UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[The New California Republic]

Most football teams are into some really weird health and fitness stuff nowadays, so they'd probably do some of that Goat Yoga.

Are you saying that many football players have already been inducted into the Goat Cult?

Are we pretending that they haven't?

[Hirota]

Sorry is your position that China hasn't been lying about this or are you just being contrarian because that's what you do now?

I think the position is that everyone is lying... and to some extent that is true. Because everyone is managing to conceal through statistics. But whether you consider it a 'lie' or a limitation of the available data is all in the eye of the beholder.

For example, we saw this morning the Office for National Statistics try to roll up the community death certificates for persons dying of Covid-19 which increases the UK stats. But we know that the French stats are only the hospital figures, none of the multitude of carehome deaths are included in their figures. Spain tests at carehomes until they get one positive case, then they stop testing and assume all further illness at that location are 'related' but don't include them in the official stats because they are untested etc...

It is one of the reasons all the stats vary so wildly from country to country.

And what no one is considering here is the asymptomatic cases. We know that there have been 5 new cases in Hubei province linked to asymptomatic carriers - but China isn't releasing stats on suspected numbers of asymptomatic infections. You can be fairly certain those people aren't in any stats for any country. Hard to catch and hard to stamp it out if you can't catch them.

This is a very strong summary highlighting some of the problems of blindly relying on numbers with differing methodologies to obtain them. It gets complicated when you try and consider if someone died because of Covid-19 or would have died regardless of catching Covid-19.

For example in the UK the vast majority people who have died who had Covid-19 also happened to have other health issues. We don't know with any certainty if patients died because they caught Covid-19, died because Covid-19 was the final proverbial nail in the coffin, or they died and just happened to also have Covid-19.

I imagine WHO and the various national governments and expert groups planning for dealing with Covid are all too aware of this lack of reliable data. But average Joe Public probably doesn't have the foggiest idea of these complications and think that because number x is bigger than number y, one nation is doing a better job than the other. And maybe they are, but maybe they are not.

I'm just not sure comparing apples and oranges is helping people at the moment.

Which of course begs the question of how do we make decisions with a lack of reliable data? I imagine it's the same as with everything else at the moment; a lot of educated guesswork.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I think the position is that everyone is lying... and to some extent that is true. Because everyone is managing to conceal through statistics. But whether you consider it a 'lie' or a limitation of the available data is all in the eye of the beholder.

For example, we saw this morning the Office for National Statistics try to roll up the community death certificates for persons dying of Covid-19 which increases the UK stats. But we know that the French stats are only the hospital figures, none of the multitude of carehome deaths are included in their figures. Spain tests at carehomes until they get one positive case, then they stop testing and assume all further illness at that location are 'related' but don't include them in the official stats because they are untested etc...

It is one of the reasons all the stats vary so wildly from country to country.

And what no one is considering here is the asymptomatic cases. We know that there have been 5 new cases in Hubei province linked to asymptomatic carriers - but China isn't releasing stats on suspected numbers of asymptomatic infections. You can be fairly certain those people aren't in any stats for any country. Hard to catch and hard to stamp it out if you can't catch them.

This is a very strong summary highlighting some of the problems of blindly relying on numbers with differing methodologies to obtain them. It gets complicated when you try and consider if someone died because of Covid-19 or would have died regardless of catching Covid-19.

For example in the UK the vast majority people who have died who had Covid-19 also happened to have other health issues. We don't know with any certainty if patients died because they caught Covid-19, died because Covid-19 was the final proverbial nail in the coffin, or they died and just happened to also have Covid-19.

I imagine WHO and the various national governments and expert groups planning for dealing with Covid are all too aware of this lack of reliable data. But average Joe Public probably doesn't have the foggiest idea of these complications and think that because number x is bigger than number y, one nation is doing a better job than the other. And maybe they are, but maybe they are not.

I'm just not sure comparing apples and oranges is helping people at the moment.

Which of course begs the question of how do we make decisions with a lack of reliable data? I imagine it's the same as with everything else at the moment; a lot of educated guesswork.

I've also heard that a few countries that have strangely low mortality rates (Germany, Austria etc) are not including anybody with an underlying health condition as being a coronavirus death.

It might help if the WHO would publish some guidance on what should be included, but well...when countries have been refusing to fund them for so long there's not much they can be expected to do.

