Covid FOI Request Results

[The Byre]

I already mentioned 1918 here -

Well, that's a nice and easy one to answer - the 1918 flu pandemic. One-third of the world's population caught that H1N1 virus of avian origin and about one-tenth of them died. 500m infected and 50m died.

Statistically, the Delta variant is about as dangerous as flu. The Omicron variant would appear to be much less dangerous, but no hard figures are available just yet. As 99% of all C19 infections right now in the UK are from Omicron, the figures for the next few weeks will be the true basis for any judgment.

Most people confuse a bad cold (aka man-flu!) with genuine influenza, which can be an extremely dangerous illness. Flu is involved in the deaths of about 250,000 people in the UK every year and is the sole cause of death in 14% of those deaths.

The Delta variant is the sole cause of death in 14% of all those who have died with C19 being involved.

For both C19 (Delta variant) and influenza,, comorbidity is the real killer - of which anecdotal evidence so far would point mostly to obesity as being a major comorbidity factor.

My personal conclusion - Both flu and C19 are to be taken very seriously, especially if the patient has any other health issues, no matter how trivial those issues may seem.

That takeaway from all that is that the Delta variant is about as dangerous as flu, which is a far more dangerous illness than most people realise.

The Omicron variant would appear to be much less dangerous, but no hard figures are available just yet. No doubt, when they are available, we can all go back down to Planet Earth and stop flapping and find something else to panic over!

 

[simon field]

…and we can all forget about ‘the new normal’.

It’s the same as ‘the old normal’ (except everything has gone up!) so get back in that office at once! No more doing housework when you should be doing the invoicing! ?

 

[Scubadog]

Well, that's a nice and easy one to answer - the 1918 flu pandemic. One-third of the world's population caught that H1N1 virus of avian origin and about one-tenth of them died. 500m infected and 50m died.


Nope. Statistically, the Delta variant is about as dangerous as flu. The Omicron variant would appear to be much less dangerous, but no hard figures are available just yet. As 99% of all C19 infections right now in the UK are from Omicron, the figures for the next few weeks will be the true basis for any judgment.

Most people confuse a bad cold (aka man-flu!) with genuine influenza, which can be an extremely dangerous illness. Flu is involved in the deaths of about 250,000 people in the UK every year and is the sole cause of death in 14% of those deaths.

The Delta variant is the sole cause of death in 14% of all those who have died with C19 being involved.

For both C19 (Delta variant) and influenza,, comorbidity is the real killer - of which anecdotal evidence so far would point mostly to obesity as being a major comorbidity factor.

My personal conclusion - Both flu and C19 are to be taken very seriously, especially if the patient has any other health issues, no matter how trivial those issues may seem.

Great.....1918, the Spanish flu. So, in comparison to infection, civid is similar to 1918 and nothing since.....so those comparing it to colds ect, are completely wrong, since we haven't experienced anything on this scale for over 100 years....
Well what do you know.

What data can you share that suggests influenza is roughly the same fatality as covid? Only...this extract from CDC in USA suggests otherwise.....buy quite a significant amount!



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that in the US there were 1.8 deaths from flu per 100 000 population between 1999 and 2019.8 The estimated death rate from covid was 217.54 per 100 000 in the US and 206.73 per 100 000 in the UK.9


So...to summarise, nothing on this scale for 100 years, and sometimes sometimes roughly 100 times more deaths than influenza.

Simon....care to check your position?
Locksowns unnecessary you say? Why close the economy you say? Why don't people just carry on you ask?


Hmmmmmmmmm wonder why?

 

[simon field]

Check again. Check deaths involving flu, not 'from' flu.

Otherwise you're agreeing that there's been 17,000 deaths 'from' covid, not involving covid.

Go back to the drawing board!

 

[DontAsk]

So interest payments differe from dividends how?

I am sure you van work it out. If there's no profit left after all expenses, no dividends.

