The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
So my overly confident (and probably to be proven way off) prediction is that the worst hit developed country will be America, and I think trump and his populism will ultimately struggle to spin this in his favour.rick_chasey said:If we thought austerity during a growth phase and the recovery from the GFC fuelled the far right across Europe, can you imagine what will happen during this monster recession?
We’ve already got the roots for nativist politics, and the inevitable clamours for autarky that will come from this pandemic.
It all feels rather too an obvious path.
I don't imagine this leading to a dramatic fall in his support, but sufficient to see him struggling to get re elected.
At that point it becomes harder for the populist right in the rest of the world.0 -
UK now at 759 deaths, 44% of those in the last 3 days.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
And no-one serious is saying that it is. Even the report I saw that quoted it says it is not going to be shown to be right. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-may-be-deadlier-than-1918-flu-heres-how-it-stacks-up-to-other-pandemics.htmlcoopster_the_1st said:
Based on modelling, say infection rates double every 4 days(this will slow as more people recovery and have immunity), how many people have or have had C19?kingstongraham said:
I was impressed that you didn't want to fall for early estimates that were not known to be correct, but then you did, because it supports your previous thinking.coopster_the_1st said:
I expected more of you and that you would not fall for hysterical and false statistical claptrap.pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
While that's sinking in.....
C-19 is twice as deadly as the Spanish Flu.
Let's just concentrate on the economy so we don't have to contemplate that. 🤔
You are comparing the confirmed case mortality rate(positive tests v deaths) of C19 with the estimated mortality rate for flu. The flu case rate also has the advantage of medical intervention via yearly vaccination.
The C19 mortality rate will be higher than flu because the old and vulnerable population do not have the benefit of vaccination but it will be lower than 0.5%.
Even in the reports I have seen that have quoted it, the 4.5% was known to be too high. But no-one is claiming to *know* that it will eventually be less than 0.5%. Assumptions are being made.
Now with that information you can see the alarmist 4.5% mortality rate really isn't anywhere near that number.
Show me the workings for the "less than 0.5%" number you were also confident of. I haven't seen any consensus around that.0 -
Anyone else finding time going strangely at the moment? I'm finding individual days are going quite quickly but weeks are going on forever. Is it really only a week since pubs were ordered to shut and 15 days since the Wales v Scotland 6 Nations was still due to go ahead?0
-
kingstongraham said:
And no-one serious is saying that it is. Even the report I saw that quoted it says it is not going to be shown to be right. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-may-be-deadlier-than-1918-flu-heres-how-it-stacks-up-to-other-pandemics.htmlcoopster_the_1st said:
Based on modelling, say infection rates double every 4 days(this will slow as more people recovery and have immunity), how many people have or have had C19?kingstongraham said:
I was impressed that you didn't want to fall for early estimates that were not known to be correct, but then you did, because it supports your previous thinking.coopster_the_1st said:
I expected more of you and that you would not fall for hysterical and false statistical claptrap.pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
While that's sinking in.....
C-19 is twice as deadly as the Spanish Flu.
Let's just concentrate on the economy so we don't have to contemplate that. 🤔
You are comparing the confirmed case mortality rate(positive tests v deaths) of C19 with the estimated mortality rate for flu. The flu case rate also has the advantage of medical intervention via yearly vaccination.
The C19 mortality rate will be higher than flu because the old and vulnerable population do not have the benefit of vaccination but it will be lower than 0.5%.
Even in the reports I have seen that have quoted it, the 4.5% was known to be too high. But no-one is claiming to *know* that it will eventually be less than 0.5%. Assumptions are being made.
Now with that information you can see the alarmist 4.5% mortality rate really isn't anywhere near that number.
Show me the workings for the "less than 0.5%" number you were also confident of. I haven't seen any consensus around that.
Glad we agree that pblakeney is not a serious contributor to these boards!pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
For the 0.5% figure, the worst case scenario was 500k deaths (0.76%). Now move down from the worst case scenario.
On the other side the latest 20k deaths prediction is 0.03%. I think this is a big underestimate unless this removes the doubling counting of those who have serious underlying medical conditions.
0 -
A mood lifting article about all the companies helping out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/28/british-retailers-and-manufacturers-in-wartime-effort-to-fight-covid-191 -
17 days since the budget announced the largest ever fiscal stimulus.Pross said:Anyone else finding time going strangely at the moment? I'm finding individual days are going quite quickly but weeks are going on forever. Is it really only a week since pubs were ordered to shut and 15 days since the Wales v Scotland 6 Nations was still due to go ahead?
0 -
All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.0 -
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Is worth not losing track of how gigantic it is.surrey_commuter said:
17 days since the budget announced the largest ever fiscal stimulus.Pross said:Anyone else finding time going strangely at the moment? I'm finding individual days are going quite quickly but weeks are going on forever. Is it really only a week since pubs were ordered to shut and 15 days since the Wales v Scotland 6 Nations was still due to go ahead?
