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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…125126128130131…331

Comments

  • #3812
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't see why what they decide to do in Denmark should put any pressure on the UK authorities (any more than what they decide to do in the UK should put any pressure on the Danish authorities). It seems to me that decisions (in any country) about relaxing the lockdown (before the availability of a vaccine) will depend on two factors:

    1. Has the country concerned passed the peak? Has it succeeding in reducing the transmission rate (the number of new infections resulting from each existing infection) to significantly below 1, and stabilising it there? If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then it's obviously premature to consider easing measures to counter infection within the community. But if the answer is "yes", then move on to question 2.

    2. Does the country have the resources, system, supplies, etc to test widely and contact-trace agressively, so that if new instances of community transmission arise after the lockdown is relaxed they can be identified immediately, and appropriate action taken (including selective or local reimposition of lockdown measures, if appropriate)? Again, if the answer is "no", it's premature to relax the lockdown.

    Each country has to answer these questions for itself, and the answers will be independent of the answers to the same questions in other countries. Those who suggest that, if the answers in Denmark are "yes", the answers in the UK must also be "yes" should be smiled at in a tolerant but condescending manner.

    Of course what other countries are doing will have an impact on public pressure.

    I agree with your point about passing the peak which is why I suspect they will be able to argue for another extension at the start of May. I'm not so sure how easy it will be to argue for a second however given that opposing groups are forming in the cabinet.

    From the point of view of the public we're lending the government time to do the second of these things. If they haven't done it by the end of May criticism will be justified.

    I'm not really sure what your point about condescension adds.


  • #3813
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,954 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    theological wrote: »
    Of course what other countries are doing will have an impact on public pressure.

    I agree with your point about passing the peak which is why I suspect they will be able to argue for another extension at the start of May. I'm not so sure how easy it will be to argue for a second however given that opposing groups are forming in the cabinet.

    From the point of view of the public we're lending the government time to do the second of these things. If they haven't done it by the end of May criticism will be justified.
    Well, it may or may not be. If by the end of May the UK hasn't reduced the infection rate to <1, and/or hasn't built up the necessary testing/contract tracing capacity, whether and to what extent criticism of the government is justified will depend on why the UK has failed or been unable to do that.

    But it doesn't really matter. Even if the criticism is thoroughly justified, that still wouldn't be an argument for relaxing the lockdown. It would be an argument for taking the present government out behind the barn and shooting it (I speak figuratively, of course) and installing a competent government in its place. But you still wouldn't relax the lockdown until the new, competent government had actually brought the UK to the point where it can meet the two requirements I have identified.
    theological wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what your point about condescension adds.
    It was a joke. The argument that, if it is safe to do X in Denmark (or if the Danes judge it to be safe to do X in Denmark) it must therefore be safe to do X in the UK would obviously be silly, and the UK cabinet shouldn't feel pressure (and certainly shouldn't yield to pressure) from silly arguments.


  • #3814
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,060 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    theological wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what your point about condescension adds.


    I believe he is saying those that think because Denmark has reached those milestones it means the UK has as well should be treated with the condescension. Because what happens in Denmark has bugger all to do with the UK when it comes to those factors and those acting on it to put pressure on those in charge is, to be blunt, idiots that should never be listened to for anything.

    Edit: Peregrinus beat me to it.


  • #3815
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Enzokk wrote: »
    You do realise that he is apologising for dismissing the story out of hand when it first appeared? There are still questions to be asked though, why did this company state on their website that,



    So we are back again at the discussion of tests versus capacity. The NHS in Scotland and Wales were not treated as second hand citizens due to priority given to NHS England, but care homes in those countries?

    Some information on care homes,

    This article is more than 6 months old
    84% of care home beds in England owned by private firms

    Care homes for older Europeans: Public, for-profit and non-profit providers

    Page 10 - Scotland has around 87% of care homes run as private. This is not to score a point, as you will see most European nations seems to have let the care for the elder population to the private sector including Ireland.

