Covid-19

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:33 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:53 pm
Before I say anything else, when this is all over and done with, the case fatality rate will be no where near 18%

That doesn't mean the outcome ratio of recoveries:deaths is completely irrelevant either, though. It's one of 3 legitimate ways of trying to determine the 'correct' case fatality rate.

Surely you agree that every single one of those that have died had 'mild' disease at some point? And therefore that some of those 45000 will go on to progress to 'severe' disease, and that a small number of those will ultimately die?
I agree, I think it will be a lot lower.

The 2% figure makes everyone all feel better, whereas the same calc is also valid that only 10% of people have recovered which would not do the same.

Having said that the fact 0.07% of people outside of China having died makes me feel a lot better. That’s less than normal flu.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:43 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:50 pm
If you look at the percentage of people who have recovered or died, it’s now 82% to 18%.
Lowbankclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:26 pm
No it’s not scaremongering. It’s a fact!!

If the rates continue as they are today. 18% of people who have contracted it could die, in China at least.


What’s your reasoning for stating that percentage may change???

A vaccine could be one.

Outside of China the percentage is 0.07% deaths which statistically is very strange.
Your 18% includes people who have recovered or died... died is bad (Only 2% of the total cases) recovered is good...

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:08 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:43 pm
Your 18% includes people who have recovered or died... died is bad (Only 2% of the total cases) recovered is good...
You need to open your mind to true facts and accept them, then question how they might change.

2% of total people diagnosed died is a fact.

18% of people who either recovered or died did die is a fact, the question is why will that change???

Currently nothing is going to change that outcome in China.

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:08 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:43 pm
Your 18% includes people who have recovered or died... died is bad (Only 2% of the total cases) recovered is good...
Those of us who taking a more balanced approach really shouldn't try and persuade those who aren't. Our apparent stupidity and bravado in the face of how they are (in my view mis-) interpreting every stat or piece of information is just another source of stress to them.
This user liked this post: Zlatan

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:37 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:33 pm
I agree, I think it will be a lot lower.

The 2% figure makes everyone all feel better, whereas the same calc is also valid that only 10% of people have recovered which would not do the same.

Having said that the fact 0.07% of people outside of China having died makes me feel a lot better. That’s less than normal flu.
That's weird. If it turns out to be a case fatality rate of 2%, far from feeling better, I would see that as an utter, utter calamity! That would turn the world upside down! Certainly, this sort of number would completely cripple the NHS. Any higher than that and we're talking truly biblical levels of catastrophe.

I'm desperately hoping 2% turns out to be a massive overestimate (though I've yet to fully persuade myself that it definitely won't be 2%), but surely to God it won't be that bad will it? I still haven't - on here or elsewhere - seen anybody make a persuasive case that it will be less than 0.5%, though, and even that would result in an appalling loss of life.

So just what percentage of the population are you expecting to die from this thing, Lowbank?

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:41 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:08 pm
Those of us who taking a more balanced approach really shouldn't try and persuade those who aren't. Our apparent stupidity and bravado in the face of how they are (in my view mis-) interpreting every stat or piece of information is just another source of stress to them.
Out of genuine interest, when you say 'a more balance approach', what sort of eventual figures are you thinking of? 0.1% of the global population dying from this? 0.5%? What?

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:43 pm
Your 18% includes people who have recovered or died... died is bad (Only 2% of the total cases) recovered is good...
He's saying that of those that are known to have had the virus, and whose illness has reached it's conclusion one way or the other, 18% are now dead.

This is true.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:41 pm
Out of genuine interest, when you say 'a more balance approach', what sort of eventual figures are you thinking of? 0.1% of the global population dying from this? 0.5%? What?
I think something similar to influenza is the most likely outcome in the UK if this takes hold - anywhere between 400 and 13000 deaths - which equates to between 0.01% and 2.6%

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:54 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 pm
He's saying that of those that are known to have had the virus, and whose illness has reached it's conclusion one way or the other, 18% are now dead.

This is true.
I’m not sure that’s accurate but anyway it’s very misleading and disingenuous as there are a over 45000 people who have contracted the virus and are expected to make a full recovery.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:11 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:37 pm
That's weird. If it turns out to be a case fatality rate of 2%, far from feeling better, I would see that as an utter, utter calamity! That would turn the world upside down! Certainly, this sort of number would completely cripple the NHS. Any higher than that and we're talking truly biblical levels of catastrophe.

