Hancock's Half Hour

[doctor Bob]

A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.

Maybe it's areas of inbreeding then ................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:

 

[RogerS]

A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.

Maybe it's areas of inbreeding then ................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:

You should know living where you do ! :shock:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Unlikely - we're dying out. We're getting swamped with people from England.

 

[doctor Bob]

A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.

Maybe it's areas of inbreeding then ................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:

You should know living where you do ! :shock:

What you heard about Little Hadham then, that fella and his sister was never proved............

 

[Lons]

80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms, a tiny % of those who actually get it end up in hospital and then a % of those people show early signs of scarring.

Yet more quoting subjective opinion as fact. IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T FACT! :roll: The only fact is that they don't know and at least some of them admit that. For every one who states stats they are others with different ones.

There is absolutely no proof that "80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms", there are studies which suggest anywhere between 5% and 80% and that it's impossible to know without antibody test and even then it will not be accurate, studies also say that many of those asymptomatic at the time can be actually pre-symptomatic and can develop symptoms later.
Other studies suggest that even asymptomatic people can have suffered lung damage though likely less serious and repairable. Read this as an example of only one I could be bothered to link, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... 2944611623

I'm not saying the sources of your information are wrong but neither can you say with any authority they are accurate, better to wait for the real experts to come to conclusions when there is enough reliable data available to so do, that is a way off yet!

 

[Rorschach]

80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms, a tiny % of those who actually get it end up in hospital and then a % of those people show early signs of scarring.

Yet more quoting subjective opinion as fact. IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T FACT! :roll: The only fact is that they don't know and at least some of them admit that. For every one who states stats they are others with different ones.

There is absolutely no proof that "80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms", there are studies which suggest anywhere between 5% and 80% and that it's impossible to know without antibody test and even then it will not be accurate, studies also say that many of those asymptomatic at the time can be actually pre-symptomatic and can develop symptoms later.
Other studies suggest that even asymptomatic people can have suffered lung damage though likely less serious and repairable. Read this as an example of only one I could be bothered to link, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... 2944611623

I'm not saying the sources of your information are wrong but neither can you say with any authority they are accurate, better to wait for the real experts to come to conclusions when there is enough reliable data available to so do, that is a way off yet!

Ok, ignore everything I wrote there, I am still correct about tyreman being wrong. :wink:

 

[Lons]

Ok, ignore everything I wrote there,

That applies to everything you write.

 

[Rorschach]

That applies to everything you write.

You don't seem to be doing a good job of following your own advice there :lol:

 

[Chris152]

Can someone help me understand this short article in today's news?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53181525
It says
'A study of European children with Covid-19 suggests deaths are extremely rare.
Only four of 582 children [in the study] died, two of whom had underlying health conditions.'
That's 0.69% of kids getting it died. I had the impression it was way lower, and I wouldn't think 0.69% constitutes 'extremely rare'?
Apparently 'The researchers say the death rate in children is likely to be "substantially lower" than that observed in the study, because those with mild symptoms would not have been tested or diagnosed at the time', yet it also states 'Symptoms were generally mild and some who tested positive had no symptoms at all'.
I'm working on the assumption that the ONS's projections that between 5-7% of the population have or have had the disease is about right, far less interested in assertions that we've nearly all had it etc which would obviously reduce the % lots.
This matters to me as I have kids supposed to be returning to school soon - it does seem to me that we don't have a real understanding of how kids relate to the virus.
Is it just a not very helpful study (at least as reported) because it doesn't take account of asymptomatic kids sufficiently?

 

[Rorschach]

25% of the children had underlying health conditions. I would say that is much higher rate than children in the general population. 50% of the children were admitted to hospital, so they were particularly vulnerable to C19 and had developed severe symptoms.
The article says nothing about how these children were chosen for the study, presumably in order to be picked they had to be showing symptoms severe enough to warrant a test.
Basically there isn't really enough information there to make an informed calculation on the mortality rate amongst children. You get a better idea looking at the confirmed UK cases and deaths in children.

Going by NHS figures we have 20 deaths under age 19 (no figure on underlying health conditions)
That is 0.04% of deaths and 0.006% of (confirmed) cases.

 

[Chris152]

The article says nothing about how these children were chosen for the study, presumably in order to be picked they had to be showing symptoms severe enough to warrant a test.

It does say some (16%) were asymptomatic.

Going by NHS figures we have 20 deaths under age 19 (no figure on underlying health conditions)
That is 0.04% of deaths and 0.006% of (confirmed) cases.

I prefer those figures - thanks.
Not sure about the underlying health conditions - I've always wondered what % of us have them!
But yes, I think it's a very vague bit of reporting, and on balance probably not helpful.

 

[Rorschach]

It does say some (16%) were asymptomatic.

You are correct, it does, I missed that, thank you. That probably just adds to what I said that the study isn't very helpful, or rather the information given to us isn't very helpful.

I prefer those figures - thanks.
Not sure about the underlying health conditions - I've always wondered what % of us have them!
But yes, I think it's a very vague bit of reporting, and on balance probably not helpful.

