Covid-19

[dsr]

And you don’t understand or accept it is in fact correct.
You just want to use a different calculation because you don’t like it.

If you test positive for Covid 19 world wide you have an 86% chance of recovery, 14% chance of dying. Even I dare not share your chances if your positive in the UK.

Only when we have an antibody test will your preferred calculation become valid as a calculation.

Today it’s just simply a guess.

A meaningful guess is better than a meaningless statistic.

What your stat is saying is that if more of the people with mild coronavirus were tested, then the death rate would drop. Which is true in a sense - the death rate of people tested would drop. But perhaps more importantly for the world, the numbers of deaths would be unaffected.

[NottsClaret]

Let’s see your calculations for that number???

Because the only time we've genuinely known exactly how many people in a population were infected was on that cruise ship. Of those infected, and it was a sample of several hundred, 1% went on to sadly die.

Every other stat is taken from people tested as their symptoms become serious. Unless you know of another study, testing everyone - including even those who may be asymptomatic - then that's the only one to use realistically.

[KateR]

Singapore is a strange one statistically, I did think they were in lockdown but in fact as you say they never did. Numbers have grown steadily but never exponentially, wish we knew why!

I posted a link previously regarding Singapore and why it can not be looked at as in normal terms to any other country, might not be on this particular thread but one of the relevant threads. Due to Sars they had an early detection system, identifying early cases to whom they had been in contact with recently. Those people were tracked down and put in isolation quickly, they then looked at those people and who they had been in contact with and so on. Of course when the people who had been in contact with known cases they were in turn tested and so it went. Think the BBC link was in regard to C-19 detectives, plus of course the unique nature of the country, size, etc. and that it could not be replicated to 99% of other countries

[Paul Waine]

So you are asking me what I mean by assets exactly and what I mean by wealth.

I'm not coming up with the meaning of these terms from my imagination.

Instead, I am googling them and getting the definition commonly accepted in the financial world :

Asset: 'An asset is a resource with economic value that an individual, corporation, or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. ' (Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asset.asp)

Wealth: 'Wealth measures the value of all the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company, or country. Wealth is determined by taking the total market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. Essentially, wealth is the accumulation of scarce resources. Specific people, organizations, and nations are said to be wealthy when they are able to accumulate many valuable resources or goods. Wealth can be contrasted to income in that wealth is a stock and income is a flow, and it can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.' (Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth.asp)

So you are right that my usage of asset is confusing. But I think you can see from these definitions that if

Wealth is comprised of assets
The assets of individuals are taxed by the government in order to fund public services

Then, as a matter of fact, not all assets are being taxed as stringently as the kind of income most people get through their PAYE.

You are getting there: assets are things that generate income ("an asset is a resource with economic value... with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit") - gov'ts tend to tax that income, either as income tax or capital gains tax. Liabilities are "debts" and other obligations to pass "economic value" to others. "Wealth" is the sum of assets after "subtracting all debts" and other obligations to "pass economic value" to others.
So, tax income earned on assets, maybe allow the offset of "obligations" to "pass economic value to others" (and you can tax those others in receipt of that economic value). But, it's a very tough "gig" to tax wealth - if you do, you eventually take away the ability to receive income on assets - whereas, it's always possible to collect tax on a share of the income received on those assets.

The next thing to consider is assets and income earned/received in other tax jurisdictions and, put another way round, which gov't can tax which individuals. For example, UK gov't can tax individuals (and companies) that fall within the scope of UK taxation. The US gov't can do the same with individuals (and companies) in US. But, what do you do when a UK individual earns money in the US? Who gets to tax it? Is that income subject to "double tax?" There are international agreements that deal with these issues. The US takes the view that all US citizens (and, it's possible that this includes green card holders) are subject to their worldwide income. So, a US citizen living in UK remains subject to US taxation - with allowance for any tax paid in the UK. The UK takes a different approach. If a UK citizen moves to, lets take Spain as an example, then any earnings in Spain are not subject to UK tax.

****** Can any of those living in Spain on this mb confirm I have this right under today's rules? (These were the rules that applied when I worked in Netherlands in early 90s).

[Rileybobs]

If you test positive for Covid 19 world wide you have an 86% chance of recovery, 14% chance of dying. Even I dare not share your chances if your positive in the UK.l

This is why your posts should be largely ignored.

[Paul Waine]

I posted a link previously regarding Singapore and why it can not be looked at as in normal terms to any other country, might not be on this particular thread but one of the relevant threads. Due to Sars they had an early detection system, identifying early cases to whom they had been in contact with recently. Those people were tracked down and put in isolation quickly, they then looked at those people and who they had been in contact with and so on. Of course when the people who had been in contact with known cases they were in turn tested and so it went. Think the BBC link was in regard to C-19 detectives, plus of course the unique nature of the country, size, etc. and that it could not be replicated to 99% of other countries

One of my friends (and ex-colleagues) has explained Spore's situation: after SARS, the Spore Gov't (same Gov't since 1965), decided that Spore would be prepared for any future viruses: they built an new hospital just for this purpose, they trained people just for this purpose, they developed the equipment just for this purpose. This new hospital opened in 2018, 330(ish) specialist virus beds - just in time to address all the issues with covid-19.
So, Spore was ready "just-in-time."

[AlargeClaret]

I see London’s 900 ish IC beds are allmost full and they think they’ll need 8000 very shortly , 1 nurse to 5 beds .

[AlargeClaret]

** 1 nurse to 5 beds right now that is

[KateR]

I get a lot of data daily, some doom and gloom, one today not so much doom and gloom in terms of the virus and the economy.

All these projections using stats are however not facts, only deaths are pertinent facts by country, Italy had another large spike today after 2 days falling so you need to view everything in long term range not over a few days, that's just a trend and hope for the best. The one I have today shows that deaths are at 1% or perhaps even less, however they have "guessed" at the actual number of case as a factor way above the actual known cases. If you have an unknown number that can be wildly out of whack to a "known" number then the outcome is 99% wrong whether it is 14% or 1%.

The one thing you all know is that it kills, you know what type of people it kills and that is not in my opinion age related, it is health related, I obviously know and understand that the older we get that the more likely our health deteriorates, but being younger is not a guarantee of not dying. The following link is not what I was talking about above.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nobel ... 2020-03-23

[KateR]

I see London’s 900 ish IC beds are allmost full and they think they’ll need 8000 very shortly , 1 nurse to 5 beds .

beds are not the real issue though are they.

[Paul Waine]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52013888

Can somebody else check those sums? That doesn't seem right at all. Might be me.

Screenshot_20200324-145021.jpg

The figures are correct - I've just now run it through excel.

The calc is Day Zero 1 person infected; Day 5 an additional 2.5 infected; Day 10 those newly infected 2.5 infected 2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25 - and so on. Then you sum everyone who has been infected: Day 5 = 1 + 2.5 = 3.5; Day 10 3.5 + 6.25 = 9.75 - and so on.

Day 30 is 406.234.

Change the additional infection rate to 1.25 and the same calc results in Day 30 is 15.07349

With apologies to Paulatky. Perhaps you didn't have the same calcs.

[thatdberight]

The figures are correct - I've just now run it through excel.

The calc is Day Zero 1 person infected; Day 5 an additional 2.5 infected; Day 10 those newly infected 2.5 infected 2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25 - and so on. Then you sum everyone who has been infected: Day 5 = 1 + 2.5 = 3.5; Day 10 3.5 + 6.25 = 9.75 - and so on.

Day 30 is 406.234.

Change the additional infection rate to 1.25 and the same calc results in Day 30 is 15.07349

With apologies to Paulatky. Perhaps you didn't have the same calcs.

Yep. I got it (after having it pointed out!). I failed to factor in that after Day 5, patient zero is non-infective.

However, the 406 assumes that infection of the next person only occurs on day 5 and that gives an artificially low number. It was that low number that seemed wrong. Right problem, wrong answer. Say the infection occurs evenly over the 5 days and by Day 5 you're at c.10 cases, not 3.5... I'll do the full calc later but it's more than 406 for sure.

[Paul Waine]

And you don’t understand or accept it is in fact correct.
You just want to use a different calculation because you don’t like it.

