NPR

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:07 pm**

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:46 am A naïve attempt to get the antilock down brigade to get onboard and as per current form backfiring?

4,000 a day does seem a OTT doesn't it? Just how bad of a cockup would it have to be to get to that stage. It would require a wilful disregard for any sort of attempts to limit the spread (worst worst case scenario) and well beyond what even these Torys are capable of.

It’s from a “scenario” that’s 3 weeks old.

In the subsequent 3 weeks it’s assumptions have been shown to be false.

It’s a political tool , not a scientific one.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:12 pm**

I can understand someone who isn’t really interested in getting to the truth, or the best available advice wheeling out an academic who supports their point of view, likewise a radio talkshow host who will use the radio equivalent of clickbait to raise the heat, raise the number of listeners and so raise advertising revenue, but what I don’t understand is that academic refusing to acknowledge that the worst case scenario numbers he rubbishes were from models which assume no intervention. It said that on the slides during the government presentation, now I know the person here on the bored resets to zero every day and gets shown that they are wrong every day. Rinse and repeat. I don’t really have a problem with that as it makes zero difference in the scheme of things.

I’d like a radio journalist, if that is the title she claims, to be a bit more informed about the subject and I’d like the academic to tell the full truth about the numbers they are discussing, otherwise it just all adds to the noise and confuses the issue.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:16 pm**

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:43 am I find the 'lockdown sceptics' pretty tedious.

I have no doubt at all that if there wasn't an overwhelming need for it then no government (and particularly this one) would be doing it.

Tedious? really?

There have to be questions asked given the damage that is being wrought on the economy and society from these lockdowns. For me they are just following the trend of the other European major countries and dont want to be caught to be seen to be doing nothing as they havent actually got much of a clue.

What i do find interesting is that the local lockdown or more regionalised approach in Scotland seems to have stemmed the tide, we are not experiencing exponential growth, it has levelled off and rather than opting for the sledgehammer of a national lockdown they could actually look at what is happening elsewhere.

The one striking thing for me is that crunch really seems to be around the lack of capacity in the NHS. If we just take a step back you really can see that it is being asked run at 100% at this time of year and as soon as you ask a bit more of it the whole thing is at risk of collapse. There is no real debate on the NHS as it is sacrosanct in this country, is constantly getting reorganised and is just a behemoth of a thing to even attempt to fix so after decades of sticking plasters it is looking in a pretty sorry state and must be bloody depressing to work in.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:21 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:12 pm I can understand someone who isn’t really interested in getting to the truth, or the best available advice wheeling out an academic who supports their point of view, likewise a radio talkshow host who will use the radio equivalent of clickbait to raise the heat, raise the number of listeners and so raise advertising revenue, but what I don’t understand is that academic refusing to acknowledge that the worst case scenario numbers he rubbishes were from models which assume no intervention. It said that on the slides during the government presentation, now I know the person here on the bored resets to zero every day and gets shown that they are wrong every day. Rinse and repeat. I don’t really have a problem with that as it makes zero difference in the scheme of things.

I’d like a radio journalist, if that is the title she claims, to be a bit more informed about the subject and I’d like the academic to tell the full truth about the numbers they are discussing, otherwise it just all adds to the noise and confuses the issue.

Alternatively you could ask why they even presented the 4000 number when there were already interventions in place and the prospect of hitting that number was zero. Bimbo has a point that they have used this number as a political tool, to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:28 pm**

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:16 pm
tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:43 am I find the 'lockdown sceptics' pretty tedious.

I have no doubt at all that if there wasn't an overwhelming need for it then no government (and particularly this one) would be doing it.
Tedious? really?

There have to be questions asked given the damage that is being wrought on the economy and society from these lockdowns. For me they are just following the trend of the other European major countries and dont want to be caught to be seen to be doing nothing as they havent actually got much of a clue.

What i do find interesting is that the local lockdown or more regionalised approach in Scotland seems to have stemmed the tide, we are not experiencing exponential growth, it has levelled off and rather than opting for the sledgehammer of a national lockdown they could actually look at what is happening elsewhere.

The one striking thing for me is that crunch really seems to be around the lack of capacity in the NHS. If we just take a step back you really can see that it is being asked run at 100% at this time of year and as soon as you ask a bit more of it the whole thing is at risk of collapse. There is no real debate on the NHS as it is sacrosanct in this country, is constantly getting reorganised and is just a behemoth of a thing to even attempt to fix so after decades of sticking plasters it is looking in a pretty sorry state and must be bloody depressing to work in.

