By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The numbers that I have seen put out there are as follows (this is not my field btw but as an asthmatic who now has a temperature, some mild aches and looseness I am following developments closely):
90% of the population will get this eventually. 1% of those that contract it have died to date (on average globally). I guess the less people in intensive care the higher the survival rate, hence why the gov is trying to flatten the curve and spread the demand for oxygen/ventilators/ICU beds. To answer your question, 99% who get it recover. 1% of 90% of our population is a lot of casualties though (594k). I would be more interested in how the government plans to prevent 20k turning into 594k (see below). Or are we being misled. Again, an apolitical question. Is it just by flattening the curve and will it really make such a massive difference?
Without social isolation, the death rate was modelled at 250k in the UK (half my estimate above). With social isolation, they "hope" to limit it to 20k. Seasonal flu kills 8k p.a. On that basis, best case scenario is this is 2.5 times as deadly as the flu. Worst case doesn't bear thinking about. Even if the curve is flattened now, it's not rocket science to realise that it's going to last a lot longer (that's the whole point). On top of that it could mutate and they don't know if it can re-infect, or patients who "recover" are then immune to that virus variation for life. On the flip side, the longer the delay the closer to a vaccine we get.
Even when you know your enemy though, it doesn't mean you will always defeat it. the only tools we have are taking social isolation and quarantine very seriously along with personal hygiene and unselfishness.
Honestly can't remember now - read that much stuff on it. But that was the forecasted infection rate over time. Can't find anything referring specifically to that number on line. Does it seem unreasonable to you? I think I also read it's 3 times more contagious and 10 times more deadly than flu.
Honestly can't remember now - read that much stuff on it. But that was the forecasted infection rate over time. Can't find anything referring specifically to that number on line. Does it seem unreasonable to you? I think I also read it's 3 times more contagious and 10 times more deadly than flu.
I think it might've been posited as a worse-case scenario? It seems highly unlikely, now that more stringent isolation measures are kicking in, and of course, the mortality stats extrapolated from that will adjust accordingly
On a personal note, have you sought medical advice?
I think it might've been posited as a worse-case scenario? It seems highly unlikely, now that more stringent isolation measures are kicking in, and of course, the mortality stats extrapolated from that will adjust accordingly
On a personal note, have you sought medical advice?
The thing is with isolation, isn't it just delaying the inevitable? Isolation will never be 100% effective and when measures are relaxed, surely there'll be at least a second hump? Or am I being pessimistic.
I just got my third x-ray back last week to say the pneumonia has cleared both lungs but I've had a chest infection for several weeks which is not related to CV. I must admit, since I took paracetamol tonight temp has come down. Got a call booked with the quack on Thursday but will ring 111 if symptoms worsen. Thx for your concern!
The thing is with isolation, isn't it just delaying the inevitable? Isolation will never be 100% effective and when measures are relaxed, surely there'll be at least a second hump? Or am I being pessimistic.
I just got my third x-ray back last week to say the pneumonia has cleared both lungs but I've had a chest infection for several weeks which is not related to CV. I must admit, since I took paracetamol tonight temp has come down. Got a call booked with the quack on Thursday but will ring 111 if symptoms worsen. Thx for your concern!
