#COVID19 | Page 1037 | Vital Football

#COVID19

More manipulation of the figures.

Hospital admissions in the North West up from 40 to 53 so 32%.

England, up from 121 to 137 so 13%.

He has taken the lowest day of hospital admissions and used it against the highest day of hospital admissions.

They are also neglecting to factor in hospital discharges on the same day.

I’m done.
 
Well the millions who marched and protested were proven unequivocally to be right, no?

You drank the cool aid and were wrong

Why did they not attack Saudia Arabia when 18 of the 19 confirmed people who were involved in 9/11 were from there
Stop chatting shit

History and facts are not on your side

The north and south of Iraq had no fly zones for a very long time

I bet you are one of those twats that believed North Korea had weapons that could hit us in 45 mins because you read it and it was fact

Give over and stop taking wet
Did they march chanting "George Bush, you are wrong, there are no WMDs in Iraq"?

I didn't go on the big London march- I believe we were playing at the New Den (or somewhere like that) that weekend and I did that instead. Most of my uni friends went, and an ascerbic takedown of the evidence for WMDs was not really how the described it to me.

What they described was more "don't go to war, because war is wrong". Which, of course, it was, is and always will be.

Alas, you seem to have far more respect for Bush and Blair than I ever did. You seem very willing to ascribe to cunning and conspiracy what I am absolutely sure was pure cock up.

No idea what you are talking about with Saudi Arabia. For a start, 15 of the 20 attackers (one was detained at the airport) were Saudi, not 18- with several havving spent considerable time in America or Germany anyway. 9/11 was never the major motivation for any of Iraq. Yes, Bush in desperation spun some old pony, evidence free, that Saddam has some links to 9/11. Who did anything other than laugh at that?

I'm not sure what lizard based conspiracy you are advocating. I could at least respect if you tried claiming it was all about oil, as we all assumed back then. But amidst all the pointless insults, you don't seem capable of advancing a theory.

Personally I think it was pure vanity on Bush's part. Is wouldnt ascribe it to any less base human trait than that.
 
More manipulation of the figures.

Hospital admissions in the North West up from 40 to 53 so 32%.

England, up from 121 to 137 so 13%.

He has taken the lowest day of hospital admissions and used it against the highest day of hospital admissions.

They are also neglecting to factor in hospital discharges on the same day.

I’m done.
It will never end.

In four weeks there will be another reason to delay. They said today that cases will be higher in 4 weeks, but that will be ok because more will be vaccinated; but they'll be singing a different tune in four weeks, when they'll be warning that we need to delay again for X, Y or Z reason.

Then it'll be Autumn and we'll need to delay until the spring, just to be safe.

There will always be something.

Forget 2021, restrictions won't be lifted this year I don't think. I just cannot see that ever being the advice.
 
The department where I work has been a good barometer so far for what is happening.

In January they started talking about a return to work in April but that got overruled by the roadmap and we were told the plan was for a cautious return to office working from June.

That hasn’t happened and conversations with staff have been paused until a firm decision has been made about social distancing as that will affect how many people our office (built for 1500 people) can accommodate.

We are now being told it will be at least September before we start to go back. Well except for one hooray Henrietta who is trying to make a name for herself by being the first to have a whole command back…

Oh and there were two positive cases in the office today from 180ish people…
 
Passed through town Saturday night about 10.45 and it was rammed. Pavements full of young people out having a drink.

So we're not exactly locked down at present.
 
Did they march chanting "George Bush, you are wrong, there are no WMDs in Iraq"?

I didn't go on the big London march- I believe we were playing at the New Den (or somewhere like that) that weekend and I did that instead. Most of my uni friends went, and an ascerbic takedown of the evidence for WMDs was not really how the described it to me.

What they described was more "don't go to war, because war is wrong". Which, of course, it was, is and always will be.

Alas, you seem to have far more respect for Bush and Blair than I ever did. You seem very willing to ascribe to cunning and conspiracy what I am absolutely sure was pure cock up.

No idea what you are talking about with Saudi Arabia. For a start, 15 of the 20 attackers (one was detained at the airport) were Saudi, not 18- with several havving spent considerable time in America or Germany anyway. 9/11 was never the major motivation for any of Iraq. Yes, Bush in desperation spun some old pony, evidence free, that Saddam has some links to 9/11. Who did anything other than laugh at that?

I'm not sure what lizard based conspiracy you are advocating. I could at least respect if you tried claiming it was all about oil, as we all assumed back then. But amidst all the pointless insults, you don't seem capable of advancing a theory.

Personally I think it was pure vanity on Bush's part. Is wouldnt ascribe it to any less base human trait than that.
 