The NHS is massively underfunded, and no one is talking about just blindly spraying money at it but the bottom line is that it needs more targeted investment. As you get people living longer you produce more demand on health services, likewise with population growth etc

Now, some argue for either or both private sector delivery and individual insurance schemes, I’m yet to be convinced that these proposals won’t lead to a huge underclass who do not get the same level of treatment as those who can afford several thousand pound a year premiums.

This is a huge topic in its own right.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:36 pm**

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:21 pm

Alternatively you could ask why they even presented the 4000 number when there were already interventions in place and the prospect of hitting that number was zero. Bimbo has a point that they have used this number as a political tool, to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Were you confused by the presentation?

I haven’t actually checked the numbers themselves but I did read that the infection rate was doubling every nine days, or was that the death rate?

If you can give me a plausible explanation as to why the government would go into lockdown unnecessarily I’m all ears, are these some mad scientists pulling the strings, cackling wildly as they do so? Revenge of the Experts, maybe?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:40 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:12 pm I can understand someone who isn’t really interested in getting to the truth, or the best available advice wheeling out an academic who supports their point of view, likewise a radio talkshow host who will use the radio equivalent of clickbait to raise the heat, raise the number of listeners and so raise advertising revenue, but what I don’t understand is that academic refusing to acknowledge that the worst case scenario numbers he rubbishes were from models which assume no intervention. It said that on the slides during the government presentation, now I know the person here on the bored resets to zero every day and gets shown that they are wrong every day. Rinse and repeat. I don’t really have a problem with that as it makes zero difference in the scheme of things.

I’d like a radio journalist, if that is the title she claims, to be a bit more informed about the subject and I’d like the academic to tell the full truth about the numbers they are discussing, otherwise it just all adds to the noise and confuses the issue.

Why are they presenting “stories” as implied fact Though.

And we didn’t Lock down for 3 weeks post the predictions and nothing has matched the “if we do nothing” predictions at all. They’ve chosen to not correct that.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:44 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:36 pm
Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:21 pm

Alternatively you could ask why they even presented the 4000 number when there were already interventions in place and the prospect of hitting that number was zero. Bimbo has a point that they have used this number as a political tool, to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Were you confused by the presentation?

I haven’t actually checked the numbers themselves but I did read that the infection rate was doubling every nine days, or was that the death rate?

If you can give me a plausible explanation as to why the government would go into lockdown unnecessarily I’m all ears, are these some mad scientists pulling the strings, cackling wildly as they do so? Revenge of the Experts, maybe?

Because lockdowns are massively cheap politically regardless of the other costs.

It also stops everyone asking the question what did the Government do in the last 6 months to prepare for this winter. The answer to that is nothing.

For reference the estimates of what the coming lockdown will cost is 2.4 billion a day. Are you telling me if I’d given 1/2 that figure 30 billion to a sensible manager we couldn’t have increased health capacity in a 6 month timeframe.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:48 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:44 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:36 pm
Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:21 pm

Alternatively you could ask why they even presented the 4000 number when there were already interventions in place and the prospect of hitting that number was zero. Bimbo has a point that they have used this number as a political tool, to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Were you confused by the presentation?

I haven’t actually checked the numbers themselves but I did read that the infection rate was doubling every nine days, or was that the death rate?

If you can give me a plausible explanation as to why the government would go into lockdown unnecessarily I’m all ears, are these some mad scientists pulling the strings, cackling wildly as they do so? Revenge of the Experts, maybe?

Because lockdowns are massively cheap politically regardless of the other costs.

It also stops everyone asking the question what did the Government do in the last 6 months to prepare for this winter. The answer to that is nothing.

Is it not to stem the infection and death rates then?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:52 pm**

Is it not to stem the infection and death rates then?

Delay them. There’s a lot of argument that they increase deaths eventually. A very good argument that potential poverty coming will kill more. This isn’t an actual eradication policy.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:56 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:52 pm
Is it not to stem the infection and death rates then?

Delay them. There’s a lot of argument that they increase deaths eventually. A very good argument that potential poverty coming will kill more. This isn’t an actual eradication policy.

Delay them until when? Until lockdown is lifted? ie it works.

This is a world-wide phenomenon and a world-wide solution to the problems facing the global economy is needed, you’ll get no argument from me that we need to eradicate poverty.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:02 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:56 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:52 pm
Is it not to stem the infection and death rates then?

Delay them. There’s a lot of argument that they increase deaths eventually. A very good argument that potential poverty coming will kill more. This isn’t an actual eradication policy.