0 -
Brits showing they too f@cking love grassing up their neighbour.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-520528300 -
You are assuming a 100% infection rate in all of your calculations there. Mortality rate is the number of deaths divided by number of infections.coopster_the_1st said:kingstongraham said:
And no-one serious is saying that it is. Even the report I saw that quoted it says it is not going to be shown to be right. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-may-be-deadlier-than-1918-flu-heres-how-it-stacks-up-to-other-pandemics.htmlcoopster_the_1st said:
Based on modelling, say infection rates double every 4 days(this will slow as more people recovery and have immunity), how many people have or have had C19?kingstongraham said:
I was impressed that you didn't want to fall for early estimates that were not known to be correct, but then you did, because it supports your previous thinking.coopster_the_1st said:
I expected more of you and that you would not fall for hysterical and false statistical claptrap.pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
While that's sinking in.....
C-19 is twice as deadly as the Spanish Flu.
Let's just concentrate on the economy so we don't have to contemplate that. 🤔
You are comparing the confirmed case mortality rate(positive tests v deaths) of C19 with the estimated mortality rate for flu. The flu case rate also has the advantage of medical intervention via yearly vaccination.
The C19 mortality rate will be higher than flu because the old and vulnerable population do not have the benefit of vaccination but it will be lower than 0.5%.
Even in the reports I have seen that have quoted it, the 4.5% was known to be too high. But no-one is claiming to *know* that it will eventually be less than 0.5%. Assumptions are being made.
Now with that information you can see the alarmist 4.5% mortality rate really isn't anywhere near that number.
Show me the workings for the "less than 0.5%" number you were also confident of. I haven't seen any consensus around that.
Glad we agree that pblakeney is not a serious contributor to these boards!pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
For the 0.5% figure, the worst case scenario was 500k deaths (0.76%). Now move down from the worst case scenario.
On the other side the latest 20k deaths prediction is 0.03%. I think this is a big underestimate unless this removes the doubling counting of those who have serious underlying medical conditions.0 -
Pross said:
Anyone else finding time going strangely at the moment? I'm finding individual days are going quite quickly but weeks are going on forever. Is it really only a week since pubs were ordered to shut and 15 days since the Wales v Scotland 6 Nations was still due to go ahead?
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said:
There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.0 -
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!0 -
Good point. Adjust the infection rate as required, say 60%-80% seems to the number put out there for herd immunity. Still way before 4.5% mortality ratekingstongraham said:
You are assuming a 100% infection rate in all of your calculations there. Mortality rate is the number of deaths divided by number of infections.coopster_the_1st said:kingstongraham said:
And no-one serious is saying that it is. Even the report I saw that quoted it says it is not going to be shown to be right. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-may-be-deadlier-than-1918-flu-heres-how-it-stacks-up-to-other-pandemics.htmlcoopster_the_1st said:
Based on modelling, say infection rates double every 4 days(this will slow as more people recovery and have immunity), how many people have or have had C19?kingstongraham said:
I was impressed that you didn't want to fall for early estimates that were not known to be correct, but then you did, because it supports your previous thinking.coopster_the_1st said:
I expected more of you and that you would not fall for hysterical and false statistical claptrap.pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
While that's sinking in.....
C-19 is twice as deadly as the Spanish Flu.
Let's just concentrate on the economy so we don't have to contemplate that. 🤔
You are comparing the confirmed case mortality rate(positive tests v deaths) of C19 with the estimated mortality rate for flu. The flu case rate also has the advantage of medical intervention via yearly vaccination.
The C19 mortality rate will be higher than flu because the old and vulnerable population do not have the benefit of vaccination but it will be lower than 0.5%.
Even in the reports I have seen that have quoted it, the 4.5% was known to be too high. But no-one is claiming to *know* that it will eventually be less than 0.5%. Assumptions are being made.
Now with that information you can see the alarmist 4.5% mortality rate really isn't anywhere near that number.
Show me the workings for the "less than 0.5%" number you were also confident of. I haven't seen any consensus around that.
Glad we agree that pblakeney is not a serious contributor to these boards!pblakeney said:Overheard some interesting stats on the radio.
C-19 is 45 times more deadly than the flu.
For the 0.5% figure, the worst case scenario was 500k deaths (0.76%). Now move down from the worst case scenario.
On the other side the latest 20k deaths prediction is 0.03%. I think this is a big underestimate unless this removes the doubling counting of those who have serious underlying medical conditions.0 -
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.0 -
Ironic that after all the careers thrown under the bus by BoJo to get into no10, all those years grafting, and he’s now a prisoner in there.0
-
You never did science did you!coopster_the_1st said:
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.
Your mental leaps are astonishing. Oh hang in a minute, it’s another lame attempt to score points.
I was merely pondering on what basis the 60% infection rate assumption is based.
Given we have no immunity, why are assumptions at 60-80%? I can understand it not reaching 100 percent where people are isolated but 40% is a significant proportion not getting infected.
Seeing as you are soooooo clever, do explain.
How the heck you try to score points off that statement is beyond me.0 -
It is about avoiding the infection. And about avoiding spreading the infection if you have it. To delay the spread. So fewer people die because of a lack of care, and fewer people die because it has spread less widely.coopster_the_1st said:
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.
0 -
Herd immunity is not achieved by everyone catching it and the weak ones dying.0
-
There is well known correlation between the R0 number and the %age where herd immunity kicks in.morstar said:
You never did science did you!coopster_the_1st said:
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.