If you test positive for Covid 19 world wide you have an 86% chance of recovery, 14% chance of dying. Even I dare not share your chances if your positive in the UK.

Only when we have an antibody test will your preferred calculation become valid as a calculation.

Today it’s just simply a guess.

Hi Lowbank, your model may work, if we assume that we limit covid-19 testing only to people who are ill enough to present to hospital and be tested for covid-19 infection.

I've spoken with 2 "family groups" (I don't mean people in my family) this week, both report covid-19 infections - neither family group has been tested for covid-19 - neither family group is included in any of the figures for people with covid-19 infections.

There are some more at risk than others. I think we should assume all the people in the 1.5 million who will receive GP "look after yourself" letter are more at risk than others. I hope no one on here is expecting to receive the "covid-19 letter." Take care and stay safe if you do (and all others).

[Paul Waine]

Yep. I got it (after having it pointed out!). I failed to factor in that after Day 5, patient zero is non-infective.

However, the 406 assumes that infection of the next person only occurs on day 5 and that gives an artificially low number. It was that low number that seemed wrong. Right problem, wrong answer. Say the infection occurs evenly over the 5 days and by Day 5 you're at c.10 cases, not 3.5... I'll do the full calc later but it's more than 406 for sure.

Agree, I've now seen all the other posts after your original questions - and Paulatky's "no it's wrong."

I had to try a few different calcs before I identified the assumptions they had used to produce their calc.

Of course, their model simplifies the situation. It would be nice if it was true: Day 0 - get infected; Day 1 - don't infected anyone else, Day 2 - don't infected anyone else, Day 3 - don't infected anyone else, Day 4 - don't infected anyone else. Day 5 - infected 2.5 other people.

[Lowbankclaret]

I wonder what it's doing to the number of deaths via flu and pneumonia? That would be expected to be about 2,000 a week averaged over the year, and I would guess we would be in an "average" sort of period at present. Are the flu and pneumonia figures dropping at all, or are the coronavirus figures all extras? Or don't we have enough data yet?

No idea where you get you data from but you are claiming that Approx 20% of people in the Uk Die of flu.

2ED503E3-493C-4F74-8260-BCDDE0097A1C.png (558.94 KiB) Viewed 2881 times

[Lowbankclaret]

Just a shame you have to throw wild ones in to... Wind people up.. Sort of sums it up really.

In comparison you just do it all the time!

[Lowbankclaret]

It seems we are approx half the mortality figures for Italy after the same period.

Not quite correct.

We have dropped behind their levels and way behind Spain, but still concerning.

D0E296D7-BB8D-40CE-A922-F9FF23A40A16.jpeg (440.49 KiB) Viewed 2867 times

[Paul Waine]

I see London’s 900 ish IC beds are allmost full and they think they’ll need 8000 very shortly , 1 nurse to 5 beds .

Does 4,000 beds at the Excel/Nightingale Hospital - opening next week - help?

And, how many has London added with private hospitals?

[Lowbankclaret]

Don't they (the scientists) think that 80% of all people who catch it either show no, or symptoms that don't require reporting, thus there are far more cases in comparison to those who have died, hence the 1% figure?

That’s the hypothetical situation.

With no antibody test, it’s a finger in the wind guess.

I hope it’s true, but Currently it’s not true. If we get a drug that helps people survive or a vaccine it could well be 1%.

[Lowbankclaret]

LowBank thinks he's more expert than the various epidemiologists who calculated a 1% IFR. This despite the fact it took him 4 weeks to realise what IFR is.

We had that discussion, full of ifs, buts and maybes.

1% is a little about a flu epidemic, does it still feel like flu to you.

[Zlatan]

In the main I was being driven by the data. Analysing data is a key part of my job. I did throw in a few wild ones, normally to wind someone up.

Most data has a normal distribution and that can be useful to predict the trend. Hence what was likely to happen here.

The other interesting thing to look at is the outliers in data. Understanding why an outlier is an outlier can in these instances help immensely. If we understand why they are better or worse in deaths we can learn so much from that.

And you don’t understand or accept it is in fact correct.
You just want to use a different calculation because you don’t like it.