    So then we have to discuss this story in the context it is, Scotland care homes couldn't obtain supplies because Public Health England was taking the supplies ahead of Scotland and Wales. It seems the MD at one of the companies didn't deny this,

    PPE firm defends decision to ‘divert essential kit’ from Scotland to England during coronavirus epidemic



    The good news is that on the back of the coverage this decision was reversed,

    Scotland can get protective kit from English manufacturers



    So the story that was vehemently denied and the Scottish expert who was used to deny the story at the daily press briefing has come out to apologise for his part in that, was in fact true. The good news is that it was acted on but the UK Government response was to deny this was true, again. So why should we believe them on the story about creating fake accounts when they have shown they are capable to mislead on the truth?

    So let me get this right.

    The chief clinician for Scotland is happy that there is nothing wrong, the Scottish first minister is happy there is nothing wrong, but you know better?


  • #3816
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,443 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    So let me get this right.

    The chief clinician for Scotland is happy that there is nothing wrong, the Scottish first minister is happy there is nothing wrong, but you know better?

    You have not got it right

    The Chief clinician retracted his 'rubbish' claim as he was not in possession of all the facts. The FM did not say there was nothing wrong, she clearly said she believed the assurances of Hancock in sorting it out. And guess what, the issue was then sorted out.

    I provided the evidence of where the issue came from in this post
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113159111&postcount=3061


  • Advertisement
  • #3817
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't see why what they decide to do in Denmark should put any pressure on the UK authorities (any more than what they decide to do in the UK should put any pressure on the Danish authorities). It seems to me that decisions (in any country) about relaxing the lockdown (before the availability of a vaccine) will depend on two factors:

    By all the leaked accounts, the UK government didn't want a lockdown and only grudgingly did it because of public opinion.

    They will relax it as soon as they think public opinion will allow it.

    While saying Follow the science three times.


  • #3818
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, it may or may not be. If by the end of May the UK hasn't reduced the infection rate to <1, and/or hasn't built up the necessary testing/contract tracing capacity, whether and to what extent criticism of the government is justified will depend on why the UK has failed or been unable to do that.

    But it doesn't really matter. Even if the criticism is thoroughly justified, that still wouldn't be an argument for relaxing the lockdown. It would be an argument for taking the present government out behind the barn and shooting it (I speak figuratively, of course) and installing a competent government in its place. But you still wouldn't relax the lockdown until the new, competent government had actually brought the UK to the point where it can meet the two requirements I have identified.

    There is only so long that people will consent to staying in. It will become more and more difficult to convince people of this the longer that this goes on. It isn't certain that the government will be able to convince people to do this indefinitely.

    Therefore it is essential that the government uses the time it has to provide what is necessary in this period.


  • #3819
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    theological wrote: »
    There is only so long that people will consent to staying in

    This was a prominent talking point when stalling lockdown, that Brits wouldn't stick it for long so it had to be saved for the right time.

    Killed thousands.


  • #3820
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    There is only so long that people will consent to staying in. It will become more and more difficult to convince people of this the longer that this goes on. It isn't certain that the government will be able to convince people to do this indefinitely.

    Therefore it is essential that the government uses the time it has to provide what is necessary in this period.

    That is the job of a government. To do what is right, not simply what the people want. Where do you stop on that basis?

    A governments first job is to protect the citizens. Relaxing restrictions without meeting the requirements is completely against that.


  • #3821
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    You have not got it right

    The Chief clinician retracted his 'rubbish' claim as he was not in possession of all the facts. The FM did not say there was nothing wrong, she clearly said she believed the assurances of Hancock in sorting it out. And guess what, the issue was then sorted out.

    I provided the evidence of where the issue came from in this post
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113159111&postcount=3061

    He apologized because he went off message. What he should have said was “this is rubbish, but we need Nicola to score some points before we say this”.

    Read the first line of the description in your link. “Gompels are distributing this item on behalf of Public Health England”. As in, PHE owned the stock, Gompels just distribute it. Not Scotland NHS, not Wales NHS, PHE.

    If this was the other way around then I am sure it would called a perfect example of how efficient the Scottish government are and a perfect example of why they should be independent. As it is, it is used as an example of how nasty the English are and why Scotland should be independent.

    Either way, the story came from the National and let’s face it, every single article they publish should have the byline Freeeeeedooooooommmmmm


  • Advertisement
  • #3822
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    This was a prominent talking point when stalling lockdown, that Brits wouldn't stick it for long so it had to be saved for the right time.

    Killed thousands.

    Could you provide some evidence to support that?


  • #3823
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,060 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Aegir wrote: »
    So let me get this right.