The thing about effective isolation is that without hosts, the virus will eventually die, and it's a matter of geography and reduced prevalence
There's always the possibility of different strains emerging if the conditions from which covid-19 arose remain in place, and that video of the wet meat market was truly scary - just the sheer casualness of the inhumanity
Good call about the quack, i know you won't duck it
The problem is, now that the testing horse has bolted so to speak, the stable door might as well be left to swing in the wind
I honestly don't know whether we had the wherewithal to conduct comprehensive testing to begin with. It could well be that countries which claim to be doing so aren't being entirely honest about it, to save face. Once the two figures (tested and confirmed / suspected cases) start to diverge, there's no way to bring them back together again
The reason screening and follow up needs to be carried out, even is late is to get a full understanding of the number of actual deaths, number of actual confirmed cases but just as importantly an estimate of the number of people walking around with the virus who have not been identified. A number of people in this thread have asked how is it possible to know something that has not been identified & in principle it would go something like this
Assume I report to a doctor with symptoms and turn out positive to the virus. The first 2 questions would be who did I catch the virus from, and have I passed it on ( and to how many people). I would give a list of my contacts over a period of time and these would then be followed up and screened. This would give a number who are free of the virus, those with the virus who have already been confirmed, and importantly the number who have the virus but who we would never have known about because they have no symptoms. Lets assume 3 of my group have the virus. The process would be be repeated with those 3 again each giving contact for screening and so on
Once the samples ( by country or globally)are big enough it will tell us of all the people in the sample how many of them had already been identified, and how many of them would have been unknown. For example it may be that we find out that for every person who was easily identified, there seems to be 3 who would otherwise have been unidentified if there hadn't been any screening. The more screenings are done the more accurate the data will be
What does this tell us? 1. At the moment we know the actual number of deaths and actual number of confirmed cases. If we know from the made up example above that there are likely then 3 "unknown" cases to every one know case, then although it is not an actual figure, it is likely to be a fairly accurate estimate. To continue the example, if there are 50 deaths, and 2, 000 cases confirmed, it would mean that there are probably 8,000 cases overall. It then means you can do proper ratios ( e.g deaths per 1,000 cases) on the full number which produces less scary numbers and which you can then compare like for like with other diseases ( the most relevant one being seasonal flu)
2. I have given a simple but important example, but by regular screening and monitoring you also get data that helps estimate the peak, likely speed of decline etc. There is a number given a name which I have forgotten the name of!!. If the number is above 1 it means the virus is still in the growth phase, if exactly 1 it is stable and if below 1 it means the virus is in decline ( with 0 only occurring at the end). This number changes on a regular basis over the course of the virus
3. If you do the screening from the beginning and while the epidemic is in it's infancy then you can estimate where and how much resource you should be putting into this virus. At the moment we don't actually know if the virus will indeed be a disaster or will fizzle out ( I would estimate with 8,000 deaths it currently isn't even in the top 100 or health/death issues globally). As a result we don't know if the current response is an over reaction, under reaction or just right Once this is all over you can then replace the estimates with actual data. Again we will find out if the virus was worse, better or as expected and if we have over or underestimated our response or got it just right
still early days but my gut is that we have gone overboard which is not a criticism being it is a fairly novel virus ( although related to SARS).
The reason screening and follow up needs to be carried out, even is late is to get a full understanding of the number of actual deaths, number of actual confirmed cases but just as importantly an estimate of the number of people walking around with the virus who have not been identified. A number of people in this thread have asked how is it possible to know something that has not been identified & in principle it would go something like this
Assume I report to a doctor with symptoms and turn out positive to the virus. The first 2 questions would be who did I catch the virus from, and have I passed it on ( and to how many people). I would give a list of my contacts over a period of time and these would then be followed up and screened. This would give a number who are free of the virus, those with the virus who have already been confirmed, and importantly the number who have the virus but who we would never have known about because they have no symptoms. Lets assume 3 of my group have the virus. The process would be be repeated with those 3 again each giving contact for screening and so on
Once the samples ( by country or globally)are big enough it will tell us of all the people in the sample how many of them had already been identified, and how many of them would have been unknown. For example it may be that we find out that for every person who was easily identified, there seems to be 3 who would otherwise have been unidentified if there hadn't been any screening. The more screenings are done the more accurate the data will be
What does this tell us? 1. At the moment we know the actual number of deaths and actual number of confirmed cases. If we know from the made up example above that there are likely then 3 "unknown" cases to every one know case, then although it is not an actual figure, it is likely to be a fairly accurate estimate. To continue the example, if there are 50 deaths, and 2, 000 cases confirmed, it would mean that there are probably 8,000 cases overall. It then means you can do proper ratios ( e.g deaths per 1,000 cases) on the full number which produces less scary numbers and which you can then compare like for like with other diseases ( the most relevant one being seasonal flu)
2. I have given a simple but important example, but by regular screening and monitoring you also get data that helps estimate the peak, likely speed of decline etc. There is a number given a name which I have forgotten the name of!!. If the number is above 1 it means the virus is still in the growth phase, if exactly 1 it is stable and if below 1 it means the virus is in decline ( with 0 only occurring at the end). This number changes on a regular basis over the course of the virus
3. If you do the screening from the beginning and while the epidemic is in it's infancy then you can estimate where and how much resource you should be putting into this virus. At the moment we don't actually know if the virus will indeed be a disaster or will fizzle out ( I would estimate with 8,000 deaths it currently isn't even in the top 100 or health/death issues globally). As a result we don't know if the current response is an over reaction, under reaction or just right Once this is all over you can then replace the estimates with actual data. Again we will find out if the virus was worse, better or as expected and if we have over or underestimated our response or got it just right
still early days but my gut is that we have gone overboard which is not a criticism being it is a fairly novel virus ( although related to SARS).
