COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
domalino said:
Go on then. Explain right now why if you infected 1000 people on 1 day in a City with almost zero cases beforehand, there wouldn't be a spike 19 days later.

What happens 19 days later?
Click to expand...

Nothing happens 19 days later. And here's your reasons. About 8 reasons, without thinking too hard.

  1. Because we were not talking about 1,000 infections. You were talking about e.g. the Dippers v Athletico game, which is going to be impossible to spot in the noise. It's a handful of extra infections. That should be end of discussion in itself.
  2. Because we didn't see a spike in infections 3 or 4 days after the game, which we would have done if there was going to be a visible spike in deaths later.
  3. Because the handful are not all scousers living in Notty Ash. They have dispersed all over the country, and infected people on the way to the game, at the game, at the pub afterwards and on the train home. They are all over the place, so again, impossible to spot.
  4. Because R0 is something like 2.2, so each infected person infects many more and the many more may die sooner or later than the first lot, depending on how long the incubation period was, which is highly variable.
  5. Because you don't have a "the game was called off" data set to compare it with.
  6. Because loads of people who get critically ill, stay critically ill for ages and haven't died yet.
  7. Because there is only 1 peak.
  8. I can't remember number 8. Bugger, it was a good one as well. Anyway, that will do. Believe what you like, I'm out.
 
blueparrot said:
Surely if there was going to be a spike in deaths, first would come a spike in new cases, as far as I can tell Liverpool hasn’t seen a particular spike in new new cases so it looks like the Madrid fans had little impact. Obviously Cheltenham is harder to quantify as they came from all over.
Click to expand...
If a handful of carriers went to the match, they may have only infected a handful more. They go on and infect more. No reason why any of them would neccessarily be a serious case, but more cases as time goes on raising the chance of serious cases. Maybe the answer will come if we see a link in genotypes between Spain and the North. But people will have come from all over for the match. This is part of my worry, the seeding in most countries looks almost perfectly distributed, by the time we'd locked down, there wasn't a country or state in the US without a recorded case, implying the likelyhood of more carriers, enough to have by that point spread the virus further.

I fear we're going to see Western cities peak quickly over the next month or so, and alongside and in between that, outbreaks in more provincial areas.... In addition I can't see how we avoid an ongoing rise in the 'background' noise of cases ranging from randomly distributed ones and twos, into the teens and twenties. Getting hold of these mini-outbreaks and tracing back and forward from them would seem to be the sort of containment technique that's worked in other countries. The idea being that people gathered densely in Cheltenham, Football, and mass concerts, return country wide. So may mean we might find it very difficult to discern local outbreaks due to their number and low density of cases by area. Moreover it removes the possibility of targetting localised clusters of likely carriers. It should be clear to people that when you are not dealing with numbers of serious cases that overwhelm a health service, having many cases clustered together gives you an advantage in being able to monitor and take targetted action to prevent the further spread. The difference between one dealing with one or two rotten floorboards and an entire floor with small patches spread all the woodwork.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
italy 101,739 cases, 11,591 deaths = 11.4%
UK 25150 cases, 1789 deaths = 7.1%
Germany 68180 cases, 682 deaths = 1%
That is the CFR and if you looked at that in isolation you would think they were 3 different viruses.
Click to expand...
Pointless comparison unless we know what the testing regimes are in those countries.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
@karen7


italy 101,739 cases, 11,591 deaths = 11.4%
UK 25150 cases, 1789 deaths = 7.1%
Germany 68180 cases, 682 deaths = 1%
That is the CFR and if you looked at that in isolation you would think they were 3 different viruses.
Click to expand...
25,150 cases
However only 1924 of those cases have been closed. Of the closed cases 135 people have recovered, the remainder have died.
Hence a figure of 93%, the others aren’t part of the statistics as they haven’t yet reached completion.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Nothing happens 19 days later. And here's your reasons. About 8 reasons, without thinking too hard.

