Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Scanchez

Coronavirus: Closed Door Matches

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, HereBeFoxes said:

 

You are unfortunately almost certainly wrong.  Look at China - roughly 3,000 deaths, from roughly 100,000 cases (actually somewhat fewer).  Their healthcare system is very good (as the WHO has said, they are very good at keeping people alive with this disease), so there's no reason to suspect that we'll do any better.

 

The government is expecting somewhere between 35% and 80% morbidity (penetration of the population) over the next 6 months or so for this disease [why won't we stop at 80,000 like China?  Because we won't/can't/don't want to enact the draconian quarantine restrictions they have in order to contain this]; taking the lower end of this (and rounding down) is 20,000,000 cases, 200x that in China.  There's no reason to assume we can get any with much fewer than 200x the deaths, or 600,000 people.

 

Or look at it another way - globally wherever there are enough cases to measure, about 5% of cases require hospital intensive care of some sort.  One can assume that they are put into intensive care because there's a good chance they'll die if not - hospitals don't do this lightly.  Let's say that 50% of ICU patients didn't actually need it (I think is probably a massive overestimate, but let's use it anyway, as a best case).  Therefore 50% of those needing ICU care will die without it.  5% of our already optimistic 35% or 20,000,000 cases is 1,000,000 people.  There are 4,000 ICU beds in the UK.  Let's say (and this is now wildly optimistic) that somehow we manage to make that rise tenfold and a bit to 50,000 ICU beds.  Let's further made this best best case and say those 1,000,000 ICU-needing cases are spread evenly over the 6 months (they won't be, they'll peak in the middle), and each one only needs it for 3 weeks (which is what the data show) - so 9 periods or so in 6 months.  So we have in our hypothetical case here 9x50,000 ICU places, or 450,000, for the 1,000,000 that will need them.  550,000 people therefore won't get one, and we've decided that only 50% of those needed one to stay alive - therefore 275,000 dead.  And there are several optimistic assumptions in that calculation.

 

If we get away with even just a few multiples of 17,000 dead just by the end of this year it will be a miracle.

 

 

 

The in-house isolation is not to protect YOU - you are unlikely to die as an individual -  it's to stop you spreading it.   People need to understand this point - it's a population risk problem, not an individual risk problem.  Look at the numbers above.  If we don't al work together to contain this they could easily be multiplied several times.  It can be done - look at China - don't just look at your personal risk-reward (or risk-inconvenience).

 

I was talking about flu deaths in England, not China nor anywhere else across the world. If you don't understand please re-read what I wrote originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, HereBeFoxes said:

 

You are unfortunately almost certainly wrong.  Look at China - roughly 3,000 deaths, from roughly 100,000 cases (actually somewhat fewer).  Their healthcare system is very good (as the WHO has said, they are very good at keeping people alive with this disease), so there's no reason to suspect that we'll do any better.

 

The government is expecting somewhere between 35% and 80% morbidity (penetration of the population) over the next 6 months or so for this disease [why won't we stop at 80,000 like China?  Because we won't/can't/don't want to enact the draconian quarantine restrictions they have in order to contain this]; taking the lower end of this (and rounding down) is 20,000,000 cases, 200x that in China.  There's no reason to assume we can get any with much fewer than 200x the deaths, or 600,000 people.

 

Or look at it another way - globally wherever there are enough cases to measure, about 5% of cases require hospital intensive care of some sort.  One can assume that they are put into intensive care because there's a good chance they'll die if not - hospitals don't do this lightly.  Let's say that 50% of ICU patients didn't actually need it (I think is probably a massive overestimate, but let's use it anyway, as a best case).  Therefore 50% of those needing ICU care will die without it.  5% of our already optimistic 35% or 20,000,000 cases is 1,000,000 people.  There are 4,000 ICU beds in the UK.  Let's say (and this is now wildly optimistic) that somehow we manage to make that rise tenfold and a bit to 50,000 ICU beds.  Let's further made this best best case and say those 1,000,000 ICU-needing cases are spread evenly over the 6 months (they won't be, they'll peak in the middle), and each one only needs it for 3 weeks (which is what the data show) - so 9 periods or so in 6 months.  So we have in our hypothetical case here 9x50,000 ICU places, or 450,000, for the 1,000,000 that will need them.  550,000 people therefore won't get one, and we've decided that only 50% of those needed one to stay alive - therefore 275,000 dead.  And there are several optimistic assumptions in that calculation.

