There's what, maybe 8 weeks left to find it? Jeez I hope you're right, but right now I can't think what it might be.
Covid-19
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I don’t see how data based on positive test results and counting dead people cannot be reliable.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:26 pmI would not use data that experts warn is not a reliable measure. Because I know the limitations of my understanding. If they say it's not reliable, that'll do for me.
No expert is saying the test results are unreliable.
And I think we know when a person is dead.
The variable of unknown cases is a misnomer .
As an unknown unknown it can never be quantified. Therefore you can argue it forever.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'm not discussing this again. You're, on the one hand, wildly extrapolating into the future and on the other saying what happens in the future is too uncertain to be of value.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:45 pmI don’t see how data based on positive test results and counting dead people cannot be reliable.
No expert is saying the test results are unreliable.
And I think we know when a person is dead.
The variable of unknown cases is a misnomer .
As an unknown unknown it can never be quantified. Therefore you can argue it forever.
If serious scientists' last estimate was in the 1% range I take that. You're not a serious person in giving an estimate of that figure.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I will use the example of penicillin.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:44 pmThere's what, maybe 8 weeks left to find it? Jeez I hope you're right, but right now I can't think what it might be.
Going off memory and not googled it.
Soldiers were dying anyway still they used it on them and they got better.
It might get to that again, sod the protocols. Just try new drugs on people that are dying anyway.
Italy’s doctors are making those decisions today on who not help.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
Perhaps, yes. It's not without risks, that's for sure.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:36 pmWith the common side effects & interactions that’ll only be suitable for some people even if it was successful, some high risk groups may consider the best option is to leave it well alone & let nature find a way.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/chloroquine
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Even the World Health Org says it’s 3.4%, suddenly are they not serious scientists?????thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:47 pmI'm not discussing this again. You're, on the one hand, wildly extrapolating into the future and on the other saying what happens in the future is too uncertain to be of value.
If serious scientists' last estimate was in the 1% range I take that. You're not a serious person in giving an estimate of that figure.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'm not discussing this again.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:51 pmEven the World Health Org says it’s 3.4%, suddenly are they not serious scientists?????
Both your inability to differentiate between CFR and IFR and my tendency to tell posters exactly what I think of them when they are unable to rationally deal with data have already been proven. We'd be going over old ground.
Consider me unable to see your further misuse of data.
Last edited by thatdberight on Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: Coronavirus
I actually think lowbanks come out with a good idea, you might as well test some drugs on dying people, there’s nothing to lose, I know it’s not ethical but will speed science up.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:50 pmPerhaps, yes. It's not without risks, that's for sure.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
This is already being done. Stuff is being thrown at people without clear evidence everywhere. The Italians, for instance, are pumping their patients with Chloroquine and Kaletra without even a single randomised control trial to confirm it even does anything.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:55 pmI actually think lowbanks come out with a good idea, you might as well test some drugs on dying people, there’s nothing to lose, I know it’s not ethical but will speed science up.
-
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: Coronavirus
So it’s wait & see?If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:59 pmThis is already being done. Stuff is being thrown at people without clear evidence everywhere. The Italians, for instance, are pumping their patients with Chloroquine and Kaletra without even a single randomised control trial to confirm it even does anything.
-
- Posts: 15283
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3168 times
- Has Liked: 6770 times
Re: Coronavirus
How long would someone be ill with this? I mean how long to recover, not die.
-
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2007 times
- Has Liked: 3354 times
Re: Coronavirus
Well I will (If it's on!)
Genuine question. How reliable is the test to see if a person has this thing? They seem to be able to test and diagnose extremely quickly in every country in the world, which implies no lab analysis or the like. This makes me wonder if the test is totally reliable or if some of the "cases" are maybe mistakes, especially if a person has a cold or is poorly in some other way say.
Re: Coronavirus
Grumps wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:24 pmLet's just take the one I asked 3 times, why do you compare the UK outbreak to that in Italy, given the obvious lifestyle differences which make viruses spread by human contact far more likely in a country where bodily contact is the norm,to ours where it's frowned upon?
