COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
The death rate figures are based on confirmed cases not population number. If you want to take a stab at a realistic number then work out how many will have strong symptoms (they will be tested) and then take 2% of that value.
China has a population of over 1.2 billion. By your maths 144 million will die in China. Yesterday it was 17. So it will take another 23 thousand years for the rest to die.

Your numbers aren't scary. They are wrong.

the numbers from known cases ( using the current WHO figures ) are 3.6% dead, the 1% the uk gov quotes comes from the London school of medicine's modeling trying to model unknown cases into the mix.

However the WHO are using 3.6% as when they went looking for the iceberg in China, looking for the "unknown" cases they didn't find it.
 
Sorry but that kind of common sense approach isn't allowed on here anymore. The fact that in the last three months a total of less than 5000 people across the world have sadly died from this virus compared to the 170,000 people who die of cancer every year and 30,000 extra people who will die of normal flu in the UK in a bad winter is to be completely ignored.

You should realise bleinsa that those figures are totally irrelevant as they just make the headlines much less scary than they should be.

You should realise that on this thread we must only look at the worst death rates available in the worst affected area and then extrapolate that worse case multiplier to the entire UK population.

Then to top that off we must also make sure that everyone knows, if they were in any doubt, that the NHS will simply not be able to cope as well as some tin pot health service in some developing country and only 500,000 of us will die. If we are lucky that is!!

We are all doomed I tell you doomed!
I see you've stooped to just posting any old tripe.

The raw figures would suggest 40m or 50m people infected in the UK and at current WHO quoted death rates of 3.4% than means 1m+ people dead. That's the worst case. Tell me who has suggested this going to happen? No-one. No-one is talking about the worst case scenario. So your claim is wrong.

You asked me specifically what the death toll in the UK might be and I said 100,000. If "only" 10m catch this and "only" 1% die, that's 100,000. This is much lower than your silly suggestion that people have extrapolated the worst case scenario. Less than 1/10th in fact. I hope we can lower it still, but as you pointed out, 26,000 died one year from regular flu, so 100,000 under the circumstances, might be a decent outcome.

We can all see you are in the Victor Meldrew camp, but based on what exactly, who knows.
 
Again, the rate you quote is of confirmed cases. People who's symptoms are strong enough to merit testing. The vast majority of people with the virus have not been tested and are not included in the statistics.
I'm sorry, you don't seem to have read what I posted.

The 1% aspiration takes account of the fact that people are not included in the stats. We are assuming that there are 3x more people out there infected but not known to us. Otherwise its 3.4% according the WHO. (Running at 3.6% actually).
 
the numbers from known cases ( using the current WHO figures ) are 3.6% dead, the 1% the uk gov quotes comes from the London school of medicine's modeling trying to model unknown cases into the mix.

However the WHO are using 3.6% as when they went looking for the iceberg in China, looking for the "unknown" cases they didn't find it.

They are numbers taken from a demographic that are at far greater risk of death and that is the important point here being missed.

The mortality rate does not apply equally to all in this instance because for the vast majority of the worlds population it simply is not a lethal virus.
 
Again, the rate you quote is of confirmed cases. People who's symptoms are strong enough to merit testing. The vast majority of people with the virus have not been tested and are not included in the statistics.

Your assumption on the "vast majority" is exactly that, an assumption.

the evidence isn't panning out for that assumption however.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china

Bruce Aylward, from the WHO who headed up the china operation.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.

 
How am i being selfish and why am i being selfish?



I am self employed and work from home. Are you suggesting i just dont go out, even though i am symptom free or that everyone in the UK should lock the front door and stop contact with the outside world?

1. Because you said "Medical experts have consistently stated that the vast majority of those infected, symptoms will be mild and recovery quick with no lasting effects and i will live my life accordingly" From this, I take it to mean you will make no changes to your lifestyle, irrespective of the risks to others of you continuing to do what you always have done. That is selfish.

2. Yes, I am suggesting you stay in more (not 100% of the time necessarily) but make some changes to lower the transmission rates. We ALL need to make changes or else this is not going to get under control any time soon.
 
They are numbers taken from a demographic that are at far greater risk of death and that is the important point here being missed.

The mortality rate does not apply equally to all in this instance because for the vast majority of the worlds population it simply is not a lethal virus.
Which is why only 1% might die. 99% won't. (Assuming we can save 4 people out of 5 who need intensive care and that we have ICU beds, or more than 4 of them will die).

How hard is this?
 
Older brethren here will remember the asian flu pandemic of 1957. About 4000 ppl died in UK in the first 2 months. Many schools shut etc etc. I vividly remember the moment I succumbed, felt fine one minute, collapsed the next.
Worth remembering that in England about 7000 ppl die of flu in a typical year, mostly old or underlying illness.
Don't Panic. (Thank you, Jones)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Asian-flu-of-1957
 
I'm sorry, you don't seem to have read what I posted.

The 1% aspiration takes account of the fact that people are not included in the stats. We are assuming that there are 3x more people out there infected but not known to us. Otherwise its 3.4% according the WHO. (Running at 3.6% actually).

I have heard of a few people who are rough with symptoms but are not ringing 111. They are just choosing to self isolate and sit it out. Given the difficulties getting through to 111 and what will become increasingly difficult to get any medical attention I suspect many will choose to do the same. That of course will make figures more difficult to be accurate. I do think that there is a hell of a lot of have it or have had it already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top