Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Fktf]

All this focus on death rates doesn't really offer any guidance on how we should manage the virus. We could have the same number of people being admitted to hospital as early in the pandemic, just more are surviving. Seems possible given the very weak will have sadly passed early in the pandemic, so we're now treating people more likely to survive, and that we've learned how to treat it better.

 

You have to look at (or predict) hospitalization figures, and make sure you keep them manageable (i.e not taking over the entire hospital).

[Trumpet]

8 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

Is this true?? 

Well, there a few news articles about it. She noticed it falling out last week and then a week later a few articles have popped up.

[leicsmac]

That the ratio of deaths to cases is lowering worldwide seems to be pretty much a fact in evidence. What is not so certain, however, is why.

 

Has the virus mutated to a less lethal form? Have we become better at treating it? Better at identifying cases and using social measures to identify hotspots? A combination of the above, or other factors?

 

Until we get answers there, any factor we change is going to carry a sizeable risk.

Edited 12 August 2020 by leicsmac

[simFox]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That the ratio of deaths to cases is lowering worldwide seems to be pretty much a fact in evidence. What is not so certain, however, is why.

 

Has the virus mutated to a less lethal form? Have we become better at treating it? Better at identifying cases and using social measures to identify hotspots? A combination of the above, or other factors?

 

Until we get answers there, any factor we change is going to carry a sizeable risk.

Exercising such level of caution is just weak decision making and poor leadership, especially when faced with the economic data.

 

A couple of months from now, Brazil be more or less back to normal while Aus and NZ are still in full lockdown with the UK locking down entire cities when they find more than 50 cases.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, simFox said:

Exercising such level of caution is just weak decision making and poor leadership, especially when faced with the economic data.

 

A couple of months from now, Brazil be more or less back to normal while Aus and NZ are still in full lockdown with the UK locking down entire cities when they find more than 50 cases.

Maybe, maybe not. There is no proof either way, so there's no need to state opinion as fact.

 

In my own opinion, given the stakes I'd rather be risk averse, all other factors being equal in the absence of compelling information. But hey - I don't lead and I don't particularly care to, having seen what "strong leadership" does to too many people.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Eat out to help out is clearly having the desired effect here, everywhere is rammed inside and out. 

[filbertway]

More cases are being identified as testing improves right? It doesn't seem like rocket science to me... We know it's not a particularly deadly virus otherwise surely it'd just burn itself out. If you keep killing your hosts you'll die out.

 

I keep repeating myself, but the numbers in March/April must have been astronomical.

[Trumpet]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

More cases are being identified as testing improves right? It doesn't seem like rocket science to me... We know it's not a particularly deadly virus otherwise surely it'd just burn itself out. If you keep killing your hosts you'll die out.

 

I keep repeating myself, but the numbers in March/April must have been astronomical.

Agree on the cases bit, in March our number of actual cases was probably 6 digits, if not more.

 

If it had a 100% death rate, given the way it infects and can take around a week to even show symptoms and then on average 4 weeks to death (I think), it would take a real long time to die out. I get where you’re coming from though, we can’t gauge the actual death rate because we can’t plug in the amount of cases.

[filbertway]

4 minutes ago, Wet Trump said:

Agree on the cases bit, in March our number of actual cases was probably 6 digits, if not more.

 

If it had a 100% death rate, given the way it infects and can take around a week to even show symptoms and then on average 4 weeks to death (I think), it would take a real long time to die out. I get where you’re coming from though, we can’t gauge the actual death rate because we can’t plug in the amount of cases.

 

Aye, I suppose I was working on the presumption that if it was killing the majority of people that it infected, then they would be bed ridden before they could be out and about infecting other people.

 

I think the virus you described would essentially end civilisation as we know it haha.

 

[los dedos]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Presumably you mean she didn’t test positive and the others did ???    

Yes all tested numerous time 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, Wet Trump said:

Agree on the cases bit, in March our number of actual cases was probably 6 digits, if not more.

 

If it had a 100% death rate, given the way it infects and can take around a week to even show symptoms and then on average 4 weeks to death (I think), it would take a real long time to die out. I get where you’re coming from though, we can’t gauge the actual death rate because we can’t plug in the amount of cases.