[Celritannia]

This is a very strong summary highlighting some of the problems of blindly relying on numbers with differing methodologies to obtain them. It gets complicated when you try and consider if someone died because of Covid-19 or would have died regardless of catching Covid-19.

For example in the UK the vast majority people who have died who had Covid-19 also happened to have other health issues. We don't know with any certainty if patients died because they caught Covid-19, died because Covid-19 was the final proverbial nail in the coffin, or they died and just happened to also have Covid-19.

I imagine WHO and the various national governments and expert groups planning for dealing with Covid are all too aware of this lack of reliable data. But average Joe Public probably doesn't have the foggiest idea of these complications and think that because number x is bigger than number y, one nation is doing a better job than the other. And maybe they are, but maybe they are not.

I'm just not sure comparing apples and oranges is helping people at the moment.

Which of course begs the question of how do we make decisions with a lack of reliable data? I imagine it's the same as with everything else at the moment; a lot of educated guesswork.

I've also heard that a few countries that have strangely low mortality rates (Germany, Austria etc) are not including anybody with an underlying health condition as being a coronavirus death.

It might help if the WHO would publish some guidance on what should be included, but well...when countries have been refusing to fund them for so long there's not much they can be expected to do.

Sources please.

[Fartsniffage]

I've also heard that a few countries that have strangely low mortality rates (Germany, Austria etc) are not including anybody with an underlying health condition as being a coronavirus death.

It might help if the WHO would publish some guidance on what should be included, but well...when countries have been refusing to fund them for so long there's not much they can be expected to do.

Sources please.

I dunno about Germany or Austria, but I do know that France is only reporting deaths in hospitals. So if you die of corona at home or in a nursing home you don't go on the figures.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I've also heard that a few countries that have strangely low mortality rates (Germany, Austria etc) are not including anybody with an underlying health condition as being a coronavirus death.

It might help if the WHO would publish some guidance on what should be included, but well...when countries have been refusing to fund them for so long there's not much they can be expected to do.

Sources please.

I was wrong about Germany, I heard it from a friend and never bothered to do my own homework.
This seems like a good source as to why our death rate seems far higher than places like Germany, that we're only identifying people who go to hospital as being covid-19 cases. Obviously, the only way we could work out what the true mortality rate of covid-19 is would be to regularly test everybody (which, even if the government had a large number of tests available would be impractical in a country the size of ours), and to ensure we record the correct cause of death.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... tes-differ

[Hirota]

I dunno about Germany or Austria, but I do know that France is only reporting deaths in hospitals. So if you die of corona at home or in a nursing home you don't go on the figures.

I was wrong about Germany, I heard it from a friend and never bothered to do my own homework.
This seems like a good source as to why our death rate seems far higher than places like Germany, that we're only identifying people who go to hospital as being covid-19 cases. Obviously, the only way we could work out what the true mortality rate of covid-19 is would be to regularly test everybody (which, even if the government had a large number of tests available would be impractical in a country the size of ours), and to ensure we record the correct cause of death.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... tes-differ

Like I said, apples and oranges. None of these methods are deceitful or invalid, or necessarily better than one another. But they are limited usefulness for comparison purposes with other methods.

Germany is an interesting one, and there seem to be a number of reasons why they are appearing to be in a better state than most of Europe. Sky summarised some of them: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... e-11964051

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I dunno about Germany or Austria, but I do know that France is only reporting deaths in hospitals. So if you die of corona at home or in a nursing home you don't go on the figures.

I was wrong about Germany, I heard it from a friend and never bothered to do my own homework.
This seems like a good source as to why our death rate seems far higher than places like Germany, that we're only identifying people who go to hospital as being covid-19 cases. Obviously, the only way we could work out what the true mortality rate of covid-19 is would be to regularly test everybody (which, even if the government had a large number of tests available would be impractical in a country the size of ours), and to ensure we record the correct cause of death.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... tes-differ

Like I said, apples and oranges. None of these methods are deceitful or invalid, or necessarily better than one another. But they are limited usefulness for comparison purposes with other methods.

Germany is an interesting one, and there seem to be a number of reasons why they are appearing to be in a better state than most of Europe. Sky summarised some of them: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... e-11964051

The chart showing the number of acute hospital beds makes for pretty grim reading.

