Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

1…121122124126127…331

Comments

  • #3692
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,912 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Just as promised,testing has been ramped up with over 19,000 tests in the last 24 hours,if it stays anywhere near that rate that's very impressive.

    They're supposed to be doing 100k per day by end of month. At current rate of increase they'll be lucky to hit 50k.


  • #3693
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Very impression compared to what?

    Previous figures have been underwhelming but ramping up like this is very encouraging imo.
    Along with the RAF sending planes to collect PPE from Turkey hopefully things are looking up for the UK.


  • #3694
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    There was a spike about 10 days ago, France's daily deaths graph since has been encouraging. IHME's graph/projections reflect that. Which is good news for France.

    What do you make of the King's College research? Incidentally, they put Ireland at about 1200 deaths.

    Their first 5 days of predictions for France on the graph are actually days that we now have data for though so we can see exactly how wrong the predictions are.

    Couldn't access the Kings College paper.


  • #3695
    RobMc59
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    devnull wrote: »
    They're supposed to be doing 100k per day by end of month. At current rate of increase they'll be lucky to hit 50k.

    I don't see anything negative about any increase in testing,although I don't study each countries test figures so admittedly wouldn't know how 19000+ a day compares to other countries.


  • #3696
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭blinding


    Cupatae wrote: »
    Woah whats with all the hostility ?

    Most people on boards want the restrictions lifted and we need our economy man, because..hospitals need funding and an article said we will be facing a great depression, plus alot of people have show lots of graphs and stuff that show we cant beat the virus so we just got to live with it from now on man.
    Can we do some testing on you ? You have that smell of volunteer meat about you !


  • Advertisement
  • #3697
    brickster69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭brickster69


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Just as promised,testing has been ramped up with over 19,000 tests in the last 24 hours,if it stays anywhere near that rate that's very impressive.

    The second of the lighthouse Super labs opened today with the last one opening the end of this week

    https://www.lighthouselabs.org.uk/news-updates

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • #3698
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    robinph wrote: »
    Their first 5 days of predictions for France on the graph are actually days that we now have data for though so we can see exactly how wrong the predictions are.

    Couldn't access the Kings College paper.

    I'm not seeing that they're wrong for daily deaths. The trend is consistent. Anyway, that's France and this is about the UK. Nobody is questioning the IHME's modelling so it's down to the data available. Maybe try this link again and click preview PDF. It's the same link as earlier but it's working fine for me.


  • #3699
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Tests just over 19,000 today. It was up over 20,000 for the past few days. It's actually stalling or going in the wrong direction.


  • #3700
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    IHME Seattle, 10 days ago, revised their projected deaths in the UK by August downwards to a tragic 37,000 as the UK government released more data. This 37k figure has remained constant since. Unfortunately, there is still a possibility of this being much higher according to their graph. Presumably, they are factoring true numbers as against the UK government numbers. Sadly, a figure of 49,000 is being predicted by King's College London in this research (click preview PDF).

    so we can now have a closer look at the numbers

    IHME predicted that 42,000 people wold be requiring beds today, ~25,000 more than are available. The actual numbers are that 18,000 people are in hospital, with a surplus of 15,000 beds.

    IHME predicted that there would be 4,000 more people requiring ICU beds than are available. In actual fact, there is currently 20% spare capacity.

    as it stands, the NHS does not look to be overwhelmed, lets hope it continues this way.


  • #3701
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Tests just over 19,000 today. It was up over 20,000 for the past few days. It's actually stalling or going in the wrong direction.

    I'm not sure this is the right way to read it. It could be simply that fewer tests were requested today than were requested yesterday.

    Tests done is not necessarily a measure of capacity.

    Edit: See here in The Guardian. There is currently capacity for 35,000.


  • Advertisement
  • #3702
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    I'm not sure this is the right way to read it. It could be simply that fewer tests were requested today than were requested yesterday.

    Tests done is not necessarily a measure of capacity.

    So you're saying they wont reach the magic 100,000 figure if enough people dont request the tests. Is that how it works?


  • #3703
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    So you're saying they wont reach the magic 100,000 figure if enough people dont request the tests. Is that how it works?

    Capacity and uptake are two different things. Please read the article I linked to.


  • #3704
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I'm not seeing that they're wrong for daily deaths. The trend is consistent. Anyway, that's France and this is about the UK. Nobody is questioning the IHME's modelling so it's down to the data available. Maybe try this link again and click preview PDF. It's the same link as earlier but it's working fine for me.
    They predicted a rise to 1200 per day for the last 5 days for the UK when it's been going from 700 down to 450 today, which is of course low.

    For France they predicted a trend from 800 down to 300 for today when it's actually been around 700 with todays numbers still coming in.


  • #3705
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    Capacity and uptake are two different things. Please read the article I linked to.

    The article is wondering the same thing I'm wondering. If they have capacity for 35,000 then why are they only testing below 20,000? The target for the end of april is 100,000 tests a day. It's actual tests, not how many they could have done if this or if that or whatever.


  • #3706
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    The article is wondering the same thing I'm wondering. If they have capacity for 35,000 then why are they only testing below 20,000? The target for the end of april is 100,000 tests a day. It's actual tests, not how many they could have done if this or if that or whatever.

    That's a peculiar way of reading it. Another way to read it is to ask why is uptake lower?


  • #3707
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    That's a peculiar way of reading it. Another way to read it is to ask why is uptake lower?