I'm guessing you don't have many investments.....certainly not any that make you any money. I feel sad for you. Heck...even my investments pay dividends, and I would wager most people on here who have pensions rely on dividends.

I don't need your pity. I have plenty of very successful investments, thank you. Yes some even pay dividends, some pay interest, but that's not the point.

Presumably you are in favour of them surrendering their divs in return for a meter "agreed interest".

Nothing to do with me. People (or their fund managers) will make their own choices.

I also note you are suggesting interest is a deductible business expense......so you acknowledge they will be making a profit.....do you understand how business account works?

Yes, expenses (including interest) are paid out of gross profit. Even a not for profit will have a gross profit figure. I think you probably know that.

Do you know where dividends are paid from?

Do you see now how a not for profit could pay interest but still not make a profit? Which measure of profit am I referring to?

 

[Scubadog]

I am sure you van work it out. If there's no profit left after all expenses, no dividends.



I don't need your pity. I have plenty of very successful investments, thank you. Yes some even pay dividends, some pay interest, but that's not the point.



Nothing to do with me. People (or their fund managers) will make their own choices.



Yes, expenses (including interest) are paid out of gross profit. Even a not for profit will have a gross profit figure. I think you probably know that.

Do you know where dividends are paid from?

Do you see now how a not for profit could pay interest but still not make a profit? Which measure of profit am I referring to?

So you expect dividends from your investments, but suggest those those invest millions shouldn't receive dividends from theirs? Strange..

Interested to know which companies you could point to that have adopted that approach and have done well.


I mean....both Scottish water and Welsh water are a non profit organisation.....have a guess how their performance stacks against all the others that do have shareholders and pay dividends....

Would you like me to help you? Choose a measured performance metric, pollution, water quality, customer satisfaction, asset condition....what ever, you choose! They are either the worst or in the lower quartile for any of them!

 

[Scubadog]

Check again. Check deaths involving flu, not 'from' flu.

Otherwise you're agreeing that there's been 17,000 deaths 'from' covid, not involving covid.

Go back to the drawing board!

Simon, simple Simon.
I (and others, including data scientists, that you have conveniently ignored reference too) have already proved your data set is presented inaccurately. I appreciate you dont understand why, and hence why you continue to try and use it.

But just look....the CDC have made a normalised, direct comparison to influenza.....did you read it? It has been normalised (presented per 100,000 pop for simple people like yourself who don't don't derstand statistics).


Influenze 1.8 per 100,000
Covid >200 per 100,000


Can you see why 200 is a bigger number than 1.8?

Then, given that it has now be proven that we haven't seen anything g on the scale of transmission of coivid in the last 100 years, since the Spanish flu.....perhaps, jus perhaps you can start to see why?

Every step, your argument is proven incorrect. Every step your grasp of statistics is proven wrong...yet you carry on. You are the pigeon Simon....

 

[Scubadog]

Check again. Check deaths involving flu, not 'from' flu.

Otherwise you're agreeing that there's been 17,000 deaths 'from' covid, not involving covid.

Go back to the drawing board!

Simon, simple Simon.
I (and others, including data scientists, that you have conveniently ignored reference too) have already proved your data set is presented inaccurately. I appreciate you dont understand why, and hence why you continue to try and use it.

But just look....the CDC have made a normalised, direct comparison to influenza.....did you read it? It has been normalised (presented per 100,000 pop for simple people like yourself who don't don't derstand statistics).


Influenze 1.8 per 100,000
Covid >200 per 100,000 and over a much shorter time period.


Can you see why 200 is a bigger number than 1.8?


Then, given that it has now be proven that we haven't seen anything g on the scale of transmission of coivid in the last 100 years, since the Spanish flu.....perhaps, jus perhaps you can start to see why?

Every step, your argument is proven incorrect. Every step your grasp of statistics is proven wrong...yet you carry on. You are the pigeon Simon....

 

[The Byre]

Simon, simple Simon.
I (and others, including data scientists, that you have conveniently ignored reference too) have already proved your data set is presented inaccurately. I appreciate you dont understand why, and hence why you continue to try and use it.