Your mental leaps are astonishing. Oh hang in a minute, it’s another lame attempt to score points.
I was merely pondering on what basis the 60% infection rate assumption is based.
Given we have no immunity, why are assumptions at 60-80%? I can understand it not reaching 100 percent where people are isolated but 40% is a significant proportion not getting infected.
Seeing as you are soooooo clever, do explain.
How the heck you try to score points off that statement is beyond me.0 -
Boring!0
-
If that was the case we would have locked down earlier and will be in lockdown until a vaccine is delivered.kingstongraham said:
It is about avoiding the infection. And about avoiding spreading the infection if you have it. To delay the spread. So fewer people die because of a lack of care, and fewer people die because it has spread less widely.coopster_the_1st said:
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.
The actions taken are allowing it to infect as many as possible without overwhelming the NHS. The latter point we agree on.0 -
That's good read, thanks Bean. Interesting to see the variety of companies and number of ways that are being found to help.TheBigBean said:A mood lifting article about all the companies helping out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/28/british-retailers-and-manufacturers-in-wartime-effort-to-fight-covid-19"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The necessary % for herd immunity deoends on how infectious a virus is. Hence measles you need about 95% because it's very infectious. They seem to reckon Corona19 is a bit less infectious hence a lower number - I suppose once the average number of people infected by each person with the virus is less than 1 eventually it dies out.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1
-
See, that answered my question. That’s a useful post.coopster_the_1st said:
There is well known correlation between the R0 number and the %age where herd immunity kicks in.morstar said:
You never did science did you!coopster_the_1st said:
We don't. This has never been about avoiding infection as that is not possible now the virus is out there.morstar said:
Scary stuff indeed. I had worked on a 60% infection rate to get the lower figure. Which interestingly poses another question about how/why people avoid such a prevalent infection when no immunity exists.pblakeney said:
1% of the UK's 66.44 million is 664,400.morstar said:All the stuff I’ve read quite consistently comes back to around 1% after they have caveated all the assumptions around incomplete data.
Which interestingly leads me to the following layman’s guesswork.
60% infection rate expected = 40 million cases in UK
20% with severe symptoms = 8 million in UK.
Assume 1% mortality = 400,000 in UK (eek)
Global recovery rate approx 5x death rate. Assume that these are heavily dependent on people having been to hospital to be tested.
So therefore if 400k were to die in the UK, 6x that figure would use hospital service due to the virus. Assume 4x to allow for people tested outside of hospital care.
That’s 1.6 million people needing hospital treatment for probably an average of around 4-5 days.
Double eek!
If you are thinking this it would explain why you have a lot of catching up to do regarding this virus killing people.
Your mental leaps are astonishing. Oh hang in a minute, it’s another lame attempt to score points.
I was merely pondering on what basis the 60% infection rate assumption is based.
Given we have no immunity, why are assumptions at 60-80%? I can understand it not reaching 100 percent where people are isolated but 40% is a significant proportion not getting infected.
Seeing as you are soooooo clever, do explain.
How the heck you try to score points off that statement is beyond me.
Although I’d question the use of well known.
Only experts were discussing this stuff 3 months ago.
0 -
Something I've noticed over the last couple of days is small businesses & sports clubs sourcing, purchasing and donating small volumes of PPE masks gloves etc.Stevo_666 said:
That's good read, thanks Bean. Interesting to see the variety of companies and number of ways that are being found to help.TheBigBean said:A mood lifting article about all the companies helping out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/28/british-retailers-and-manufacturers-in-wartime-effort-to-fight-covid-19
I presume that small businesses can access the supply chain at points the NHS procurement just can't do, reaching the guy with a dozen boxes of gloves in a storeroom that the NHS can't find as they're set up to buy 50,000 boxes.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Sometimes it's the collective effect of these small actions that make the difference.tailwindhome said:
Something I've noticed over the last couple of days is small businesses & sports clubs sourcing, purchasing and donating small volumes of PPE masks gloves etc.Stevo_666 said:
That's good read, thanks Bean. Interesting to see the variety of companies and number of ways that are being found to help.TheBigBean said:A mood lifting article about all the companies helping out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/28/british-retailers-and-manufacturers-in-wartime-effort-to-fight-covid-19
I presume that small businesses can access the supply chain at points the NHS procurement just can't do, reaching the guy with a dozen boxes of gloves in a storeroom that the NHS can't find as they're set up to buy 50,000 boxes.
I heard this week that our company is making components for ventilators using its 3D printing technology, but I guess a lot of this goes relatively unreported. Fair play to them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well, as of yesterday my employer has suspended operations, and I'll be on the 80%, once it's all set up. It will be 80% of not very much to begin with (I'm a cycle courier) so if it goes on for as long as we suspect - even if the company is eventually able to resume, which is far from certain - I'm screwed, in all sorts of ways, some of which I probably haven't even thought of yet. My feeling is I should just withdraw all my money from the bank now and set fire to it, which at least will get it over with quickly.
By the way, now Boris has got it, does that mean the virus is Prime Minister?0