    I suppose it could be that those in care homes and the communities who have been crying out for testing just suddenly decided they didnt really need it after all.


  • #3708
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    robinph wrote: »
    They predicted a rise to 1200 per day for the last 5 days for the UK when it's been going from 700 down to 450 today, which is of course low.

    For France they predicted a trend from 800 down to 300 for today when it's actually been around 700 with todays numbers still coming in.

    The figures for Britain are encouraging but Monday is always low due to lack of admin staff for reporting. But here's hoping.

    It's very right for France. France reported decreasing numbers as per the graph. Past three days: 761, 642, 395. Which is consistent with a trend of 800 down to 300.


  • #3709
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    I suppose it could be that those in care homes and the communities who have been crying out for testing just suddenly decided they didnt really need it after all.


    Or those in care homes suddenly didn't need it any more cus they died


  • #3710
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Or those in care homes suddenly didn't need it any more cus they died

    Dont know but in places like new zealand they can actually go out and test people randomly. I dont hear anything about extra capacity or lack of uptake, just go out and test, test, test.


  • #3711
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    That's a peculiar way of reading it. Another way to read it is to ask why is uptake lower?

    So what, you are blaming the public?

    On what basis are you thinking that people are not looking for tests? We know that frontline workers have been crying out for them.

    The only way to read it as you are is if you are looking for someone to blame rather than the government.


  • Advertisement
  • #3712
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Dont know but in places like new zealand they can actually go out and test people randomly. I dont hear anything about extra capacity or lack of uptake, just go out and test, test, test.

    You mean just randomly grab people off the street and test them, you know, for the sake of it?


  • #3713
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So what, you are blaming the public?

    On what basis are you thinking that people are not looking for tests? We know that frontline workers have been crying out for them.

    The only way to read it as you are is if you are looking for someone to blame rather than the government.


    Goodness, no. I'm not seeking to blame the public as a member of the public. In fact I'm not seeking to blame anybody. Highlighting truth doesn't require blame.

    I simply highlighted that capacity and uptake are two different things, which is just manifestly obvious. I provided an article to back up what I said.


  • #3714
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Aegir wrote: »
    You mean just randomly grab people off the street and test them, you know, for the sake of it?

    I imagine most people would be very happy to be tested randomly. If I was offered a test, I'd take it.

    Randomised testing gives a much better picture of infection in the general population.


  • #3715
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,058 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Tests just over 19,000 today. It was up over 20,000 for the past few days. It's actually stalling or going in the wrong direction.

    After 4 weeks of lockdown there may not be as much demand for tests as there are far fewer new infections out there.

    It still doesn't mean they will have capacity for 100,000 tests a day by the end of April. But then maybe they made that claim safe in the knowledge that they would never have to administer 100,000 tests a day.

    The questions is what to do with the spare capacity. This where you can maybe start testing particular sectors, whether people have symptoms or not to start getting people back to work and to start opening up the economy again.

    Test, Test, Test...it's clearly effective, so do it!


  • #3716
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,058 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I imagine most people would be very happy to be tested randomly. If I was offered a test, I'd take it.

    Randomised testing gives a much better picture of infection in the general population.

    Definitely. Get testing booths set up outside the local Tescos. It would be something to do while your queueing up to get inside!

    But in general terms the more people tested the better so as you say you get an idea of whether 1%, 10% or somewhere in between have the virus. Although doing it now is a bit late. The horse bolted a while ago.


  • #3717
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I imagine most people would be very happy to be tested randomly. If I was offered a test, I'd take it.

    Randomised testing gives a much better picture of infection in the general population.

    So you end up with 35,000 hypochondriacs getting tested and 20,000 NHS staff, care home workers and people with symptoms not being tested?

    The government are doing what a good materials manage does in a production environment. They are finding the bottle necks and hold ups and removing them.

    The health workers wanted more beds, they got more beds than they need. They wanted PPE, they are getting huge deliveries (Turkey allowing) they wanted testing, they are getting more than they need.

    The government can’t decide who gets tested, they aren’t the experts. All they can do is address issues the experts give them.

    We can’t get tests is no longer a stick to beat them with. If people need it, it is there.


  • #3718
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I imagine most people would be very happy to be tested randomly. If I was offered a test, I'd take it.

    Randomised testing gives a much better picture of infection in the general population.

    Yeah, i guess it's like look at those stupid new zealanders, going out and testing random people just to be doing something for the sake of it. I mean, what have they done anyway? What would uk or ireland or anyone else have to learn from them?


  • #3719
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,435 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The NHS Louisa Jordan opened in Glasgow today - the facility that is hoped will not be used

    Converted exhibition centre

    https://twitter.com/NHSLouisaJordan/status/1251888902576787456


  • #3720
    PommieBast
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Maybe try this link again and click preview PDF. It's the same link as earlier but it's working fine for me.
    There is also a Download PDF link on the page - try that one instead..


  • Advertisement
  • #3721
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,058 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Aegir wrote: »
    So you end up with 35,000 hypochondriacs getting tested and 20,000 NHS staff, care home workers and people with symptoms not being tested?

    But surely the point is that you'd only do random tests if demand has been exhausted in the sectors that matter most (NHS staff etc)?

    If only 20,000 of those guys are coming forward to be tested and there is capacity for twice (or 5 times) that number of tests, why would you not allow other people to be tested?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement