Covid-19

[KateR]

Otherwise, it just means it's going from their hands to the floor, to my hands, vs from their hands to my hands.

Just curious Frank, where do you see a difference (if you do) in the two transactions of the item from one person to yourself, plus of course the other handlers that will have touched the item during it's journey that you don't know about? For me if it has a transferable germ on the packaging, from let's say the previous 12 hours, (usually when I track a package I see it can have had multiple people handling it during the last 24 hours and also potentially during the last 12 hours) then it has a germ. Which is what I was trying to convey in my previous post, so either treat it accordingly or just assume it's ok, everyone can make up there own mind to how they act in this and all scenarios.

sorry, finally understand what you meant

[mdd2]

I actually have 2 parcels being delivered later this afternoon. I could ask them to leave them outside the door, but so long as they don't cough whilst handing them to me, I'm sure it will be fine.

Otherwise, it just means it's going from their hands to the floor, to my hands, vs from their hands to my hands.

But don't touch you face or mouth an act done by us 20 times an hour apparently.
I imagine the steps are 1) pick up parcel when bare below elbows, no watch wedding ring etc 2) unpack same and trash wrapping, 3)Tip contents on to clean table area without touching, 4) wash hands being bare below elbows. And in reality you should turn tap off with without using hands, or turn tap off, sanitize tap and start again.
By the time you have finished you will be just in time to hear Boris say there is another 3 weeks of lock down following the last 3 weeks.

[KateR]

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

[thatdberight]

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 (337.13 KiB) Viewed 3283 times

[Lowbankclaret]

Somebody mention me? Point out where I’ve been shown to look silly? And I’ll point out the numerous times I’ve questioned stupidity from you and Lowbankclaret... how’s that 26% death rate looking? Are the Chinese government killing people and burning bodies...?

That was the data at the time, it went down to around 5.5% and has climbed back to 14% in recent days. The data was valid and is still valid for closed cases who have tested positive. I also said it would reduce, and it did.

[Lowbankclaret]

Only when Singapore aren't locking down (LowBank), Oxford Street isn't barricaded (paulatky) or the Chinese aren't killing doctors (JakubClaret).

stooges_primary.jpg

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!

[uptheclarets]

Depends on your intelligence I guess, I would much have preferred an explanation as to why he continues to tell lies.

This morning having got bored with watching reruns of our win at Old Trafford I read this thread from the beginning after it was started by Jakubclaret with the words “this is getting serious” and some of the early posts by Lowbank,Paulatky and Jakub have turned out eerily correct.

From the beginning certain posters have tried to play it down saying its no worse than flu and only a handful of deaths.As the situation changed quickly some others came on board to the thinking of maybe this is more serious than 1st thought.Others seemed reluctant to accept the seriousness of it despite the raising number of cases and deaths. Wether that was because you were still hoping it was a bad dream or that you didnt want to admit you had been wrong initially I dont know.

As regards you Grumps you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. To infer the number of cases maybe had peaked a month ago was madness in light of the facts. That you said nobody knows means nothing as at that had you asked people 99.999% would have realised it couldnt have peaked.

I just wish the arguments stop and those providing the good and logical views aren't driven away.

From your posts Grumps I take it you are at the younger end of the age group. Am I correct

[paulatky]

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

They are not right but gets the message across.

Less social contact = less infections

[thatdberight]

They are not right but gets the message across.

Less social contact = less infections

Well that's OK, then. People can talk any old shite as long as their heart's in the right place.

[paulatky]

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

There is a better chart but I dont know how to post a pic here

[Grumps]

This morning having got bored with watching reruns of our win at Old Trafford I read this thread from the beginning after it was started by Jakubclaret with the words “this is getting serious” and some of the early posts by Lowbank,Paulatky and Jakub have turned out eerily correct.

From the beginning certain posters have tried to play it down saying its no worse than flu and only a handful of deaths.As the situation changed quickly some others came on board to the thinking of maybe this is more serious than 1st thought.Others seemed reluctant to accept the seriousness of it despite the raising number of cases and deaths. Wether that was because you were still hoping it was a bad dream or that you didnt want to admit you had been wrong initially I dont know.

As regards you Grumps you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. To infer the number of cases maybe had peaked a month ago was madness in light of the facts. That you said nobody knows means nothing as at that had you asked people 99.999% would have realised it couldnt have peaked.

I just wish the arguments stop and those providing the good and logical views aren't driven away.

From your posts Grumps I take it you are at the younger end of the age group. Am I correct

I never inferred anything like that, I just asked the expert how he knew... Perhaps the story has got twisted over time
You couldn't be more wrong regarding age... Just shows you shouldn't guess

[thatdberight]

There is a better chart but I dont know how to post a pic here

Is it linkable?

[Tall Paul]

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

It's right.

2.5 + (2.5 squared) + (2.5 cubed) + (2.5 ^4) + (2.5^5) = 405
1.25 + (1.25 squared) + (1.25 cubed) + (1.25^4) + (1.25^5) = 14

[thatdberight]

It's right.