If you test positive for Covid 19 world wide you have an 86% chance of recovery, 14% chance of dying. Even I dare not share your chances if your positive in the UK.

Only when we have an antibody test will your preferred calculation become valid as a calculation.

Today it’s just simply a guess.

I see from your other post that you are on a wind up. Well done.

You are an idiot, an imbecile, and someone who appears to find it funny to wind people up.

As far as your data and facts go, either stop posting inflammatory values which are clearly wrong that you fail to understand.

One last time, your data neglects and had always neglected the unknown number of people who had had this and recovered but are not included in the data you so stupidly worship. This unknown amount is massive according to those who manage the data, and they will clearly affect the denominator in your calculation which means your percentages are flawed.

As long as other people on this thread realise that you’re a (self confessed) wind up merchant, I’m sure they’ll ignore your wildly inaccurate values from now on.

It is irresponsible of you to keep doing this, and you fail to see that, yet so many other forum members keep repeating that you were right, maybe now they’ll see through your rubbish, I hope at least.

[Zlatan]

Hi Lowbank, your model may work, if we assume that we limit covid-19 testing only to people who are ill enough to present to hospital and be tested for covid-19 infection.

I've spoken with 2 "family groups" (I don't mean people in my family) this week, both report covid-19 infections - neither family group has been tested for covid-19 - neither family group is included in any of the figures for people with covid-19 infections.

There are some more at risk than others. I think we should assume all the people in the 1.5 million who will receive GP "look after yourself" letter are more at risk than others. I hope no one on here is expecting to receive the "covid-19 letter." Take care and stay safe if you do (and all others).

Paul, I’m one of the 1.5M who received notification. As you can see Lowbankclaret has been on the wind up over his incorrect analysis. He is an idiot who is misleading the less informed.

[Paul Waine]

I get a lot of data daily, some doom and gloom, one today not so much doom and gloom in terms of the virus and the economy.

All these projections using stats are however not facts, only deaths are pertinent facts by country, Italy had another large spike today after 2 days falling so you need to view everything in long term range not over a few days, that's just a trend and hope for the best. The one I have today shows that deaths are at 1% or perhaps even less, however they have "guessed" at the actual number of case as a factor way above the actual known cases. If you have an unknown number that can be wildly out of whack to a "known" number then the outcome is 99% wrong whether it is 14% or 1%.

The one thing you all know is that it kills, you know what type of people it kills and that is not in my opinion age related, it is health related, I obviously know and understand that the older we get that the more likely our health deteriorates, but being younger is not a guarantee of not dying. The following link is not what I was talking about above.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nobel ... 2020-03-23

Hi Kate, some impressive stuff in your link.

"Levitt said social-distancing mandates and getting vaccinated against the flu are both critical to the fight against the spread. Italy’s strong anti-vaccine movement, he explained, likely played a factor in the explosion of cases, because the spread of the flu likely was a factor in overwhelming hospitals and increasing the chances of coronavirus going undetected."

"He lays some of the blame on the media for sparking panic by focusing on the increase in cumulative cases and spotlighting celebrities, like Tom Hanks and Idris Elba, who have been infected."

"Levitt is also worried that an overreaction could trigger another crisis, with lost jobs and hopelessness creating their own set of problems, such as a surge in suicide rate." (I assume "hopelessness" was intended to be "homelessness").

Have we heard from any other sources that Italy has a strong anti-vaccine movement?"

Maybe we won't be "locked down" for all of 12 weeks. Maybe the Premier League can get started again in May.

[Paul Waine]

Paul, I’m one of the 1.5M who received notification. As you can see Lowbankclaret has been on the wind up over his incorrect analysis. He is an idiot who is misleading the less informed.

Take care, Zlatan. I will look forward to seeing you on t'Turf when this is all over.

UTC

[KateR]

Lowbank,
you are way out on your prognosis

It is not a hypothetical situation, it's a fact that some people have had the virus but have not been tested and therefore not in your stats, it's a guess, a SWAG if you like as to how many but I will go with thousands of people rather than your assessment of none. If you want to build a worst case scenario then yes fine, but you should have a best case and "probably" it will be somewhere between.

