The big Coronavirus thread

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

“ One thing very visible to us in London intensive care units now is how diabetes, high blood pressure and possibly being a little overweight, seem to be such potent risk factors for having a severe lung illness, perhaps even more so than having an existing lung disease which you would think would be a greater risk," Dr Patel said.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52338101

Am I missing something or is this just very bad reporting and or science. From the article (talking about patients in critical care):

"more than a third were overweight - with a BMI of 25-30
38% were obese - with a BMI of over 30"

From google:

"The Health Survey for England 2017 estimates that 28.7% of adults in England are obese and a further 35.6% are overweight but not obese."

Sounds like being obese raises your risk slightly but surely that is a surprise to nobody? And overweight folk are just an accurate representation of society.

I'll repost this as we're back on obesity. Are there some other stats somewhere that point to obese people being over represented amongst covid victims? Or is it an easy/reassuring thing to believe for a group of reasonably fit cyclists.

Those are US stats right? Google tells me 40% of the US is obese. So again, not hugely over represented in that 48% stat.

You've done exactly what the article I was complaining about did by the way. Post a scary number without putting it in context.

Listen to this doctor from a radio interview last night on the medical reason why obesity increases your risk of death and complications if you catch C19 (1h 34m into the show)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hgz9

This also shows thst the general underlying health of the population is a factor in the death rate.

One of the biggest points I picked up on and there were many was that if people with type 2 diabetes switched to a healthy diet diabetes in 50% of them would be in remission within 1 month.

It's why I believe the US will have the worst death rate of first world nations once the virus has blown through. Advanced medicine and a great healthcare system means that medicine is keeping people alive longer despite hugely unhealthy lifestyle choices.

The same applies to the UK regarding medicine and our medical system and many people choosing unhealthy lifestyle choices which is why we will experience a high death rate.

If anything good will come out of this it will be that 'Health is Wealth' as I think actual wealth is going to be plundered to pay for this

I think you're right about the US, although clearly while this is significant there will be other factors involved (as well as the obvious one, age, which you can argue is a key determinant of absolute underlying health).

Also agree with your point about timing - that the point at which you can only properly compare these is at the end, rather than taking snapshot of countries at different stages and with different strategies to delay the spread.

Notwithstanding that a full assessment cannot be made until after we have all the data (or as much as there is) I don't think it's unreasonable to make provisional comments on where we are so far. If we can see things that seem to be effective right now, we shouldn't thumb our noses at them just because we don't know the final result.

I thinks that's fair. Clearly someone needs to be noting now where things haven't gone so well, or areas that down the line need to be changed. Two obvious examples are ministers not announcing delivery of things until 100% certain they will arrive within the stated timescale, and longer term looking at PPE and seeing what single use kit can be replaced with multi-use kit.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

“ One thing very visible to us in London intensive care units now is how diabetes, high blood pressure and possibly being a little overweight, seem to be such potent risk factors for having a severe lung illness, perhaps even more so than having an existing lung disease which you would think would be a greater risk," Dr Patel said.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52338101

Am I missing something or is this just very bad reporting and or science. From the article (talking about patients in critical care):

"more than a third were overweight - with a BMI of 25-30
38% were obese - with a BMI of over 30"

From google:

"The Health Survey for England 2017 estimates that 28.7% of adults in England are obese and a further 35.6% are overweight but not obese."

Sounds like being obese raises your risk slightly but surely that is a surprise to nobody? And overweight folk are just an accurate representation of society.

I'll repost this as we're back on obesity. Are there some other stats somewhere that point to obese people being over represented amongst covid victims? Or is it an easy/reassuring thing to believe for a group of reasonably fit cyclists.

Those are US stats right? Google tells me 40% of the US is obese. So again, not hugely over represented in that 48% stat.

You've done exactly what the article I was complaining about did by the way. Post a scary number without putting it in context.

Listen to this doctor from a radio interview last night on the medical reason why obesity increases your risk of death and complications if you catch C19 (1h 34m into the show)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hgz9

This also shows thst the general underlying health of the population is a factor in the death rate.

One of the biggest points I picked up on and there were many was that if people with type 2 diabetes switched to a healthy diet diabetes in 50% of them would be in remission within 1 month.

It's why I believe the US will have the worst death rate of first world nations once the virus has blown through. Advanced medicine and a great healthcare system means that medicine is keeping people alive longer despite hugely unhealthy lifestyle choices.

The same applies to the UK regarding medicine and our medical system and many people choosing unhealthy lifestyle choices which is why we will experience a high death rate.

If anything good will come out of this it will be that 'Health is Wealth' as I think actual wealth is going to be plundered to pay for this

I think you're right about the US, although clearly while this is significant there will be other factors involved (as well as the obvious one, age, which you can argue is a key determinant of absolute underlying health).

Also agree with your point about timing - that the point at which you can only properly compare these is at the end, rather than taking snapshot of countries at different stages and with different strategies to delay the spread.

Notwithstanding that a full assessment cannot be made until after we have all the data (or as much as there is) I don't think it's unreasonable to make provisional comments on where we are so far. If we can see things that seem to be effective right now, we shouldn't thumb our noses at them just because we don't know the final result.

I thinks that's fair. Clearly someone needs to be noting now where things haven't gone so well, or areas that down the line need to be changed. Two obvious examples are ministers not announcing delivery of things until 100% certain they will arrive within the stated timescale, and longer term looking at PPE and seeing what single use kit can be replaced with multi-use kit.

...and that earlier lockdowns reduce deaths. Relevant re subsequent waves.

Dorset_Boy

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

Alrite mate, ostrich if you want.

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

Alrite mate, ostrich if you want.

Indeed. Dorset_Boy, you should know by now that Rick's extrapolations are FACT.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

The government's rebuttal to the Sunday Times piece seems to trying to hit a sweet spot that they were taking the virus seriously at all levels, but that the PM's absence from COBRA meetings isn't in any way remarkable.

He does seem to disappear and re-appear like the Cheshire Cat but his lack of visibility when things first started kicking off did seem to reinforce the view that it wasn't being taken seriously at the highest level. Someone presumably thought he was best kept away from things which is a worrying indictment on how he's perceived by his own people!

The suggestion is that he is workshy rather than being kept away

Stevo_666

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

Alrite mate, ostrich if you want.

Indeed. Dorset_Boy, you should know by now that Rick's extrapolations are FACT.

You mean you and DB haven't got a crystal ball like some people apparently have?

Also the question is to what extent this strategy reduces or just defers infections and deaths, as has been discussed previously.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

“ One thing very visible to us in London intensive care units now is how diabetes, high blood pressure and possibly being a little overweight, seem to be such potent risk factors for having a severe lung illness, perhaps even more so than having an existing lung disease which you would think would be a greater risk," Dr Patel said.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52338101

Am I missing something or is this just very bad reporting and or science. From the article (talking about patients in critical care):

"more than a third were overweight - with a BMI of 25-30
38% were obese - with a BMI of over 30"

From google:

"The Health Survey for England 2017 estimates that 28.7% of adults in England are obese and a further 35.6% are overweight but not obese."

Sounds like being obese raises your risk slightly but surely that is a surprise to nobody? And overweight folk are just an accurate representation of society.

I'll repost this as we're back on obesity. Are there some other stats somewhere that point to obese people being over represented amongst covid victims? Or is it an easy/reassuring thing to believe for a group of reasonably fit cyclists.

Those are US stats right? Google tells me 40% of the US is obese. So again, not hugely over represented in that 48% stat.

You've done exactly what the article I was complaining about did by the way. Post a scary number without putting it in context.

Listen to this doctor from a radio interview last night on the medical reason why obesity increases your risk of death and complications if you catch C19 (1h 34m into the show)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hgz9

This also shows thst the general underlying health of the population is a factor in the death rate.

One of the biggest points I picked up on and there were many was that if people with type 2 diabetes switched to a healthy diet diabetes in 50% of them would be in remission within 1 month.