I'm desperately hoping 2% turns out to be a massive overestimate (though I've yet to fully persuade myself that it definitely won't be 2%), but surely to God it won't be that bad will it? I still haven't - on here or elsewhere - seen anybody make a persuasive case that it will be less than 0.5%, though, and even that would result in an appalling loss of life.

So just what percentage of the population are you expecting to die from this thing, Lowbank?
My preferred % would be 0.0.

I hope someone comes up with a vaccine quick which keeps the percentage low.

Currently my thinking is the Chinese have come up with a virus that’s pre disposed to be more virulent to Chinese to help overcome their problematic demographic.

I think that due to the current % of deaths inside China and outside that’s my current thinking.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:14 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 pm
I think something similar to influenza is the most likely outcome in the UK if this takes hold - anywhere between 400 and 13000 deaths - which equates to between 0.01% and 2.6%
I make 400/60,000,000 to be 0.0007%, and 13000/60,000,000 to be 0.02% of the UK population.

0.5% would be about 300,000 UK deaths. (If, heaven help us, we lose 2% to this, we're looking at 1.2 million deaths in the UK alone, nearly twice the number we lost in WW1.)

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:22 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:41 pm
Out of genuine interest, when you say 'a more balance approach', what sort of eventual figures are you thinking of? 0.1% of the global population dying from this? 0.5%? What?
Since I'm no expert, I'm going to go with the sort of consensus which those with knowledge seem to be going for that it could be anything up to 2% but possibly less when you factor in under reporting of mild cases and the likelihood that we will get some respite due to seasonality if we can get as far as spring with no spread. They're not simply sitting dividing deaths by cases to come up with this.

This would not be "biblical levels of catastrophe". It would certainly be significant but 1.5% of the population die every year anyway.

Anyway, I understand from later posts it's only a Chinese government plot to reduce their own population so, unless you're ethnically Chinese, it seems the panic is over.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:31 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:11 pm
My preferred % would be 0.0.

I hope someone comes up with a vaccine quick which keeps the percentage low.

Currently my thinking is the Chinese have come up with a virus that’s pre disposed to be more virulent to Chinese to help overcome their problematic demographic.

I think that due to the current % of deaths inside China and outside that’s my current thinking.
I have to say, I think this so unlikely that you can safely eliminate it even as a possibility.

There are 3 obvious reasons for the lower death rate outside China (as well as many other plausible ones):

1. We are only dealing with tiny numbers at the moment, so each case is receiving elite treatment. This is not the case in China where the health system has been completely overwhelmed.
2. We are picking up nearly all the cases by contact tracing and screening, so our figures include inconsequential infections. These inconsequential illnesses are not being recorded in China.
3. The cases outside China are more recent. They have not had time to die yet.

I hope the reason is 2, because reasons 1 and 3 won't apply indefinitely.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:33 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:14 pm
I make 400/60,000,000 to be 0.0007%, and 13000/60,000,000 to be 0.02% of the UK population.

0.5% would be about 300,000 UK deaths. (If, heaven help us, we lose 2% to this, we're looking at 1.2 million deaths in the UK alone, nearly twice the number we lost in WW1.)
Don’t forget not all 66M of the population contract influenza

I’m actually shocked you’re not concerned about 13000 deaths from influenza, but you’re having kittens about a virus you know little about
Last edited by Zlatan on Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 772 times
Has Liked: 1426 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:33 pm

Casually dropping in things like the Chinese government invented it to curb the population......

Seriously- WTF? I’d suggest the spice problem in Burnley is therefore much worse.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:36 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:22 pm
Since I'm no expert, I'm going to go with the sort of consensus which those with knowledge seem to be going for that it could be anything up to 2% but possibly less when you factor in under reporting of mild cases and the likelihood that we will get some respite due to seasonality if we can get as far as spring with no spread. They're not simply sitting dividing deaths by cases to come up with this.

This would not be "biblical levels of catastrophe". It would certainly be significant but 1.5% of the population die every year anyway.

Anyway, I understand from later posts it's only a Chinese government plot to reduce their own population so, unless you're ethnically Chinese, it seems the panic is over.
We're broadly on the same page with the numbers then, just our interpretation of what constitutes a disaster that differs.