When you have quite finished biting the carpet, have removed the straws from your hair and have stopped claiming to be the Emperor of Abyssinia -

The US Centre for Disease Control does not know how many people die from seasonal flu each year.

There are several reasons for this.

1. States are not required to report individual flu illnesses or deaths among people older than 18 years old to the CDC.

2. Flu is usually NOT listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications.

3. Many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because flu can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

4. Most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when flu can no longer be detected from respiratory samples (sensitive flu tests are only likely to detect flu if performed within a week after onset of illness).

5. Many commonly used tests to diagnose flu in clinical settings are not very sensitive and can provide false negatives (i.e., they misdiagnose flu illness as not being flu.)

For these reasons, most flu-related deaths in the US are not recorded on death certificates. I suggest you try to make your point by sticking to the ONS figures.

 

[Scubadog]

When you have quite finished biting the carpet, have removed the straws from your hair and have stopped claiming to be the Emperor of Abyssinia -

The US Centre for Disease Control does not know how many people die from seasonal flu each year.

There are several reasons for this.

1. States are not required to report individual flu illnesses or deaths among people older than 18 years old to the CDC.

2. Flu is usually NOT listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications.

3. Many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because flu can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

4. Most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when flu can no longer be detected from respiratory samples (sensitive flu tests are only likely to detect flu if performed within a week after onset of illness).

5. Many commonly used tests to diagnose flu in clinical settings are not very sensitive and can provide false negatives (i.e., they misdiagnose flu illness as not being flu.)

For these reasons, most flu-related deaths in the US are not recorded on death certificates. I suggest you try to make your point by sticking to the ONS figures.

Clearly....they disagree with you on that

 

[DontAsk]

So you expect dividends from your investments, but suggest those those invest millions shouldn't receive dividends from theirs? Strange..

Do you know what "interest payments" are, or are you deliberately behaving like an idiot?

This is all hypothetical, I don't have to provide any examples. I never said it was a good idea!

 

[Ozzy]

Why is it that every thread associated with Covid will eventually degenerate?

I appreciate that everyone is very passionate about the subject, and many have been so very badly effected by it in so many ways.
I appreciate that there are many different sources of data and arguments to support all sides who was right and who was wrong.

The reality is that arguing with each other about it doesn't help any of us move forward, it's pointless. Especially when opinions are so steadfast about such a sensitive topic. Choose your battles, and for everything else support each other.

As the owner of this site I'm at a loss because every time I see a thread like this start I know where it's heading, and without fail it always does.
Can you not see, it's all irrelevant really. @The Byre made the point earlier if you actually want to do something constructive get involved politically, but going round and round in circles saying the same thing over and over again on here achieves nothing but raise ones blood pressure and wears out keyboards.

 

[simon field]

I (and others, including data scientists, that you have conveniently ignored reference too) have already proved your data set is presented inaccurately. I appreciate you dont understand why, and hence why you continue to try and use it.

But just look....the CDC have made a normalised, direct comparison to influenza.....did you read it? It has been normalised (presented per 100,000 pop for simple people like yourself who don't don't derstand statistics).


Influenze 1.8 per 100,000
Covid >200 per 100,000 and over a much shorter time period.


Can you see why 200 is a bigger number than 1.8?


Then, given that it has now be proven that we haven't seen anything g on the scale of transmission of coivid in the last 100 years, since the Spanish flu.....perhaps, jus perhaps you can start to see why?

Every step, your argument is proven incorrect. Every step your grasp of statistics is proven wrong...yet you carry on. You are the pigeon Simon....

I refer you to my learned friend @The Byre’s post, which is far more educational and concise than any of my observational ramblings.

 

[simon field]

Why is it that every thread associated with Covid will eventually degenerate?

I appreciate that everyone is very passionate about the subject, and many have been so very badly effected by it in so many ways.
I appreciate that there are many different sources of data and arguments to support all sides who was right and who was wrong.

