It’s not a yes/no answer. Who owns and controls the data and what will happen to it when this is over?
The established protocol used to be to prioritise on the basis of expected quality adjusted life years, so basically the probability of survival multiplied by the number of years remaining in life expectancy reduced by the percentage impairment you're expected to suffer (so a year of life but on frequent dialysis is valued less than a year of life without that, but more than a year permanently on oxygen) There are injustices in that and several ways that medical opinion affect it, which is why multiple doctors have to agree, but it's the least worst system found so far
I’m glad I didn’t listen to that discussion ,I’d be a bit more depressed than I already am , on the judgements you mentioned , I’d just about scrape through as a first come stat ,
Is anyone else concerned by the deaths to recovery ratio being recorded for Britain? As they currently stand, the Public Heath England figures cite 1789 deaths and 135 recoveries from 25150 confirmed cases. This means that of all the "concluded" cases (i.e. all those that have resulted in either death or recovery) the vast majority (around 92%) are deaths.
I appreciate that recoveries might take longer to confirm than deaths (the former requiring a certain symptom-free period to be sure, while death is pretty obvious and conclusive!). It's also possible that this could also be explained by a low proportion of tests being carried out; and if so most likely being administered only in the most severe of cases (i.e. when people are admitted to hospital, which seems to be the case currently).
Still, I find this very concerning since every other country shows a much higher proportion of recoveries to deaths, with even Italy recording only around 45% of "concluded" cases as resulting in death compared to our 92%. This trend has also been fairly consistant throughout the whole process in both countries (as illustrated nicely in Wikipedia's timeline bar charts for both the UK and Italy); rather than showing any lag. Perhaps Italy's process for confirming recoveries are less stringent than ours?
This is also worrying given that we currently have around 25k confirmed cases and following Italy's example it's likely that this will increase by a factor of four or five before it levels out. If the mortality rate remains as it is now we're looking at the vast majority of those cases resulting in death, so potentially in the region of 100,000 fatalities
Can anyone shed any more light on this please?
How easy will it be to fake a negative from it? If pubs are only checking display, a screenshot would fool most. If there's a challenge-response protocol, someone will probably sniff it and build an app that always responds clean. If there's a central database, how will businesses be stopped from harvesting it and misusing it? How will government abuses be prevented? Or government access keys being left on a USB stick in public place?
Extra capacity lol. They're right in the middle of a plan to close down as many hospital labs as they can possibly get away with.
I think it's significant that she was arrested for "travel fraud" as well as the other stuff.Sounds like an upstanding member of society
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...using-to-tell-police-why-she-was-out-11966813
Least it’s a decent fine and not a token £30.Sounds like an upstanding member of society
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...using-to-tell-police-why-she-was-out-11966813
Because she went to court and was clearly up to no good generally. Whether she’ll be able to pay is another matter but hopefully it’ll serve as a deterrent