2.5 + (2.5 squared) + (2.5 cubed) + (2.5 ^4) + (2.5^5) = 405
1.25 + (1.25 squared) + (1.25 cubed) + (1.25^4) + (1.25^5) = 14

Gotcha. The infectivity only lasts 5 days. Patient 1 does not continue infecting thereafter. That was the point I had quite idiotically missed. Thanks.

[Zlatan]

That was the data at the time, it went down to around 5.5% and has climbed back to 14% in recent days. The data was valid and is still valid for closed cases who have tested positive. I also said it would reduce, and it did.

But you wouldn’t and still don’t accept that your interpretation of that data is flawed and inflammatory!

[NottsClaret]

The death rate is around 1%.

[NottsClaret]

For those wondering how the disease would play out if the economy was prioritised over containment of the virus, Trump looks like he's going to provide a test case to contrast with Asia and Europe. Back to work next week, according to him. Had enough of the damage to his beloved stock market.

It'll be interesting, in a macabre sort of way. And pretty terrifying if you live over there and are getting on a bit.

[Vintage Claret]

It's right.

2.5 + (2.5 squared) + (2.5 cubed) + (2.5 ^4) + (2.5^5) = 405
1.25 + (1.25 squared) + (1.25 cubed) + (1.25^4) + (1.25^5) = 14

Or a more longwinded calculation that comes to the same conclusion:-

1 x 2.5 = 2.5 more infected (day 5)
2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25 " (day 10)
6.25 x 2.5 = 15.63 " (day 15)
15.63 x 2.5 = 39.08 " (day 20)
39.08 x 2.5 = 97.70 " (day 25)
97.70 x 2.5 = 244.25 " (day 30)

2.5 +6.25 + 15.63 +39.08 +97.70 + 244.25 = 405.41 (406 rounded up)

Same logic can be applied using 1.25 as the base figure and multiplier to get a round sum of 15

[thatdberight]

For those wondering how the disease would play out if the economy was prioritised over containment of the virus, Trump looks like he's going to provide a test case to contrast with Asia and Europe. Back to work next week, according to him. Had enough of the damage to his beloved stock market.

It'll be interesting, in a macabre sort of way. And pretty terrifying if you live over there and are getting on a bit.

Sweden also seems to be taking a different view, although not as stark as Trump's.

[thatdberight]

Or a more longwinded calculation that comes to the same conclusion:-

1 x 1.25 = 2.5 more infected (day 5)
2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25 " (day 10)
6.25 x 2.5 = 15.63 " (day 15)
15.63 x 2.5 = 39.08 " (day 20)
39.08 x 2.5 = 97.70 " (day 25)
97.70 x 2.5 = 244.25 " (day 30)

2.5 +6.25 + 15.63 +39.08 +97.70 + 244.25 = 405.41 (406 rounded up)

Same logic can be applied using 1.25 as the base figure and multiplier to get a round sum of 15

So many ways to get it right and I avoided all of them...

[paulatky]

Will be interesting to see this.
Strangely I have said this before on here.
In an attempt to save the world are we destroying it for decades to come.

For a better future for my sons and grandchildren myself and my wife would have sacrificed ourselves for a better future for everyone.

[paulatky]

By above post relates to Trump and America’s new policy

[NottsClaret]

Will be interesting to see this.
Strangely I have said this before on here.
In an attempt to save the world are we destroying it for decades to come.

For a better future for my sons and grandchildren myself and my wife would have sacrificed ourselves for a better future for everyone.

Being a bit dramatic again there. The world is taking 3 months off. It's not WW3. I think your grandkids will be fine.

As for sacrificing yourself, there's a 99% chance you'd have made it, you brave trooper.

[Zlatan]

Any chance you could sacrifice yourself early for the sake of the forum...?

[Vintage Claret]

So many ways to get it right and I avoided all of them...

Actually i meant to type 1 x 2.5 = 2.5, edited it now

I blame the tiny keyboard on this work laptop

[paulatky]

Being a bit dramatic again there. The world is taking 3 months off. It's not WW3. I think your grandkids will be fine.

As for sacrificing yourself, there's a 99% chance you'd have made it, you brave trooper.

But if the lockdown policy was to be followef through it would be a lot longer than 12 weeks ,until a vaccine is found ,12-18 months away.

Shutting the world down for that length of time would destroy the world economy for decades to come. Looks like Trump has come to the same conclusion.

[paulatky]

Being a bit dramatic again there. The world is taking 3 months off. It's not WW3. I think your grandkids will be fine.

As for sacrificing yourself, there's a 99% chance you'd have made it, you brave trooper.

But if the lockdown policy was to be followef through it would be a lot longer than 12 weeks ,until a vaccine is found ,12-18 months away.

Shutting the world down for that length of time would destroy the world economy for decades to come. Looks like Trump has come to the same conclusion.

[Zlatan]

Any chance you could sacrifice yourself early for the sake of the forum...?

Paulatky - glad you could take that in the good jest it was intended to be

[thatdberight]

It's right.