  1. Because we were not talking about 1,000 infections. You were talking about e.g. the Dippers v Athletico game, which is going to be impossible to spot in the noise. That should be end of discussion in itself.
  2. Because we didn't see a spike in infections 3 or 4 days after the game, which we would have done if there was going to be a visible spike in deaths later.
  3. Because the handful are not all scousers living in Notty Ash. They have dispersed all over the country, and infected people on the way to the game, at the game, at the pub afterwards and on the train home. They are all over the place, so again, impossible to spot.
  4. Because R0 is something like 2.2, so each infected person infects many more and the many more may die sooner or later than the first lot, depending on how long the incubation period was, which is highly variable.
  5. Because you don't have a "the game was called off" data set to compare it with.
  6. Because loads of people who get critically ill, stay critically ill for ages and haven't died yet.
  7. Because there is only 1 peak.
  8. I can't remember number 8. Bugger, it was a good one as well. Anyway, that will do. Believe what you like, I'm out.
Click to expand...

You have started using the word peak, which I didn't use. I said "spike". Because if 1000 people get infected, 19 days later, 10 die which would be a spike.

Which would be a massive spike.

The rest of your points are completely irrelevant to the question I asked you. "What happens 19 days after 1000 people get infected on 1 days?"
 
domalino said:
No see that's not possible.

You can't infect 1000 people who are all asymptomatic.
Click to expand...

You know this how ?

Plus I didn't say asymptomatic. I said mild meaning they do not go to hospital..

In your imaginary 1000 mainly fit young men who contract Covid 19 there may only be a handful who are in sufficient distress go go to hospital, a further larger number self isolate and a further number feel slightly under the weather and continue as normal. Under these circumstances there will be no discernible local peak within the 18 days you quote but the virus will have been spread contributing to the peak later.
 
domalino said:
You have started using the word peak, which I didn't use. I said "spike". Because if 1000 people get infected, 19 days later, 10 die.

Which would be a massive spike.

The rest of your points are completely irrelevant to the question I asked you.
Click to expand...
Nope, the points are not irrelevant. It is CORRECT that the incubation period varies greatly, as does the time it takes to die. It is correct that the numbers of extra infections would be lost in the noise, since the people would be all over the country. And it is YOU who has tried to change the rules of the argument by inventing this ridiculous idea of 1,000 extra infections on 1 day at 1 event 3 weeks ago when there were only 300 cases in the whole country.

You're basically just wrong, and my guess is you realise it full well but lack the stones to admit it.
 
dave_blue12 said:
You know this how ?

Plus I didn't say asymptomatic. I said mild meaning they do not go to hospital..

In your imaginary 1000 mainly fit young men who contract Covid 19 there may only be a handful who are in sufficient distress go go to hospital, a further larger number self isolate and a further number feel slightly under the weather and continue as normal. Under these circumstances there will be no discernible local peak within the 18 days you quote but the virus will have been spread contribution to the peak later.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Nope, the points are not irrelevant. It is CORRECT that the incubation period varies greatly, as does the time it takes to die. It is correct that the numbers of extra infections would be lost in the noise, since the people would be all over the country. And it is YOU who has tried to change the rules of the argument by inventing this ridiculous idea of 1,000 extra infections on 1 day at 1 event.

You're basically just wrong, and my guess is you realise it full well but lack the stones to admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm right.

I said 2 weeks ago we wouldn't see a spike in deaths because the epidemiologists were correct and now they've been proven correct.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
Phone tracking is used here in Switzerland to measure how effective the social isolation is. The main telecoms networks made all their data available (anonymised they claim).
Click to expand...

And how does that filter back to the public? Do you receive direct messages, or is it only used to monitor patterns of behaviour?
 
dave_blue12 said:
You know this how ?

Plus I didn't say asymptomatic. I said mild meaning they do not go to hospital..

In your imaginary 1000 mainly fit young men who contract Covid 19 there may only be a handful who are in sufficient distress go go to hospital, a further larger number self isolate and a further number feel slightly under the weather and continue as normal. Under these circumstances there will be no discernible local peak within the 18 days you quote but the virus will have been spread contribution to the peak later.
Click to expand...

Because that's not how things work over large numbers. You and Chippy have a terrible understanding of statistics.

They think that about 50% might be asymptomatic based on the cruise ships. It's not possible for you to infect 1000 random people and for them to all not show symptoms.
 
domalino said:
I'm right.

I said 2 weeks ago we wouldn't see a spike in deaths because the epidemiologists were correct and now they've been proven correct.
Click to expand...
Eh???? You've just wasted everyone's time arguing through your arse that there would be a spike? And now you're arguing there isn't one?

I'd have everyone round yours for a party tonight mate since your grasp of what's going on seems to be sub-zero.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top