Oh, i agree, my point was that having not had the resources (mainly lab testing capacity) to begin with, we'll never achieve a true picture of the mortality ratio, rather than an estimate. That's not to say we shouldn't test as extensively as possible for entirely practical reasons rather than to achieve statistical certainty
As you say, we won't know the true extent of impact until some way down the line. I suspect island nations will have a natural advantage, and variations in mortality rate between nations won't necessarily be attributable to their governments, due to any number of unknown variables. One only has to consider why some people survived the Black Death in the Middle Ages, with no difference in contact conditions from the majority who perished
The key figure is the one quoted in the 'herd immunity' discussion, which still applies even though it's not a solution in the short term, 60%. Once that level of immunity has been achieved, the virus ends up in ever-decreasing circulation through the sheer law of averages, until it finally has nowhere to go. It'll be interesting to see what happens when countries like China come out of their intense lockdown phases
I have tried very hard to stay out of this thread but secretly I have been suspicious the numbers have never stacked up and the hysteria has been orchestrated. watch the video and read the comments.
Oh, i agree, my point was that having not had the resources (mainly lab testing capacity) to begin with, we'll never achieve a true picture of the mortality ratio, rather than an estimate. That's not to say we shouldn't test as extensively as possible for entirely practical reasons rather than to achieve statistical certainty
As you say, we won't know the true extent of impact until some way down the line. I suspect island nations will have a natural advantage, and variations in mortality rate between nations won't necessarily be attributable to their governments, due to any number of unknown variables. One only has to consider why some people survived the Black Death in the Middle Ages, with no difference in contact conditions from the majority who perished
The key figure is the one quoted in the 'herd immunity' discussion, which still applies even though it's not a solution in the short term, 60%. Once that level of immunity has been achieved, the virus ends up in ever-decreasing circulation through the sheer law of averages, until it finally has nowhere to go. It'll be interesting to see what happens when countries like China come out of their intense lockdown phases
[Post edited 18 Mar 2020 6:57]
Can I just say, thanks for some informative posts on this subject, also Nigeria Mark etc. We have people who post on the forum with a bit of expertise in medical and NHS issues and they speak a lot of sense. God bless all those working on the front line, the doctors and the foot soldiers...the nurses, they are going to be worked to the bone over the coming months. Social distancing from us all whenever possible will really help. I have full confidence in the medical people and the NHS to step up to the plate but the general public need to do their bit to help.
Who benefits from orchestrating what could end up being a severe global economic crisis?
[Post edited 18 Mar 2020 7:52]
Good question James it wont be me or you and definitely not the over 70 let me answer with a question who always benefits when there is a global financial crises? however big Pharma might make a quid when the forced vaccination comes out.
I have tried very hard to stay out of this thread but secretly I have been suspicious the numbers have never stacked up and the hysteria has been orchestrated. watch the video and read the comments.
I have tried very hard to stay out of this thread but secretly I have been suspicious the numbers have never stacked up and the hysteria has been orchestrated. watch the video and read the comments.
The PM has announced that a test is being developed which will enable everyone who wishes to check whether they've had the virus (regardless of symptoms). This should provide the required mathematical certainties regarding ratios of infection and mortality - providing the uptake is as near universal as possible
I have tried very hard to stay out of this thread but secretly I have been suspicious the numbers have never stacked up and the hysteria has been orchestrated. watch the video and read the comments.
Who benefits from orchestrating what could end up being a severe global economic crisis?
[Post edited 18 Mar 2020 7:52]
I can think of one country that provide loans to countries around the world in order to buy their sovereignty, a country with massive reserves that is trying to establish their currency (Yen) as a major global currency. The epicentre of the virus.
How many countries will exit the covid 19 pandemic requiring a massive cash injection?
The PM has announced that a test is being developed which will enable everyone who wishes to check whether they've had the virus (regardless of symptoms). This should provide the required mathematical certainties regarding ratios of infection and mortality - providing the uptake is as near universal as possible
I have my doubts about Universal uptake. There are a lot of people (human nature of some) who just won't be bothered. I strongly suspect there'll never be a good figure for infection rate, just a best guess based on projections. which takes us back to the earlier point that the current "official" ones are a waste of time. I still think this is a good idea though and hope uptake is as good as poss.
I can think of one country that provide loans to countries around the world in order to buy their sovereignty, a country with massive reserves that is trying to establish their currency (Yen) as a major global currency. The epicentre of the virus.
How many countries will exit the covid 19 pandemic requiring a massive cash injection?
Yen is the currency of Japan, and I assume you aren't talking about them.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