(Just for accuracy I described 2% as an utter, utter calamity. Biblical was only used for the eventuality that it exceeded 2%)

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:37 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:36 pm
We're broadly on the same page with the numbers then, just our interpretation of what constitutes a disaster that differs.

(Just for accuracy I described 2% as an utter, utter calamity. Biblical was only used for the eventuality that it exceeded 2%)
OK. It's not an "utter, utter, calamity" then.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:38 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:33 pm
Don’t forget not all 66M of the population contract influenza

I’m actually shocked you’re not concerned about 13000 deaths from influenza, but you’re having kittens about a virus you know little about
No, but consensus seems to be 60-80% will get this if it's not contained.

(I'm not having kittens. As always I'm remarkably calm. But, at the moment at least, everything is suggesting this will be a lot worse than seasonal flu. The direct deaths themselves isn't what's holding my attention, though. it's how society will react to this that is.)

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:45 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:38 pm
No, but consensus seems to be 60-80% will get this if it's not contained.
Who the Hell says that? Don’t tell me you read it on Facebook... look, my “expertise” in all this is limited to common sense, but I do know a very good virologist (family member) who is currently actively researching the treatments for this - it’s no more virulent than standard influenza, normal measures for containing an influenza outbreak apply here, and the mortality rates are expected to be similar - it’s really important to not panic and worry yourself too much - stress will inhibit your immune system you know...
This user liked this post: Steve-Harpers-perm

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:53 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:45 pm
Who the Hell says that? Don’t tell me you read it on Facebook... look, my “expertise” in all this is limited to common sense, but I do know a very good virologist (family member) who is currently actively researching the treatments for this - it’s no more virulent than standard influenza, normal measures for containing an influenza outbreak apply here, and the mortality rates are expected to be similar - it’s really important to not panic and worry yourself too much - stress will inhibit your immune system you know...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... population

When a British epidemiologist was asked on Radio 4 PM program if he agreed with this figure, he agreed with this figure.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:01 am

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:53 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... population

When a British epidemiologist was asked on Radio 4 PM program if he agreed with this figure, he agreed with this figure.
Did you digest what was stated or just assume what this expert said was gospel? He qualified that statement if you read it and not over react “if unchecked”...

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by If it be your will » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am

Zlatan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:01 am
Did you digest what was stated or just assume what this expert said was gospel? He qualified that statement if you read it and not over react “if unchecked”...
'
And I qualified mine with 'If it's not contained'. (I could have used 'unchecked' rather than 'not contained' I guess.)

Siddo
Posts: 958
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:48 am
Been Liked: 374 times
Has Liked: 1860 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Siddo » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:15 am

Meanwhile, here in Thailand...no panic, no concern, almost no one wearing masks and life carrying on as normal. Corvid 19 features on TV, but it isn't the main story. Funnily enough, the shooting isn't featured much now.
I wandered around the local shops and area yesterday and it was very busy, but again no masks.
Fingers crossed that it remains a minor concern outside of China.

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:28 am

It’s comforting that on this messageboard as well as sideline football managers, coaches, scouts, club owners etc we can now add medical experts to the list of expertise.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank tiger76

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:47 am

If it be your will wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:31 pm
I have to say, I think this so unlikely that you can safely eliminate it even as a possibility.

There are 3 obvious reasons for the lower death rate outside China (as well as many other plausible ones):

1. We are only dealing with tiny numbers at the moment, so each case is receiving elite treatment. This is not the case in China where the health system has been completely overwhelmed.
2. We are picking up nearly all the cases by contact tracing and screening, so our figures include inconsequential infections. These inconsequential illnesses are not being recorded in China.
3. The cases outside China are more recent. They have not had time to die yet.

I hope the reason is 2, because reasons 1 and 3 won't apply indefinitely.
I agree with every thing you have said there.

Looking at the data this morning, due to being ill I have lots of time to do.

The percentages of people either recovered or died has continued to see the death rate % come down. It’s now 84% to 16% .
Outside of China it’s 96.6% to 3.3%. Recovered or died.

Let’s hope both % reduce over time.

5 countries have declared their people recovered and looks like they have contained it successfully, which is great news.

