Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
GwladysBlue said:
Am I a miserable sod or is anyone else getting really sick and tired of seeing people recording/posting their streets dancing, people singing on their door steps (and of course recording/posting it), posting photos of themselves with captions along the lines of ‘Quarantine Day 4 and this is what we’ve resorted to’ etc?

Roll on the end of all this.
Click to expand...

Miserabe sod here. I had a weeks annual leave that coincided with the first week of restrictions and really rather enjoyed the fact that I had absolutely bugger all to do other than watch films and other leisurely pursuits that work takes the time and energy from me to enjoy.

This week I've been back at (key lol) work and listening to people on full pay crying about being bored at home. I'd gladly swap places.....I can understand self employed or low hours people being crippled financially by it being distraught and rightly so or people struggling with mental health issues or loneliness but some people baffle me. They've spent so long buying into the work>life mentality that it's become impossible to enjoy any kind of freedom - even the weirdly restrictive kind of freedom that the current situation delivers to many.

How can they not find something to keep them stimulated, entertained or otherwise busy in this day and age?? Fella in our place got the letter today - vulnerable so could have 3 months off on full pay. Said he doesn't want it and would sooner take his chances.
 
Catfish Blues said:
Try reading what I typed, and remember it was in response to what you typed.

I didn't say an 80 year old with underlying conditions was twice as likely to die. I said roughly 50% of 80 year old will have an underlying condition. You said 60% of people with underlying conditiins would die within six months.

I then demonstrated that, of people in the age range 80 to 84, if half of them have an underlying condition, then according to your 60% estimate, you'd expect 30% of them to die in a six month period

I then demonstrated that your expected mortality rate for that demographic, would lead to roughly the same number of deaths in that age range as there is in the whole population over a whole year. If you can't see how ridiculous that is, then there's no hope for you.

It's OK to admit that what you read was probably wrong, or even you saw a headline and misintepreted it, we all mistakes ( what I've typed could be utter bollocks, but I don't think it is ). If, rather than accept a reasoned argument, and end up admitting you were likely wrong, then you're very well suited to the internet !

Seriously though, dig out the article you read and link us up, it'll be in your search history so shouldn't be hard to find.
Click to expand...
I never said that 60% of elderly with underlying conditions would die within 6 months, What I said was the article claimed that 60% of those dying from corona virus would likely be dead within 6 months anyway, to be included in the 60% I'm talking about you first have elderly secondly have a serious underlying condition and thirdly catch corona virus, I don't see how you can figure that to mean I think that 60% of elderly with underlying conditions will be dead within 6 months, for easy maths let's say a hundred thousand get corona virus, and 20 thousand of those are elderly, if half of those have a serious health condition so you have 10 thousand, not all of that 10 thousand will die, again for easy maths let's say half of those die so 5 thousand, the 60% that I'm talking about is 3000 that would have likely died in 6 months.
 
roydo said:
You have to pay for urgent care???

And I have watched every Scrubs at least twice.
Click to expand...

Even the teaching college type episodes after The Janitor had left?

tumblr_na3d4lsbmS1qehu0oo4_250.gifv
 
evilwebby said:
yeah, very bad figures. This week was always going to be ugly, and we're entering the eye of the storm.
Click to expand...

We just have to hope that by the end of next week (so week 3 of quarantine) we're starting to see if not a decline in deaths at least a flattening off of confirmed cases. If that is the case, then we are on course with Germany and France.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
I've recently made far fewer visits to this thread as I've found it's just turned into a vehicle for the usual political activists to pedal their own agenda yet again and again and again.

Some of them seemingly posting every minute.

Depressing.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean I think the government needs to be called out on what it's doing but when every time you come into the thread there's a debate raging about the Nazis it gets a bit much.
 
BlueToff said:
I don't think they were 'willing to let people die' really. I mean, not on mass. Even though I agree with your point I think they just got the prep work wrong in Jan/Feb and didn't realise until too late (which is a huge worry).

They have been woefully unprepared in terms of testing and protecting the NHS in advance. If they had done those mitigating measures (tests, tests and more tests, plus stepped up production of ventilators, ensured hospital space, built additional fall back hospitals such as Nightingale, for example) then 'herd immunity' could have been a potential solution.

That wouldn't have meant we wouldn't be doing a lockdown. But had we had those measures in place we could have probably ensured herd immunity was a real option without the loss of life which we would have had if we'd stuck with the plan. Basically, the NHS would have been in a better position to cope before we had to take the measures of locking down the country.
Click to expand...

Isn't the government still going for herd immunity though? They've stopped using the term as it was getting negative press but as far as I can see the plan is lockdown, wait for the peak to flatten, lift some lockdown restrictions so more people get infected, then lockdown again to flatten the peak, so the NHS can deal with each peak, rinse and repeat.

End result still being herd immunity, even if they quit using the term.
 
Tipp blue said:
I never said that 60% of elderly with underlying conditions would die within 6 months, What I said was the article claimed that 60% of those dying from corona virus would likely be dead within 6 months anyway, to be included in the 60% I'm talking about you first have elderly secondly have a serious underlying condition and thirdly catch corona virus, I don't see how you can figure that to mean I think that 60% of elderly with underlying conditions will be dead within 6 months, for easy maths let's say a hundred thousand get corona virus, and 20 thousand of those are elderly, if half of those have a serious health condition so you have 10 thousand, not all of that 10 thousand will die, again for easy maths let's say half of those die so 5 thousand, the 60% that I'm talking about is 3000 that would have likely died in 6 months.
Click to expand...
And what?

What’s your actual point?

I couldn’t give a knack how long left it’s estimated someone who’s died as a result of coronavirus had or not, it’s completely irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top