Coronavirus - Is this the killer flu that will wipe us out?
Discussion
V6 Pushfit said:
.
It’s certainly not runny nose figures -far from it - but given the seeming reluctance of Govt to do much overtly I suspect they are accepting it’ll go through the UK so no point in actually stopping it. Slowing maybe in the hope of a vaccine and time to prepare behind the scenes.
I don’t think you’d be able to stop a pandemic, despite being an island nation. They’ll know that. They are acting to slow it - contact tracing cases etc. If it becomes endemic in China then I’d expect further measures in the uk, but again only to slow the inevitable. If it’s that bad, it will happen - slowing it so healthcare doesn’t get overwhelmed is all they can do imo. It’s certainly not runny nose figures -far from it - but given the seeming reluctance of Govt to do much overtly I suspect they are accepting it’ll go through the UK so no point in actually stopping it. Slowing maybe in the hope of a vaccine and time to prepare behind the scenes.
emperorburger said:
I stated my views a couple of pages back. Forget what's happening in China and use the Diamond Princess. Reasonable cohort size, developed nation, good access to specialist healthcare and medicine and a mix of ethnic origins. The age group may be skewed somewhat, however this should actually present a reasonable worst case scenario as a result.
Interesting, it’ll still be a small sample though and transmission isn’t 100% so even smaller. Certainly put it in the mix but the age group could be misleading if the death rate resulting is applied across the board to all age groups.I also think Wuhan hospitals were at peak capacity some time ago so full records may have gone adrift.
nffcforever said:
They offer very little value for their 100's of millions in funding.poo at Paul's said:
People not happy that 14 US positive patients were able to fly home on planes with 300 others and seemingly no protection
Yeah, people including the CDC, apparently.https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-...
philv said:
In that time that calculated rate has gone from 27% to 11% and still going down.
So unless you think the virus is getting much less virulent, isn't it obvious that the initial calculation (and handwringing/doom laden predictions) of fatality rate at 20+% was completely bulls
t and continuing to use that same calculation and repeating it like it's the gospel truth is idiotic? Maybe, just maybe the people that actually deal with these things ie the medical statisticians who have come up with estimated numbers like 1% per the earlier imperial paper might have a clue what they are doing as having some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
isaldiri said:
So unless you think the virus is getting much less virulent, isn't it obvious that the initial calculation (and handwringing/doom laden predictions) of fatality rate at 20+% was completely bullst and continuing to use that same calculation and repeating it like it's the gospel truth is idiotic?
Maybe, just maybe the people that actually deal with these things ie the medical statisticians who have come up with estimated numbers like 1% per the earlier imperial paper might have a clue what they are doing as having some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
It was stated as the rate at the time, so you’d better take it up with China. Anyway what is more ludicrous is anyone quoting x% on the same data but using case numbers. It’ll give wildly wrong results and if they know that it’s misleading.t and continuing to use that same calculation and repeating it like it's the gospel truth is idiotic? Maybe, just maybe the people that actually deal with these things ie the medical statisticians who have come up with estimated numbers like 1% per the earlier imperial paper might have a clue what they are doing as having some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
V6 Pushfit said:
isaldiri said:
So unless you think the virus is getting much less virulent, isn't it obvious that the initial calculation (and handwringing/doom laden predictions) of fatality rate at 20+% was completely bullst and continuing to use that same calculation and repeating it like it's the gospel truth is idiotic?
Maybe, just maybe the people that actually deal with these things ie the medical statisticians who have come up with estimated numbers like 1% per the earlier imperial paper might have a clue what they are doing as having some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
It was stated as the rate at the time, so you’d better take it up with China. Anyway what is more ludicrous is anyone quoting x% on the same data but using case numbers. It’ll give wildly wrong results and if they know that it’s misleading.t and continuing to use that same calculation and repeating it like it's the gospel truth is idiotic? Maybe, just maybe the people that actually deal with these things ie the medical statisticians who have come up with estimated numbers like 1% per the earlier imperial paper might have a clue what they are doing as having some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
I also thought we couldn't trust the numbers from China?
These two things you have banged on and on and on about since you dropped the 30% thing then the 20% thing.
P.S looks like it's moving closer to 2%
isaldiri said:
...some so called 'method' that goes from 27-11% in the space of 2 weeks suggests it's pretty much worse than useless as an accurate estimate.
The basis of this ‘so called method’ being to see how many people recover against die? Seems to be a good basis for err seeing how many recover against die to me.In regards to your ‘2 weeks’ , the data has changed each day as the sample gets bigger (more people recover or die) as presumably there’s a learning curve with treatment, and CPP massage the figures. You may have noticed the change in data but on the basis you’ve been ‘told’ 1% have you asked yourself why that’s stayed the same?
V6 Pushfit said:
emperorburger said:
LimSlip said:
emperorburger said:
UK cases 9
Recovered 8
Deaths 0
Discuss.
What's to discuss? Screening people from affected countries appears to be working better than most hoped.Recovered 8
Deaths 0
Discuss.
V6 Pushfit said:
emperorburger said:
LimSlip said:
emperorburger said:
UK cases 9
Recovered 8
Deaths 0
Discuss.
What's to discuss? Screening people from affected countries appears to be working better than most hoped.Recovered 8
Deaths 0
Discuss.
V6 Pushfit said:
The basis of this ‘so called method’ being to see how many people recover against die? Seems to be a good basis for err seeing how many recover against die to me.
Did you read the latest WHO sitrep? The problem with your original "analysis" is that it was based on the information from the Chinese government. Fair enough you might say - that's all we had to go on at the time. However, it then became clear that the China data contained some fundamental issues, namely only serious cases were being recorded, and many with mild symptoms were being ignored from the numbers.
This is why your percentages were wildly incorrect. And we pointed it out to you at the time. But because this doesn't fit your apocalyptic vision of how this plays out, you keep ignoring it.
Edited by EddieSteadyGo on Thursday 20th February 23:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff