Covid-19 discussion thread

[Lencoboy]

Oh they're much better than mine Pulisa!! You should be a respected journalist.

Nice that we're havin' a bit of a larf about all this on here ATM, rather than working ourselves up into hysterical frenzies!

[Pamplemousse]

Anyone care to predict the Daily Fail's headline tomorrow morning....

No doubt "Killer" will feature somewhere prominently along with some powerfully emotive verb and a chilling prophecy of doom and devastation..

Not forgetting a plug for the Saturday mag supplement containing some z-lister's Covid diet plan and a feature on lockdown house improvements to get stuck into in between those bursts of mindfulness..

Actually...

[MyNameIsTerry]

Currently referenced on the BMJ site:

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...m2irdfMJvD_BwE

[Gary A]

Very slightly, 10 in a 1000 is now 13 or 14 in a 1000. Still 13 or 14 too many though.

Oddly enough though, that number isn’t consistent with deaths in hospital settings, which is where most deaths occur. When the data is gathered from hospital deaths, there is absolutely no difference in mortality whatsoever. Given that a hospital is where most deaths occur and is probably about the most controlled environment from which to gather this type of data, I think given enough time it’s not unlikely that this will turn out to be to do with increased infection rates rather than an actual increased mortality risk.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Two decades he had it for wasn't it? Although Trig wouldn't go that far Dave.

LOL I forgot about that bit. The writing for that show was brilliant.

Trig - us road sweepers have an old saying.
Rodney - oh yeah?
Trig - yeah. 'Look after your broom'.
Rodney - 'What, and your broom will look after you?'
Trig - 'Nah, look after your broom'. Silence.

I blame all those plates of British beef

[BikerMatt]

I blame all those plates of British beef

Nah it must've been the mind your head sign...... "Didn't you see it Trig?" "YES, but back then I couldn't read"

[fishman65]

Oddly enough though, that number isn’t consistent with deaths in hospital settings, which is where most deaths occur. When the data is gathered from hospital deaths, there is absolutely no difference in mortality whatsoever. Given that a hospital is where most deaths occur and is probably about the most controlled environment from which to gather this type of data, I think given enough time it’s not unlikely that this will turn out to be to do with increased infection rates rather than an actual increased mortality risk.

Do you reckon this could be a 'compliance motivation' tactic Gary? If it is, its fine by me.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Nah it must've been the mind your head sign...... "Didn't you see it Trig?" "YES, but back then I couldn't read"

If not the beef maybe he ate that sausage his mate Tony Angelino had down his trousers.

[BikerMatt]

If not the beef maybe he ate that sausage his mate Tony Angelino had down his trousers.

[glassgirlw]

Oddly enough though, that number isn’t consistent with deaths in hospital settings, which is where most deaths occur. When the data is gathered from hospital deaths, there is absolutely no difference in mortality whatsoever. Given that a hospital is where most deaths occur and is probably about the most controlled environment from which to gather this type of data, I think given enough time it’s not unlikely that this will turn out to be to do with increased infection rates rather than an actual increased mortality risk.

I think it’s absolutely tied to higher infection rates. 1% of 10,000 cases will be lower than 1% of 100,000 cases (or whatever the actual mortality rate turns out to be). That’s what they’re saying over here anyway. I guess only time will tell for sure.