China have declared 36,719 people are in hospital with 7,953 serious (21%) and 1,685 critical (4.6%). Like you say it’s probably overwhelming their Heath services.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Coronavirus

Post by FactualFrank » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:14 am

China reports 5,090 new cases and 121 new deaths in the past 24 hours.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:20 am

COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK Last updated: February 14, 2020, 09:18 GMT

Coronavirus Cases: 64,456 (100% of Total Cases)

ACTIVE CASES 55,971 (87% of Total Cases)
Currently Infected Patients
45,363 (70% of Total Cases) (81% of Active Cases) in Mild Condition
10,608 (16% of Total Cases) (19% of Active Cases) Serious or Critical

CLOSED CASES 8,485 (13% of Total Cases)
Cases which had an outcome
7,101 (11% of Total Cases) (84% of Closed Cases) Recovered / Discharged
1,384 (2% of Total Cases) (16% of Closed Cases) Deaths

I cannot stress enough that information posted by other users is misleading as they are quoting percentages of the closed cases only and clearly do not understand that is not the whole data set.

More importantly is the logarithmic curve which is trending downwards (indicates that the virus spread is waning)
CoronaVirus .JPG
CoronaVirus .JPG (35.94 KiB) Viewed 4252 times

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Coronavirus

Post by FactualFrank » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:27 am

I've not read all the thread, but surely we can only take the numbers from closed cases? As they are the only definite values. The open cases can be random and can so skew the results.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:31 am

FactualFrank wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:14 am
China reports 5,090 new cases and 121 new deaths in the past 24 hours.

“ Then on Friday, China added 121 new deaths – but also removed 108 fatalities from the total, due to what China’s National Health Commission said were “duplicate statistics”.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank Zlatan

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:35 am

FactualFrank wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:27 am
I've not read all the thread, but surely we can only take the numbers from closed cases? As they are the only definite values. The open cases can be random.
Well not really, you can predict the outcome of the active cases based upon probabilities. The overall death rate is not going to change significantly (i.e. by an order of magnitude like others have stated) unless there is a change in treatment which in theory would only LOWER the death rate, or a mutation in the virus which makes it more deadly which could RAISE the death rate.

So it is a fair assumption that the death rate for the current active cases will be approximately 2% (in China) and that's not even considering the probable large amount of cases that are not reported and included in the figures - we are not talking at the death end of the scale, I am referring to those people who have it so mild that they probably don't even know they have it (which could be a few thousand people or it could be millions of people - we just don't know because they haven't been recorded). When you factor in that variable the death rate can only be lowered below where it is now.

Like I have said previously - this is similar to influenza

mdd2
Posts: 6012
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1665 times
Has Liked: 700 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by mdd2 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:16 am

My take too Zlatan

mdd2
Posts: 6012
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1665 times
Has Liked: 700 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by mdd2 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:18 am

I imagine our first case would be one who would not have come to medical attention

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Coronavirus

Post by FactualFrank » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:53 pm

A senior health official in Wuhan, China, the center of the outbreak, has called on residents who have recovered from the coronavirus to donate blood plasma, believing their naturally produced antibodies could be used to treat patients who are still sick.

Benjamin Cowling, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Hong Kong, said the use of antibodies to treat the coronavirus was “a really good idea,” noting that it had been used before in influenza pandemics. But he cautioned that it needed to be proven in a controlled trial.

“It’s basically transferring immunity from a patient who has recovered to a patient still fighting the infection, and then helping them to recover,” he said.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:47 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:20 am
COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK Last updated: February 14, 2020, 09:18 GMT

Coronavirus Cases: 64,456 (100% of Total Cases)

ACTIVE CASES 55,971 (87% of Total Cases)
Currently Infected Patients
45,363 (70% of Total Cases) (81% of Active Cases) in Mild Condition
10,608 (16% of Total Cases) (19% of Active Cases) Serious or Critical

CLOSED CASES 8,485 (13% of Total Cases)
Cases which had an outcome
7,101 (11% of Total Cases) (84% of Closed Cases) Recovered / Discharged
1,384 (2% of Total Cases) (16% of Closed Cases) Deaths

I cannot stress enough that information posted by other users is misleading as they are quoting percentages of the closed cases only and clearly do not understand that is not the whole data set.

More importantly is the logarithmic curve which is trending downwards (indicates that the virus spread is waning)
CoronaVirus .JPG

I see what you did there, very clever. I have posted all percentages and reasons why they are valid.

