Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 5)
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
He hasn't pulled the funding. I don't think he will either. He says he is "going to look at it". Which is Trump's typical way of applying leverage.
On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
Aren't the US a year or so adrift with their payments anyway? "I'm not paying anymore" isn't much of a threat if you've already not been paying. The Chinese do pay.On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
hidetheelephants said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
He hasn't pulled the funding. I don't think he will either. He says he is "going to look at it". Which is Trump's typical way of applying leverage.
On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
Aren't the US a year or so adrift with their payments anyway? "I'm not paying anymore" isn't much of a threat if you've already not been paying. The Chinese do pay.On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/...
"Trump’s suggestion to reduce WHO’s funding comes after he already proposed in the White House’s budget request for fiscal year 2021 cutting in half the amount Congress allocated the agency in 2020 — from roughly $122 million to less than $58 million. Still by far the highest contributor.
among WHO’s 194 member states, the U.S. remains the greatest contributor to the agency’s $4.8 billion budget." - Source: Politico.com
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 8th April 05:52
Trump said yesterday that the UK government have asked the US government for 200 ventilators as we are ‘desperate’ for them.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump...
Jimbeaux said:
hidetheelephants said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
He hasn't pulled the funding. I don't think he will either. He says he is "going to look at it". Which is Trump's typical way of applying leverage.
On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
Aren't the US a year or so adrift with their payments anyway? "I'm not paying anymore" isn't much of a threat if you've already not been paying. The Chinese do pay.On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/...
"Trump’s suggestion to reduce WHO’s funding comes after he already proposed in the White House’s budget request for fiscal year 2021 cutting in half the amount Congress allocated the agency in 2020 — from roughly $122 million to less than $58 million. Still by far the highest contributor.
among WHO’s 194 member states, the U.S. remains the greatest contributor to the agency’s $4.8 billion budget." - Source: Politico.com
On the matter of journalism and the catalogue of silly, repetitive, point-scoring, partisan and basically s
t-stirring questions, Sky is now reporting other journalists' questions as lead news items: 'questions are being asked' NSS you're asking them. At least, underneath this garbage dressed up as reporting, they're carrying a comment from former Cabinet Secretary Lord Pickles that Raab has the power to deal with any circumstances that may arise.They're also being told in interviews that decisions (about when/how) on lockdown depend on data and medical/scientific advice not a false and rigid timetable that journalists believe exists or should exist. Listening isn't their strength.
hidetheelephants said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
He hasn't pulled the funding. I don't think he will either. He says he is "going to look at it". Which is Trump's typical way of applying leverage.
On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
Aren't the US a year or so adrift with their payments anyway? "I'm not paying anymore" isn't much of a threat if you've already not been paying. The Chinese do pay.On the WHO, they tiptoed around China in the early stages of the outbreak. When they eventually got access to Wuhan, they were granted very limited access. And they were quite meek in accepting what the Chinese government were prepared to offer in terms of access.
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affects the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affects the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
turbobloke said:
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
Testing from Jan, being very prepared. Testing and trace isolation. It is clear high testing makes a massive impact on deaths. To think 2 weeks ago we were testing not even a hundredth of what Germany was doing.The whole herd strategy was the biggest mistake and has lead to deaths that most likely wouldn't have happened with a strategy similar to Germany.
turbobloke said:
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
Doesn't look an unreasonable line of questioning to me. That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
The vastly greater number of tests completed allow for better isolation as many more people will know for certain they are infected. They have also followed up many more people who might be affected by association, even though many of those people show no symptoms.
Logically, if they are managing to find a higher proportion of cases, it should result in a smaller epidemic. It is too early to be certain this is what is happening from the publicly available data - however, based on Germany's recent announcement they plan to open back up their economy in the next few days, it seems likely the government there must be seeing some reasonable positive signs based on hospital admissions etc.
Thesprucegoose said:
The whole herd strategy was the biggest mistake and has lead to deaths that most likely wouldn't have happened with a strategy similar to Germany.
