planetf1.com

Blake wrote:What a totally asinine and irresponsible point of view. That is the kind of thinking that will make this continue to spread unchecked with more and more cases and a frightening number of fatalities world-wide. Just because the fatality rate for young adults is low by comparison, it doesn't mean that they are not carriers.

Exediron wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

Not to put too hard a point on it, but 0.2% isn't 0.0%. Two out of a thousand still means two healthy young people will die out of every thousand who die. Just because a few young people die doesn't mean it's even remotely as dangerous to the young as it is to the old.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:It's not about young people dying, it's about them being the unwitting killers of others.

This is exactly the case. If the virus is alive and jumping from young person to young person it won't kill all that many, but it means the virus is still alive and transmitting -- and sooner or later it will find its way to someone it is far, far more likely to kill.

Additionally, while COVID doesn't kill very many young people, it does hospitalize plenty of them. In the USA they say something like 20% of hospitalizations are young people, and those are ICU beds that could be filled by someone in more need if those young people had been a little smarter.

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

Exediron wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

Not to put too hard a point on it, but 0.2% isn't 0.0%. Two out of a thousand still means two healthy young people will die out of every thousand who die. Just because a few young people die doesn't mean it's even remotely as dangerous to the young as it is to the old.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:It's not about young people dying, it's about them being the unwitting killers of others.

This is exactly the case. If the virus is alive and jumping from young person to young person it won't kill all that many, but it means the virus is still alive and transmitting -- and sooner or later it will find its way to someone it is far, far more likely to kill.

Additionally, while COVID doesn't kill very many young people, it does hospitalize plenty of them. In the USA they say something like 20% of hospitalizations are young people, and those are ICU beds that could be filled by someone in more need if those young people had been a little smarter.

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

I've also seen a guy in his 70s get the virus, he was unwell for 3 to 4 days and now he is fine, he never went to hospital.

I'm of the opinion that it's the elderly and sick that are the most vulnerable and likely to die but you're always going to get outliers, it's being said that 80% of people that catch the virus will only have mild symptoms but of course 20% is still hell of a lot of seriously ill people.

Having said that doctors in their 30s/40s have died from the virus, it's a puzzler, you'd like to think that if you're healthy you're going to be alright but there is perhaps no guarantees?

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

I've also seen a guy in his 70s get the virus, he was unwell for 3 to 4 days and now he is fine, he never went to hospital.

I'm of the opinion that it's the elderly and sick that are the most vulnerable and likely to die but you're always going to get outliers, it's being said that 80% of people that catch the virus will only have mild symptoms but of course 20% is still hell of a lot of seriously ill people.

Having said that doctors in their 30s/40s have died from the virus, it's a puzzler, you'd like to think that if you're healthy you're going to be alright but there is perhaps no guarantees?

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

I've also seen a guy in his 70s get the virus, he was unwell for 3 to 4 days and now he is fine, he never went to hospital.

I'm of the opinion that it's the elderly and sick that are the most vulnerable and likely to die but you're always going to get outliers, it's being said that 80% of people that catch the virus will only have mild symptoms but of course 20% is still hell of a lot of seriously ill people.

Having said that doctors in their 30s/40s have died from the virus, it's a puzzler, you'd like to think that if you're healthy you're going to be alright but there is perhaps no guarantees?

Yes but the hospital workers are being constantly exposed to the virus so more and more of it is entering their bodies. Most people just get exposed to it once, it's the difference between having an X-ray or visiting a nuclear reactor core.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

An article I read from Italy yesterday mentioned that more than 40 doctors have passed away so far there. They truly do risk their lives on a daily basis

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

And that's exactly the point missed by the sensationalism. Assuming he got it at a hospital visit - and that's most likely - if he shook "everyone's hand" then he potentially and unnecessarily passed it along. His "blitz spirit I'm not going to stop handshaking, that's defeat" mentality just further endangered the health of the hospital workers.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

And that's exactly the point missed by the sensationalism. Assuming he got it at a hospital visit - and that's most likely - if he shook "everyone's hand" then he potentially and unnecessarily passed it along. His "blitz spirit I'm not going to stop handshaking, that's defeat" mentality just further endangered the health of the hospital workers.

The shaking hands thing was way back on the 3rd of March. If he has only just started showing symptoms it won't be from that.

Invade wrote:COVID-19 now has huge momentum and, as far as I can tell, shows no signs of slowing down. It's scary to say that we might only just be getting started with this saga, and I'm no longer optimistic for the sports world to get going this year, which may see write-offs for the NBA and Formula 1, to name but two sports. Perhaps this is an overreaction, but checking the graphs and statistics everyday only brings pessimism.

