Why is UK one of the worst hit?

MaizieD
Did you read the Twitter thread?

There is a twitter thread comparing the stats between UK deaths and Ireland. Ireland has a much smaller mortality rate because they stopped large gatherings earlier and are doing far more testing. It was under Care2much18/stat but I can't get to copy it.

MaizieD I don't know if these are the snippets you refer to as having no source, but I have found sources for two of what the poster(s) said they had read, and no doubt there are other sources.

Hetty's comment "They've [the government] had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England too. Anything to deflect the blame and damage limitation are the name of the game for career politicians, after all",

Guardian 6 April:
"Ministers have been accused of focusing on saving their careers instead of the lives of coronavirus victims by authorising “cowardly and shameful” anonymous briefings against some of the UK’s most senior public officials.

................."It comes amid concern across Whitehall that cabinet ministers and their special advisers are mounting a concerted effort to pass the blame for the UK’s faltering response to the pandemic on to officials....................

..................
a “senior figure” told the Sunday Times that NHS England was being blamed by ministers for failing to get a grip on PPE supply."

My comment (and someone's else's comment) that we had read somewhere there had been a suggestion there might be three different strains of the virus:

Mail on Line 9 April@
"Three types of the deadly coronavirus are spreading around the world - and the US is being rocked by the original strain from China.

"Cambridge University researchers mapped the genetic history of the infection from December to March and found three distinct, but closely related, variants."

All those bloody immigrants coming here...saving our Prime Minister....shocking!

Nurses are in huge demand in Canada and Australia and our DD knows if she chose to apply to live and work their,with her partners skills they would be almost certain to be accepted.However more than ever she chooses to stay here and use her skills in the NHS.My understanding -and I may be wrong -that skilled workers ie.nurses will still be able to work in the UK.

That is correct Washerwoman

Many Australian and NZ doctors and nurses already work here in the NHS too as do others from all corners of the globe.

No-one has commented on the fact that, if our NHS is in such a rundown state as some on here claim compared to other countries and the country itself in such a dire state, why so many medical professionals from overseas want to come and work here.
Thank goodness they do.

Thanks for those sources, Eloethan. It was very kind of you to search for them.

I looked up the 'three types of cv' story. Ignoring the ones from the MSM rags got me to less hysterical judgement that there were definitely 2, probably 3, mutations and none was any worse than the other. I have that on my laptop, will post links later.

WRT guidofawkes, Joelsnan, I wouldn't trust a single word he said.

That could creating a vaccine more difficult.

Omitted the word mean

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52103747

2nd graph on this link shows just how long it took UK gov to decide to lockdown from when first case reported

MaizieD
You obviously have not read the thread, there are very informed people educating him. If you cared to read it rather than dismiss because maybe it may contradict your agenda you might find it interesting.

OK, Joelsnan, I steeled myself and followed your link.

As far as I can see it's about flattening the curve. What still isn't making sense is people theorising (and theorising is all it is at the moment) that even with a flattened curve deaths will be about equal to those in countries without a flattened curve. I thin that the key flaw in their thinking is equating the curve with deaths rather than with confirmed cases. The whole point of flattening the curve is to avoid having a high death toll by not allowing medical services to become overwhelmed. So yes, the number of cases may not differ greatly, but the outcomes probably will.

Sorry, I still think it's an illogical conclusion.

Re the title "looking at the stats for other countries in Europe and we look like we are faring the worst" You have to look at population size and timing - countries who are a week ahead in their timing in the "race" will be disproportionately ahead in numbers of cases, as infection increases by multiplication, not by addition.