We can know the death rate is really low though no?  Time to get back to normal imo.  The wait for the vaccine story is all about the cash.

[Ollie93]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

We can know the death rate is really low though no?  Time to get back to normal imo.  The wait for the vaccine story is all about the cash.

Agreed, did you see the stock price of a certain pharma company go up nearly 400% when the UK announced it had ordered X amount of a vaccine that isn't ready yet.

[Trumpet]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

We can know the death rate is really low though no?  Time to get back to normal imo.  The wait for the vaccine story is all about the cash.

Oh absolutely, I’ve tried to stay away from coronavirus news recently do not entirely sure what the experts have placed the death rate at, but I guess around the 1% mark? 

[Guest Fktf]

33 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Aye, I suppose I was working on the presumption that if it was killing the majority of people that it infected, then they would be bed ridden before they could be out and about infecting other people.

 

I think the virus you described would essentially end civilisation as we know it haha.

 

Yes. That's one reason why it is far easier to contain - say - Ebola than this, which is wildly contagious and deathly.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

Exercising such level of caution is just weak decision making and poor leadership, especially when faced with the economic data.

 

A couple of months from now, Brazil be more or less back to normal while Aus and NZ are still in full lockdown with the UK locking down entire cities when they find more than 50 cases.

Having buried about the same number of people as Europe combined, and having some of the recovered population living with life long complications - which will turn out to be an economic burden on them.

 

You seem to equate strong leadership with risking people's health in favour of the economy. If you ask me, the nz prime minister has shown real leadership in this. They've kept cases low, and fully opened up the economy way quicker than everyone else. 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Eat out to help out is clearly having the desired effect here, everywhere is rammed inside and out. 

Best idea ever thought up by any political party. 32oz t-bone for £16 last night. Almost criminal. 

 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

More cases are being identified as testing improves right? It doesn't seem like rocket science to me... We know it's not a particularly deadly virus otherwise surely it'd just burn itself out. If you keep killing your hosts you'll die out.

 

I keep repeating myself, but the numbers in March/April must have been astronomical.

I read the R rate would have been nearing 4 back then, it's said to be 1 now. 

[Yes N'Didi]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Eat out to help out is clearly having the desired effect here, everywhere is rammed inside and out. 

Took our kids to Pizza hut as they had wanted to go for like 8 months. First time we've used the EOTHO scheme. Combined it with Meerkat Meals and got £60 of food and drink for £19.

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, simFox said:

I'm not sure what you think that means. So the virus has a quota on who it decides to kill; once it gets to 1000 it calls it a day?

It means the more you test the more cases you find, without testing those people would still have the virus but the statistics would assume they havent got it.

 

e.g. you can have cancer but until its confirmed by someone, officially you dont have it.

 

Something to consider here is that when Leicester entered lockdown it was something like 150 cases per 100k population, when, it later was revealed the % of tests that were positive was around 13%.   When Wigston was removed from lockdown, the test positive rate for the city was down to 1.9%, so 1/6th.  However the cases per 100k people was only down to the 70s so basically 1/2, you could say theoretically from that , the high case numbers are down to testing 3x as many people vs other areas. 1/6 of 150 per 100k would have us down to 25 per 100k people, which very likely would have us out of lockdown, London is apparently about 16 per 100k people.  Figures are easily manipulated.

 

Essentially its switching undiagnosed covid to diagnosed covid.  These are cases where there is either no symptoms or light symptoms and hence no effect on the death rate.  The cases with higher symptoms are likely under the pillar A hospital tests.

Edited 12 August 2020 by Chrysalis

[simFox]

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

It means the more you test the more cases you find, without testing those people would still have the virus but the statistics would assume they havent got it.

 

e.g. you can have cancer but until its confirmed by someone, officially you dont have it.