The reality is that arguing with each other about it doesn't help any of us move forward, it's pointless. Especially when opinions are so steadfast about such a sensitive topic. Choose your battles, and for everything else support each other.

As the owner of this site I'm at a loss because every time I see a thread like this start I know where it's heading, and without fail it always does.
Can you not see, it's all irrelevant really. @The Byre made the point earlier if you actually want to do something constructive get involved politically, but going round and round in circles saying the same thing over and over again on here achieves nothing but raise ones blood pressure and wears out keyboards.

A fair point @Ozzy, but, respectfully, this is time out aka ‘The UKBF Pub’
I’m sure that if anyone’s blood pressure was raised they could simply decline to take part in the debate, or even ignore it completely.

It’s good to talk!

 

[Scubadog]

A fair point @Ozzy, but, respectfully, this is time out aka ‘The UKBF Pub’
I’m sure that if anyone’s blood pressure was raised they could simply decline to take part in the debate, or even ignore it completely.

It’s good to talk!

Yep I'm out..it is just rounded circles.
Simon, you have made the first to the ignore list.

 

[Ozzy]

A fair point @Ozzy, but, respectfully, this is time out aka ‘The UKBF Pub’

Aye, and my comment is as any pub landlord would say if he saw a talk getting heated in front his other guests; "come on guys, keep it calm yeah"

 

[simon field]

It’ll be interesting to see how many workers continue working from home - I think one of the things that got forgotten is that most people aren’t in fact office-based.

The premise that people are more productive from home is possibly true in a minority of cases, but largely dreamt up because people just like it for their own convenience. I doubt many firms will be happy paying rents on half-empty offices so I expect the vast majority to be ordered back in, as per their contracts.


Does anyone else have a view on this?

 

[Mark T Jones]

It’ll be interesting to see how many workers continue working from home - I think one of the things that got forgotten is that most people aren’t in fact office-based.

The premise that people are more productive from home is possibly true in a minority of cases, but largely dreamt up because people just like it for their own convenience. I doubt many firms will be happy paying rents on half-empty offices so I expect the vast majority to be ordered back in, as per their contracts.


Does anyone else have a view on this?

It's a thread in its own right. (which hopeflly won't turn into the usual cycle of dreary debate between the usual suspects)

Having worked from home for 10 years, I am still undecided on whether or not it's 'better' than working from an office (by which I refer to an environment with people etc)

Im fortunate to have dedicated space, comms, a proper desk and chair etc. I have also partnered with a larger broker, so I can dip into their office environment at will.

A lot of younger people want to go back to working with people. It appears older folk rather like the home working environment.

WFH; negatives we can expect a rise in

Medical / musco-skeletal issues from poor working arrangements.

Mental health issues.

Automation / outsourcing of roles as employers become less reliant on people.

Overall, I'd suggest that a principally office-based environment with more flexibility is the answer.

 

[Ozzy]

Does anyone else have a view on this?

I, personally, prefer to work in the office. For a while it was nice working from home all the time, and for a while I was more productive at home, but then bad habits drifted in and now I'm more productive in the office and less so at home.
I had originally served notice on our office as my staff work 50/50 give or take home and office (hybrid), so the office is now half empty at all times. Did change that after buying UKBF as then recruited more people for it and the office is filling up again, so withdrew notice, but as a view purely where possible I think hybrid working is here to stay.
Too much time working solely at home alone has its own HR problems (cue past discussion on meta verse here).

 

[The Byre]

It’ll be interesting to see how many workers continue working from home - I think one of the things that got forgotten is that most people aren’t in fact office-based.

The premise that people are more productive from home is possibly true in a minority of cases, but largely dreamt up because people just like it for their own convenience. I doubt many firms will be happy paying rents on half-empty offices so I expect the vast majority to be ordered back in, as per their contracts.


Does anyone else have a view on this?