The list of deaths is very misleading and UK can not be compared to Italy or Spain, there's has been climbing and are continuing to do so, as is the UK's, you can expect the UK deaths to continue to rise and most "probably" there will be a spike sooner than later. Only when you see a continuous set of numbers going in the down direction can you start thing the number peaked is where we have reached, but even then you can not discount a flare up and start again. China will be a good example of that during the next few months.

[Grumps]

I see from your other post that you are on a wind up. Well done.

You are an idiot, an imbecile, and someone who appears to find it funny to wind people up.

As far as your data and facts go, either stop posting inflammatory values which are clearly wrong that you fail to understand.

One last time, your data neglects and had always neglected the unknown number of people who had had this and recovered but are not included in the data you so stupidly worship. This unknown amount is massive according to those who manage the data, and they will clearly affect the denominator in your calculation which means your percentages are flawed.

As long as other people on this thread realise that you’re a (self confessed) wind up merchant, I’m sure they’ll ignore your wildly inaccurate values from now on.

It is irresponsible of you to keep doing this, and you fail to see that, yet so many other forum members keep repeating that you were right, maybe now they’ll see through your rubbish, I hope at least.

Excellent post, and a good time to leave this thread ( again) before he comes back with some idiotic response. I do realise that he, and you know who, will continue to make things up about what others have said, but I don't want my blood pressure getting any higher, its not worth it for an Internet forum.

[Mala591]

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboar ... 5d2a9070ae

Latest confirmed Covid-19 figures from yesterday: 59 in Lancashire

[joey13]

I get a lot of data daily, some doom and gloom, one today not so much doom and gloom in terms of the virus and the economy.

All these projections using stats are however not facts, only deaths are pertinent facts by country, Italy had another large spike today after 2 days falling so you need to view everything in long term range not over a few days, that's just a trend and hope for the best. The one I have today shows that deaths are at 1% or perhaps even less, however they have "guessed" at the actual number of case as a factor way above the actual known cases. If you have an unknown number that can be wildly out of whack to a "known" number then the outcome is 99% wrong whether it is 14% or 1%.

The one thing you all know is that it kills, you know what type of people it kills and that is not in my opinion age related, it is health related, I obviously know and understand that the older we get that the more likely our health deteriorates, but being younger is not a guarantee of not dying. The following link is not what I was talking about above.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nobel ... 2020-03-23

So he’s basing his theory on what the Chinese has told us , brilliant

[Lowbankclaret]

I see from your other post that you are on a wind up. Well done.

You are an idiot, an imbecile, and someone who appears to find it funny to wind people up.

As far as your data and facts go, either stop posting inflammatory values which are clearly wrong that you fail to understand.

One last time, your data neglects and had always neglected the unknown number of people who had had this and recovered but are not included in the data you so stupidly worship. This unknown amount is massive according to those who manage the data, and they will clearly affect the denominator in your calculation which means your percentages are flawed.

As long as other people on this thread realise that you’re a (self confessed) wind up merchant, I’m sure they’ll ignore your wildly inaccurate values from now on.

It is irresponsible of you to keep doing this, and you fail to see that, yet so many other forum members keep repeating that you were right, maybe now they’ll see through your rubbish, I hope at least.

The data I used is FACT, undisputed FACT..

Your one last time statement about neglecting the number of unknown cases is your NON-FACTUAL guess mathematical calculation. It’s like global warming, full of ifs buts and maybes.

Yes a couple of times I have posted stuff to wind people up. Several posters on here are doing that all the time with their denial it’s not serious.

To me the 1% figure is the worst wind up of all because it has basis on FACT.

[thatdberight]

We had that discussion, full of ifs, buts and maybes.

1% is a little about a flu epidemic, does it still feel like flu to you.

I never said it was like the flu. You can add confusion to your list of symptoms.

[KateR]

"Levitt is also worried that an overreaction could trigger another crisis, with lost jobs and hopelessness creating their own set of problems, such as a surge in suicide rate." (I assume "hopelessness" was intended to be "homelessness").

Have we heard from any other sources that Italy has a strong anti-vaccine movement?"

