This certainly doesn't suit the narrative

Incessant raging and banging on about lack of PPE in the NHS, one after the other, interviews moaning and moaning. I suspected this would be the case, but it's good that it has been independently evidenced. It very much looks like the risk is predominantly down to the individual and not the occupation. However some increased attention needs to go to care workers.

so we can pencil you in a for a shift at the local hospital ward tonight as no doubt you will feel entirely safe

have to hide this from my chauffeur [ THE WIFE ]

You’ve done it now Cider

You are quoting from something that specifically points out that some occupations have a statistically significantly higher death rate as proof that risk is not predominantly down to the occupation?

May 11, 2020 -- 3:58PM, edy wrote:

You are quoting from something that specifically points out that some occupations have a statistically significantly higher death rate as proof that risk is not predominantly down to the occupation?

The individuals died who have that occupation. Not that they died in the process of carrying out the duties of that occupation. Bouncers, taxi drivers and chauffeurs have largely not even been working since around March 23rd.

Unless you are a soldier on a battlefield you probably rarely die in the process of carrying out the duties of the occupation.

The stats show that obese men are at a high risk of not recovering from the virus. So it could be that they had a higher risk of exposure to catching the virus, depending upon when they caught it. Clearly however front line workers had more exposure in carrying out their duties but had adequate PPE. What we don't know is how people pick up the virus in the first place. It's likely most of those men weren't working when it was contracted but that can't be discerned from the data.

Rates of COVID-19 deaths among male and female health workers (such as doctors and nurses) were found to be similar to the general population.


Where are you getting that info?  Does it mean rates of death as a whole or rates of death after exposure to the virus?

The info in your link is quite remarkable - healthcare workers are highly likely to be in contact with the infection. No one would ever have considered that.  Well done finding it.

It's the ONS, dave.

a fat security guard is in trouble; what % would that cover i wonder

May 11, 2020 -- 4:17PM, Cider wrote:

The stats show that obese men are at a high risk of not recovering from the virus. So it could be that they had a higher risk of exposure to catching the virus, depending upon when they caught it. Clearly however front line workers had more exposure in carrying out their duties but had adequate PPE. What we don't know is how people pick up the virus in the first place. It's likely most of those men weren't working when it was contracted but that can't be discerned from the data.

Surely if they had adequate PPE the death rate would be significantly lower than the rest of the population. Unless the PPE is utterly useless and offers no protection whatsoever. But surely the only section of society deliberately wearing aprons and masks should be far less likely to catch it.

It must be me. People catch the virus in places outside of work. Some of them work in healthcare.

We must assume many healthcare workers in London use the tube. There is certainly no data to prove they catch the virus at their place of work.

That's right. I thought it was interesting that retail staff weren't so prominent in these statistics. Since they should have theoretically been in quite a risky working environment.

as i asked weeks ago: just how do health care/ NHS staff catch the virus if they're protected?

At home, place of worship, friends, visitors....

Travelling, shopping...

then the majority do not catch it at work?

I've been saying that's most likely for a long time.

so basically it has nothing to do with their job? Unless you indirectly count travelling/ shopping etc

It would have something to do with their job if they were unprotected, the deduction has to be PPE has been pretty effective.

There's two elements, one catching it and the second not recovering. The workplace is one element of risk in catching it. But in the case of not recovering, being male, older and obese are very significant concerns.

What are the two basic components of risk ?

any stats for truckers?

A main element for the NHS workers is viral load you can't ignore that, if their PPE was inadequate you'd know about it.

You would really have to know where they actually caught the virus. Nothing would be certain.

May 11, 2020 -- 4:50PM, stridingedge wrote:

any stats for truckers?

SOC Unit Group    Occupation    Rate    Lower CI    Upper CI

8211    Large goods vehicle drivers    9,8    6,5    14,1
8212    Van drivers    12,6    8,5    18,0
8213    Bus and coach drivers    26,4    17,1    38,4
8214    Taxi and cab drivers and chauffeurs    36,4    28,6    45,6

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc814/chart3/datadownload.xlsx

Taxi drivers figures are pretty shocking.

What are the two basic components of risk ?


Goose - exposure to the virus and your age/condition of health.

Yes of course I'm saying IF you were talking about exposure whilst working.

We know all the factors known to increase risk by now.

eg You wouldn't want to be BAme 60+ male with a health condition and obese

Basically, if you drive for a living, you’ve had it rough .

A taxi driver may well be overweight/obese but they are in close confinement whilst working too

You'd rather be a doctor with effective PPE at work than a taxi driver with none

Better off looking at the transport slide....

May 11, 2020 -- 4:57PM, stridingedge wrote:

A taxi driver may well be overweight/obese but they are in close confinement whilst working tooYou'd rather be a doctor with effective PPE at work than a taxi driver with none

Yep, perhaps also poor ventilation in cab and possibly lacking consistent deep cleaning of vehicle.

Taxi drivers are 96% Male 44% 'BAME' 69% over 55.

Explains a lot doesn't it.

they not only have close scontact but fit all the known risk groups to a large extent.

Yup. They sadly tick too many boxes.

Yup. And it will be much higher in regard to BAME in the cities.

What about folks that consistently use taxis eg for work? They must be high up the risk scale I would guess.

May 11, 2020 -- 4:55PM, Injera wrote:

What are the two basic components of risk ?Goose - exposure to the virus and your age/condition of health.

Wasn't specifically referring to COVID, was a more generic question.

You've got one of them i.e. exposure to the risk, specifically frequency of exposure
The second is the severity of succumbing to the risk.

These two elements allow you to score and categorise the risk profiles between two or more distinct operations when compiling a risk assessment.

Risk of catching it then depends the other risk factors they have,

^^

ie if you were low risk in all factors in a taxi as passenger regularly you'd have a higher risk of catching it but not having it do you harm as Cider was alluding too earlier.

to

Correct, the risk of catching the virus is independent of the risk of an unfavourable outcome.

that's it then; i'm clapping for taxi drivers on Sunday

Cider 11 May 20 15:59 
Taxi drivers are 96% Male 44% 'BAME' 69% over 55.



And most of em lardy.

As Cider still hasn't grasped my point here is the link he meant to post

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/deathsregistereduptoandincluding20april2020

.

May 11, 2020 -- 5:07PM, saddo wrote:

Cider 11 May 20 15:59  Taxi drivers are 96% Male 44% 'BAME' 69% over 55.And most of em lardy.

Comorbidity also more likely

cops & duffnuts

It’s quite cute watching the media try and join the dots re who is more susceptible and why. Akin to watching a toddler play with a Rubik’s cube.

They want to blame racism whilst at the same time gutted more men are dying than women.

Yet another doctor going against the narrative. D Ezike, Director of the Department of Public Health in the US.

https://youtu.be/Tw9Ci2PZKZg

44 seconds.

That's something that's widely been communicated by mainstream media, governments and health authorities, Injera.

for months

I mean, that's a multiple week old video of the director of the Illinois Depart of Public Health, a state body, at a press conference. It doesn't get much more official narrative than that.

Sky News direct quote:

'Doctors, nurses, paramedics, those on the front line in a sense have ample PPE'

Don't know whether to or

It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. Dr Ezike.

edy- I would suggest this has not been made clear to a public that has been very gullible.

Maybe it hasn't in the media you read. Maybe your generally chaotic, deceitful and bumbling government hasn't been entirely upfront about it to you, I'm not certain on that, but I know for certain that the German government, the Robert-Koch-Institut (official government body on all things diseases), the Christian Drosten podcast (a regular podcast with a Berlin Charité virologist that is hosted by public broadcaster NDR - been heared by many, many millions - in fact that's the primary source for many), basically every big German media publication, the US government, the US mainstream media and US health officials like the one in your linked video. I'm also reasonably certain that I've seen it in The Guardian and/or The Independent.

Sorry, but...it's really been communicated. I understand you have an urge to to reveal to all of us gullible sheeple that there's a massive world-wide conspiracy going on and these people like Dr. Ezike are heroic whistleblowers that you have discovered to rescue us all.

They are not. "It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death." has been the official narrative and message all along.

*US health officials like the one in your linked video have all communicated it to the public

and people like Dr. Ezike communicated it in official press conferences, i.e in a vehicle to get the government/health body message to the people.

It's not like she whistleblew to some internet website that's the last bastion of freedom of speech, and she was then promptly fired from her position because The Powers That Be needed to silence her. She told her state in an official address to the public. A speech that will have been prepared and signed off on. Again, it doesn't get much more official narrative than that.

Of course, it might not be easy to explain this in slogans. That is regrettable, that does open the door to people sniffing conspiracies, but at the same time the interested covid-19 truther will find during his research that not all governments and health bodies on the planet primarily feed six word slogans to the public. That other governments, various virologists (even ones on public broadcasters), health bodies have explained and communicated these things. That it hence makes little sense to make it out like this particular thing is part of a conspiracy.

You all voted for a government that, already last year, pretty obviously decided you are all far too stupid for anything that goes beyond simplistic, memorable slogans. Tough luck.

If only people in this country had elected a government like the one in Germany, with clear policies they could respect.

quite right

I can assure you edy I did not and will not vote Tory.

ok, I didn't quite mean literally every person in the UK voted for them. I'm well aware the some will have voted for the UKIP and the Green Party.

It's not a Tory problem per sé anyway. They have been the greatest UK party, it's not even close, and they will remain to be so. It's just Boris and his advisors that have decided the UK public are too stupid for anything beyond slogans. Maybe it's also their way to cover up for a lack of details and competence on their side of things. You need to actually understand stuff, or be interested in details, if you wish to go beyond slogans as a government after all.

Agreed edy!

Death rates per 100K in social care:

Female 9.6
Male 23.4

So men at nearly three times risk. I await the calls to take men off the front line in social care (not holding my breath).