Most cities worldwide have seen a c.a. 50% fall in public transport revenues (busses, underground, etc.) Transport for London has done slightly better and lost 'only' one-third of its revenues - but that's still a big haircut! Office workers are just not commuting as they once did.

This has had a profound effect on office availability and most cities (according to agency Savills) have vacancies running at about 20% - one office in five is standing empty. Headline rents are still being maintained, but landlords are having to discount heavily.

Speaking personally - running a company with over 150 staff was only possible by having them all work from home. Imagine finding space for 150, parking for 150, heat and light, computers, desks and chairs for 150! Imagine 150 all wanting to have a lunch break!

Working from home means flexibility - we could expand from a company of Me, Myself and I, to a pukka medium-sized enterprise without building an office block, canteen, parking lot, etc., etc. All we needed was fax machines, telephone lines, modems and stuff like that. (Getting Deutsche Telekom to install all those lines in a remote farmhouse was quite a struggle!)

I feel that the idea of commuting to work, just to sit in a chair, in front of a laptop, when I have chairs and laptops aplenty at home to be somewhat wasteful. To be strap-hanging in an underground railway at high cost, or to be stuck in traffic, belching out fumes, to be downright absurd.

The world of work is changing at 90mph - tax and legal systems and physical infrastructure are static and rapidly becoming gloriously irrelevant!

That means that very soon, governments everywhere are going to see a wholesale fall in revenues. That means that they will try to raise taxes and/or print even more money - and both of those measures will make their situation even worse.

 

[fisicx]

It’ll be interesting to see how many workers continue working from home - I think one of the things that got forgotten is that most people aren’t in fact office-based.

The premise that people are more productive from home is possibly true in a minority of cases, but largely dreamt up because people just like it for their own convenience. I doubt many firms will be happy paying rents on half-empty offices so I expect the vast majority to be ordered back in, as per their contracts.


Does anyone else have a view on this?

My wife is commuting into London 2 days each week. The company has downsized the office space as well so big rent savings. She said the trains are filling up but nowhere near capacity.

As @Ozzy said, hybrid/flexible working seems to be the way forward.

As an aside, if been working from home for years because it’s just me. Mentally all good and I get lots of exercise. So can’t see any benefit of doing anything else.

 

[Ozzy]

I’m currently sat on a train to London as I type this, it’s surprisingly busy. Not sure if this is normal now but I struggled to find a seat.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I’m currently sat on a train to London as I type this, it’s surprisingly busy. Not sure if this is normal now but I struggled to find a seat.

They are usually either side of the aisle?

But seriouisly, I remember between lockdowns going to London on a train and being irritated that someone came into the same carriage as me.

I think part of the flexi-working culture will be to reduce rush-hour congestion and increase numbers throughout the day - which is largely a good thing.

 

[IanSuth]

They are usually either side of the aisle?

But seriouisly, I remember between lockdowns going to London on a train and being irritated that someone came into the same carriage as me.

I think part of the flexi-working culture will be to reduce rush-hour congestion and increase numbers throughout the day - which is largely a good thing.

It had got so silly pre pandemic that if you wanted a seat from reading to Paddington (a sub 25min journey) you would have had to get on a train well before 7.30am and usually 7am. I know someone who always travelled first class simply as it was the only was to get a seat despite the exorbitant cost

The rush hours trains may fill up but I suspect there will be a more level usage through the day rather than stupid peaks just so people can attend a building from 8.30 - 6pm

 

[Mark T Jones]

It had got so silly pre pandemic that if you wanted a seat from reading to Paddington (a sub 25min journey) you would have had to get on a train well before 7.30am and usually 7am. I know someone who always travelled first class simply as it was the only was to get a seat despite the exorbitant cost

The rush hours trains may fill up but I suspect there will be a more level usage through the day rather than stupid peaks just so people can attend a building from 8.30 - 6pm

Yes - I seldom caught peak time trains (usually arranged a first appointment at 10.30) - the few times I did, a seat was a distant dream.