I agree, underlying health conditions is a bit vague really. I suffer from hayfever, is that an underlying health condition that I need to be worried about? Stage 4 leukaemia is also an underlying health conditon (UHC), would that make more or less susceptible than the hayfever? It's all a bit silly if we don't have the specifics, but then if we did, would that help? Those UHC could be any one of of thousands of conditions, which would be worrying as we could all be vulnerable, or the UHC could be confined to lets say for arguments sake, heart disease, well then everyone who hasn't got any heart trouble could rest easy and those that did have it could take precautions.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Can someone help me understand this short article in today's news?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53181525
It says
'A study of European children with Covid-19 suggests deaths are extremely rare.
Only four of 582 children [in the study] died, two of whom had underlying health conditions.'
That's 0.69% of kids getting it died. I had the impression it was way lower, and I wouldn't think 0.69% constitutes 'extremely rare'?
Apparently 'The researchers say the death rate in children is likely to be "substantially lower" than that observed in the study, because those with mild symptoms would not have been tested or diagnosed at the time', yet it also states 'Symptoms were generally mild and some who tested positive had no symptoms at all'.
I'm working on the assumption that the ONS's projections that between 5-7% of the population have or have had the disease is about right, far less interested in assertions that we've nearly all had it etc which would obviously reduce the % lots.
This matters to me as I have kids supposed to be returning to school soon - it does seem to me that we don't have a real understanding of how kids relate to the virus.
Is it just a not very helpful study (at least as reported) because it doesn't take account of asymptomatic kids sufficiently?

I think the problem with that is that "rare" is a comparative term. I'm sure it can be given a statistical but nonetheless by definition arbitrary definition e.g. outside +/- two standard deviations of any given sample.

There's also the problem that a relative term can have a degree of meaning conferred upon it in a wholly subjective way e.g. somebody who is hell bent on talking down the threat posed by the virus will very happily settle for less than 1% being rare, while somebody who is determined to talk it up will not be happy with that at all. Stir politics into the mix and the term becomes just a word to be bandied about.

My instinctive and necessarily subjective reaction is to suggest that less than 1% of anything is pretty rare. There wouldn't be much point in telling that to a bereaved parent, though.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The BBC article gives a (partial) insight into how the group was selected:

Researchers led by a team at London's Great Ormond Street looked at 582 children aged from three days up to 18 years living in 25 European countries.

They all tested positive for Covid-19 during the initial peak of the pandemic in April and had been seen at one of 82 specialist healthcare centres for their symptoms.

Certainly in the UK the level of testing was very low and reserved only for those showing positive symtoms. To date in England there have been just 20 deaths with Covid infection for the 0-19 age group.

The proposition that most infected children at the time (April) were either asymptomatic or diagnosed with something trivial at the time (cough, cold, lots of bugs around etc) seems reasonable. Were this not the case deaths amongst children would have been much higher than reported.

The 4 of 582 in the study who died were from a small group of children whose symptoms were bad enough to justify hospital admission in early April. It cannot be applied as a tool to estimate the vulnerability of all children to the virus.

 

[woodhutt]

....
The new normal may be very different to the old - work from home, online shopping and delivery, investment to reduce complexity and length of overseas supply chains, etc. Behaviours and attitudes may change - live to work, or work to live. ......

Well, if today is anything to go by, the 'new' normal is the 'old' normal. Needed to send a letter Special Delivery so popped down to the local (very small) town. Every shop open including hairdressers. Groups sitting on benches together, chilling out in the sunshine. 2m ? Dream on 1m? Dream on even further. Not an attempt at any form of social distancing. Not a mask in sight. Covid doesn't exist. Never did. It was a conspiracy. Simply bloody stupid.

Total opposite in my local town. Is it a northern thing?
Town was dead this afternoon by 3pm, lots of masks and people pooping themselves if you were walking towards them 50 yards away.
We had a local incident on facebook where a woman called 999 as she entered the underpass to sainsbury's first and someone entered from the other direction and refused to turn around ...... :roll: I would have refused as well, proper mental. Underpass is 2m wide, but I'm happy to walk pass people in the street at a reasonable distance i'e 1m.

If you'll permit an outsider's viewpoint, I don't believe it's a 'regional thing' but a 'generational thing'.
Most kids believe they're 'bulletproof' (remember the frightening things we all did when young?). Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons. ( A fallacy. While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable).
Since the outbreak of the pandemic I have watched developments on a daily basis around the world. There is no getting away from the fact that the UK has the fourth highest infection rate and the highest mortality rate per capita in the world.
Both the UK and the US have suffered badly from either poor or conflicting guidance from the top. Where other countries have got down in the bunker, let the s**t fly over the top and waited until the enemy ran short of ammunition, the UK and US (with some State led exceptions) decided they could stick their heads above the parapet and try to dodge the bullets. Many while standing shoulder to shoulder and failing to wear tin helmets as they did it.
With a full lock down from the word go, enforced where necessary, you might all be sitting down the pub now (which is where I'll be this afternoon).
Rant over.
Pete

 

[Rorschach]

While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable

Thanks for proving your point with your post :wink: :lol:

 

[woodhutt]

While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable

Thanks for proving your point with your post :wink: :lol:

Strange that you should have selected this extract from the post. Perhaps it rang bells?

 

[Rorschach]

While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable

Thanks for proving your point with your post :wink: :lol:

Strange that you should have selected this extract from the post. Perhaps it rang bells?

I spotted your (poorly disguised) dig :roll:

 

[doctor Bob]

Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons.
Pete

Wow, so basically your saying anyone born after about 1970 ish is a selfish c___, who's opinion is not as worthy as someone else.
That some opinion, I'll grant you that

 

[Rorschach]

Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons.
Pete

Wow, so basically your saying anyone born after about 1970 ish is a selfish c___, who's opinion is not as worthy as someone else.
That some opinion, I'll grant you that

I find it funny that the same people who criticise the youth are usually the same people who blame parents for the faults of children. Not realising the irony that they themselves are the parents of the generation they criticise.