Delay them until when? Until lockdown is lifted? ie it works.

This is a world-wide phenomenon and a world-wide solution to the problems facing the global economy is needed, you’ll get no argument from me that we need to eradicate poverty.

You’d lock down forever then. Kill millions through other problems but solve the Covid issue.

Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.

Oh and we certainly don’t need a world wide government solution.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:22 pm**

Is there any truth in the conspiracy theory that Canada is setting up COVID camps?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:23 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:02 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:56 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:52 pm

Delay them. There’s a lot of argument that they increase deaths eventually. A very good argument that potential poverty coming will kill more. This isn’t an actual eradication policy.

Delay them until when? Until lockdown is lifted? ie it works.

This is a world-wide phenomenon and a world-wide solution to the problems facing the global economy is needed, you’ll get no argument from me that we need to eradicate poverty.
You’d lock down forever then. Kill millions through other problems but solve the Covid issue.

Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.

Oh and we certainly don’t need a world wide government solution.

I’d lock down until we get R below 1 as that seems to be what the best advice is, if that comes sooner than the 2nd of December then so much the better.

poverty in the developing world is such a huge topic that I genuinely do not have the time to go into it, but it does deserve better than that statement you made.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:52 pm**

Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.

That is such a fucking facile comment.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:57 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:23 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:02 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:56 pm

Delay them until when? Until lockdown is lifted? ie it works.

This is a world-wide phenomenon and a world-wide solution to the problems facing the global economy is needed, you’ll get no argument from me that we need to eradicate poverty.
You’d lock down forever then. Kill millions through other problems but solve the Covid issue.

Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.

Oh and we certainly don’t need a world wide government solution.
I’d lock down until we get R below 1 as that seems to be what the best advice is, if that comes sooner than the 2nd of December then so much the better.

poverty in the developing world is such a huge topic that I genuinely do not have the time to go into it, but it does deserve better than that statement you made.

No you would want the death of millions.

Ffs he's stinking up nearly everythread everywhere

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:57 pm**

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:52 pm
Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.
That is such a fucking facile comment.

2020 has seen a huge rise in absolute poverty , I’m glad you think that’s facile .

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:58 pm**

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:52 pm
Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.
That is such a fucking facile comment.

It's just his deliberate fishing to rile up anyone left of centre. We're all used to it by now.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:59 pm**

C69 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:57 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:23 pm
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:02 pm

You’d lock down forever then. Kill millions through other problems but solve the Covid issue.

Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.

Oh and we certainly don’t need a world wide government solution.
I’d lock down until we get R below 1 as that seems to be what the best advice is, if that comes sooner than the 2nd of December then so much the better.

poverty in the developing world is such a huge topic that I genuinely do not have the time to go into it, but it does deserve better than that statement you made.
No you would want the death of millions.

Ffs he's stinking up nearly everythread everywhere

“Every thread”

Hope your care is more accurate than this. How many beds you got spare today ?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:01 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:58 pm
Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:52 pm
Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.
That is such a fucking facile comment.
It's just his deliberate fishing to rile up anyone left of centre. We're all used to it by now.

No, I’m pointing out that the “lockdowns” aren’t a free option either domestically or internationally. If you’re saying the “left” are susceptible to telling themselves untruths so they feel better , then I agree:

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:12 pm**

First time in 2 generations that the evil Tory party is choosing lives over business and the opposition & their supporters is freaking out at them.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:22 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:57 pm
Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:52 pm
Lockdowns in the west massively increase third world poverty. Everytime you cheer on that delay millions of poor people become poorer.
That is such a fucking facile comment.

2020 has seen a huge rise in absolute poverty , I’m glad you think that’s facile .

Yes, yes, that's my point, you overgrown teenager.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:37 pm**

The point is lockdowns are almost the worse policy hat can be imposed on a western high trust democracy and its people. If the discussion is to be had honestly that should be the starting point, not the other way round.

They’re cowardly politics. And imposed by people who won’t suffer from them or the effects on society from them.

There’s always the feeling that their fans would want some form of lockdown for ever.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:59 pm**

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:22 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:28 pm
Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:16 pm
tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:43 am I find the 'lockdown sceptics' pretty tedious.

I have no doubt at all that if there wasn't an overwhelming need for it then no government (and particularly this one) would be doing it.
Tedious? really?

There have to be questions asked given the damage that is being wrought on the economy and society from these lockdowns. For me they are just following the trend of the other European major countries and dont want to be caught to be seen to be doing nothing as they havent actually got much of a clue.