 

Something to consider here is that when Leicester entered lockdown it was something like 150 cases per 100k population, when, it later was revealed the % of tests that were positive was around 13%.   When Wigston was removed from lockdown, the test positive rate for the city was down to 1.9%, so 1/6th.  However the cases per 100k people was only down to the 70s so basically 1/2, you could say theoretically from that , the high case numbers are down to testing 3x as many people vs other areas. 1/6 of 150 per 100k would have us down to 25 per 100k people, which very likely would have us out of lockdown, London is apparently about 16 per 100k people.  Figures are easily manipulated.

I don't disagree, but you aren't taking about the same thing at all. Your point to consider is nothing to do with the number of people dieing limited to 1000.

 

You've given a good reason for not going into lockdown and I while heartedly agree, it didn't answer the question. Are you a politician?

[Chrysalis]

Just now, simFox said:

I don't disagree, but you aren't taking about the same thing at all. Your point to consider is nothing to do with the number of people dieing limited to 1000.

 

You've given a good reason for not going into lockdown and I while heartedly agree, it didn't answer the question. Are you a politician?

If I was a politician I wouldnt have written that post, my answer was to explain how case numbers can go up without death rate going up, I dont know about this death been capped at 1k thing, but what we do know is that some deaths during the peak were been reported weeks after they happened, and some people believe that was manipulating the figures to flatten the peak of the death curve to 1k per day.

[zorro en españa]

3 hours ago, simFox said:

First let me correct my previous data on the US as i was looking at the world graph - i was on my phone last night and i gave the world figures:

 

April 14: 27,446 cases - 2,630 deaths

Aug 7: 63,413 cases - 1,292 deaths

 

Florida governor is coming underfire for his lack of lock-down, yet cases are clearly dropping off. Despite what Yorkie thinks, this will inevitably lead to the fatalities dropping off with an apx 2-3 week lag. I have also read that Sao Paulo cases are falling as are Rio-DeJaneiro. It's quite clear to anyone that this virus just isn't killing people under 40yo, so why stop them from working? 

OK - thanks for the correction of the figures.  Your timing hasn’t been great though as the US yesterday had its lowest increase in daily cases (exc weekends and Independence Day) since July 1st whilst recording its biggest increase in daily deaths since 27th May.  Counter to one of your arguments really.

 

To cite Florida’s figures dropping off on a day when it recorded its highest number of deaths (and join Georgia and North Carolina) is a tad tactless.

 

However I am with you that we have to move this forward and countries have to adopt another strategy to lockdowns.  To do this, however, has to be driven by sharing quality information (not conjecture and opinion) - for instance I do not know how many people under 40 have died from this although I accept it is low and there has to be some way forward using this information.

 

Whilst you implied that the NZ leader will not be looked on favourably it remains a fact that she has protected her citizens by swift and decisive actions, so much so that the economy was re-opened with restrictions for visitors.  Now, four people from the same household in Auckland have just tested positive and immediately she has put Auckland into phase 3 and the rest of the country on to phase 2.  She has stated that this will be for a short period whilst they understand what has happened and it is contained .... decisive and positive.

[simFox]

7 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

 

 

Whilst you implied that the NZ leader will not be looked on favourably it remains a fact that she has protected her citizens by swift and decisive actions, so much so that the economy was re-opened with restrictions for visitors.  Now, four people from the same household in Auckland have just tested positive and immediately she has put Auckland into phase 3 and the rest of the country on to phase 2.  She has stated that this will be for a short period whilst they understand what has happened and it is contained .... decisive and positive.

Or totalitarian and extreme. Might be good if it was the zombie apocalypse.

[zorro en españa]

7 minutes ago, simFox said:

Or totalitarian and extreme. Might be good if it was the zombie apocalypse.

As opposed to the two great leaders who denied it existed and now have at least 270,000 deaths on their hands.

 

Those sheep in New Zealand ...... dearie me

[filbertway]

33 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

As opposed to the two great leaders who denied it existed and now have at least 270,000 deaths on their hands.

 

Those sheep in New Zealand ...... dearie me

I think it's another interesting one. They must make a lot of money from tourism, which is essentially dead there now.

 

Will be interesting to see how the country copes economically. Again - short term, great, they've kept the number of deaths down. Will it have negative long term effects though?