 

If we get away with even just a few multiples of 17,000 dead just by the end of this year it will be a miracle.

 

 

 

The in-house isolation is not to protect YOU - you are unlikely to die as an individual -  it's to stop you spreading it.   People need to understand this point - it's a population risk problem, not an individual risk problem.  Look at the numbers above.  If we don't al work together to contain this they could easily be multiplied several times.  It can be done - look at China - don't just look at your personal risk-reward (or risk-inconvenience).

 

 

23 hours ago, David Hankey said:

Show me as many charts as you like. The fact is "the average number of deaths in England for the last 5 flu seasons was 17000". I doubt deaths from Coronavirus in England will get anywhere near that figure in a similar period.

 

 

 

He/she has already addressed the difference between the usual flu here and covid 19. Did you even read the article I posted which clearly explains the difference, or the post you quoted? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Italy numbers are scary :(

 

 

+1492 new cases with 133 new deaths for Italy, what ever they are doing isnt effective enough.
 
Cases with an outcome
622 Recovered.
366 Deaths.

Must be remembered that those figures (recovered/deaths) miss the large number of people who have had it without needing to be tested to show they had it.  But for those ill enough to be tested, those are pretty grim stats ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned that the delay in announcing the time’s etc for the FA cup quarters could be due to waiting on tomorrow’s meeting

 

my thoughts on that are perhaps the strong likelihood is that a ban will be announced tomorrow and also on pubs etc not being allowed to broadcast aswell. 
 

we will have to watch from home 

 

this is based on the thought that if there wasn’t going to be a ban announced tomorrow, why not just give the info on the games that weekend now and there may well then be a change in the week approaching the matches. What wouldn’t be sensible is to make the announcement now and then for the ban to be announced tomorrow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the feeling a lot of the European football leagues want to keep functioning until the international break. Then it’s UEFA’s problem for two weeks and the vast majority of games are friendlies. They just have to play the playoffs behind closed doors or relocate them to mid May. 
 

By the end of March, you’d think they’d be great knowledge in Europe of what we are dealing with and how to counter it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Must be remembered that those figures (recovered/deaths) miss the large number of people who have had it without needing to be tested to show they had it.  But for those ill enough to be tested, those are pretty grim stats ......

I reckon given the true mortality rate is between 0.5-3.5% that there must be at least 25,000 people with the coronavirus in Italy. Obviously a lot of these aren't coming into contact with health services as cases are mild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's any developed country in a bad place to get it it's the UK. We have the least beds and least doctors per capita and the NHS is at breaking point already. 

 

I don't think we can cope if there is a lot of people that need the hospital and also isolation. 

 

Already emergency cases have to wait hours queueing just to get out of the ambulance to get into A&E and some people are being advised to risk staying at home and hoping for the best rather than risk going to the hospital.

 

This is where we're at before Corona virus gets involved. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we reckon the cut-off point will be in terms of stadium capacity if they decide to stop people attending matches? Obviously we're in a situation where leagues don't have grounds and attendances in the same area and then you'd have an issue about advantages and disadvantages if say, for example, Sunderland who normally get 30k in League One are above the cut-off point yet Coventry who get 6-7k are allowed to have spectators.

 

I think you've got to go all in with the Football League, however hard that will be to take for clubs lower down who will have to be compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/03/2020 at 22:42, dylanlegend said:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
 

scroll to diamond princess:

 

Of all cases with an outcome:

 

245 recovered 

6 deaths 

 

2.4%

If the death rate on a cruise ship is 1% or 2.4%, bearing in mind that cruise ship populations are heavily skewed to towards the elderly, then the rate for the population as a whole should be much less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closed door.. matches.  Best idea yet!!

Burn the Fkers down, the smoke and heat should help Remedy the problem...!!!

if the fires gets out of control,we have enough flood waters,to put 'em out...

Edited by fuchsntf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is there any point banning public gatherings at football if they are going to allow workplaces and shops to stay open?

those are essential though. football isn't. We would do well to remember that if and when this thing properly blows up

 

I've already seen Liverpool fans on social media threatening the bloody Department of Health for potentially having their title sealing game behind closed doors and no official parade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...