My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

An article I read from Italy yesterday mentioned that more than 40 doctors have passed away so far there. They truly do risk their lives on a daily basis

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a press briefing a few days ago:

"I went to a coronavirus ward in a hospital earlier today and I made sure to shake everyone's hand"

30 minutes ago:

I guess it highlights the level of risk the doctors and nurses are taking?

And that's exactly the point missed by the sensationalism. Assuming he got it at a hospital visit - and that's most likely - if he shook "everyone's hand" then he potentially and unnecessarily passed it along. His "blitz spirit I'm not going to stop handshaking, that's defeat" mentality just further endangered the health of the hospital workers.

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

I've also seen a guy in his 70s get the virus, he was unwell for 3 to 4 days and now he is fine, he never went to hospital.

I'm of the opinion that it's the elderly and sick that are the most vulnerable and likely to die but you're always going to get outliers, it's being said that 80% of people that catch the virus will only have mild symptoms but of course 20% is still hell of a lot of seriously ill people.

Having said that doctors in their 30s/40s have died from the virus, it's a puzzler, you'd like to think that if you're healthy you're going to be alright but there is perhaps no guarantees?

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

trento wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

I've also seen a guy in his 70s get the virus, he was unwell for 3 to 4 days and now he is fine, he never went to hospital.

I'm of the opinion that it's the elderly and sick that are the most vulnerable and likely to die but you're always going to get outliers, it's being said that 80% of people that catch the virus will only have mild symptoms but of course 20% is still hell of a lot of seriously ill people.

Having said that doctors in their 30s/40s have died from the virus, it's a puzzler, you'd like to think that if you're healthy you're going to be alright but there is perhaps no guarantees?

As with everything, there are always exceptions. Statistically, it's the older folks with existing illness who are likely to die.

The only unusual thing is why there are so many deaths of the same group in Europe, while in other countries like South Korea, the death rate is so slow. Spain and Italy's healthcare surely can't be that bad?

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Old people together in a warm sunny place was one of the key reasons the disease ended up spreading around Europe and the USA so badly in the first place.

No one can stop the economic fall out of an event like this. This isn't Brexit. This isn't building a wall on the Mexican border. The virus doesn't negotiate, it spreads indiscriminately. The sooner lockdowns happen, the sooner they can finish. When the UK was adopting its herd immunity plan, the death predictions by the top experts put the UK at 500,000 deaths. This has now dropped down to around 20,000 -30,000 (for the first wave)

The USA was looking at 2 million deaths before Trump finally got on board with taking action - now it is hoped this figure could be as low as 80,000.

The economic impact of 2 million people vs 80,000 people dying is substantially more than a lockdown. If the lockdown has to be prolonged for more than 2 months governments can moved to planned, structured economies - like they do at a time of war - until vaccines can be found, or effective drugs developed for fighting the illness.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Old people together in a warm sunny place was one of the key reasons the disease ended up spreading around Europe and the USA so badly in the first place.

No one can stop the economic fall out of an event like this. This isn't Brexit. This isn't building a wall on the Mexican border. The virus doesn't negotiate, it spreads indiscriminately. The sooner lockdowns happen, the sooner they can finish. When the UK was adopting its herd immunity plan, the death predictions by the top experts put the UK at 500,000 deaths. This has now dropped down to around 20,000 -30,000 (for the first wave)

The USA was looking at 2 million deaths before Trump finally got on board with taking action - now it is hoped this figure could be as low as 80,000.

The economic impact of 2 million people vs 80,000 people dying is substantially more than a lockdown. If the lockdown has to be prolonged for more than 2 months governments can moved to planned, structured economies - like they do at a time of war - until vaccines can be found, or effective drugs developed for fighting the illness.

You mean that generally planned economies that regulerly failed to produce enough food and basic stuff for their population?

I agree with you as long as the lockdown is limited to 4-6 weeks.Beyond that the economic consequences will endanger, among others, the financing of the health care system itself. Someone needs to create/produce the values that are spent.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Old people together in a warm sunny place was one of the key reasons the disease ended up spreading around Europe and the USA so badly in the first place.

No one can stop the economic fall out of an event like this. This isn't Brexit. This isn't building a wall on the Mexican border. The virus doesn't negotiate, it spreads indiscriminately. The sooner lockdowns happen, the sooner they can finish. When the UK was adopting its herd immunity plan, the death predictions by the top experts put the UK at 500,000 deaths. This has now dropped down to around 20,000 -30,000 (for the first wave)

The USA was looking at 2 million deaths before Trump finally got on board with taking action - now it is hoped this figure could be as low as 80,000.

