COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Ban-jani]

WHO says it can take 24 days...

Don’t wind me up

 

[jay_mcfc]

Yes so that would be as it stands 99% of the 3000 critical cases, which is 7% of the 38000 active cases die not 40% , sorry if I’m being a bit thick here.

I think the figures are then showing that of the cases that aren't currently in icu but are in hospital and tested positive around 35% would die.

Italy's death rates from active cases is 45%
UK is 76%
China 4%
France 25%
USA 67%
Germany 5%

 

[M18CTID]

Don’t wind me up

I think 24 days was only for 1 person worldwide so far, so an extreme case

 

[Chippy_boy]

bit more from the article and comments

"...the researchers suggest that the vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 may suffer little or no illness. They believe that as few as one in a thousand could require hospital treatment — an assumption that suggests, according to their model, that half of the country could now be immune...Even if it’s one in a hundred [who fall seriously ill] you still get to 35 per cent immunity,” Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, who led the study, said.
Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, urged that serological tests begin but said: “This is interesting work, but hampered by the same issues that impact all epidemiological models — they rely on assumptions based on a paucity of fact about how this virus transmits.”
The findings are based on assumptions about the most likely characteristics of the disease and are yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a journal."

Comment - Extremely unlikely that 50% of the population are already infected. We can’t disprove this of course but if we take the lowest case fatality rate of 1 in 1000 (from figures from areas all over the world) then we could have 30000 deaths - a disastrous tsunami of cases and deaths facing the NHS and the nation in a matter of weeks. The more realistic assessment is the UCL prediction that 10% of London’s population could/would be infected.

I agree it's very likely bollocks mate. Another example of there being no correlation between genius and common sense. Here we have a professor of epidemiology at Oxford - presumably a very intelligent man indeed - yet someone lacking the common sense to do the basic maths.

If we had 50% of the population infected and 1 in 1,000 needing hospital treatment, then that would have meant 33,000 people would have needed hospital treatment by now. Rather tricky when we have only had 8,000 recorded cases, the vast majority of which have needed no hospital treatment.

The simple maths is so stupidly wrong, it makes me wonder if a thick journalist has simply misinterpreted the report. Surely no professor could be this dim?

 

[nellyonthewing]

Some huge lessons need to be learned before Covid 21 shows up. Quicker travel shutdowns .Quicker isolations. More preparedness.

 

[jay_mcfc]

I think that would be unlikely or we wouldn't be in panic mode over the lack of ventilators. If they were 99% unsuccessful, then I am not sure we'd even being considering them as a viable treatment option. I could believe maybe 50% of people on ventilators don't make it, but not 99%.

I don't know for sure, we might need a nurse or doctor to clarify.

My guess would be that the more ventilators that are used on patients prior to them going into icu the better the chance they have of surviving?

 

[BlueAnorak]

I think the figures are then showing that of the cases that aren't currently in icu but are in hospital and tested positive around 35% would die.

Italy's death rates from active cases is 45%
UK is 76%
China 4%
France 25%
USA 67%
Germany 5%

The UKs active cases total is cases that need medical intervention it is only about 8% of the total with symptoms.

 

[kaz7]

• England - 386 deaths
• Scotland - 22 deaths
• Wales - 22 deaths
• Northern Ireland - 5 deaths

The Department for Health and Social Care will refresh the UK total for deaths, confirmed cases and tests later

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

bit more from the article and comments

"...the researchers suggest that the vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 may suffer little or no illness. They believe that as few as one in a thousand could require hospital treatment — an assumption that suggests, according to their model, that half of the country could now be immune...Even if it’s one in a hundred [who fall seriously ill] you still get to 35 per cent immunity,” Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, who led the study, said.
Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, urged that serological tests begin but said: “This is interesting work, but hampered by the same issues that impact all epidemiological models — they rely on assumptions based on a paucity of fact about how this virus transmits.”
The findings are based on assumptions about the most likely characteristics of the disease and are yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a journal."

Comment - Extremely unlikely that 50% of the population are already infected. We can’t disprove this of course but if we take the lowest case fatality rate of 1 in 1000 (from figures from areas all over the world) then we could have 30000 deaths - a disastrous tsunami of cases and deaths facing the NHS and the nation in a matter of weeks. The more realistic assessment is the UCL prediction that 10% of London’s population could/would be infected.

Which of these statements is more likely to be wrong

this is a highly contagious disease that one person can pass on to three, with the multiplication effect that has on a population within 3 months of the disease entering the uk . It is capable of living on surfaces for many hours and people can catch it from surfaces by touching surfaces or things . It will spread like wildfire in a community and so we now have to lock everything down to prevent the spread.

or

in the uk we have less than 10,000 cases of Covid 19.

they can’t both be true.

 

[jay_mcfc]

The UKs active cases total is cases that need medical intervention it is only about 8% of the total with symptoms.

Yeah I know. I'm just giving the current ratio of deaths per active case as they appear on worldometer. Seems to me to be the best guide as to how the next few days will go.

 

[Phil1]

Some huge lessons need to be learned before Covid 21 shows up. Quicker travel shutdowns .Quicker isolations. More preparedness.