What i do find interesting is that the local lockdown or more regionalised approach in Scotland seems to have stemmed the tide, we are not experiencing exponential growth, it has levelled off and rather than opting for the sledgehammer of a national lockdown they could actually look at what is happening elsewhere.

The one striking thing for me is that crunch really seems to be around the lack of capacity in the NHS. If we just take a step back you really can see that it is being asked run at 100% at this time of year and as soon as you ask a bit more of it the whole thing is at risk of collapse. There is no real debate on the NHS as it is sacrosanct in this country, is constantly getting reorganised and is just a behemoth of a thing to even attempt to fix so after decades of sticking plasters it is looking in a pretty sorry state and must be bloody depressing to work in.

The NHS is massively underfunded, and no one is talking about just blindly spraying money at it but the bottom line is that it needs more targeted investment. As you get people living longer you produce more demand on health services, likewise with population growth etc

Now, some argue for either or both private sector delivery and individual insurance schemes, I’m yet to be convinced that these proposals won’t lead to a huge underclass who do not get the same level of treatment as those who can afford several thousand pound a year premiums.

This is a huge topic in its own right.

It is massively overfunded to do the job it was set up to do, it is a massively inefficient leviathan that we can feed money to at an ever increasing rate and it still won't be enough...

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:25 pm**

UK - 2/11/2020
Deaths: 136 (up from 102 last Monday)
Cases: 18,950 - first time below 20,000 since 26/10 - a glimmer of hope?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:31 pm**

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:25 pm UK - 2/11/2020
Deaths: 136 (up from 102 last Monday)
Cases: 18,950 - first time below 20,000 since 26/10 - a glimmer of hope?

Positive tests falling consistently now.

Deaths hardly changed (rather than doubling every 7 days).

This is all good news,

Let’s all of course discuss the disaster when we get Tuesday catch ups tomorrow.

This is the similar pattern to the previous lock down where things had turned before we actually locked down.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:53 pm**

Plato’sCave wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:22 pm Is there any truth in the conspiracy theory that Canada is setting up COVID camps?

Don't know what they are, but I have not heard that term here on the left coast. We aren't as bad off as Ontario though.

They are telling us to reduce our circle and limit groups. Halloween was really quiet apart from the usual teenage idiots gathering down at the local park. I've stayed pretty quiet throughout all this so no changes for our family.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:13 pm**

Excess deaths were at their peak between April 11th & 24th; we went into full lockdown on March 23rd.

Using ONS death figures, with a rolling 3 week average; 11th-17th April saw 11,854 more deaths than the 5 year mean, 18th-24th saw c.11,539 more than the 5 year mean.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:24 pm**

What's everyone's opinion on how mask wearing and social distancing is being adhered to. I ask because I was surprised to hear Piers Morgan saying there as an appaling lack of mask wearing in and around central London, especially in shops etc. I found this odd because up here it is incredibly rare to see even one person not wearing a mask . Surely there can't be that different an attitude.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:28 pm**

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:24 pm What's everyone's opinion on how mask wearing and social distancing is being adhered to. I ask because I was surprised to hear Piers Morgan saying there as an appaling lack of mask wearing in and around central London, especially in shops etc. I found this odd because up here it is incredibly rare to see even one person not wearing a mask . Surely there can't be that different an attitude.

I’ve not seen more than one or two unmasked people in supermarkets here. I do most of the family shopping.

The young though are all quietly partying post the 10pm close downs. Especially at weekends.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:37 pm**

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:46 am A naïve attempt to get the antilock down brigade to get onboard and as per current form backfiring?

4,000 a day does seem a OTT doesn't it? Just how bad of a cockup would it have to be to get to that stage. It would require a wilful disregard for any sort of attempts to limit the spread (worst worst case scenario) and well beyond what even these Torys are capable of.

It does seem ott and that particular model must anticipate the breakdown of the NHS and continued stupid behaviour on the scale of recent raves etc. To date that extreme model is clearly over-pessimistic but I guess if hospitals were no longer admitting patients and staffing (from where?) collapsed to the extent the Nightingales couldn’t function the numbers could soon become horrendous.

It’s being missed perhaps that even the least worst modelling demands some urgent attention.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:46 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:28 pm
Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:24 pm What's everyone's opinion on how mask wearing and social distancing is being adhered to. I ask because I was surprised to hear Piers Morgan saying there as an appaling lack of mask wearing in and around central London, especially in shops etc. I found this odd because up here it is incredibly rare to see even one person not wearing a mask . Surely there can't be that different an attitude.