The economic impact of 2 million people vs 80,000 people dying is substantially more than a lockdown. If the lockdown has to be prolonged for more than 2 months governments can moved to planned, structured economies - like they do at a time of war - until vaccines can be found, or effective drugs developed for fighting the illness.

You mean that generally planned economies that regulerly failed to produce enough food and basic stuff for their population?

I agree with you as long as the lockdown is limited to 4-6 weeks.Beyond that the economic consequences will endanger, among others, the financing of the health care system itself. Someone needs to create/produce the values that are spent.

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Prema wrote:

trento wrote:

j man wrote:

Invade wrote:My only question is whether or not more damage can be done by being in a prolonged state of global lockdown then riding out the virus in a tempered capacity which is still somewhat cautious but involves far less lockdown...? Here I'm thinking of jobs and economic impact which might have damaging effects which are less obvious to the health nonetheless of the general population.

It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

You are joking, aren't you?
In the UK alone there are 16+ million of folks above 60 years... what "warm, sunny" island will you pick up now to throw them on and isolate for 30 days (or any amount of days)?
(at least, I'd expect you'd be parachuting them food, water and some blankets, hopefully?)
(on a positive note... they would have the House of Lords move over to them too)

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

trento wrote:

j man wrote:
It is a fair question, and one that I have been pondering myself. I don't know the answer, but my concern is that this question has not even been asked among those who are responsible for the current policy for fighting the pandemic. As I alluded to previously, in a democratic system short term thinking will invariably be favoured, as the long term strategy is rarely a vote winner.

The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

Old people together in a warm sunny place was one of the key reasons the disease ended up spreading around Europe and the USA so badly in the first place.

No one can stop the economic fall out of an event like this. This isn't Brexit. This isn't building a wall on the Mexican border. The virus doesn't negotiate, it spreads indiscriminately. The sooner lockdowns happen, the sooner they can finish. When the UK was adopting its herd immunity plan, the death predictions by the top experts put the UK at 500,000 deaths. This has now dropped down to around 20,000 -30,000 (for the first wave)

The USA was looking at 2 million deaths before Trump finally got on board with taking action - now it is hoped this figure could be as low as 80,000.

The economic impact of 2 million people vs 80,000 people dying is substantially more than a lockdown. If the lockdown has to be prolonged for more than 2 months governments can moved to planned, structured economies - like they do at a time of war - until vaccines can be found, or effective drugs developed for fighting the illness.

You mean that generally planned economies that regulerly failed to produce enough food and basic stuff for their population?

I agree with you as long as the lockdown is limited to 4-6 weeks.Beyond that the economic consequences will endanger, among others, the financing of the health care system itself. Someone needs to create/produce the values that are spent.

I'm not talking about Soviet style Communism, I'm talking about managing an economy at a time of war, like Britain had to during the second world war. Nobody likes the current situation, no one is benefiting from it, but covid19 is World War 3. It may not be between nation states, and if we are lucky we can keep the death toll below a million (although that is looking less and less likely as the UK and USA are likely to reach 100,000 deaths combined) but while we are fighting it we can't continue with life as normal.

As pokerman alluded to, many models are suggesting this will end up being a 3 month cycle of two months free, one month lockdown. As testing becomes more available the lockdowns may become localised, but the virus is now impossible to eradicate - the only way to do so is if everyone stayed still on the spot for 3 weeks. The virus's spread rate, combined with its long incubation period and large number of asymptomatic people, makes it impossible to catch all the cases.

This system is incompatible with free market capitalism if people aren't able to go to the places or venues they want to support. During this time what's needed is a lot of drivers to move supplies around or drive utility vehicles / ambulances, staff to support the increased demands on the hospitals - temporary new hospitals like the one in London - but these are all short term things that once the crisis is over will no longer be needed.

People whose jobs are no longer able to exist during a lockdown can be utilised in those roles where they have the necessary skills in the same way that happened during the wars.

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

trento wrote:
The economic impact of a lockdown is simply too great. Spend the money on testing and isolate all the old folks 60 and above on a warm, sunny island for 30 days. Get the people back to work and start contributing to the economy. Inevitably there'll still be deaths but it's likely to be much less and at least, it reduces the economic fallout of a lockdown.