    The chief clinician for Scotland is happy that there is nothing wrong, the Scottish first minister is happy there is nothing wrong, but you know better?

    The chief clinician was wrong to say there wasn't an issue with PPE not being available to care homes in Scotland. The UK Government used this as proof that the story was false. The issue was then sorted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem or that the UK Government used the mistake of the chief clinician as justification that everything was okay.

    Basically the story that people claimed was false, was true, and when people realised this they corrected the advice given to the suppliers and they then started selling PPE to care homes in Scotland and Wales. PHE did tell the suppliers to favour England over Scotland and Wales when it came to supplying PPE to care homes.

    theological wrote: »
    There is only so long that people will consent to staying in. It will become more and more difficult to convince people of this the longer that this goes on. It isn't certain that the government will be able to convince people to do this indefinitely.

    Therefore it is essential that the government uses the time it has to provide what is necessary in this period.


    Follow the data,

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252338551322271744?s=20

    Countries that locked down early seems to have had better success, so who cares what the people will put up with when it comes to the lives of elderly people in the UK and the NHS staff and care home staff looking after them. Bunch of snowflakes if they cannot sacrifice a little for the greater good of those that came before them.


    Found this interesting when we look at deaths,

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252272268245454850?s=20

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252273341525876738?s=20

    So we are back to the discussion, are the deaths being reported properly and if not why is it not being done? That is right, I am screaming cover up from those in charge.


  • #3824
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,912 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Enzokk wrote: »
    The chief clinician was wrong to say there wasn't an issue with PPE not being available to care homes in Scotland. The UK Government used this as proof that the story was false. The issue was then sorted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem or that the UK Government used the mistake of the chief clinician as justification that everything was okay.

    Basically the story that people claimed was false, was true, and when people realised this they corrected the advice given to the suppliers and they then started selling PPE to care homes in Scotland and Wales. PHE did tell the suppliers to favour England over Scotland and Wales when it came to supplying PPE to care homes.





    Follow the data,

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252338551322271744?s=20

    Countries that locked down early seems to have had better success, so who cares what the people will put up with when it comes to the lives of elderly people in the UK and the NHS staff and care home staff looking after them. Bunch of snowflakes if they cannot sacrifice a little for the greater good of those that came before them.


    Found this interesting when we look at deaths,

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252272268245454850?s=20

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1252273341525876738?s=20

    So we are back to the discussion, are the deaths being reported properly and if not why is it not being done? That is right, I am screaming cover up from those in charge.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-covid-19-patients-death-certificates-nhs-trust-2541936
    Doctors at an NHS trust have been told there is no need to list Covid-19 on death certificates of coronavirus patients, according to leaked documents.

    The hospital guidance, obtained by not-for-profit organisation Good Law Project, tells medics filling in death certificates that "pneumonia or community-acquired pneumonia are acceptable" to put as the direct cause of death.

    I wonder if these coronavirus deaths listed as 'pneumonia or community-acquired pneumonia' are included in the coronavirus figures?


  • #3825
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Enzokk wrote: »
    So we are back to the discussion, are the deaths being reported properly and if not why is it not being done? That is right, I am screaming cover up from those in charge.

    I think at this stage it is the only explanation of why they continue to give incomplete figures each day. Whilst they could, just about, hide behind the difficulties in reporting a week ago, at this stage it is simply misinformation to continue to provide incomplete figures.


  • #3826
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Enzokk wrote: »
    The chief clinician was wrong to say there wasn't an issue with PPE not being available to care homes in Scotland. The UK Government used this as proof that the story was false. The issue was then sorted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem or that the UK Government used the mistake of the chief clinician as justification that everything was okay.

    Basically the story that people claimed was false, was true, and when people realised this they corrected the advice given to the suppliers and they then started selling PPE to care homes in Scotland and Wales. PHE did tell the suppliers to favour England over Scotland and Wales when it came to supplying PPE to care homes.

    It was a non story. The equipment belonged to PHE. Should they have just let anyone take their stock?

    PHE stands for Public Health England, by the way. Not Scotland, not Wales, England.


  • #3827
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I think at this stage it is the only explanation of why they continue to give incomplete figures each day. Whilst they could, just about, hide behind the difficulties in reporting a week ago, at this stage it is simply misinformation to continue to provide incomplete figures.