It's why I believe the US will have the worst death rate of first world nations once the virus has blown through. Advanced medicine and a great healthcare system means that medicine is keeping people alive longer despite hugely unhealthy lifestyle choices.

The same applies to the UK regarding medicine and our medical system and many people choosing unhealthy lifestyle choices which is why we will experience a high death rate.

If anything good will come out of this it will be that 'Health is Wealth' as I think actual wealth is going to be plundered to pay for this

I think you're right about the US, although clearly while this is significant there will be other factors involved (as well as the obvious one, age, which you can argue is a key determinant of absolute underlying health).

Also agree with your point about timing - that the point at which you can only properly compare these is at the end, rather than taking snapshot of countries at different stages and with different strategies to delay the spread.

Notwithstanding that a full assessment cannot be made until after we have all the data (or as much as there is) I don't think it's unreasonable to make provisional comments on where we are so far. If we can see things that seem to be effective right now, we shouldn't thumb our noses at them just because we don't know the final result.

That's why I said 'properly'.

Clearly we need to treat some things as relevant or influential for the purposes of prediticting the future, but there is also a danger of assuming too much.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

Alrite mate, ostrich if you want.

Hardly.
You may be right, but we will only know that in many months time. when the full course of the pandemic has been run across many countries.

By your logic, the breakaway in a bike race will always win.
Or the hare always beats the tortoise.

pblakeney

Since we are a long way from the end and therefore cannot draw any conclusions from current data there is no point in taking any action.
Fair?

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

At this stage, as we're only part way through, there is no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Only at the end will we know.

Alrite mate, ostrich if you want.

Hardly.
You may be right, but we will only know that in many months time. when the full course of the pandemic has been run across many countries.

By your logic, the breakaway in a bike race will always win.
Or the hare always beats the tortoise.

What is pretty clear is that a lockdown reduces infection rates in the short term. Having already seen that they work, it would be a brave government that says to its population that it is not going to use them again if infection rates start climbing again. With that in mind I can't see the likes of South Korea 'catching up'.

Dorset_Boy

I'm not against the lockdown concept, and totally agree that it reduces the infection in the short term, and keeping hospitalisations within health service capacity has to save lives / reduce deaths from Covid-19.
However if the only end game is herd immunity, vaccination and anti-virals, then the total death tolls surely become reliant on when those three factors can be met / achieved?

We currently can have no idea of the long term impact. (I hope it also reduces the long term impact.)

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not against the lockdown concept, and totally agree that it reduces the infection in the short term, and keeping hospitalisations within health service capacity has to save lives / reduce deaths from Covid-19.
However if the only end game is herd immunity, vaccination and anti-virals, then the total death tolls surely become reliant on when those three factors can be met / achieved?

We currently can have no idea of the long term impact. (I hope it also reduces the long term impact.)

What do you think would happen for the UK to end up with fewer deaths than Germany, given it's a good 10k ahead currently.

In terms of the economic consequences, it's worth pointing out that the UK and Germany hit 50 deaths at more or less the same time and Germany is already confident enough that it in ontop of infections that it is beginning to open up some shops.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not against the lockdown concept, and totally agree that it reduces the infection in the short term, and keeping hospitalisations within health service capacity has to save lives / reduce deaths from Covid-19.
However if the only end game is herd immunity, vaccination and anti-virals, then the total death tolls surely become reliant on when those three factors can be met / achieved?

We currently can have no idea of the long term impact. (I hope it also reduces the long term impact.)

What do you think would happen for the UK to end up with fewer deaths than Germany, given it's a good 10k ahead currently.

In terms of the economic consequences, it's worth pointing out that the UK and Germany hit 50 deaths at more or less the same time and Germany is already confident enough that it in ontop of infections that it is beginning to open up some shops.

That's easy. Lose control of community transmission and only realise too late i.e. when lots of people develop symptoms.

For example, see patient 31 in Korea, and that's just one person. Imagine a few of those.