What I said was the Uk was 14 days behind Italy,
14 days ago Italy had 470 confirmed cases a very similar number to what we have today.
Re: Coronavirus
I've no idea how this will pan out, which is why I have not made any wild predictionsthatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:39 pmYou think it will be less severe. You may not want to commit to a figure but broadly how do you see this playing out? Do very few people get the virus because it's not as transmissible as thought? Do initial studies get superseded by later ones showing the fatality rate is much lower? Does it drop off in virulence with spring? Is there a vaccine/cure intervention? Genuinely interested to know how you're seeing this work through.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
If I thought I was dying I would agree to testing any new drug.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:55 pmI actually think lowbanks come out with a good idea, you might as well test some drugs on dying people, there’s nothing to lose, I know it’s not ethical but will speed science up.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
OK. It's easy to constantly throw disbelieving statements at other posters (some of which deserve it) without saying anything in particular but your criticisms have always been of anything saying it's serious. You have not been even handed in dismissing posts of the "'tis but a scratch" variety.
You did also say, in one of the rare posts when you put a number on something, "... 85 in this country have it, probably none will die, so what's the mortality rate in this country ? "
Last edited by thatdberight on Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Like I say we will never agree.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:55 pmI'm not discussing this again.
Both your inability to differentiate between CFR and IFR and my tendency to tell posters exactly what I think of them when they are unable to rationally deal with data have already been proven. We'd be going over old ground.
Consider me unable to see your further misuse of data.
You think Italy are being stupid and the figures are wrong.
There are hundreds of people dying in Italy’s hospitals but your experts are correct it’s all an overreaction.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
To give you an idea:boatshed bill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:01 pmHow long would someone be ill with this? I mean how long to recover, not die.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... ients.html
Difficult. We don't know how many are missed from the data with completely inconsequential illness, for a start (though WHO seem to think 'not many'). I think you might be looking at feeling pretty wretched for about 2 weeks on average, but then again, there are reports of people saying things like 'It wasn't that bad, really'. It appears that if you make it to the middle of the second week without suffering either multi-organ failure or needing to be ventilated, you will likely to okay.
There seems to be very little data on the general condition of those that have 'recovered', or if there are any long term consequences, and if so, the severity and frequency of them.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
The first Italian case was a 38 year old male. From the article I think I linked. He was in intensive care for about three weeks. Was on a ventilator for a couple of weeks and Was now awake being given small amounts of oxygen.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:01 pmHow long would someone be ill with this? I mean how long to recover, not die.
Re: Coronavirus
Thats called sitting on the fence.
Make an educated guess as to what you think will happen.
I think there will be far more deaths from this than seasonal flu both here and worldwide.
There will also be a very significant adverse economic effect.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Not Italy.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:28 pmYou think Italy are being stupid and the figures are wrong.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Coronavirus
Ever since it was brought to my attention that you can say “Covid-19” to the tune of “Come on, Eileen,” I’ve been unable to read it any other way.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Nadine Dorries didn't feel unwell until last Thursday and today says she's past the worst of it. Sample size, one - just an anecdote.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:29 pmTo give you an idea:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... ients.html
Difficult. We don't know how many are missed from the data with completely inconsequential illness, for a start (though WHO seem to think 'not many'). I think you might be looking at feeling pretty wretched for about 2 weeks on average, but then again, there are reports of people saying things like 'It wasn't that bad, really'. It appears that if you make it to the middle of the second week without suffering either multi-organ failure or needing to be ventilated, you will likely to okay.
There seems to be very little data on the general condition of those that have 'recovered', or if there are any long term consequences, and if so, the severity and frequency of them.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
This is part of the ethical conundrum. By the time you're nearly dying, and therefore willing to throw caution to the wind, it's already too late for any experimental intervention to do much good. Intervention has to be early. But that involves chucking untested (and reasonably toxic) medicine at people in the early stage of disease, most of whom would have been absolutely fine without it.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:24 pmIf I thought I was dying I would agree to testing any new drug.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
No expert on the testing , but reading lots of stuff there appears to be different tests. This link has some information.Dark Cloud wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:08 pmWell I will (If it's on!)
