It is currently Mon May 25, 2020 8:58 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7730
Location: Michigan, USA
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.

Yeah, and also...

If everyone who is under 30 catches the virus, that 0.2% is going to be a lot of people before this is all over. As in potentially millions.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4550
Even if it was impossible for a young person to die from this, the fact they can carry it to others makes their role in battling this as big as ever.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: UK
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.

That hospitalisation part is key, that is a pretty good indication that the person's life is in danger without emergency treatment. How many of the young people who have been infected would've died if not for hospital treatment? And if this infection spreads too quickly and hospitals are overwhelmed, those that would/should have been counted as hospitalised and recovered get added to the death toll instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:16 am
Posts: 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI

This video is an interesting take on things. It’s Bill Gates doing a TED Talk in April 2015 about virus outbreaks, and he uses the Ebola Virus as context.

Makes some really pertinent points about a variety of measures that in theory could help the globe in dealing with pandemics like Coronavirus. I was particularly intrigued by the idea of a specialised pandemic-fighting international medical corps.

Obvious question is who funds it and when it can be used but considering the estimated financial cost for the entire world in the event of a global pandemic (quoted in the video at $3 trillion), maybe the Coronavirus ‘might’ push countries into more collective action to preparing for and preventing future outbreaks, once it has passed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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.

Also I heard that in Italy young people are being prioritised for saving as they are more likely to be saved.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2238
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?


Which is exactly why we need to follow the advice and stay at home.

Yes - the example I pointed out was an outlier. But it is close to an absolute certainty that there will be further outliers - I don't want myself or any of my family & friends to be one.


Enough people have already made the point that young and healthy people can infect the not-so-young and not-so-healthy.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em Champion: 2016 & 2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:14 am
Posts: 244
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire UK
Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer has said in one of the press conferences that people in the high-risk category (ie over 70 and under 70 with underlying health conditions) are at a higher risk of suffering from a more serious infection of COVID-19, but that doesn't mean they will and some of these high risk people may even be asymptomatic.

On the flip side, he also stated that people that are considered low risk, do not assume that you won't suffer from a serious infection and die. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen.

Not that the kids seem to be taking any notice in the UK sadly over the last couple of days, there's still a number of them sat together drinking, probably sharing joints too!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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.

Yeah my girlfriend works in the NHS, she told me today that length of exposure makes a difference as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:45 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2630
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8226
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2630
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


Yeah, and they are subject to high viral load.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16918
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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.

Whether he actually caught it then or not isn't the point. It's that by insisting to carry on with handshaking - despite the fact it was strongly advised not to shake hands - around the health workers for whom there is an increased probability of being a carrier was irresponsible both for his health and others


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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.

I think you are balancing global recession against mortality rates.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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

Yeah the impression I'm getting is that the longer the exposure to the virus then the greater the fatality risk.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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.

Yeah that was quite dumb really.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: UK
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
A friend of the family, a retired nurse, has just gone back into work, upon arrival she found the nurses were all terrified but they obviously feel a sense of duty, incredibly brave people.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 954
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 954
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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?

It's nothing to do with Healthcare, in fact Italy ranks as one of the highest in the world - above the USA and UK - at the point prior to the health services being over capacity, the infected numbers were meaningless, it was the death figures that were the true indicator of how infected a country has got.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2355
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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.

I've heard there might be a stop/start situation, first the lockdown until they get the situation under some kind of control, I guess that might be a slow down of deaths, then kickstart the economy back up for a month or so then back into another lockdown if the deaths start to rise again.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3803
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6650
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34129
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)

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2355
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.


... and as a consequence the next health issue will catch us with a defunct health care system because the values needed to sustain it will not have been produced. And many fatalities will follow ...
I think we must be careful with trading current lives with future lives. It ain't easy, unfortunately. And people pretending we are not in a trade-off are fooling themselves.

By the way, postwar periods. of those countries with damage to their economies have been terrible, also with a view to public services and health care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 299
Location: Amesbury
Reasons why containment won't work.
I work in a warehouse with approx 500 other people, about half of which are Polish or Bulgarian. A member of staff will phone in sick with genuine symptoms of Covid-19 and 3 or 4 other staff members who live in the same house will arrive for work half an hour later!
I walk to work and get passed by lots of cars with 4 or 5 people in. Social distancing?
I imagine similar is happening at sites across the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6813
Location: Nebraska, USA
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.


As a 72 year old with other health issues, I sure appreciate trento's concern for the well being of senior citizens and myself by extension. May I request that Trento be allowed to join us on that island, after all, we may need some caring younger assistance. Are the infants and toddlers going to share that island with us, or do they get an island of their own? Just think of how the economy could benefit.
:?

I have to wonder if those whose great "compassion" for seniors at risk have ever benefited by sacrifices made by those seniors? Perhaps, it is as one "friend" told me... "This could be a solution to the problem with Social Security". I couldn't tell if he was joking or serious as he is very far right politically.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 387
Location: Suffolk, UK
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm
Posts: 2619
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?


I've heard that figure today as well, and am unsure of its merit.

On estimating the population of people with coronavirus, I agree that reporting the number of hospitalised cases would give us the best estimate. In my home country, we are basing our decision of a lockdown from modelling at what point our intensive care units will be at full capacity. While the death rate from the coronavirus may be 1% for the population, once healthcare is at capacity, it appears that the ~10% who need intensive care/ventilators have a very strong chance of dying without that care. This is why I believe death rates in Italy and Spain are quoted at around that 10% mark, and Germany and South Korea are not.

_________________
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 829
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.

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2238
A bit of positive news from Mercedes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52087002

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em Champion: 2016 & 2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6650
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.


The US, that at this point got the largest numbers of covid-19 cases, the death rate would be 1.7%. Which is 17 times higher than the official figure 0.1% seasonal flu. But the actual death rate for covid-19 may be far less than 1,7% since, proportionally speaking, there are perhaps far more people with untested/undocumented covid-19 than unconfirmed deaths. However, such is the case with the seasonal flue too. But this comparative ratio of 17 x may be much higher since all these covid-19 deaths that we have the numbers for, are all clinically tested and affirmatively attributed to covid-19 virus while such is not the case with the deaths attributed to the flu.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 7,428 deaths from the flu were confirmed by a lab test for that virus in 2019. If you add in the 3,771 test-confirmed deaths already tallied in 2020, the total number of deaths that can be definitively tied to the flu is 11,199.
The much higher number Trump used comes from the possible range of deaths attributable to flu this season — 23,00 to 59,000 — a number that the CDC estimates in part by including people who die from pneumonia even if they weren’t tested for the flu virus.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/25/cor ... son-trump/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Invade, JN23, mikeyg123 and 75 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group