2.5 + (2.5 squared) + (2.5 cubed) + (2.5 ^4) + (2.5^5) = 405
1.25 + (1.25 squared) + (1.25 cubed) + (1.25^4) + (1.25^5) = 14

As well as seeing my mistake when you pointed it, I just realised why the 406 is so low which is what was bugging me all along. The 406 assumes that it is spread only on Day 5 of the cycle.

With a bit of assumption (which is necessary), even by the end of Cycle 1, I reckon 10 total cases, not 3.5 is more like it.

[paulatky]

Paulatky - glad you could take that in the good jest it was intended to be

No prob

[mdd2]

Soon be losing 1000/week as death toll rose by another 86 yesterday. There have been just over 300 deaths in the last week, March 18th 104 and today 422.

[thatdberight]

I presume this headline belongs to another picture. Or vice versa.

Screenshot_20200324-163100.jpg (98.72 KiB) Viewed 3029 times

[Elbarad]

All Trump has said, albeit characteristically poorly is that when the US gets to the end of the 15 day period they'll look and see where things stand. I'm not sure how evaluating the facts has become such a horrible thing to do. It might well be that he'll extend the restrictions. Honestly, with him... who the hell knows. There will of course come a time when things will need to reopen. And that time probably will not be when there have been zero cases for two weeks. He is correct, the cure can't be worse then the illness.

It's a similar argument that's often made in regards to climate change. Even though the climate is changing, SOME of the suggested cures would be worse then the problem they aim to fix.

[dsr]

Soon be losing 1000/week as death toll rose by another 86 yesterday. There have been just over 300 deaths in the last week, March 18th 104 and today 422.

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?

[Lowbankclaret]

This morning having got bored with watching reruns of our win at Old Trafford I read this thread from the beginning after it was started by Jakubclaret with the words “this is getting serious” and some of the early posts by Lowbank,Paulatky and Jakub have turned out eerily correct.

From the beginning certain posters have tried to play it down saying its no worse than flu and only a handful of deaths.As the situation changed quickly some others came on board to the thinking of maybe this is more serious than 1st thought.Others seemed reluctant to accept the seriousness of it despite the raising number of cases and deaths. Wether that was because you were still hoping it was a bad dream or that you didnt want to admit you had been wrong initially I dont know.

As regards you Grumps you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. To infer the number of cases maybe had peaked a month ago was madness in light of the facts. That you said nobody knows means nothing as at that had you asked people 99.999% would have realised it couldnt have peaked.

I just wish the arguments stop and those providing the good and logical views aren't driven away.

From your posts Grumps I take it you are at the younger end of the age group. Am I correct

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.

[Grumps]

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.

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

[Lowbankclaret]

But you wouldn’t and still don’t accept that your interpretation of that data is flawed and inflammatory!

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.

[Lowbankclaret]

The death rate is around 1%.

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

[Spijed]

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?

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

[Spijed]

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

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?

[CombatClaret]

It's a similar argument that's often made in regards to climate change. Even though the climate is changing, SOME of the suggested cures would be worse then the problem they aim to fix.

How could anything be worse than than the potential uninhabitability of large parts of the planet and the knock on effects that would cause?
I think they would cause intense societal shock if implemented immediately today yes but not worse than the potential destruction of humanity.

[Elbarad]

True if your baseline is the extinction of humanity, no cure is worse then the disease.

[thatdberight]

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?

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.

[Grumps]

To add a little balance to this thread as opposed to those who search Google for bad news, today saw good news from China, where restrictions are starting to be relaxed in the worst affected areas, the death numbers in Italy were starting to slow down, and the stock market saw one of its highest ever daily percentage rise

[thatdberight]

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.

*B0llocks*

Of those people confirmed to have had this and who have either been deemed recovered or dead, that stat applies. Projecting it forward without any further work is the thought process of a 2 year old. And not a very clever one.

If your job really is what you say and your use of stats is part of it, I will feel much less safe next time I get on one of those things knowing the kind of people they employ.

[Quicknick]

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.

Bullsh1t. If you are in your 70s, you have a 3 per cent chance of dying.

[FactualFrank]

To add a little balance to this thread as opposed to those who search Google for bad news, today saw good news from China, where restrictions are starting to be relaxed in the worst affected areas, the death numbers in Italy were starting to slow down, and the stock market saw one of its highest ever daily percentage rise

Get things like this on the Positive thread. I'm not reading this thread as much, as it involves scrolling past loads of "who is currently on your ignore list"

[Grumps]

Bullsh1t. If you are in your 70s, you have a 3 per cent chance of dying.

Slowly moving to that age group, I prefer the sound of the 97% survival rate

[Gerry Hattrick]

Bullsh1t. If you are in your 70s, you have a 3 per cent chance of dying.

Sounds good to me. Pretty sure it used to be 100% no matter what age you were.

[thatdberight]

Sounds good to me. Pretty sure it used to be 100% no matter what age you were.

You make a good point. There are a lot of people wailing in this who, it seems, had never understood this before. That's not to minimise the overall impact of this problem but at an individual level, it seems like a penny-drop moment for some people. They mustn't have been paying attention...