Did Covid-20 go straight to dvd?

 

[blueparrot]

I think the figures are then showing that of the cases that aren't currently in icu but are in hospital and tested positive around 35% would die.

Italy's death rates from active cases is 45%
UK is 76%
China 4%
France 25%
USA 67%
Germany 5%

We have 427 deaths from 7665 active case not getting how you get 76%. Today of Scotlands 584 confirmed cases 50 are confirmed in icu, assuming those 50 die over the next few days it’s still less than 10% of active cases.

 

[George Hannah]

Which of these statements is more likely to be wrong

this is a highly contagious disease that one person can pass on to three, with the multiplication effect that has on a population within 3 months of the disease entering the uk . It is capable of living on surfaces for many hours and people can catch it from surfaces by touching surfaces or things . It will spread like wildfire in a community and so we now have to lock everything down to prevent the spread.

or

in the uk we have less than 10,000 confirmed cases of Covid 19.

they can’t both be true.

one of the article comments is apposite to your question
"We are dealing here with science, and as all sensible scientists admit, the truth is hard to define.
The poem goes: "We dance around in a ring and suppose But the secret sits in the middle and knows. "

 

[Ban-jani]

Is any of the above actually true though mate? I am not sure it is. The Chinese were telling the world about this from early January. Take a look at the timeline here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_November_2019_–_January_2020#1_January_2020

I don't think they were lying to the WHO when in reality they had 1,000's of cases. And heck, even if they did, it was in Japan by late Jan, and other countries similar time. We knew it was coming and did bugger all for well over a month.

Some info here-

 

[Blue Hefner]

Just got off the phone with NatWest - the Business Interruption Loan isn’t what the government made it out to be in their statement. It’s not easy, cheap money. It’s just for those that couldn’t get a normal business loan and they want a personal guarantee

I wouldn’t need one of the Global companies we’ve delivered services for actually coughed up!!!

 

[Marvin]

I agree it's very likely bollocks mate. Another example of there being no correlation between genius and common sense. Here we have a professor of epidemiology at Oxford - presumably a very intelligent man indeed - yet someone lacking the common sense to do the basic maths.

If we had 50% of the population infected and 1 in 1,000 needing hospital treatment, then that would have meant 33,000 people would have needed hospital treatment by now. Rather tricky when we have only had 8,000 recorded cases, the vast majority of which have needed no hospital treatment.

The simple maths is so stupidly wrong, it makes me wonder if a thick journalist has simply misinterpreted the report. Surely no professor could be this dim?

Are you referring to the comment?

Comment - Extremely unlikely that 50% of the population are already infected. We can’t disprove this of course but if we take the lowest case fatality rate of 1 in 1000 (from figures from areas all over the world) then we could have 30000 deaths - a disastrous tsunami of cases and deaths facing the NHS and the nation in a matter of weeks. The more realistic assessment is the UCL prediction that 10% of London’s population could/would be infected.

What is wrong with that comment? 50% of the Uk population is approx. 30 million. A one in 1000 fatality rate generates 30000 deaths.

 

[jay_mcfc]

We have 427 deaths from 7665 active case not getting how you get 76%. Today of Scotlands 584 confirmed cases 50 are confirmed in icu, assuming those 50 die over the next few days it’s still less than 10% of active cases.

Aha I see what you're thinking.

The 76% is based on results that have had an ending.

So of 568 UK cases that have ended there's been 433 deaths and 135 recoveries.

If the results continue on the same path you'd be looking 5-6000 deaths more based on the people currently in hospital.

 

[kaz7]

How to volunteer

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-how-to-sign-up-to-become-an-nhs-volunteer-responder-11963205

 

[meltonblue]

Which of these statements is more likely to be wrong

this is a highly contagious disease that one person can pass on to three, with the multiplication effect that has on a population within 3 months of the disease entering the uk . It is capable of living on surfaces for many hours and people can catch it from surfaces by touching surfaces or things . It will spread like wildfire in a community and so we now have to lock everything down to prevent the spread.

or

in the uk we have less than 10,000 cases of Covid 19.

they can’t both be true.

They can, it's all relative though. For example, people can catch it from surfaces but I doubt many will, it's far more likely to be person to person contact. In terms of that, it is more contagious than a lot of diseases (although there have been examples where someone with it hasn't even passed it on to the people they live with) but still nowhere like measles or something as contagious as that. The issue isn't really that though, it's more the severity of it. We have to prevent the spread because even if its one person passing it on to two then it can very quickly overrun the NHS due to the volume needing hospital treatment.

I don't think we do have less than 10,000 either though as we aren't testing everyone that is staying at homes with symptoms. The likelihood of it being closer to that number than, say, a million is very high though based on what we know from other countries.

 

[hello]

Exactly mate, what’s the chances of 10 people not catching it from someone they spent 3 days at close quarters with? But not one of us have even had the dry cough symptom that he had.

Just doesn’t make sense.

My apologies. He was introduced on the TV as Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee (which I gather he is). I was mistakenly imagining that was a ministerial role.

someone complained about him being introduced as Jeremy hunt the ****, guessing it was a family member or someone he paid