,099 people. That is approx 72%.
Rather more than your chosen figure. A lot more than 50%. They don't need to deny it. The numbers are there on a public website.
It is Pillar 2 that are currently unavailable but it seems a reasonable assumption that the testing methodology is the same since they are also swab tests.
They have stopped doing this - I'm afraid, by suddenly changing the way they present information, they are not providing clarity
I'm not alone in saying this
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/ ... ting-data/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, I'm leaving it here, as this has taken up enough time today.
If you want the last word that is fine , but whatever you say, it's still just our opinions - none of us are 'right'
Ray B wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 18:57Why do the news media now pick holes in the new regs that you Must soon use a face covering to travel on public transport. It does not stop transmission but it is another form of defense to which we must embrace to try and stop this virus in its tracks.
We got some very good reusable ones on line. Washable at 60 degrees to kill virus and other bugs. Non medical so not depriving health and care professionals.Onelife wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 19:36Ray B wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 18:57Why do the news media now pick holes in the new regs that you Must soon use a face covering to travel on public transport. It does not stop transmission but it is another form of defense to which we must embrace to try and stop this virus in its tracks.
I’m not going to harp on about the delay in the using of face mask...I would however be justified in doing so as I have repeatedly been saying we should have been using them for months.
With today’s announcement we now have the chance of moving in the right direction in getting on top of infections…the normalizing of the use of face masks will now allow people to feel ok about going out wearing a face covering….I would have preferred it had the government said that masks should be wore at all times outside of the home… but get making your masks, this will surely be the next move.
We wouldn't cruise on that basis either Gill.Gill W wrote: 04 Jun 2020, 22:09I bought some reusable face masks about a month ago, and my husband has fashioned some masks from old T shirts. However, I find the face mask quite uncomfortable to wear - rather claustrophobic.
I won’t be going on public transport any time soon, so it doesn’t affect me as yet, and I’m very socially distant on my walks. However, if it became compulsory to wear one outside the house, i wouldn’t go out except for essentials.
Another thing that occurred to me, was that, although cruises aren’t public transport, they are conveyances that large groups of people use, can you imagine a cruise where you had to wear a mask every time you left your cabin? I just wouldn’t cruise on that basis