The salient question is whether or not that is certain to happen. In the government's published policy on the matter which relied on scientific research, it basically argues that it will definitely happen.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not against the lockdown concept, and totally agree that it reduces the infection in the short term, and keeping hospitalisations within health service capacity has to save lives / reduce deaths from Covid-19.
However if the only end game is herd immunity, vaccination and anti-virals, then the total death tolls surely become reliant on when those three factors can be met / achieved?

We currently can have no idea of the long term impact. (I hope it also reduces the long term impact.)

What do you think would happen for the UK to end up with fewer deaths than Germany, given it's a good 10k ahead currently.

In terms of the economic consequences, it's worth pointing out that the UK and Germany hit 50 deaths at more or less the same time and Germany is already confident enough that it in ontop of infections that it is beginning to open up some shops.

That's easy. Lose control of community transmission and only realise too late i.e. when lots of people develop symptoms.

For example, see patient 31 in Korea, and that's just one person. Imagine a few of those.

The salient question is whether or not that is certain to happen. In the government's published policy on the matter which relied on scientific research, it basically argues that it will definitely happen.

Thats interesting about patient 31:
new.observer.org.sz/details.php?id=12122

Not sure the German crystal ball is so infallible as to rule out increased infections - which relaxation of lockdown is likely to produce in any country.

focuszing723

In terms of a Western style culture of not wearing faces masks and the 'herd immunity' approach. Many Countries must be keeping a close eye on Sweden.

No lockdown, but a reliance on the public to use caution with common sense and let the economy tick over.

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

In terms of a Western style culture of not wearing faces masks and the 'herd immunity' approach. Many Countries must be keeping a close eye on Sweden.

No lockdown, but a reliance on the public to use caution with common sense and let the economy tick over.

Will say this again, it is worth comparing Sweden to other comparable nations (high levels of single person occupancy, decent healthcare etc), like Denmark etc.

Few days old now but:

Sweden: 1,400 deaths
Denmark: 321
Norway 152
Finland 75

Total fatalities per-million
Sweden: 118
Denmark: 55
Finland: 13

FWIW, Germany was at 42 fatalities per million, and UK at 182.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

In terms of a Western style culture of not wearing faces masks and the 'herd immunity' approach. Many Countries must be keeping a close eye on Sweden.

No lockdown, but a reliance on the public to use caution with common sense and let the economy tick over.

Will say this again, it is worth comparing Sweden to other comparable nations (high levels of single person occupancy, decent healthcare etc), like Denmark etc.

I'm starting to see a correlation with your theory that prologues in GTs are in some way indicative.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

In terms of a Western style culture of not wearing faces masks and the 'herd immunity' approach. Many Countries must be keeping a close eye on Sweden.

No lockdown, but a reliance on the public to use caution with common sense and let the economy tick over.

Will say this again, it is worth comparing Sweden to other comparable nations (high levels of single person occupancy, decent healthcare etc), like Denmark etc.

I'm starting to see a correlation with your theory that prologues in GTs are in some way indicative.

Would suggest that analogies between bike races and state pandemic responses are not particularly relevant.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not against the lockdown concept, and totally agree that it reduces the infection in the short term, and keeping hospitalisations within health service capacity has to save lives / reduce deaths from Covid-19.
However if the only end game is herd immunity, vaccination and anti-virals, then the total death tolls surely become reliant on when those three factors can be met / achieved?

We currently can have no idea of the long term impact. (I hope it also reduces the long term impact.)

What do you think would happen for the UK to end up with fewer deaths than Germany, given it's a good 10k ahead currently.

In terms of the economic consequences, it's worth pointing out that the UK and Germany hit 50 deaths at more or less the same time and Germany is already confident enough that it in ontop of infections that it is beginning to open up some shops.

Seriously? You think we're at the end game as far as numbers go?
You may be right and the likes of Germany have a much lower death toll over 18 months, but there is currently no way of knowing if that will or won't be the case.
If you can't understand that, you really are being negative for negative's sake.