I was in Dhahran when Saddam marched into Kuwait, just up the road a few clicks. It was quite scary, there was a good dual carriageway between me and the Iraqis.
Whatever the reason George Dubbwa decided to evict Saddam's troops, I was rather pleased.
When Uncle Sam goes to war, he means business.
You could see the convoy of aircraft approaching the runway for miles and miles in the night sky.
I have never seen so many aircraft in one place in my life, despite having been in the RAF for twenty-five years.
First in were the 105th, and 92nd airborne: they were mostly very large southern boys, if you know what I mean.
By the next day, the yanks had built a small city: you could go to the PX and order a car or buy a shirt, it was a master class in logistics.
A row of toilets sprang up alongside the taxiway for about 2 kilometres, they were only half height, and you could see the troops taking their morning constitutionals, and the Filipinos emptying them from behind: quite amusing in a way.
I will be eternally grateful to the Americans
 
I was in Dhahran when Saddam marched into Kuwait, just up the road a few clicks. It was quite scary, there was a good dual carriageway between me and the Iraqis.
Whatever the reason George Dubbwa decided to evict Saddam's troops, I was rather pleased.
When Uncle Sam goes to war, he means business.
You could see the convoy of aircraft approaching the runway for miles and miles in the night sky.
I have never seen so many aircraft in one place in my life, despite having been in the RAF for twenty-five years.
First in were the 105th, and 92nd airborne: they were mostly very large southern boys, if you know what I mean.
By the next day, the yanks had built a small city: you could go to the PX and order a car or buy a shirt, it was a master class in logistics.
A row of toilets sprang up alongside the taxiway for about 2 kilometres, they were only half height, and you could see the troops taking their morning constitutionals, and the Filipinos emptying them from behind: quite amusing in a way.
I will be eternally grateful to the Americans
Can I ask an incredibly remedial military question?

When you talk about 105th and 92nd airborne, does that literally mean there are at least 105 of these groups? Is there a 1st, 2nd etc every time, or so some numbers get "retired"?

How big would one of these groups be in the air force? Is it based on manpower or planes, and if the latter, does it matter what planes they are or is it purely numbers?
 
Can I ask an incredibly remedial military question?

When you talk about 105th and 92nd airborne, does that literally mean there are at least 105 of these groups? Is there a 1st, 2nd etc every time, or so some numbers get "retired"?

How big would one of these groups be in the air force? Is it based on manpower or planes, and if the latter, does it matter what planes they are or is it purely numbers?

From memory, there are three Airborne divisions, each consisting of anything between 5 and 25 thousand men; they are the equivalent of the Parachute Regiment in the UK.

The Americans also have Infantry and Armed Divisions which take part in foreign conflicts.
 
Can I ask an incredibly remedial military question?

When you talk about 105th and 92nd airborne, does that literally mean there are at least 105 of these groups? Is there a 1st, 2nd etc every time, or so some numbers get "retired"?

How big would one of these groups be in the air force? Is it based on manpower or planes, and if the latter, does it matter what planes they are or is it purely numbers?
 
Before someone rightly picks me up: it was the 82nd and 101st airborne. Please forgive my mental aberration. It was thirty years ago.
I am not a military historian, but the RAF was formed in 1918, and there have been numerous squadrons. Some remain, but most have been abandoned for various reasons.
A squadron is usually only nine or so aircraft, but many squadrons would form a Wing.
As to the American airborne troops, there were thousands of them TG.
One thing that struck me was how extremely courteous and polite the yanks were.
Not bit like those guys on Netfux.
 
Before someone rightly picks me up: it was the 82nd and 101st airborne. Please forgive my mental aberration. It was thirty years ago.
I am not a military historian, but the RAF was formed in 1918, and there have been numerous squadrons. Some remain, but most have been abandoned for various reasons.
A squadron is usually only nine or so aircraft, but many squadrons would form a Wing.
As to the American airborne troops, there were thousands of them TG.
One thing that struck me was how extremely courteous and polite the yanks were.
Not bit like those guys on Netfux.

That's right.

There is also the 1st; who along with the other two are the three complete divisions.

There are also a number of much smaller Airborne Divisions who have specialised responsibilities.

That is how it was 15 years ago when I was working at the MOD; unfortunately the Americans I worked with were neither polite nor courteous.
 
Why is the data being deliberately spun to show things worse than they actually are???

We were shown a graph comparing the change in the proportion of under- and over-65s admitted to hospital in January and May/June.

This showed a big jump in the under-65s column, a point Prof Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, took pains to emphasise.

The problem is that this fails to show just how much lower the raw numbers are now.

In reality, there were 95,172 admissions for Covid in England between Jan 1 and 28, compared with 2,851 between May 16 and June 12.

However, a brief glance at the Downing Street graph - and that’s all the general public will have had the chance to do - could well give the impression that the situation in hospitals is worse than last winter.

This comparison is also weakened by the timing chosen by the Government.

Cases are generally distributed in younger age groups towards the start of a period of opening up, as these people are more likely to return to work in person or to socialise.

In September, at the start of the second wave, those aged 18-to-64 comprised 51 per cent of admissions compared with 60 per cent in May. This was higher than it was for the over-65 age group.

