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

9 hours ago, LinekersLugs said:

First Case confirmed at LRI ... patient sent home and into self quarantine ! He will be in morrison’s later I bet 

 

people are so stupid to be trusted to mange this 

Sadly I can see you been right, if people are self quarantined at the least they need to be gps tagged, and if they go against it, put them in a cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I don't get it. Just advise people to leave their house at own risk. Most people will be unaffected. The vulnerable ones need to take precautions and stay at home. Doesn't mean everyone else should be stopped. It's just the media making a big deal of it. Be sensible.

As  I posted earlier, the media are actually understating it to avoid panic.

 

Claiming death rates as low as 1-2% when they around 20-30%.

 

If death rates were really 1% do you think china would have bolted people in their homes, built prefab hospitals and shut off a city?

 

Infected doesnt mean survival, its undetermined and as such shouldnt be used as factual data for determining rate of deaths.

Edited by Chrysalis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Sadly I can see you been right, if people are self quarantined at the least they need to be gps tagged, and if they go against it, put them in a cell.

That wouldn’t be self isolation then though would it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

If death rates were really 1% do you think china would have bolted people in their homes, built prefab hospitals and shut off a city?

Well yeah probably? I don’t think the Hippocratic oath states well as long as loads and loads of people aren’t dying we’ll just ride it out and see what happens. 1-2% death rate still equates to somebodies loved ones dying, it isn’t just a statistic despite what it might look like on the news - you try and preserve life wherever and however you can, surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manini said:

Well yeah probably? I don’t think the Hippocratic oath states well as long as loads and loads of people aren’t dying we’ll just ride it out and see what happens. 1-2% death rate still equates to somebodies loved ones dying, it isn’t just a statistic despite what it might look like on the news - you try and preserve life wherever and however you can, surely? 

You do but the death rates are nowhere near 1%, hence their reaction.

 

Lets say e.g.

 

100 people catch a virus

After 2 weeks 50 die

After 2 weeks 50 recover

After 2 weeks another 100,000 have been infected, and their fate is unknown.

 

is the death rate 50% or 0.05%?

Edited by Chrysalis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrysalis said:

You do but the death rates are nowhere near 1%, hence their reaction.

 

Lets say e.g.

 

100 people catch a virus

After 2 weeks 50% die

After 2 weeks 50% recover

After 2 weeks another 100,000 have been infected, and there fate is unknown/

 

is the death rate 50% or 0.05%?

Got you. Misunderstood what you were saying. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

You do but the death rates are nowhere near 1%, hence their reaction.

 

Lets say e.g.

 

100 people catch a virus

After 2 weeks 50% die

After 2 weeks 50% recover

After 2 weeks another 100,000 have been infected, and there fate is unknown/

 

is the death rate 50% or 0.05%?

Somewhere in between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Silva Fox said:

50k deaths? 

yes

 

so at that point it would 50,050 died, 50,050 recovered, 1million infected.

 

My point is its easy to skew the stats if you add someone who has been infected for 5 minutes as a survivor.

Edited by Chrysalis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesfromlondonLCFC said:

how exactly does it make me a ****? i get 2 weeks off, and definitely wont die, and a lot of people who get it experience very mild symptoms, so its quite literally is a 2 week holiday. 

Definitely won't die? 

How do you know that. 

I don't know how old you are but some relatively young people have died.

10% of sufferers end up in intensive care but hey, hope you have a great holiday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dylanlegend said:

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

cases which had an outcome 

 

94% recovered

 

6% mortality rate

 

this doesn’t take into account the cases which are mild and don’t even have to test.

 

i would say true mortality rate is 3-4% hopefully lower in the UK

That’s still horrific though isn’t it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

You do but the death rates are nowhere near 1%, hence their reaction.

 

Lets say e.g.

 

100 people catch a virus

After 2 weeks 50 die

After 2 weeks 50 recover

After 2 weeks another 100,000 have been infected, and their fate is unknown.

 

is the death rate 50% or 0.05%?

We have known data from Wuhan and the cruise ship, where there are few / no new cases with unknown outcome to mess with the mortality rates. The 0.6-3.4% estimates are from that data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, brucey said:

We have known data from Wuhan and the cruise ship, where there are few / no new cases with unknown outcome to mess with the mortality rates. The 0.6-3.4% estimates are from that data.

So everyone has now recovered or died in Wuhan and the cruise ship?

 

Odd as the stats show thousands are still infected there.

 

China has 53k recoveries vs 3k deaths, that has a fatality rate much lower than outside of china, and I do accept these figures for china, which is just under 5%.

 

No idea how you changed that to 0.6-3.4% though.

Edited by Chrysalis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

As  I posted earlier, the media are actually understating it to avoid panic.

 

Claiming death rates as low as 1-2% when they around 20-30%.

 

If death rates were really 1% do you think china would have bolted people in their homes, built prefab hospitals and shut off a city?

 

Infected doesnt mean survival, its undetermined and as such shouldnt be used as factual data for determining rate of deaths.

What are you smoking? 
 

If the death rate was 20-30% the world would literally come to a stand still, nobody wouldnt be allowed to leave their houses. 
 

Ebola death rate was 50%, if that ever got out of hand we really would have problems 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dylanlegend said:

What are you smoking? 
 

If the death rate was 20-30% the world would literally come to a stand still, nobody wouldnt be allowed to leave their houses. 
 

Ebola death rate was 50%, if that ever got out of hand we really would have problems 

You avoid all that by reporting the death rate as 1%.  Which is what has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

That’s still horrific though isn’t it.

Not great but the majority are people with underlying conditions and 70+ (not that makes 

 

I agree though normally I’m not bothered bout stuff like this but this is a bit alarming 

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...