Either way, only in about 18 months time will we know which of the various approaches was right.

john80

coopster_the_1st said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

This is an excellent 30 minute interview, if only our press were able to interview this well, with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government(he hired the current Swedish chief epidemiologist, Dr. Anders Tegnell), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and advisor to the director general of the WHO

I am sure Rick will be along to tell us the guy is a lunatic. I will be waiting a year but think this guy stands more chance of being right than wrong.

rick_chasey

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

john80

tailwindhome said:

The 7 day average turns painfully slowly....but it seems to be turning

In other good news China has brought a couple back from the dead.

john80

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

The government's rebuttal to the Sunday Times piece seems to trying to hit a sweet spot that they were taking the virus seriously at all levels, but that the PM's absence from COBRA meetings isn't in any way remarkable.

He does seem to disappear and re-appear like the Cheshire Cat but his lack of visibility when things first started kicking off did seem to reinforce the view that it wasn't being taken seriously at the highest level. Someone presumably thought he was best kept away from things which is a worrying indictment on how he's perceived by his own people!

Yeah. I would try and defend Johnson on this with the hindsight mantra, but to be fair he was absent during the floods too. I don't think it's a stretch to say if Brexit hadn't been the salient agenda, the reaction/preparation for Covid19 may have been more forthcoming.

Bit pointless turning up with a bucket though isnt it. I am often amazed at how many people think a politician turning up will assist. The floods did not need publicity or a uplifting speech. They needed money and central government resources which councils generally got.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

Jeez you are missing the racing:)

focuszing723

john80 said:

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

The government's rebuttal to the Sunday Times piece seems to trying to hit a sweet spot that they were taking the virus seriously at all levels, but that the PM's absence from COBRA meetings isn't in any way remarkable.

He does seem to disappear and re-appear like the Cheshire Cat but his lack of visibility when things first started kicking off did seem to reinforce the view that it wasn't being taken seriously at the highest level. Someone presumably thought he was best kept away from things which is a worrying indictment on how he's perceived by his own people!

Yeah. I would try and defend Johnson on this with the hindsight mantra, but to be fair he was absent during the floods too. I don't think it's a stretch to say if Brexit hadn't been the salient agenda, the reaction/preparation for Covid19 may have been more forthcoming.

Bit pointless turning up with a bucket though isnt it. I am often amazed at how many people think a politician turning up will assist. The floods did not need publicity or a uplifting speech. They needed money and central government resources which councils generally got.

I was thinking more the Cobra meetings.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

Think of Germany as Valverde. Good start, showed some GC form on the first uphill finish, but the question remains whether he will he able to keep it up at altitude.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

Think of Germany as Valverde. Good start, showed some GC form on the first uphill finish, but the question remains whether he will he able to keep it up at altitude.

I mean FFS. Why would Germany be Valverde as opposed to any other GC rider?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

Think of Germany as Valverde. Good start, showed some GC form on the first uphill finish, but the question remains whether he will he able to keep it up at altitude.

I mean FFS. Why would Germany be Valverde as opposed to any other GC rider?

Good all-rounder, decent sprint, showing early form etc. Would you prefer the Porte analogy?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

If you want to go down that road, you guys are comparing Sweden ( a sprinter) with the UK, (a GC contender) after the first week of a GT.

Instead, you should compare Sweden to other sprinters (Denmark, Finland etc), and compare the UK to other GC contenders (Germany, Italy, spain).

Currently, Germany has a commanding lead over its GC rivals and the UK, a favourite going into the race, has haemorrhaged lots of time and will struggle to make that up along with Italy and Spain. France is marginally head of that trio but still way behind Germany.

Think of Germany as Valverde. Good start, showed some GC form on the first uphill finish, but the question remains whether he will he able to keep it up at altitude.

I mean FFS. Why would Germany be Valverde as opposed to any other GC rider?

Good all-rounder, decent sprint, showing early form etc. Would you prefer the Porte analogy?

Because there's nothing to suggest Germany would do badly down the stretch?