COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Chippy_boy]

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?

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.

 

[hilts]

What a shit day.

 

[kaz7]

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.

The UK is 1808

 

[Summerbuzz]

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.

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.

 

[lancs blue]

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.

Pointless comparison unless we know what the testing regimes are in those countries.

 

[worsleyweb]

I'm pretty sure the death rate isn't 93%.

That what i am thinking but Gelsons dad has liked it?

Death rate will be somewhere between 0.6 and 3.5% i would imagine?

 

[Chippy_boy]

when did the next cohort all get infected together?

no, that's right, they didn't.

Whooosh

 

[squirtyflower]

@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.

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.

 

[domalino]

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.

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?"

 

[kaz7]

That what i am thinking but Gelsons dad has liked it?

Death rate will be somewhere between 0.6 and 3.5% i would imagine?

He is taking the piss out of me