Country~~~pop. ~~~cases at 13/04/20~~~cases per 1000 of pop

Spain~~~~~~~~46,755,778~~~17,209~~~368
Italy~~~~~~~~60,461,826~~~19,899~~~329
Belgium~~~~~11,589,623~~~~3,600~~~311
France~~~~~~~65,273,511~~~14,393~~~220
UK ~~~~~~~~~~67,886,011~~~10,612~~~156
Netherlands~~~17,134,872~~~26,551~~~155
Switzerland~~~8,655,622~~~~1,106~~~127
Luxemburg~~~~626,948 ~~~~~~66~~~105
Sweden~~~~~~9,890,402~~~~~899~~~~90
Ireland~~~~~~~~4,937,786~~~~~334~~~~67
Portugal~~~~~10,196,709~~~~~~504~~~~49
Denmark~~~~~5,792,202~~~~~~273~~~~47
Germany~~~~83,783,942~~~~3,022~~~~37
Norway~~~~~~~5,421,241~~~~~~128~~~~23
Iceland~~~~~~~~~341,243~~~~~~~~8~~~~23
Finland~~~~~~~5,540,720~~~~~~~56~~~~9

Notes - The %ages are calculated by me from the figures I have indicated. I have rounded populations up or down to the nearest 1000 for ease of calculation, so my results may be out by a very slight amount (by 1 or 2).
Some of the results I reached differ from the ones quoted elsewhere in the thread by more than that (Belgium and Netherlands are elsewhere 337 and 165, respectively - I don't know why there is a difference.)
Numbers of cases are reported differently by different countries.

It seems to me looking at that table that the European countries with most cases per 1000 of the population are the ones where there is usually most movement of people around, both internally and by those going in and out of the country. The ones with the least cases per 1000 are those where either the terrain is least conducive to easy travel and the inhabitants are more geographically spread out, or places with not so many outsiders normally visit.

That makes sense using common sense - the virus spreads fast with human contact.

The situation will change over time as more isolated people (isolated either by choice or because they live further away from others) inevitably come into contact in their daily lives with others who bring the infection to them. I can see this virus becoming just one of the many infectious or contagious diseases we all face, and have to defend ourselves against by vaccination, herd immunity, habits of avoiding it or removing it from our hands, or whatever other means prove effective.

What is proved to me by these statisics is that everyone individually and communally should be doing all they can to prevent it infecting any more of the population at any one time as possible, to minimise the impact on the medical profession everywhere who are dealing with it.

Yes, MaizieD The whole populations of all countries will eventually be exposed to and the same everywhere - but as treating it is better understood, and if there are not too many patients for available resources, the death toll will be proportionately lower.

Here is a link to the Twitter thread Labaik was referring to. Damning evidence that the UK government were very lax.

twitter.com/laineydoyle?lang=en

Thanks GagaJo; perhaps the fact that their PM is medically trained helped. Dare I mention that he is also devoting one day a week to being a doctor again....[or so I've heard....].

Well done Elegran for working that out.
The reasoning about population movement is very relevant too.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued six criteria for countries considering relaxing their lockdowns.

1) Transmission should be controlled
2) Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact
3) Outbreak risks are minimised in special settings like health facilities and nursing homes
4) Preventive measures are in place in workplaces, schools and other places where it’s essential for people to go
5) Importation risks are managed
6) Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to adjust to the “new norm”.

Hardly any nation ticks all the boxes at the moment."

'Please can you provide evidence they have had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England as you stated a fact. Where did they take place, who is ' they'?'
---

So Hetty has not had time to reply but I gather it was another media report that cannot name ' who '. Another story that may or may not be true because of no' facts'.

No; but you haven't replied to what I said about it either, have you...

England has the highest population density in Europe, which certainly doesn’t help.We also have a higher proportion of BAME people, who seem to be more badly affected, than most countries. And then there are all the idiots who think the rules don’t apply to them because of their age. I thought the “Protect the NHS” slogan should have been “Protect yourself” with a lot more emphasis on how anyone could be seriously affected. The self-obsessed might have taken a bit more notice.

I've thought that for sometime tidyskatemum the slogan would have been better as 'protect yourself, protect your loved ones, protect the NHS and save lives'.

Of course it doesn't apply to a neighbour near me who had her family visit her in the garden for about an hour and a half this afternoon. D and two teenage GC, so 4 of them sitting there chatting, completely oblivious.

The type that if you'd done the same she'd have been up in arms and telling all the neighbours, or would have shouted something out.

They weren't even 2 mtrs apart either , but rules apply to everyone else except her, she's one of them !

No wonder we're the worst hit country when you have people like that and there are a lot of them about.

As you can gather, I don't get on with her either.

tidy England does not have the highest population density in Europe.