Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[peteblue]

This basically.

I'd go as far as to say that if we DIDN'T use them, then the Government would have been rightly hauled over the coals for it.

Of course, and it would have been the same people doing it......

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Amw79]

So 66.4m people in the UK, say 80% of the population get COVID-19 that's ~53m

How are people predicting deaths based on the mortality rate when we don't know what % of that ~53m are vulnerable?

Can't just * the perceived mortality rate by the ~53m as most of those people won't fall into the vulnerable demographic.

Depends who you mean by “people”.

Scientists will be making a variety of best case / worst case assumptions on the basis of known data as it emerges in this, and other countries.

This will include data and metadata from countries with higher proportional testing than we are now carrying out, but these assumptions will change as more data is acquired.

Everyone else will be guessing.

Flu is usually estimated as <0.1% overall global mortality rate. So if this is only as deadly as flu, that would be 53,000 people in this country (on this basis of your 80% infection rate). But most scientists are indicating a higher mortality rate than that, so increase as appropriate.

 

[Nymzee]

Depends who you mean by “people”.

Scientists will be making a variety of best case / worst case assumptions on the basis of known data as it emerges in this, and other countries.

This will include data and metadata from countries with higher proportional testing than we are now carrying out, but these assumptions will change as more data is acquired.

Everyone else will be guessing.

Flu is usually estimated as <0.1% overall global mortality rate. So if this is only as deadly as flu, that would be 53,000 people, in this country (on this basis of your 80% infection rate). But most scientists are indicating a higher mortality rate than than, so increase as appropriate.

Oh I know, the stat I was missing from the calculation was % of the population deemed 'vulnerable' as just doing a blanket calculation on the population isn't representative. Mortality rate can only be taken on a day-by-day basis. Obviously morbid to try predict a death toll but a lad at work said only a few thousand in the UK so it got me curious on the math.

 

[DualityNSNO]

One of the basketball players for my NBA team is covering all the staff from the arena that won't get paid whilst the league is suspended. Some good 'ens out there.

Gobert?

Utah are lowkey my second favourite team in the NBA.

 

[Nymzee]

Gobert?

Utah are lowkey my second favourite team in the NBA.

No, Zion. Gobert should pay for bloody everyones salary haha.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Agreed 100% the problem being in the UK and US the current administrations have thrived on misinformation and no accountability to their lies. Now is the time more than ever that they must be supplying the public with as much data as possible to back up their decisions and actions, headlines and bluster filled speeches will not work and if the government dont supply the info then that void will be filled with panic inducing nonsense

Having Trump/Pence doing briefings whilst the CDC isn’t seen for over a week during a pandemic - utter madness

 

[canuckblue]

Depends who you mean by “people”.

Scientists will be making a variety of best case / worst case assumptions on the basis of known data as it emerges in this, and other countries.

This will include data and metadata from countries with higher proportional testing than we are now carrying out, but these assumptions will change as more data is acquired.

Everyone else will be guessing.

Flu is usually estimated as <0.1% overall global mortality rate. So if this is only as deadly as flu, that would be 53,000 people in this country (on this basis of your 80% infection rate). But most scientists are indicating a higher mortality rate than that, so increase as appropriate.

Given as there could be as many (or more) asymptomatic cases as those that have symptoms, doesn't it follow that getting a true mortality rate would depend on testing absolutely everyone to make sure they have the virus? Those who die from the flu (or complications therefrom) always have symptoms, but not everyone with this virus does. Makes any mortality rate somewhat meaningless, but by the same token it shouldn't mitigate against taking proper precautions.

 

[Amw79]

Oh I know, the stat I was missing from the calculation was % of the population deemed 'vulnerable' as just doing a blanket calculation on the population isn't representative. Mortality rate can only be taken on a day-by-day basis. Obviously morbid to try predict a death toll but a lad at work said only a few thousand in the UK so it got me curious on the math.

it’s not as useful to base it on only the vulnerable, as you’d then get a much higher mortality rate, and would then have to start splitting it according to age, pre-existing conditions (which are often not known) etc.

As well as factoring in that some who are young and healthy will just be unlucky.

Also believe that infection dose matters, which is why front line health workers are more susceptible - I.e more prolonged exposure to higher dose of the virus meaning a more severe illness.

clearer to use a % of the overall infected, then assume that x% of those deaths will be in the vulnerable category.

 

[Amw79]

Given as there could be as many (or more) asymptomatic cases as those that have symptoms, doesn't it follow that getting a true mortality rate would depend on testing absolutely everyone to make sure they have the virus? Those who die from the flu (or complications therefrom) always have symptoms, but not everyone with this virus does. Makes any mortality rate somewhat meaningless, but by the same token it shouldn't mitigate against taking proper precautions.

Not meaningless, but is a best guess using available data.

This is also why the test for antibodies could be crucial to work out who has already had it (asymptomatic or otherwise) then a random sample could be done and used to extrapolate across the population

 

[Nymzee]

it’s not as useful to base it on only the vulnerable, as you’d then get a much higher mortality rate, and would then have to start splitting it according to age, pre-existing conditions (which are often not known) etc.

As well as factoring in that some who are young and healthy will just be unlucky.

Also believe that infection dose matters, which is why front line health workers are more susceptible - I.e more prolonged exposure to higher dose of the virus meaning a more severe illness.

clearer to use a % of the overall infected, then assume that x% of those deaths will be in the vulnerable category.

Isn't the mortality rate based on % of overall infected?

The point I was making is applying the mortality rate (almost 4% at the minute) to 80% of the 66m population is extremely high...

 

[Twinkletoes123]

The state of this

 

[tsubaki]

Isn't the mortality rate based on % of overall infected?

The point I was making is applying the mortality rate (almost 4% at the minute) to 80% of the 66m population is extremely high...

it is, but there will be instances where that mortality rate is going to be far more than 4% - if it gets into elderly care homes, for example

 

[Nymzee]

The state of this

View attachment 81432

The way they did it elsewhere (can't remember the country) was better whereby one item was normal price but buying multiple skyrocketted it.

 

[davek]

Ok, with you on competency but I would state that even in the harshest of conditions, yes elected people are elected to be competent and leaders ala Churchill but none of us have ever faced this scale and broadness of issues. I am trying to play devils advocate as I think it is such an extraordinary situation that the time for assignation of blame etc. is long past, what is required is a united front from all countries and leaders and collaborative action, there are levels of competency that we expect in all walks of life but in this instance how do you measure it, Boris, Trump, Macron etc etc are all seeking the advice of esteemed professionals and can only work with what they have got, I guess none of them foresaw this but for the record look at the Dark Winter exercise that took place in America some years ago and look at the conclusion drawn from that, the chaos and aftermath was unthinkable.

Even as the alarming data was coming in from Italy, which was an open society and facing up to the virus with a laissez faire approach early on, Johnson was still hiding behind the advice of his stooges at SAGE and allowing the moronic herd immunity policy and advising large scale events to continue. It's not the case that he's being criticised for not getting on top of a virus like this from the off; what's being levelled at him is that he remained wedded to a disastrously flawed plan even as the folly of it was being underlined day after precious day that went by.

For that reason I cant see how anyone can think of backing Johnson to do the right thing...which, of course, is a co-ordinated international effort...a philosophy he is completely alien to, along with Trump. We need shut of this govermnnet as it stands and a proper government of national unity in its place. That's the only way of fighting wars.