I’ve not seen more than one or two unmasked people in supermarkets here. I do most of the family shopping.

The young though are all quietly partying post the 10pm close downs. Especially at weekends.

Bimboh is right. People are wearing masks in shops and following the rules in public.

In private it’s a shitshow, especially in the under 30s who are partying with their mates, then going home to Mum and Dad and Nan and making them sick.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:48 pm**

Openside wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:22 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:28 pm
Northern Lights wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:16 pm

Tedious? really?

There have to be questions asked given the damage that is being wrought on the economy and society from these lockdowns. For me they are just following the trend of the other European major countries and dont want to be caught to be seen to be doing nothing as they havent actually got much of a clue.

What i do find interesting is that the local lockdown or more regionalised approach in Scotland seems to have stemmed the tide, we are not experiencing exponential growth, it has levelled off and rather than opting for the sledgehammer of a national lockdown they could actually look at what is happening elsewhere.

The one striking thing for me is that crunch really seems to be around the lack of capacity in the NHS. If we just take a step back you really can see that it is being asked run at 100% at this time of year and as soon as you ask a bit more of it the whole thing is at risk of collapse. There is no real debate on the NHS as it is sacrosanct in this country, is constantly getting reorganised and is just a behemoth of a thing to even attempt to fix so after decades of sticking plasters it is looking in a pretty sorry state and must be bloody depressing to work in.

The NHS is massively underfunded, and no one is talking about just blindly spraying money at it but the bottom line is that it needs more targeted investment. As you get people living longer you produce more demand on health services, likewise with population growth etc

Now, some argue for either or both private sector delivery and individual insurance schemes, I’m yet to be convinced that these proposals won’t lead to a huge underclass who do not get the same level of treatment as those who can afford several thousand pound a year premiums.

This is a huge topic in its own right.
It is massively overfunded to do the job it was set up to do, it is a massively inefficient leviathan that we can feed money to at an ever increasing rate and it still won't be enough...

The Beveridge Report's recommendation was to create a "comprehensive health and rehabilitation services for prevention and cure of disease” for the entire population.

I don’t agree that the NHS is “massively overfunded to do the job it was set up to do”.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:52 pm**

The NHS is great, but it’s badly managed. However if you bring in private-style management then staff numbers in the wrong area - nurses instead of managers will be cut - and patients will end up the losers.

I do not know what the answer is. Sorry.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:01 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:52 pm The NHS is great, but it’s badly managed. However if you bring in private-style management then staff numbers in the wrong area - nurses instead of managers will be cut - and patients will end up the losers.

I do not know what the answer is. Sorry.

I spent three weeks in hospital last year and it was clearly an inefficient system (though I owe it my life - thank you all).

And yet one of our huge problems now is that it runs so efficiently in terms of bed occupation. We have dangerously few spare beds compared to much of Western Europe and that’s a huge problem right now.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:03 pm**

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:49 am
Muttonbird wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:30 am
Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:28 am

What the fuck would you know about LBC listeners? And what vote ?
LBC seems like a right wing mouthpiece. Correct me if I'm wrong.

“Seems like” , go on how have you formed that opinion ?

Because you quoted them.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:07 pm**

New MIT app detects coronavirus by listening to your cough
The AI system was able to correctly identify whether people had coronavirus 98.5pc of the time

2 November 2020 • 5:45pm
Researchers have developed a new artificial intelligence (AI) system which they claim can detect coronavirus by analysing the sound of people coughing.

Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said the AI works because the virus causes temporary muscular impairment which can cause small differences to people’s speech or the sound of their cough – even if they have no other symptoms.

Tests performed on 4,000 recordings of people forcing themselves to cough showed that the system was able to reliably detect coronavirus, the researchers wrote in paper published the IEEE Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

When given new cough recordings, the AI was able to identify coughs from people who were confirmed to have Covid-19 98.5 per cent of the time. It was also able to identify coronavirus in those who were assymptomatic 100 per cemt of the time.

“We think this shows that the way you produce sound, changes when you have Covid, even if you’re asymptomatic,” Brian Subirana, a co-author of the paper and a research scientist in MIT’s Auto-ID Laboratory told MIT News.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:39 pm**

Is this thread Bimboman arguing with every singe other poster?

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:45 pm**

Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:39 pm Is thread Bimboman arguing with every singe other poster?

It’s relentless

NPR

So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...

Re: So, coronavirus...