Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 7)

[Escapegoat]

Leptons said:

The advice was actually different at first.

Is the head of the family court a pandemic expert? We were told to stay at home and not to mix with people from other households, to shut our businesses down and to stay 2 metres apart.

I maintain we did what was best with the information we had at the time, the stories coming out of Italy were of people our age dying, kids being super spreaders, kids visiting their grandparents and basically killing them, even kids dying.

You’d put your Kids health at risk whilst you didn’t know what was going on just so you could see them? Some father you are.

You might have got it wrong at first, but you've had several weeks to fix this and do the right thing (by your child, if not your ex) .

You wouldn't be the first or the last parent brought back to Family Court. Even now, they are sitting and doing telephone hearings. I'm sure the Judge will try not to do an eye-roll as you claim that you were "putting my kid first"

[TTmonkey]

[skinnyman]

Approximately 16 million people in the UK under 18 years old.

"Everyone please go back to work, although schools remain closed".

Not entirely sure they've thought this through.

[ChocolateFrog]

John Locke said:

Back to the thread title;- it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out, but the government refusal to admit its errors and dump pointless restrictions is still killing the most vulnerable, and financially wiping out many self employed and business people, as well as the less well insulated employees.

The media and the general public demanded the lockdown and restrictions.

The government knew any excess deaths would be hung on them, their hands were tied.

1%

What are we at at the moment? 0.05% including everyone who died with C19 let alone because of it?

[John Locke]

catweasle said:

John Locke said:

Back to the thread title;- it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out, but the government refusal to admit its errors and dump pointless restrictions is still killing the most vulnerable, and financially wiping out many self employed and business people, as well as the less well insulated employees.

You reckon that's it then,,,,no 2nd, possibly bigger, wave?

FWIW I reckon 1st / 2nd week in September is what is being planned for.

There may be several waves, or outbreaks, each less deadly than the prevoius one because the most susceptible will be killed early on. So far, it has taken around 0.04% of us.


ETA

ChocolateFrog said:

The media and the general public demanded the lockdown and restrictions.

The government knew any excess deaths would be hung on them, their hands were tied.

1%

What are we at at the moment? 0.05% including everyone who died with C19 let alone because of it?

Hence "it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out".

Edited by John Locke on Monday 11th May 00:15

[anonymous-user]

John Locke said:

catweasle said:

John Locke said:

Back to the thread title;- it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out, but the government refusal to admit its errors and dump pointless restrictions is still killing the most vulnerable, and financially wiping out many self employed and business people, as well as the less well insulated employees.

You reckon that's it then,,,,no 2nd, possibly bigger, wave?

FWIW I reckon 1st / 2nd week in September is what is being planned for.

There may be several waves, or outbreaks, each less deadly than the prevoius one because the most susceptible will be killed early on. So far, it has taken around 0.04% of us.

Only time will tell....but IMO, if something bad is going to happen then it's better to control when it happens so you are best able to deal with it,,,,that is what I think the Govt et al are trying to do.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/0...

[anonymous-user]

ChocolateFrog said:

1%

What are we at at the moment? 0.05% including everyone who died with C19 let alone because of it?

219183 cases
31855 deaths

Case fatality rate is 14%.

You can't work out the Mortality Rate as no real data on total amount infected yet, but it currently estimated to be between 1-2%, 10 to 20 times that of Flu deaths.

[ChocolateFrog]

John Locke said:

catweasle said:

John Locke said:

Back to the thread title;- it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out, but the government refusal to admit its errors and dump pointless restrictions is still killing the most vulnerable, and financially wiping out many self employed and business people, as well as the less well insulated employees.

You reckon that's it then,,,,no 2nd, possibly bigger, wave?

FWIW I reckon 1st / 2nd week in September is what is being planned for.

There may be several waves, or outbreaks, each less deadly than the prevoius one because the most susceptible will be killed early on. So far, it has taken around 0.04% of us.


ETA

ChocolateFrog said:

The media and the general public demanded the lockdown and restrictions.

The government knew any excess deaths would be hung on them, their hands were tied.

1%

What are we at at the moment? 0.05% including everyone who died with C19 let alone because of it?

Hence "it doesn't look as if it's going to kill even 1% of us, much less wipe us out".

Edited by John Locke on Monday 11th May 00:15

Exactly, 1% is a joke figure and should be ridiculed as such.

[sim72]

The Spruce Goose said:

ChocolateFrog said:

1%

What are we at at the moment? 0.05% including everyone who died with C19 let alone because of it?

219183 cases
31855 deaths

Case fatality rate is 14%.

You can't work out the Mortality Rate as no real data on total amount infected yet, but it currently estimated to be between 1-2%, 10 to 20 times that of Flu deaths.

He means 0.05% of the entire population of the country

[75Black]

This may have been covered several times over but I haven't gone through each thread iteration in details so apologies in advance.