Maybe we won't be "locked down" for all of 12 weeks. Maybe the Premier League can get started again in May.

no idea regarding Italy and anti vaccine, but I think he meant hopelessness, ie, breadwinner, no job, no one hiring, savings gone, economy in the toilet, children relying on me, selling belongings, asking family parents for help, etc. Funnily enough suicides were much higher in the 1929 depression years among those who did have something where the poor are more able to cope.

This is exactly why Trump, BJ and other world leaders are trying to give hope, they don't want people hoarding now for a long shortage but to invest now in the future, stimulate the economy such that we don't have years of deprivation after we beat this awful virus. So many on here and plenty of other places critical of what Trump said but same people critical of what BJ said such a short time ago, people need to analyze the words, rather than jumping on the bandwagon of these people are useless.

[thatdberight]

The data I used is FACT, undisputed FACT..

Your one last time statement about neglecting the number of unknown cases is your NON-FACTUAL guess mathematical calculation. It’s like global warming, full of ifs buts and maybes.

Yes a couple of times I have posted stuff to wind people up. Several posters on here are doing that all the time with their denial it’s not serious.

To me the 1% figure is the worst wind up of all because it has basis on FACT.

What a ******* imbecile.

[JarrowClaret]

Two solo Victory Royales in a row make me an absolute legend, at least that's what I keep telling my son. Alas, I was lucky, and yes, he remains the best Fortnite player in our house.

I got all excited when I got my first and only solo victory on Fortnite, I’m still a noob and a dirty camper to the kids!!

[KateR]

So he’s basing his theory on what the Chinese has told us , brilliant

Joey,
so happy you could join us and add your intellectual insight to the discussion, it's brilliant I now have something to ponder and wrestle with for the next few hours if not days. As always your contribution to any discussion is welcome but please don't take such a long time to educate us all in the future please.

Stay safe

[Lowbankclaret]

I am exiting for tonight as it’s pointless having the same old arguments with people who have argued the same arguments from page one and still don’t get it.
Still arguing it’s no worse than flu.

[Zlatan]

The data I used is FACT, undisputed FACT..

Your one last time statement about neglecting the number of unknown cases is your NON-FACTUAL guess mathematical calculation. It’s like global warming, full of ifs buts and maybes.

Yes a couple of times I have posted stuff to wind people up. Several posters on here are doing that all the time with their denial it’s not serious.

To me the 1% figure is the worst wind up of all because it has basis on FACT.

Any credibility you may have had is gone. I’m glad you find pleasure in trying to mock someone who is in the 1.5M extremely vulnerable (me). Well done. Gold star for you.

Cretin

[thatdberight]

I am exiting for tonight as it’s pointless having the same old arguments with people who have argued the same arguments from page one and still don’t get it.
Still arguing it’s no worse than flu.

Thick ****.

[AlargeClaret]

371A0A0B-E8B2-401A-8EE3-B13243075727.jpeg (128.81 KiB) Viewed 2696 times

[KateR]

I am exiting for tonight as it’s pointless having the same old arguments with people who have argued the same arguments from page one and still don’t get it.
Still arguing it’s no worse than flu.

Lowbank
I like many of your posts but you have got very pedantic on this one, on numerous posts on the early pages you got a lot of your stats wrong and you are persisting with this action against many other posters in trying to justify what you have said, you've been fighting a rear guard action for days now as you are surrounded, now sounds like going in to the scorched earth policy, I'll exit for tonight.

Surely you know it will be here when you come back?

Right now flu has killed more people worldwide than C-19, that is a fact, we will have to see at the end of this, months away, whether that fact holds true or not. Going to be a close run thing in my opinion but also I think for what it is worth a redundant discussion of no value whatsoever. Why, well flu doesn't cause a global economic disaster does it so there is very little relevance in regard to flu and global effects, I could see that back in January the flu argument had some relevance but agree today there is not any point in trying to bring it in to the discussion.

[KateR]

Thick ****.

why can't you just discuss without resorting to insults, you gain nothing and it diminishes your credability

[thatdberight]

why can't you just discuss without resorting to insults...

Tried that. Didn't work. Sometimes you've just got to say it like it is.

[KateR]

Tried that. Didn't work. Sometimes you've just got to say it like it is.

I feel your frustrations at times but let's be honest, you didn't try very hard if I look back to the first few pages

[mdd2]

DSR flu deaths are an estimate as not all patients are tested for flu. Also by now (spring) flu cases are starting to wane. This illness seems to be primarily viral with deaths from ARDS whereas many flu deaths are due to pneumonia which is bacterial and superimposed on flu. The pics of CT scans show both lungs extensively involved

[Paul Waine]

Just listened to "coronavirus rhapsody" - Dana Jay Bein. Brilliant!

You've got to find the right version: vocals by Adrian Grimes (I think).

Worth a google and a listen - youtube.

And, no apologies if this has been posted before. A man's gotta laugh.

[JarrowClaret]

Who the hell cares who read the data correctly? It isn’t relevant right now and would seem to me to be something to discuss when we have come out the other side when we have more accurate figures. It is like dealing with my kids pathetic. It is clear that the figures are being managed so you only get what they want you to see. This was proved today when one hospital trust in London which announced 21 deaths said they were over a number of days not just in the last 24 hours.

Please stop it the childish bickering is destroying a vitally important thread and ruining the important and relevant information that is on it.

[Paul Waine]

This was proved today when one hospital trust in London which announced 21 deaths said they were over a number of days not just in the last 24 hours.

That sounds to be a simple case of the person who knew that they were expected to report covid-19 deaths daily has only now got round to reading that memo... symptom of a full email box!

Well, maybe.... the "cock up" rather than "conspiracy" reality of events.

[thatdberight]

A local conspiracy theory to add to the more exotic ones we've had so far. Excellent.

[Bfcboyo]

This is serious but shows how soft we have all become.

We are frail little beings in an infinite cosmos of infinite unknown.

I am worried for elderly relatives but in the long run of things this is nothing. A wake up call and reality check of how minimalistic we are in the grand scheme of things.

And the selfish nature ingrained in our survivalist animalistic DNA shines through on the supermarket aisles and in the busy trains.

People worried about puppies and unwrapping delivered food asking the BBC news question panel. I am sick of this now we all need to get it and build immunity.

Imagine if we had this.

images.jpeg (8.28 KiB) Viewed 2479 times

See you in Valhalla!

[dsr]

DSR flu deaths are an estimate as not all patients are tested for flu. Also by now (spring) flu cases are starting to wane. This illness seems to be primarily viral with deaths from ARDS whereas many flu deaths are due to pneumonia which is bacterial and superimposed on flu. The pics of CT scans show both lungs extensively involved

Flu deaths may be an estimate, but the number of people whose death is attributed in whole or in part to flu or pneumonia, is not an estimate. It is done by counting up the number of times flu or pneumonia are listed as a cause of death on all UK death certificates. Not an estimate, not a sample - the whole lot is counted.

You can doubt the accuracy of the doctors signing the certificates, but surely not to the extent that significant inaccuracy is built in.

[dsr]

The data I used is FACT, undisputed FACT..

Your one last time statement about neglecting the number of unknown cases is your NON-FACTUAL guess mathematical calculation. It’s like global warming, full of ifs buts and maybes.

Yes a couple of times I have posted stuff to wind people up. Several posters on here are doing that all the time with their denial it’s not serious.

To me the 1% figure is the worst wind up of all because it has basis on FACT.

At risk of flogging a dead horse, but at least I can hope that other people don't fall for your doom-mongering, even if you fall for it yourself ...

Here's why your statistic is less than useful.

Imagine two populations of 100,000 people.

Population 1 - 30,000 people have coronavirus, 1,800 need hospital treatment, 300 will die. Only those who are treated in hospital are tested.
Population 2 - 30,000 people have coronavirus, 1,800 need hospital treatment, 300 will die. The whole population is tested.

Population 1 has a "death rate" of 300 per 1,800 tested - that is, 16.6%.
Population 2 has a "death rate" of 300 per 30,000 tested - that is, 1%.

So which population does your stat say is the safer to live in? Would it be the 16.6% death rate? Or would it be the 1% death rate? Or would it be that it makes no difference becasue the risk is exactly the same?