Genuine question. How reliable is the test to see if a person has this thing? They seem to be able to test and diagnose extremely quickly in every country in the world, which implies no lab analysis or the like. This makes me wonder if the test is totally reliable or if some of the "cases" are maybe mistakes, especially if a person has a cold or is poorly in some other way say.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-f ... s-testing/
Re: Coronavirus
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/ ... -to-panic/
10 reasons not to panic
"Don't Panic..... Don't Panic....etc"
10 reasons not to panic
"Don't Panic..... Don't Panic....etc"
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
And any credible mortality rate that's being put forward by the experts just doesn't justify it. Sad to say but the reality is that some sort of QALY calculation needs to be made and the payback just isn't big enough to justify that sort of gamble.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:37 pmThis is part of the ethical conundrum. By the time you're nearly dying, and therefore willing to throw caution to the wind, it's already too late for any experimental intervention to do much good. Intervention has to be early. But that involves chucking untested (and reasonably toxic) medicine at people in the early stage of disease, most of whom would have been absolutely fine without it.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I agree, but at times you need to redefine the rules.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:37 pmThis is part of the ethical conundrum. By the time you're nearly dying, and therefore willing to throw caution to the wind, it's already too late for any experimental intervention to do much good. Intervention has to be early. But that involves chucking untested (and reasonably toxic) medicine at people in the early stage of disease, most of whom would have been absolutely fine without it.
This might be one of those times.
-
- Posts: 4482
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1161 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: Coronavirus
Oxygen and antibiotics , we Brits keep things simple ,well for now anyway
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
He is not having that as in his statistical world of experts the death rate is no worse than flu.
Re: Coronavirus
Grumps seems to be one of those people who never makes a decision or come to s conclusion but is always the 1st to rubbish other people’s opinions.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:26 pmOK. It's easy to constantly throw disbelieving statements at other posters (some of which deserve it) without saying anything in particular but your criticisms have always been of anything saying it's serious. You have not been even handed in dismissing posts if the "'tis but a scratch" variety.
You did also say, in one of the rare posts when you put a number on something, "... 85 in this country have it, probably none will die, so what's the mortality rate in this country ? "
Those people usually suffer from splinters in the bum.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Dr. Anthony Fauci.. told.. that the virus would be "ten times more lethal than the seasonal flu" with a mortality rate of 1 percent.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director told... that the mortality rate for COVID-19 was "about 2, 2.5 percent" at the time but was "probably closer" to 1 percent.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-top-coro ... lu-1491696
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director told... that the mortality rate for COVID-19 was "about 2, 2.5 percent" at the time but was "probably closer" to 1 percent.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-top-coro ... lu-1491696
-
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: Coronavirus
Think my bolthole will be my nuclear bunker as gordenvale suggested, it’s unusual him being quiet usually he provides some sort of input on the recent developments, some stuff I agree with some I don’t.
Re: Coronavirus
If anyone has a potentially compromised immune system like me here is some good advice from a group of cancer charities:
https://mcusercontent.com/68b588bc5847c ... _FINAL.pdf
https://mcusercontent.com/68b588bc5847c ... _FINAL.pdf
These 2 users liked this post: thatdberight Zlatan
-
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: Coronavirus
LET reporting 5th case in Lancashire over chorley way.
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... confirmed/
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... confirmed/
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'm not certain of that. Let's say the mortality rate is 1%. Chloroquine has been around 70 years, taken by millions of people, is given long-term in quite decent doses for SLE patients without obvious harm, and the Chinese are saying they haven't had a single severe adverse reaction to it when treating Covid-19.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:39 pmAnd any credible mortality rate that's being put forward by the experts just doesn't justify it. Sad to say but the reality is that some sort of QALY calculation needs to be made and the payback just isn't big enough to justify that sort of gamble.