Anyway my question is, it appears that the lifting of restrictions is based on the R number and it being below 1 ideally, and any time it gets higher lockdowns will be reinstated. What does this mean for businesses and the economy? Some countries have already reported rates going up as a result of lifting of restrictions and want to close down again. So how is this going to work, are we just going to constantly to yo-yo back and forth, opening and closing businesses the moment infections rise? I doubt once businesses start getting money in again, they'll be reluctant on doing so.

[isaldiri]

The Spruce Goose said:

You can't work out the Mortality Rate as no real data on total amount infected yet, but it currently estimated to be between 1-2%

nope. Case fatality rate differs hugely between countries due to testing and is utterly irrelevant at this point.

Infection fatality rate is estimated to be between 0.5% and 1% with attack rate very heavily biased for the over 70s.

Edited by isaldiri on Monday 11th May 00:56

[thebraketester]

Holy st... volume 7 already...... what did I miss?

[anonymous-user]

sim72 said:

He means 0.05% of the entire population of the country

what he is saying is we shouldn't be bothered because it has only killed x amount of population, when clearly if we did nothing it would be 1-2% of the population, 250-500k dead. I thought that was obvious without explaining it.

[anonymous-user]

isaldiri said:

nope. Case fatality rate differs hugely between countries due to testing and is utterly irrelevant at this point. [/footnote]

Yet you quote the text where i mention mortality rate which is quite different to case rate, it is almost like you are going out you way to try and prove me wrong at any post.....

isaldiri said:

Infection fatality rate is estimated to be between 0.5% and 1% with attack rate very heavily biased for the over 70s.

Edited by isaldiri on Monday 11th May 00:56

i'll take a scientific publication over some bloke on the internet, thanks

''We estimate an overall infection fatality rate of 1.29% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.89 - 2.01)''


An empirical estimate of the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 from the first Italian outbreak
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18...

[isaldiri]

The Spruce Goose said:

i'll take a scientific publication over some bloke on the internet, thanks

''We estimate an overall infection fatality rate of 1.29% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.89 - 2.01)''

An empirical estimate of the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 from the first Italian outbreak
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18...

You also very conveniently ignore the rest of the statement

"Findings: We estimate an overall infection fatality rate of 1.29% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.89 - 2.01), as well as large differences by age, with a low infection fatality rate of 0.05% for under 60 year old (CrI 0-.19) and a substantially higher 4.25% (CrI 3.01-6.39) for people above 60 years of age. In our sensitivity analysis, we found that even under extreme assumptions, our method delivered useful information. For instance, even if only 10% of the population were infected, the infection fatality rate would not rise above 0.2% for people under 60. "

As usual you insist on misrepresenting the conclusions of a medical paper. The IFR was 1.29% for that population of patients. IFR across the population is going to be far lower. You clearly know that but blithely choose to ignore that in order to try to portray something that you would like to believe in irrespective of the actual data.

Look at the estimated IFR table in this report

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15...

I'm also happy to take the numbers in medical publication than a blatant misrepresentation by some bloke on the internet of another report.

[shed driver]

Reports of another small cluster in Wuhan. Source BBC World Service. Will try and find a second source.

SD.

[Robertj21a]

sim72 said:

5pm briefing will be interesting tomorrow.

No.10: "Raab, you're doing it"
Raab: "Got a bit of a cough, probably best to let someone else do it"
No. 10: "Sunak?"
Sunak: "Temperature's up a bit ... can I do it later in the week?"
No. 10: "Oh God, it'll have to be Patel then"
Patel: *COUGH*COUGH*COUGH"
No. 10: "OK, back to the default then, God help us. Hancock!"
Hancock: "Really not feeling too good"
No. 10: "You've already had it, you f***ing muppet".

Isn't Boris doing it this afternoon ?

[FiF]

Telling people to go back to work, avoid public transport, use cars or cycles or walking ought to be s real kick up the rear to Sadiq Khan to suspend congestion charge, emisalon charge and parking fees / restrictions. What's the betting he won't shift a millimetre.

I still don't see how what's happening will deal with the issue that changes perfectly feasible for an area with low infections low R, but not suitable for a geographically close area with much higher infections and transmissions.

Unless they really are admitting much of it is now within hospitals, care homes etc.

[John Locke]

The Spruce Goose said:

what he is saying is we shouldn't be bothered because it has only killed x amount of population, when clearly if we did nothing it would be 1-2% of the population, 250-500k dead. I thought that was obvious without explaining it.

Possible only if the (original) Imperial model is correct, which it isn't. The only thing which is clear is that everyone involved in formulating and implementing policy has screwed up.

[turbobloke]

News outlets are doing a great job as usual, finding only people with something to moan about. It's the same record just the flipside.

Headteacher in March "it's so sudden it's not fair education education education won't somebody think of the poor ickle childwen"

Headteacher in May "it's not fair it's so soon nobody is holding my hand telling me what to do won't somebody think of Starmer"

Always well-qualified and well-salaried to hold a union card.