You are joking, aren't you?
In the UK alone there are 16+ million of folks above 60 years... what "warm, sunny" island will you pick up now to throw them on and isolate for 30 days (or any amount of days)?
(at least, I'd expect you'd be parachuting them food, water and some blankets, hopefully?)
(on a positive note... they would have the House of Lords move over to them too)

Yeah it did feel like a young man writing off 60+ year olds as causalities of war.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's very very very important to remember that the "infected" number is not "how many people are infected in the country" but "how many people have tested positive for the virus"

In most countries it's believed the actual infected number is around 10 to 100 times what the confirmed cases is. Most countries are only testing people who are symptomatic due to a lack of tests. The UK the symptoms have to be sustained, which is why it's death rate is much higher than Germany, who has a very low death rate. Despite having 4 times the number of cases, Germany has a quarter the deaths of the UK. This is because Germany is conducting many many more cases. Germany is probably about 1 week behind the UK, as their numbers for the past few days line with the UK's numbers for a week ago.

tim3003 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's very very very important to remember that the "infected" number is not "how many people are infected in the country" but "how many people have tested positive for the virus"

In most countries it's believed the actual infected number is around 10 to 100 times what the confirmed cases is. Most countries are only testing people who are symptomatic due to a lack of tests. The UK the symptoms have to be sustained, which is why it's death rate is much higher than Germany, who has a very low death rate. Despite having 4 times the number of cases, Germany has a quarter the deaths of the UK. This is because Germany is conducting many many more cases. Germany is probably about 1 week behind the UK, as their numbers for the past few days line with the UK's numbers for a week ago.

Further to this, the death-rate in developed countries is expected to be between 1 and 3%, so the number of cases per country should be between 30 and 100 times the number of deaths. What's reported is often 10 times it..

I think they should publish the number of hospitalised cases and intensive care unit cases - data which must be available. This would give a good measure of the strain health services are under. I heard that the death rate of those in intensive care is 50%, which begs the (somewhat insensitive) question, is some of the icu resource going on hopeless cases?

tim3003 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's very very very important to remember that the "infected" number is not "how many people are infected in the country" but "how many people have tested positive for the virus"

In most countries it's believed the actual infected number is around 10 to 100 times what the confirmed cases is. Most countries are only testing people who are symptomatic due to a lack of tests. The UK the symptoms have to be sustained, which is why it's death rate is much higher than Germany, who has a very low death rate. Despite having 4 times the number of cases, Germany has a quarter the deaths of the UK. This is because Germany is conducting many many more cases. Germany is probably about 1 week behind the UK, as their numbers for the past few days line with the UK's numbers for a week ago.

Further to this, the death-rate in developed countries is expected to be between 1 and 3%, so the number of cases per country should be between 30 and 100 times the number of deaths. What's reported is often 10 times it..

I think they should publish the number of hospitalised cases and intensive care unit cases - data which must be available. This would give a good measure of the strain health services are under. I heard that the death rate of those in intensive care is 50%, which begs the (somewhat insensitive) question, is some of the icu resource going on hopeless cases?

Harpo wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's very very very important to remember that the "infected" number is not "how many people are infected in the country" but "how many people have tested positive for the virus"

In most countries it's believed the actual infected number is around 10 to 100 times what the confirmed cases is. Most countries are only testing people who are symptomatic due to a lack of tests. The UK the symptoms have to be sustained, which is why it's death rate is much higher than Germany, who has a very low death rate. Despite having 4 times the number of cases, Germany has a quarter the deaths of the UK. This is because Germany is conducting many many more cases. Germany is probably about 1 week behind the UK, as their numbers for the past few days line with the UK's numbers for a week ago.

Further to this, the death-rate in developed countries is expected to be between 1 and 3%, so the number of cases per country should be between 30 and 100 times the number of deaths. What's reported is often 10 times it..

I think they should publish the number of hospitalised cases and intensive care unit cases - data which must be available. This would give a good measure of the strain health services are under. I heard that the death rate of those in intensive care is 50%, which begs the (somewhat insensitive) question, is some of the icu resource going on hopeless cases?

Even the death rate is unsure... In France (and I suppose it's the same in some other countries), are counted as dead from the coronavirus only the people who were showing absolutely certain symptoms of contamination and were tested positive before their death. So mainly, if not only, people dying in dedicated services in hospitals. We don't test the dead who were not confirmed as infected by the coronavirus before dying (we don't even test all the living ones that should be tested). Which means that a good number of dead people are not (not yet ?) counted among the coronavirus victims... Old people dying in retirement homes, dying alone at home and so on.