You select data to try to peddle your message and not give a balanced account.

The data does not say its waning at all you just selected a statistical graph that backs your argument. Plus your argument is wrong.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:49 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:47 pm
I see what you did there, very clever. I have posted all percentages and reasons why they are valid.

You select data to try to peddle your message and not give a balanced account.

The data does not say its waning at all you just selected a statistical graph that backs your argument. Plus your argument is wrong.
Everything I posted is from the web link you shared with us all!

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:10 pm

3A174E25-A59B-4948-9E51-D0347D561870.png
3A174E25-A59B-4948-9E51-D0347D561870.png (313.05 KiB) Viewed 4083 times
These graphs, same data just a different statistical calculation which I would argue gives a true representation of the data but you don’t like that answer so didn’t use them.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:19 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:20 am
COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK Last updated: February 14, 2020, 09:18 GMT

Coronavirus Cases: 64,456 (100% of Total Cases)

ACTIVE CASES 55,971 (87% of Total Cases)
Currently Infected Patients
45,363 (70% of Total Cases) (81% of Active Cases) in Mild Condition
10,608 (16% of Total Cases) (19% of Active Cases) Serious or Critical

CLOSED CASES 8,485 (13% of Total Cases)
Cases which had an outcome
7,101 (11% of Total Cases) (84% of Closed Cases) Recovered / Discharged
1,384 (2% of Total Cases) (16% of Closed Cases) Deaths

I cannot stress enough that information posted by other users is misleading as they are quoting percentages of the closed cases only and clearly do not understand that is not the whole data set.

More importantly is the logarithmic curve which is trending downwards (indicates that the virus spread is waning)
CoronaVirus .JPG

I have quoted and given calculations in my posts.

Now, I have quoted the closed cases and they are statistically valid.

I have also quoted the 2% death rate of total cases, but your assertion that’s more valid I do take issue with.

Here’s why, for the 2% of death rate to be argued as valid, that means from today every one who is confirmed as having Corona virus must recover. From today if the virus was contained with no more cases and everyone got well the end death rate would be 2%.

The problem with that argument is in China, 16% of closed cases have died.
Every else outside of China it’s 3.33%.

We need to find a vaccine and fast.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:27 pm

Mark Twain was a wise man, I’ll take his advice now...

“ Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:00 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:27 pm
Mark Twain was a wise man, I’ll take his advice now...

“ Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
It's infectious.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:12 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:27 pm
Mark Twain was a wise man, I’ll take his advice now...

“ Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
Your right sir, It was a waste trying to educate you.

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:28 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:12 pm
Your right sir, It was a waste trying to educate you.
You're*
These 2 users liked this post: Zlatan Greenmile

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:33 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:12 pm
Your right sir, It was a waste trying to educate you.
If we say that you're right and it's going to be Armageddon and there'll be various combinations of dogs and people eating each other in the streets of Burnley within weeks, will you consider the topic closed?

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:44 pm

Might be time to spend that £1m pension pot you’ve built up.

crofty
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:55 pm
Been Liked: 3 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by crofty » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:35 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:44 pm
Might be time to spend that £1m pension pot you’ve built up.
:D :D

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:58 am


FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Coronavirus

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:04 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:58 am
Article this morning!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eaths.html
Bloody hell, that's really cheered me up. :(

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Lowbankclaret » Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:07 am

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:44 pm
Might be time to spend that £1m pension pot you’ve built up.
Funnily enough I got quote on Thursday of £8,600 to convert my final salary pensions into a drawdown. Which is very competitive in today’s market. Company called Retirement solutions in Cheshire.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Coronavirus

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:07 am

If it gets to a certain level in the UK, then the UK may have to take drastic action. By that I mean, preventing anybody from coming into the UK and maybe even making the country stand still until existing cases have reached an outcome. So schools, shops, transport, etc closing until the people infected have either recovered or died.

thatdberight
Posts: 3748
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 927 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by thatdberight » Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:30 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:58 am
Article this morning!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eaths.html
Why aren't you dismissing him as a patsy of the establishment sent to placate the stupid populace with his infeasibly low estimate? 400,000 is only 0.5% of the population.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Zlatan » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:39 am

Wow, just wow... 120000 actual deaths in the UK...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... 000-people

I can do sensationalised newspaper headlines too...

Locked