On Tuesday morning, Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, revealed that just one per cent of hospital beds are currently occupied by Covid patients, with most of those young.

Sir Simon also said hospitals are in a “much better position” than last year

The second graph deployed by Prof Whitty to illustrate the supposed pressure felt by hospitals was problematic in a different way.

It showed the average number of weekly hospital admissions per 100,000 for both the North West and England as a whole.

Snaking left to right by month, the lines appear to rise sharply - particularly for the North West - in the past two weeks.

The problem is one of scale.

The rise in the North West is significant, but, again, pales in comparison to the second wave.

Admissions are at around five per 100,000 as of June 12, compared with around 20 per 100,000 at the end of December and then over 40 by the peak.

This was in no way evident at last night’s briefing.

On the far left of the government graph, you can just about see the end of the gentle downhill slope, denoting the end of the second wave, at the start of April.

But it would have been far more informative to have shown the colossal mountain of the second wave itself, so the public could have seen how much bigger it was than the recent uptick.

What was shown in the first image, What it didn't show in the second

1623755280915.png
 
Why is the data being deliberately spun to show things worse than they actually are???

We were shown a graph comparing the change in the proportion of under- and over-65s admitted to hospital in January and May/June.

This showed a big jump in the under-65s column, a point Prof Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, took pains to emphasise.

The problem is that this fails to show just how much lower the raw numbers are now.

In reality, there were 95,172 admissions for Covid in England between Jan 1 and 28, compared with 2,851 between May 16 and June 12.

However, a brief glance at the Downing Street graph - and that’s all the general public will have had the chance to do - could well give the impression that the situation in hospitals is worse than last winter.

This comparison is also weakened by the timing chosen by the Government.

Cases are generally distributed in younger age groups towards the start of a period of opening up, as these people are more likely to return to work in person or to socialise.

In September, at the start of the second wave, those aged 18-to-64 comprised 51 per cent of admissions compared with 60 per cent in May. This was higher than it was for the over-65 age group.

On Tuesday morning, Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, revealed that just one per cent of hospital beds are currently occupied by Covid patients, with most of those young.

Sir Simon also said hospitals are in a “much better position” than last year

The second graph deployed by Prof Whitty to illustrate the supposed pressure felt by hospitals was problematic in a different way.

It showed the average number of weekly hospital admissions per 100,000 for both the North West and England as a whole.

Snaking left to right by month, the lines appear to rise sharply - particularly for the North West - in the past two weeks.

The problem is one of scale.

The rise in the North West is significant, but, again, pales in comparison to the second wave.

Admissions are at around five per 100,000 as of June 12, compared with around 20 per 100,000 at the end of December and then over 40 by the peak.

This was in no way evident at last night’s briefing.

On the far left of the government graph, you can just about see the end of the gentle downhill slope, denoting the end of the second wave, at the start of April.

But it would have been far more informative to have shown the colossal mountain of the second wave itself, so the public could have seen how much bigger it was than the recent uptick.

What was shown in the first image, What it didn't show in the second

View attachment 49588


The same criticism can be made of the graphs showing the weekly increase in cases, which were also only presented from the beginning of April, rather than December or January.

Properly understanding this metric was further hampered by the failure to set out how the cases break down by age.

Most of England’s new cases are now among the young.

Across all ages, the latest daily rate in England is 67.1 per 100,000 (as of June 9), but for those under-60s the rate is 84.1 per, and for those over 60 it is just 12.6 per 100,000.


Downing Street’s choice of graphs need to be seen in the context that its own modellers have already admitted that they do not know whether releasing restrictions on June 21 would have caused unsustainable pressure on the NHS.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/15/fear-freedom-doom-laded-government-graphs-dont-show-us/
 
As an 'outsider' I have said that if you dont wwear masks you will keep spreading it and you still arent all wearing masks. So you are all still spreading it. How are you going to come out of lock down if when during lockdown everyone is still spreading it? Ive seen one Spanish person without a mask in about 6 months. Its just messed up and I just don't get it at all. This time it isnt the government fooking things up
 
The same criticism can be made of the graphs showing the weekly increase in cases, which were also only presented from the beginning of April, rather than December or January.

Properly understanding this metric was further hampered by the failure to set out how the cases break down by age.

Most of England’s new cases are now among the young.

Across all ages, the latest daily rate in England is 67.1 per 100,000 (as of June 9), but for those under-60s the rate is 84.1 per, and for those over 60 it is just 12.6 per 100,000.


Downing Street’s choice of graphs need to be seen in the context that its own modellers have already admitted that they do not know whether releasing restrictions on June 21 would have caused unsustainable pressure on the NHS.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/15/fear-freedom-doom-laded-government-graphs-dont-show-us/

There’s a pretty simple response. They are trying to scare those who haven’t got a vaccine into getting one, particularly the younger age groups.