Think you will find that is exactly what they are going for. Just coupled with significant testing to try and minimise the pace of any new outbreak.EddieSteadyGo said:
turbobloke said:
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
Doesn't look an unreasonable line of questioning to me. That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
The vastly greater number of tests completed allow for better isolation as many more people will know for certain they are infected. They have also followed up many more people who might be affected by association, even though many of those people show no symptoms <snip>.
If Germany tests more, they inevitably find a larger number of cases, and the death rate appears lower than with a nation testing less and finding fewer cases. They get a bigger number to divide by.
This is more critical to the published rate and more obvious that any waffle defending baseless conclusions. Journalists should know, and if not, learn more quickly than we see.
turbobloke said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
turbobloke said:
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
Doesn't look an unreasonable line of questioning to me. That isn't known, the question is baseless and bad but good for agitation.
There are different numbers, based on significantly different levels of testing which fundamentally affect the calculated rate without reflecting anything fundamental, which then renders the above (false) conclusion unavailable; do any journalists have an IQ above potted plant level? A GCSE or better in anything apart from stirring the potty? Oops two silly questions, but the irony value is worth it.
The vastly greater number of tests completed allow for better isolation as many more people will know for certain they are infected. They have also followed up many more people who might be affected by association, even though many of those people show no symptoms <snip>.
If Germany tests more, they inevitably find a larger number of cases, and the death rate appears lower than with a nation testing less and finding fewer cases. They get a bigger number to divide by.
This is more critical to the published rate and more obvious that any waffle defending baseless conclusions. Journalists should know, and if not, learn more quickly than we see.
Thesprucegoose said:
turbobloke said:
Another belter just now "why is Germany managing to keep it's death rate lower".
Testing from Jan, being very prepared. Testing and trace isolation. It is clear high testing makes a massive impact on deaths. To think 2 weeks ago we were testing not even a hundredth of what Germany was doing.The whole herd strategy was the biggest mistake and has lead to deaths that most likely wouldn't have happened with a strategy similar to Germany.
A population in which a significant number of recovered cases, without necessarily being any particular number, is helpful when considering whether a nation's health service would be overwhelmed after any form of lockdown release. The proportion at whatever level will be a key refined data input to modelling.
The two types of testing that matter now are testing NHS and other care/front line workers for the presence of the virus, and wider testing to get to know what proportion oif the population has had the virus. See above. The latter can and will be much wider than the former, given it deals with the entire uk population not a subgroup of workers.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Think you will find that is exactly what they are going for. Just coupled with significant testing to try and minimise the pace of any new outbreak.
Well that is not the same strategy is it then. No one has compared the two countries.The government dropped the ball massively, swept under the carpet, people died needlessly, it was a gamble and it didn't pay off.
The UK failed on being ready for mass testing, scaling up for an emergency and having a clear decisive plan.
turbobloke said:
There was no herd strategy, it was inferred by journalists not implied by ministers. Then leapt on by those wanting something to leap on.
As I posted yesterday - there are three options any country has. They are as follows; Option 1 : Eliminate the virus - requires a much, much stricter lockdown than we currently have, probably for around three months. All businesses close. No one leaves their neighborhood. The virus will then burn out. After the lockdown the borders would also need to stay closed to prevent reinfection until a vaccine becomes available.
Option 2 : Stay in the current (or modified) version of the lockdown until a vaccine is available - this is likely to take 18 months.
Option 3 : Go for herd immunity whilst protecting the most vulnerable.
Germany are opening back up their economy. They still have lots of cases. It is obvious they are therefore going for Option 3.
Sambucket said:
Australia is going to be very interesting. They are pretty unique amongst western English speaking nations, in having breathing space to have a real debate about the best path to follow, I suspect they will tread water until more data is available.
Unlike UK journalists who think early decisions based on limited data should be as refined as those taken later with more and better data. Including others who think this is sensible.Anyone would think they have an agenda.
Thesprucegoose said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Think you will find that is exactly what they are going for. Just coupled with significant testing to try and minimise the pace of any new outbreak.
Well that is not the same strategy is it then. No one has compared the two countries.The government dropped the ball massivily, swept under the carpet, people died needlessly, it was a gamble and it didn't pay off.
The UK failed on being ready for mass testing, scaling up for an emergency and having a clear decisive plan.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff