This is freaking crazy
COVID-19 Pandemic World Updates
- Thread starter Meatpie
- Start date
The UK now has the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world
- The UK has recorded the highest coronavirus death rate, according to new analysis.
- Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to lock down the country at a relatively late stage of the pandemic may have significantly influenced the high number of COVID-19 deaths in the UK, according to a Financial Times analysis.
- The UK has the second-highest total excess death count since March — behind only the US — and the highest death rate when adjusted for population.
- Boris Johnson's decision not to lock the country down earlier in March has come under intense scrutiny as the UK's death toll continues to mount.
The UK now has the highest coronavirus death rate in the world
The UK has recorded the highest coronavirus death rate in the world, according to new analysis.www.businessinsider.com
And now they are relaxing lockdown just as rate of hospital admissions is starting to creep up.
And Cummings seems to have got away with it, so many people have been saying 'If he can get away with it why should I obey the rules?' - I've seen the attitude change a lot over the last week.
I have a real fear that we will see a 'Cummings spike' in deaths develop over the next week or so
I shouldn't assume everyone here follows UK politics, though I think our latest clusterfuck has received global coverage. For those who don't know, Dominic Cummings is Boris Johnson's Rasputin-like advisor - possibly our real Prime Minister. So if you think we can't produce anything worse than Boris - sorry folks, we can!
And on a lighter note:
Meanwhile, the government manages to turn the Mother of Parliaments into the Mother of Fuck-ups:
www.theguardian.com
How MPs joined kilometre-long queue in a vote to end virtual parliament – video
MPs formed a socially-distanced mile long queue across the parliamentary estate in a vote that ended virtual parliament
www.theguardian.com
And guess what, the very next day a Cabinet Minister goes down with the virus while speaking in the House of Commons - you couldn't make it up!
www.theguardian.com
Business secretary Alok Sharma appears unwell in House of Commons chamber – video
Business secretary tested for coronavirus after feeling unwell while delivering a statement in the Commons
www.theguardian.com
Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global study finds
Malaria drug should not be used to treat coronavirus, scientists say, after study shows high death ratewww.theguardian.com
So keep taking the Chloroquine, Donald!
Oops! This study has now been withdrawn, though since it originated in The Lancet, a very highly-respected medical journal, I probably shouldn't beat myself up about it:
Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials
Retraction made after Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in data
www.theguardian.com
Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world
A vast database from a little-known company called Surgisphere has influenced rapid policy shifts as the world seeks treatments for Covid-19. But as researchers began to examine it more closely, they became increasingly concerned
www.theguardian.com
BUT, new data published today and independent from the discredited study also indicates that (hydroxy)chloroquine doesn't work:
Hydroxychloroquine does not cure Covid-19, say drug trial chiefs
Major study of thousands of patients led by University of Oxford shows drug is ineffective
www.theguardian.com
And guess what, the very next day a Cabinet Minister goes down with the virus while speaking in the House of Commons - you couldn't make it up!
Business secretary Alok Sharma appears unwell in House of Commons chamber – video
Business secretary tested for coronavirus after feeling unwell while delivering a statement in the Commons
Should mention : he's tested negative, but I think he's still self-isolating as the swab test we use here seems to have an alarmingly-high false negative rate (up to 30% has been suggested).
And now it's suggested Vitamin K may help - personally I barely knew it existed.
www.theguardian.com
Vitamin K found in some cheeses could help fight Covid-19, study suggests
Scientists in Netherlands explore possible link between deficiency and Covid-19 deaths
www.theguardian.com
Not to be confused with the K number, of course!
www.theguardian.com
K number: what is the coronavirus metric that could be crucial as lockdown eases?
The K value sheds light on how the transmission rate varies and can help identify clusters
www.theguardian.com
Global coronavirus death toll passes 400,000
More than a quarter of fatalities are in the US
www.independent.co.uk
Scientists report flaws in WHO study on two-metre distancing
Senior scientists have reported flaws in an influential World Health Organization study into the risks of coronavirus infection and say it should not be used as evidence for relaxing the UK’s two-metre physical distancing rule.
Critics of the distancing advice, which states that people should keep at least two metres apart, believe it is too cautious. They seized on the WHO research, which suggested a reduction from two metres to one metres would raise infection risk only marginally, from 1.3% to 2.6%.
But scientists who delved into the work found mistakes they believe undermine the findings to the point they cannot be relied upon when scientists and ministers are forming judgments about what constitutes safe physical distancing.
“The analysis of infection risk at one metre versus two metre should be treated with great caution,” said Prof David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University, who has participated in the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. “I’m very suspicious of it.”
Prof Kevin McConway, an applied statistician at the Open University, went further and called the analysis inappropriate. He said the work “should not be used in arguments about how much greater the infection risk is at one metre minimum distance as opposed to two metres”.
The study published in the Lancet is the latest to come under fire from experts who fear that in the midst of the pandemic some research papers are being written, reviewed and published too fast for sufficient quality checks to be performed. Earlier this month, the Lancet and another elite publication, the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract coronavirus studies after flaws in the papers emerged.
People observe physical distancing rules as they queue outside a garden centre in Cardiff.
Doubts about the WHO study emerged as Boris Johnson announced a formal review of the two-metre physical distancing rule, which is expected to report by 4 July, the earliest date pubs and restaurants may reopen in England. In recent weeks, Johnson has come under intense pressure from Tory MPs to relax the advice to help businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.
Led by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, the WHO report pooled data from previously published studies to estimate the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus at different distances. It also considered how face masks and eye protection might help prevent the spread of disease.
But in the analysis the authors assume the proportional impact on risk of moving from two metres to one metre is the same as moving from one metre to zero. “They are forcing the proportional fit to be the same,” Spiegelhalter told the Guardian.
McConway believes there is a more fundamental problem in the way the risks of infection at different distances are compared in the study. He said: “The method of comparing the different distances in the paper is inappropriate for telling you exactly how the risk at two-metre minimum distance compares to a one-metre minimum distance. It does not support, and should not be used in, arguments about how much greater the risk is with a one-metre limit versus a two-metre limit.”
Another scientist, Prof Ben Cowling at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control at the University of Hong Kong, flagged further issues with the work. He tweeted that he was “not taking the whole paper very seriously” because it looked only at distance and not how long a person was exposed for.
McConway said he had raised questions about the analysis with the authors and was waiting to hear back. He believed peer review by the Lancet and the WHO should have spotted the problems. “I think they did it in such a rush – the authors, possibly the WHO, and the Lancet peer reviewers – that important things were missed,” he said.
“Everyone believes that the risk of infection at one metre is higher than at two metre and we need to know how much higher because there’s a trade-off between the increased risk and the gains from moving to one metre. But if you don’t know how the risks at one metre and two metres compare, how do you know how to trade it off? It’s finger in the air stuff,” McConway said.
The most recent public Sage document on physical distancing, updated on 2 May, makes clear that multiple streams of evidence are used to advise on safe distancing, including how long people are together, ventilation and room size, and that the two-metre advice is no more than a ballpark guide for face-to-face meetings.
In a statement, the WHO said it recommends keeping a distance of one metre or more.
“The evidence used to inform this guidance was based on a systematic review of all available, relevant observational studies concerning protective measures to prevent transmission of the coronaviruses that cause Sars, Mers and Covid-19. After checking for relevance, 44 comparative studies done in health-care and non-health-care settings were included.
“The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 metre or more, which is in line with the existing WHO recommendation that people should physically distance at least 1 metre,” the statement said.
The Lancet and the authors of the WHO study have been contacted for comment.
Senior scientists have reported flaws in an influential World Health Organization study into the risks of coronavirus infection and say it should not be used as evidence for relaxing the UK’s two-metre physical distancing rule.
Critics of the distancing advice, which states that people should keep at least two metres apart, believe it is too cautious. They seized on the WHO research, which suggested a reduction from two metres to one metres would raise infection risk only marginally, from 1.3% to 2.6%.
But scientists who delved into the work found mistakes they believe undermine the findings to the point they cannot be relied upon when scientists and ministers are forming judgments about what constitutes safe physical distancing.
“The analysis of infection risk at one metre versus two metre should be treated with great caution,” said Prof David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University, who has participated in the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. “I’m very suspicious of it.”
Prof Kevin McConway, an applied statistician at the Open University, went further and called the analysis inappropriate. He said the work “should not be used in arguments about how much greater the infection risk is at one metre minimum distance as opposed to two metres”.
The study published in the Lancet is the latest to come under fire from experts who fear that in the midst of the pandemic some research papers are being written, reviewed and published too fast for sufficient quality checks to be performed. Earlier this month, the Lancet and another elite publication, the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract coronavirus studies after flaws in the papers emerged.
People observe physical distancing rules as they queue outside a garden centre in Cardiff.
Doubts about the WHO study emerged as Boris Johnson announced a formal review of the two-metre physical distancing rule, which is expected to report by 4 July, the earliest date pubs and restaurants may reopen in England. In recent weeks, Johnson has come under intense pressure from Tory MPs to relax the advice to help businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.
Led by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, the WHO report pooled data from previously published studies to estimate the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus at different distances. It also considered how face masks and eye protection might help prevent the spread of disease.
But in the analysis the authors assume the proportional impact on risk of moving from two metres to one metre is the same as moving from one metre to zero. “They are forcing the proportional fit to be the same,” Spiegelhalter told the Guardian.
McConway believes there is a more fundamental problem in the way the risks of infection at different distances are compared in the study. He said: “The method of comparing the different distances in the paper is inappropriate for telling you exactly how the risk at two-metre minimum distance compares to a one-metre minimum distance. It does not support, and should not be used in, arguments about how much greater the risk is with a one-metre limit versus a two-metre limit.”
Another scientist, Prof Ben Cowling at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control at the University of Hong Kong, flagged further issues with the work. He tweeted that he was “not taking the whole paper very seriously” because it looked only at distance and not how long a person was exposed for.
McConway said he had raised questions about the analysis with the authors and was waiting to hear back. He believed peer review by the Lancet and the WHO should have spotted the problems. “I think they did it in such a rush – the authors, possibly the WHO, and the Lancet peer reviewers – that important things were missed,” he said.
“Everyone believes that the risk of infection at one metre is higher than at two metre and we need to know how much higher because there’s a trade-off between the increased risk and the gains from moving to one metre. But if you don’t know how the risks at one metre and two metres compare, how do you know how to trade it off? It’s finger in the air stuff,” McConway said.
The most recent public Sage document on physical distancing, updated on 2 May, makes clear that multiple streams of evidence are used to advise on safe distancing, including how long people are together, ventilation and room size, and that the two-metre advice is no more than a ballpark guide for face-to-face meetings.
In a statement, the WHO said it recommends keeping a distance of one metre or more.
“The evidence used to inform this guidance was based on a systematic review of all available, relevant observational studies concerning protective measures to prevent transmission of the coronaviruses that cause Sars, Mers and Covid-19. After checking for relevance, 44 comparative studies done in health-care and non-health-care settings were included.
“The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 metre or more, which is in line with the existing WHO recommendation that people should physically distance at least 1 metre,” the statement said.
The Lancet and the authors of the WHO study have been contacted for comment.
Meanwhile (and just about on-topic for this thread I hope), there has been a huge fuss about a guy who allegedly pissed on the plaque to the cop who was killed in the Jihadi attack on Parliament in 2017, seeming to imply that he was a Black Lives Matter protester (that's the pisser, not the cop of course!). But I saw the video clip on the BBC News channel earlier, and it doesn't look anything like that to me: he's pissing against a fence in the corner with a pillar, and the plaque is on the front face of the pillar - he's not pissing on it at all, and since it's below knee height I doubt if he's even seen it. And (maybe making a stereotyped assumption here) I'd guess he was more likely to have been on the far-Right demonstration which was going on t he time, not a BLM protester.
Long queues mainly of niggers form in Central London as shops reopen today in England after longest lockdown in history
Photos from Oxford street at the Nike store.
www.bbc.com
Photos from Oxford street at the Nike store.
Hundreds queue as shops reopen in England
Pent-up demand sees people line up outside stores such as Primark, Zara and Sports Direct.
www.bbc.com
Fresh COVID-19 Cluster in Beijng Sends Shockwaves Throughout China
edition.cnn.com
China's new coronavirus outbreak sees Beijing adopt 'wartime' measures
Beijing is reintroducing strict lockdown measures and rolling out mass testing after a fresh cluster of novel coronavirus cases emerged from the city's largest wholesale food market, sparking fears of a resurgence of the deadly outbreak.
edition.cnn.com
The World's top human
Hey guys, things are even worse than we thought! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng-interactive/2020/jun/13/stephen-collins-on-the-worlds-top-human-cartoon
cutedeadguys.net
Similar threads