    This has been answered several times on this thread and on the press briefings. That is if you're still referring to the figures for care homes being accumulated weekly by the ONS to ensure accuracy in reporting that is.

    I think Aegir has also said this numerous times.


  • #3828
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,912 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I think at this stage it is the only explanation of why they continue to give incomplete figures each day. Whilst they could, just about, hide behind the difficulties in reporting a week ago, at this stage it is simply misinformation to continue to provide incomplete figures.

    Department of Health and Social Care figures in the UK
    - Exclude anyone who was tested after death and had coronavirus
    - Exclude anyone who doctors are certain died from coronavirus but wasn't tested
    - Exclude anyone dying in a care home
    - Exclude anyone dying at home
    - Exclude anyone dying in prison

    This keeps the figures down. The BBC reports the DHSC as the total UK deaths on a regular basis despite the fact they are just hospital deaths for those which have tested positive before they lost their lives.

    According to the latest ONS briefing, Coronavirus-related deaths were 41% higher in England and Wales than the government's official figures in the week to 10 April.


  • #3829
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,954 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    theological wrote: »
    There is only so long that people will consent to staying in. It will become more and more difficult to convince people of this the longer that this goes on. It isn't certain that the government will be able to convince people to do this indefinitely.

    Therefore it is essential that the government uses the time it has to provide what is necessary in this period.
    Well, obviously the government needs to use the time it has to do what it needs to be doing. But their record on how they have used the time up to now in that regard is, um, a matter of controversy. So assume nothing about how well they will use the time yet to come.

    But, in the end, how well they use the time is not the most important question. For whatever reason, they are starting from a poor position. The UK has less than 1% of the world population, but it accounts for nearly 10% of CV-19 deaths. In terms of bringing this pandemic under control, they have a bigger hill to climb than most and, however competent and efficient they may prove to be between now and the end of May, they may not succeed in meeting the conditions that must be met before the lockdown can be safely relaxed.

    If it gets to the point where the UK public simply won't tolerate further lockdown, and yet the conditions for safe relaxation of lockdown have not been acheived, that's a disastrous outcome for the UK (and for the current UK government, though I care rather less about that). I think what an efficient and competent government would do at this point would be to pursue a twin-track approach; move heaven and earth to get to a point where the lockdown can safely be relaxed, and also pland and prepare for what happens if that point is not reached. The latter includes managing public expectation and public understanding so that public opinion never reaches the point where large numbers of people simply refuse to obey lockdown restrictions, either ignorant of or in denial about the harm that will result if they do not.

    That's a huge challenge and to be honest I'm not confident that the present UK government can meet it. But I'll be delighted to be proved wrong.


  • #3830
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    This has been answered several times on this thread and on the press briefings. That is if you're still referring to the figures for care homes being accumulated weekly by the ONS to ensure accuracy in reporting that is.

    I think Aegir has also said this numerous times.

    What has been answered. Reasons have been given as to why they are not including the figures, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have put in place the systems and processes to overcome these issues.

    The fact that they continue to not fix these issues suggests that they are not overly interested in publishing full figures.

    I completely understand that the numbers are presented as not including, but which figures do people use, which graphs? How can they even begin to talk about removing restrictions when, they admit, they have little idea of the actual?


  • #3831
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,060 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Aegir wrote: »
    It was a non story. The equipment belonged to PHE. Should they have just let anyone take their stock?

    PHE stands for Public Health England, by the way. Not Scotland, not Wales, England.


    Really, PHE stands for Public Health England? One of the executive agencies of the DHSC, or Department of Health and Social Care? One of the departments of the UKGOV, or the United Kingdom Government? So you are telling me that PHE was favoured by suppliers by telling them they are not to sell to any companies or executive agencies of Wales or Scotland, so the government of the United Kingdom* was denying sales to private firms in Scotland and Wales?

    *United Kingdom, not United England.


  • Advertisement
  • #3832
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    If they'd been testing in care homes, as they unquestionably should, it would have made it a lot easier to include those fatalities in the daily figures and thus give more accurate and useful up to date data. As it is, the ons depend on checking death certificates and there are questions about some doctors being reluctant to record a death as covid-19 if a test hadnt been done. And that is why some think many deaths will never be officially reported.