Isn't it odd how the countries with single-payer healthcare (the UK, Spain, Finland, Portugal) are all at the bottom of it, with the UK dead last?

[Hirota]

Like I said, apples and oranges. None of these methods are deceitful or invalid, or necessarily better than one another. But they are limited usefulness for comparison purposes with other methods.

Germany is an interesting one, and there seem to be a number of reasons why they are appearing to be in a better state than most of Europe. Sky summarised some of them: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... e-11964051

The chart showing the number of acute hospital beds makes for pretty grim reading.

Isn't it odd how the countries with single-payer healthcare (the UK, Spain, Finland, Portugal) are all at the bottom of it, with the UK dead last?

Yeah, I noticed that. But in fairness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-pa ... outh_Korea

[Novus America]

Like I said, apples and oranges. None of these methods are deceitful or invalid, or necessarily better than one another. But they are limited usefulness for comparison purposes with other methods.

Germany is an interesting one, and there seem to be a number of reasons why they are appearing to be in a better state than most of Europe. Sky summarised some of them: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... e-11964051

The chart showing the number of acute hospital beds makes for pretty grim reading.

Isn't it odd how the countries with single-payer healthcare (the UK, Spain, Finland, Portugal) are all at the bottom of it, with the UK dead last?

It is not odd, single payer systems do not support extra beds because it does not make money to do so.

[Fartsniffage]

Perfection...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HS4O0mxl3A

[The New California Republic]

Perfection...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HS4O0mxl3A

Why won't you letterbox my doms?

[Ostroeuropa]

Perfection...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HS4O0mxl3A

10/10.

The "this is not the end" one actually got a lol from me.

[Fartsniffage]

Russell Howard showing just what quarantine is doing to all of us. Fucking insanity and it's great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqrB6VuWCU4

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Finally get the announcement on who is the new Labour leader tomorrow.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Finally get the announcement on who is the new Labour leader tomorrow.

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Finally get the announcement on who is the new Labour leader tomorrow.

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

Knowledge is power.

Hide it well.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

Knowledge is power.

Hide it well.

DO YOU HEAR THE VOICES TOO?

[Parti Ouvrier]

Finally get the announcement on who is the new Labour leader tomorrow.

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

I think its very likely he will win, which means I won't be voting Labour in the next general election.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

I think its very likely he will win, which means I won't be voting Labour in the next general election.

Who would you rather win? Long Bailey?

[Vassenor]

Hope its Keir.


But Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment

I think its very likely he will win, which means I won't be voting Labour in the next general election.

So you're happy with five more years of Boris?

[Parti Ouvrier]

I think its very likely he will win, which means I won't be voting Labour in the next general election.

Who would you rather win? Long Bailey?

Slightly preferable.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-21230115

[Parti Ouvrier]

I think its very likely he will win, which means I won't be voting Labour in the next general election.

So you're happy with five more years of Boris?

Firstly, you're deluding yourself if you think Starmer will win a general election, and even if he did, Labour's shift back to the right would ensure working class disappointment and demoralisation of working class voters, paving the way for 5 more years of right-wing Tories again when the Starmer led Labour government is up for re-election. In other words, the most you'd achieve is a stop gap, and a pathetic one at that.

[Vassenor]

So you're happy with five more years of Boris?

Firstly, you're deluding yourself if you think Starmer will win a general election, and even if he did, Labour's shift back to the right would ensure working class disappointment and demoralisation of working class voters, paving the way for 5 more years of right-wing Tories again when the Starmer led Labour government is up for re-election. In other words, the most you'd achieve is a stop gap, and a pathetic one at that.

So what makes him 100% unelectable then?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It is the height of foolishness to declare that a particular candidate "cannot win" when we know nothing of what the faultlines of a future election will be, and consequently even less of the particular platform on those issues that the candidate will adopt.

Clearly the candidates tend towards particular wings of the party and Starmer's milquetoast economics are not encouraging to those of us who think more fundamental economic change is required to address the Tory and even New Labour economic legacies.

I may even go so far to say that if the Tories keep up their shift towards increased social spending I might find it difficult to choose between the parties if Starmer chooses to go all-in on economic centrism to the point where the red of Labour is no more than a slightly sunburnt version of the Lib Dem platform.

If! IF! Who when surrounded by a field of ifs makes pronouncements of such certainty? Let's not throw the baby out before the bathtub has even been filled.