There are some patients that definitely should not take chloroquine, but for everyone else serious side effects are very rare (certainly a lot rarer than 1%). The really risky bit has been done by the Chinese already, from here I think it's worth a shot at hastily trialling it for those at initial (mild) presentation.
I'd happily take it upon a diagnosis.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Apologies. I was talking about novel treatments with unknown side-effects. Of course, a drug which can't cause "any" harm is a different matter.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:31 pmI'm not certain of that. Let's say the mortality rate is 1%. Chloroquine has been around 70 years, taken by millions of people, is given long-term in quite decent doses for SLE patients without obvious harm, and the Chinese are saying they haven't had a single severe adverse reaction to it when treating Covid-19.
There are some patients that definitely should not take chloroquine, but for everyone else serious side effects are very rare (certainly a lot rarer than 1%). The really risky bit has been done by the Chinese already, from here I think it's worth a shot at hastily trialling it for those at initial (mild) presentation.
I'd happily take it upon a diagnosis.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Hungary declares State of Emergency closes all Universities, bans indoor events for more than 100 (outdoor 500), stops flights, trains and buses from Slovenia and Austria, tightens border with Croatia...
Re: Coronavirus
Like other malaria tablets, chloroquine has such a bitter taste, almost making you throw up!If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:31 pmI'm not certain of that. Let's say the mortality rate is 1%. Chloroquine has been around 70 years, taken by millions of people, is given long-term in quite decent doses for SLE patients without obvious harm, and the Chinese are saying they haven't had a single severe adverse reaction to it when treating Covid-19.
There are some patients that definitely should not take chloroquine, but for everyone else serious side effects are very rare (certainly a lot rarer than 1%). The really risky bit has been done by the Chinese already, from here I think it's worth a shot at hastily trialling it for those at initial (mild) presentation.
I'd happily take it upon a diagnosis.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Close to 7000 new cases outside of China today.
Not that it’s a surprise , but biggest world wide rise to date.
Not that it’s a surprise , but biggest world wide rise to date.
-
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2007 times
- Has Liked: 3354 times
Re: Coronavirus
That's an awful lot of testing kits all used in one day. They must be close to running out!
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Italy has now closed all businesses except Pharmacies and grocery stores.
Who thinks it’s still not serious???
Who thinks it’s still not serious???
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:09 pmI think you are perhaps not in possession of all the facts.
You also need to look through the propaganda of the gov, trying to stop a panic.
Currently if you look at the percentages of people who have either died or recovered.
26% have died, 74% have recovered. Not exactly flu like numbers, Now the died percentage should drop over time.
However 15% of people currently infected are in a critical condition.
The Chinese have admitted anyone who dies who haven’t been tested will not be tested and hence will never appear in the figures.
What you also need to remember is the lag in the figures of the 14 days it takes to show symptoms.
The R zero number is currently 3-4 which means the spread will still be exponential.
Anyone who thinks this is not serious is not grasping the situation.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Let’s just go back to what I was saying over a month ago.
I saw it was serious then.
Re: Coronavirus
I don’t think anyone hasn’t agreed it’s not serious, but for heavens sake, those percentages you originally posted are and were so far out it needed correcting.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:10 pmLet’s just go back to what I was saying over a month ago.
I saw it was serious then.
If you carry on with the boasting about being “right” you’ll get the bloody gold badge too
This user liked this post: thatdberight
-
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:22 am
- Been Liked: 190 times
- Has Liked: 114 times
- Location: Barrowford
Re: Coronavirus
Sounds to me like you’re desperate to be right.
-
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: Coronavirus
You did about 3/4 weeks ago, you didn’t say outright it’s not serious, but the impression & general feeling from your posts suggested, it’s nothing to worry about & it’ll all blow over kind of thing & the numbers are dropping, in mitigation & defence, you wasn’t by yourself & the information at the time wasn’t as comprehensive & the vaccine outlook wasn’t as bleak. A few of us all along maintained the stance of how severe things were developing & don’t think I derive any pleasure from being correct I don’t, it’s absolutely dreadful what’s happening.
-
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
-
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Coronavirus
Simply being told to wash your hands is not enough.