    So much of it goes back to one thing - failure to test or put in capability for mass testing.


  • #3833
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Really, PHE stands for Public Health England? One of the executive agencies of the DHSC, or Department of Health and Social Care? One of the departments of the UKGOV, or the United Kingdom Government? So you are telling me that PHE was favoured by suppliers by telling them they are not to sell to any companies or executive agencies of Wales or Scotland, so the government of the United Kingdom* was denying sales to private firms in Scotland and Wales?

    *United Kingdom, not United England.

    Should NHS Scotland favour Scottish care homes over English ones?

    PHE didn’t tell them not to sell to Scotland or Wales, they told them not to send stocks that belong to PHE to anyone outside of England.

    Why should PHE do their job for them?


  • #3834
    Salary Negotiator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Sly News reporting that ONS have conformed that deaths from covid-19 up to April 10th are actually 41% higher than reported.

    13131 v 9288

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-deaths-41-higher-than-official-figures-ons-11976357


  • #3835
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,060 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Aegir wrote: »
    Should NHS Scotland favour Scottish care homes over English ones?

    PHE didn’t tell them not to sell to Scotland or Wales, they told them not to send stocks that belong to PHE to anyone outside of England.

    Why should PHE do their job for them?


    Why are you talking about NHS Scotland and NHS England when we are discussing private care homes not getting supplies for their residences? Are you deliberately confusing the 2?

    These items were for sale, but only to English care homes on request from PHE. So your contention was that PHE bought this stock, and then tasked these companies to sell them to private care homes in England only? Do you have any news stories to back up your version of what happened?


  • #3836
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    EWHUbmlXgAQUVhI?format=jpg&name=large

    "Biggest total in that week in modern history. And biggest of any week since 2000." apparently. :(

    Looking at that graph if there are concerns that medical professionals being urged to downplay covid-19 deaths by instead suggesting it's just pneumonia then would this graph not highlight this?


  • #3837
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Salary Negotiator wrote: »
    Sly News reporting that ONS have conformed that deaths from covid-19 up to April 10th are actually 41% higher than reported.

    13131 v 9288

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-deaths-41-higher-than-official-figures-ons-11976357

    Jebus, that should have an outcry. The government has been, knowingly, publishing incomplete numbers and then using those numbers to try to say they are doing a good job.

    Again, why are they waiting on the ONS. Every care home should have to send in numbers everyday. Simples. Create an online portal, provide access to each home and they collect the daily numbers. It really isn't that difficult.

    The only reason not to implement something like that is because they don't want to. Sure the number from April 10th look bad, but you can be 100% assured that they will be dismissed with the line that things are moving fact, lets await next weeks numbers.


  • #3838
    Salary Negotiator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Jebus, that should have an outcry. The government has been, knowingly, publishing incomplete numbers and then using those numbers to try to say they are doing a good job.

    Again, why are they waiting on the ONS. Every care home should have to send in numbers everyday. Simples. Create an online portal, provide access to each home and they collect the daily numbers. It really isn't that difficult.

    The only reason not to implement something like that is because they don't want to. Sure the number from April 10th look bad, but you can be 100% assured that they will be dismissed with the line that things are moving fact, lets await next weeks numbers.


    Also means that total deaths are now over 20,000.


  • #3839
    1641
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭1641


    Salary Negotiator wrote: »
    Sly News reporting that ONS have conformed that deaths from covid-19 up to April 10th are actually 41% higher than reported.

    13131 v 9288

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-deaths-41-higher-than-official-figures-ons-11976357


    The current UK figure for deaths (hospital only) is 16,509. Increasing that by 41% gives 23,278 as being a more accurate estimate of current UK Covid deaths.


  • #3840
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,176 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    1641 wrote: »
    The current UK figure for deaths (hospital only) is 16,509. Increasing that by 41% gives 23,278 as being a more accurate estimate of current UK Covid deaths.

    Which puts them 3rd highest, behind Italy.

    Yup they are doing a great job, everyone look at how good a job they are doing!


  • Advertisement
  • #3841
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    In those ONS figures it states there were nearly 8,000 excess deaths for the week ending April 10 of which some 6,213 were due to covid-19. So 22% were not attributable to the virus. The previous week that figure stood at 41%.

    That is a fairly significant discrepancy and really begs an explanation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement