cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:49 am

Tom Hanks confirmed as having coronavirus.

Odds on favourite to star in the movie about it

FTSE down 6.6% ,over 380 pts this morning.

How long before stock exchange’s around the world are closed as staff advised not to come into work.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:50 am

FTSE down 6.6% ,over 380 pts this morning.

How long before stock exchange’s around the world are closed as staff advised not to come into work.

You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you...

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:50 am

Odds on favourite to star in the movie about it

I’m sure he will run it off.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:51 am

You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you...

Just a realist who finds it very difficult to see anyway out of this situation without devastating effect on health and economy.

Lockdowns can work to slow it down but as soon as people return to work numbers will surely flare up again.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:01 am

Just a realist who finds it very difficult to see anyway out of this situation without devastating effect on health and economy.

Lockdowns can work to slow it down but as soon as people return to work numbers will surely flare up again.

You go girl...

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:07 am

You go girl...

Why do you need to resort to insults.

In any case I have found many women to be mentally stronger than men and its they who hold the family unit together.

As you like statistics far more men than women take their own lives.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:01 am

Just a realist who finds it very difficult to see anyway out of this situation without devastating effect on health and economy.

Lockdowns can work to slow it down but as soon as people return to work numbers will surely flare up again.

If people are locked down for two weeks surely the virus will take its course on those who have it and either kill them or they recover, unless I misunderstand the way viruses work.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:01 am

Just a realist who finds it very difficult to see anyway out of this situation without devastating effect on health and economy.

Lockdowns can work to slow it down but as soon as people return to work numbers will surely flare up again.

You are a bit 'end of the world' to be fair. You can appreciate the seriousness and the impact in the short term and we all should do. But one way or another, this resolves itself before the year's out. People recover, economies recover and the world continues, it's just about trying to mitigate the losses before then.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:28 am

Why do you need to resort to insults.

In any case I have found many women to be mentally stronger than men and its they who hold the family unit together.

As you like statistics far more men than women take their own lives.

You’re right, insults are not necessary, I’m sorry. I’ll continue to call you out for bad info and poor understanding of stats even though you have a degree in statistics, perhaps you might want to revisit the thread and engage with me when I’ve called you out instead of ignoring my posts and continuing to post doom and gloom about everything.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:30 am

I think that you're missing the point. Viruses only live inside the body for about a week or two. Technically, if everyone isolates from each other, the virus, with nowhere new to go, also dies. So no, we don't have to isolation for years.

I know from family experience that viral meningitis can hang around for a year or two inside the body. (It went, eventually.)

Claretmatt4 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:32 am

If people are locked down for two weeks surely the virus will take its course on those who have it and either kill them or they recover, unless I misunderstand the way viruses work.

You honestly believe that every single person in lockdown will follow the procedures exactly. It will be sure to flare up again as soon as people return to work,

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:34 am

You’re right, insults are not necessary, I’m sorry. I’ll continue to call you out for bad info and poor understanding of stats even though you have a degree in statistics, perhaps you might want to revisit the thread and engage with me when I’ve called you out instead of ignoring my posts and continuing to post doom and gloom about everything.

Where have you called me out and I have not answered.

What I just cant get my head around is that the general consensus is that of the people who get flu (those who have symptoms) is a death rate of 0.1% so to my mind that if I got flu I would have a one in a thousand chance of dying ( ignoring age and underlying health problems) whereas with come on Eileen the death rate is expected to be 1% ( for once I am taking the optimistic view)

Now that to me gives me a one in a hundred chance of dying from it if I catch it.

Combine that with the increased change of getting covid-19 in the 1st place is 3 times greater then to my simplistic mind I have 30 times more chance of dying from this than flu

If there was ever a thread on Uptheclarets that needed moderating, it's this one.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

England's friendly against Denmark at Wembley on 31 March is in doubt after the Danish authorities cancelled all football activities in Denmark up to Sunday 29 March.

The Danish FA says it is expects the match to be called off.

“Denmark is in a sad and special situation, which of course also affects Danish football," the Danish football association director Kenneth Reeh says.

"Like everyone else in society, we take the situation very seriously and, of course, take the necessary reservations.

"That is why we are closing down as many football activities as possible over the next few weeks."

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:11 am

whereas with come on Eileen the death rate is expected to be 1% ( for once I am taking the optimistic view)

Now that to me gives me a one in a hundred chance of dying from it if I catch it.

It’s not that bad a song...

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:11 am

Where have you called me out and I have not answered.

Read back through the thread if you're bothered, I'm not overly bothered but I know you've ignored my questions previously.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:11 am

What I just cant get my head around is that the general consensus is that of the people who get flu (those who have symptoms) is a death rate of 0.1% so to my mind that if I got flu I would have a one in a thousand chance of dying ( ignoring age and underlying health problems) whereas with come on Eileen the death rate is expected to be 1% ( for once I am taking the optimistic view)

Generally correct, although we (humans) have a vast amount of historical data to model the flu rates from, which is as accurate as it can be. With Covid-19, we don't have a complete data set (your degree in Statistics should tell you why that's important) and whilst there are known numbers of infections and known numbers of deaths there are not any known unknowns - i.e. people who have contracted this virus but are not aware or known by anyone. This number can only reduce the 1%/3%/26% (as lowbankclaret once posted) rate as it will increase the denominator. The models for flu are understood from years of historical data, Covid-19 (although not too dissimilar from influenza) will behave differently and will have different numbers over time so in 12 months we'll (humans) have a much better understanding than we currently have. That said, it may be worse than it is currently panning out (see If it be your will's estimate of 1M - yes 1 MILLION deaths within a month!), but it is much more likely to be better than it is currently showing, and take solace from the fact that the vast majority of deaths are in the category of the old and those with several underlying health conditions.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:11 am

Now that to me gives me a one in a hundred chance of dying from it if I catch it.

See above, and also combine that with your age etc to correlate from the official figures for differing demographics. You could also look at it as I have a 99 out of hundred chance of living...

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:11 am

Combine that with the increased change (sic) of getting covid-19 in the 1st place is 3 times greater then to my simplistic mind I have 30 times more chance of dying from this than flu

Why do you have an increased chance of getting it? if everyone behaved as they normally would the chances of getting this are fairly equal for everyone - the only difference would be the effect of getting it. Or are you referencing some other stat that I dont know about in regards to comparison with flu?, in which case your simplistic mind's calculation is flawed IMO because you cant just combine chances like you have and get an answer (your degree in Statistics should have told you that).

paulatky wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:29 am

That assumes there is no re-infection.

It is thought re-infection rates could be upto 15%

Is that another figure grabbed out of thin air?

Someone started a thread yesterday claiming that as of this coming week-end, all football games were to be played behind closed doors, even though the Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock ruled it out last night in his statement to the House of Commons and replies to subsequent questions. Other doomsters quickly jumped on the bandwagon.

He said that such a move at this stage was counter to the science the government was following. He did not rule it out at some time in the future though, because he was ruling nothing in or out, which seems to be a very sensible approach.

This morning, the BBC said:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to sign off plans to move from the "containment" phase of the outbreak to "delay" at the emergency Cobra meeting later.

The UK is currently in the "containment" phase - the first stage of the government's four-part plan:

Containment

Delay

Mitigation

Research - which runs alongside the other phases

Delay is where "social distancing" measures will be considered - which could include restrictions on public gatherings above a certain number of people, although this is not thought likely at this stage.

I know one thing. If games are played behind doors quite soon, then a lot of Leaugue 1 and 2 clubs will go out of business. Even at the moment, they live from day to day and desperately need the cash flow to survive. Next season's leagues could have a lot of teams missing.

some good (and relevant) advice from the BBC...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51176409

2. If you recover from coronavirus are you immune?

Well, it is too soon to tell. This virus has only been around since the end of December, but from experience with other viruses and coronaviruses you should have antibodies to the virus which will protect you.

With Sars and other coronaviruses we tended not to see reinfection. Now there are some reports from China of people who are released from hospital subsequently testing positive but we're not sure about those tests.

However, the key thing was those people were no longer infectious.


I saw 15% mentioned on this thread. But how so, if, as of yet, nobody has been reinfected? I'm not following that one.

Further to my post above, it seems that even the BBC is confused about the situation.

In the story above it says: Delay is where "social distancing" measures will be considered - which could include restrictions on public gatherings above a certain number of people, although this is not thought likely at this stage.

In the story about the stock market fall this morning, it says: The travel sector's problems could be compounded by the fact that the UK government is set to step up its response to coronavirus. This could include banning large gatherings, such as sports events or concerts.

It's a bit worrying when 'Auntie' gives two versions of the current thinking.

I hope paulatky doesn't have a Keep Calm and Carry On mug at home.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:30 am

I hope paulatky doesn't have a Keep Calm and Carry On mug at home.

He has probably had a panic room installed at home due to someone sneezing down the road

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:20 pm

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.

If you carry on with the boasting about being “right” you’ll get the bloody gold badge too

Today there has been a person at my work tested positive for covid-19.

At least I can now work from home.

Someone on the BBC News (assume a medical expert), says that as things stand there's nothing to show people can be reinfected and that at this moment in time, they feel people will build a resistance to it after they've had it.

So, until we have evidence to the contrary (as in - people have been confirmed to have caught it twice), we can put that one to bed, as it were.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:35 am

Someone on the BBC News (assume a medical expert), says that as things stand there's nothing to show people can be reinfected and that at this moment in time, they feel people will build a resistance to it after they've had it.

So, until we have evidence to the contrary (as in - people have been confirmed to have caught it twice), we can put that one to bed, as it were.

You omitted to say...she said 80% of the population could get it.

I like this on the BBC web page this morning reporting on Trump’s actions against Covid-19.

"He's not the Messiah," he said. "He can't just wave a wand and make this go away." That the president is not an omnipotent political deity who leaves adversaries, human and viral alike, trembling in his wake was perhaps an unusual admission in a room full of supporters decked out in Donald Trump gear, surrounded by vendors hawking Donald Trump hats, t-shirts, hot sauce and posters of a beaming Trump family that proclaimed "God, Life, Trump".

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:33 am

Today there has been a person at my work tested positive for covid-19.

At least I can now work from home.

That's good news for you Lowbank as I know you were genuinely concerned for your health, take it easy and dont let it stress you too much. I still cant believe your work rejected your previous request though. That said, I have had 4 colleagues go home because they felt "warm"... I suspect lots of Netflix and XBox gaming from them... which is probably why some requests are being rejected.

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:40 am

You omitted to say...she said 80% of the population could get it.

Because, as I clearly stated, it's about people being reinfected.

I'm talking about people getting it - recovering - then getting it again. Not, people catching it for the first time.

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:40 am

You omitted to say...she said 80% of the population could get it.

So are you still sticking to your story last night that all this week-end's football matches will be played behind closed doors?

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:32 am

Read back through the thread if you're bothered, I'm not overly bothered but I know you've ignored my questions previously.


Generally correct, although we (humans) have a vast amount of historical data to model the flu rates from, which is as accurate as it can be. With Covid-19, we don't have a complete data set (your degree in Statistics should tell you why that's important) and whilst there are known numbers of infections and known numbers of deaths there are not any known unknowns - i.e. people who have contracted this virus but are not aware or known by anyone. This number can only reduce the 1%/3%/26% (as lowbankclaret once posted) rate as it will increase the denominator. The models for flu are understood from years of historical data, Covid-19 (although not too dissimilar from influenza) will behave differently and will have different numbers over time so in 12 months we'll (humans) have a much better understanding than we currently have. That said, it may be worse than it is currently panning out (see If it be your will's estimate of 1M - yes 1 MILLION deaths within a month!), but it is much more likely to be better than it is currently showing, and take solace from the fact that the vast majority of deaths are in the category of the old and those with several underlying health conditions.


See above, and also combine that with your age etc to correlate from the official figures for differing demographics. You could also look at it as I have a 99 out of hundred chance of living...


Why do you have an increased chance of getting it? if everyone behaved as they normally would the chances of getting this are fairly equal for everyone - the only difference would be the effect of getting it. Or are you referencing some other stat that I dont know about in regards to comparison with flu?, in which case your simplistic mind's calculation is flawed IMO because you cant just combine chances like you have and get an answer (your degree in Statistics should have told you that).

On pages 3 and 4 of this thread you were rude, flippant and obnoxious towards me on several occasions simply because I calmly pointed out this looked very serious. Having repeatedly laughed and ridiculed, you're now resorting to blatant lies to discredit me. What on earth is wrong with you?

Good luck everyone.

If it be your will wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:51 am

On pages 3 and 4 of this thread you were rude, flippant and obnoxious towards me on several occasions simply because I calmly pointed out this looked very serious. Having repeatedly laughed and ridiculed, you're now resorting to blatant lies to discredit me. What on earth is wrong with you?

Good luck everyone.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:32 am

That said, it may be worse than it is currently panning out (see If it be your will's estimate of 1M - yes 1 MILLION deaths within a month!)

Is my lie...

So you didn't say this then...?

If it be your will wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:19 pm

Unless something dramatic happens in the next few weeks, we could be looking at over a million deaths from Covid-19 in the UK alone. This is on a different scale altogether.

but I'm the one lying... OK then...

Genuine question. Where has this figure of 1 million deaths within a month come from when the total number of cases worldwide currently stands at 118,000? FWIW I think it is now inevitable that football matches will be played behind closed doors. If not this weekend then next.

If it be your will wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:51 am

On pages 3 and 4 of this thread you were rude, flippant and obnoxious towards me on several occasions simply because I calmly pointed out this looked very serious. Having repeatedly laughed and ridiculed, you're now resorting to blatant lies to discredit me. What on earth is wrong with you?

Good luck everyone.

Welcome to my world .

I suggested that manned and functioning border controls that have been allowed to fall into disrepair, thanks to EU rules on freedom of movement. Could have been utilised in helping neighbouring countries in quarantining initiatives. Just as the Austrian and Slovenian governments have done.

I was labelled "racist" by Zlatan, Lowbank claret, Gordaleman and other unthinking, logic lacking posters.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:49 am

So are you still sticking to your story last night that all this week-end's football matches will be played behind closed doors?

Are you still sticking to you imbicilic , groundless accusation that suggesting that manned and functioning border controls that have been allowed to fall into disrepair, thanks to EU rules on freedom of movement. Could have been utilised in helping neighbouring countries in quarantining initiatives. Just as the Austrian and Slovenian governments have done.
Means I'm " racist"?

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:49 am

So are you still sticking to your story last night that all this week-end's football matches will be played behind closed doors?

Or Going with your Bullsh!t comments...yes my belief is games will be called off this weekend. "My Belief"

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:33 am

Is that another figure grabbed out of thin air?

No. It's from the one study that's been done. However, that study could not exclude poor testing as part of the reason for the percentage and, more importantly, the impact on and contagiousness of those "re-infected" was very different (much less problematic) than on initial infection.

RingoMcCartney wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:04 pm

I was labelled "racist" by Zlatan

Quote me where I called you racist

Mondsley wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:03 pm

Genuine question. Where has this figure of 1 million deaths within a month come from when the total number of cases worldwide currently stands at 118,000? FWIW I think it is now inevitable that football matches will be played behind closed doors. If not this weekend then next.

70m X 60% X 2.5%

The first is a fact
The second has support in the scientific community but is not universally accepted
The third is at the top end of what experts are saying and whatever that number is - that's what we're trying to reduce by actions being taken

an interesting read from FullFact...

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus ... oiCIDMJx78

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:13 pm

70m X 60% X 2.5%

The first is a fact
The second has support in the scientific community but is not universally accepted
The third is at the top end of what experts are saying and whatever that number is - that's what we're trying to reduce by actions being taken

Thank you!

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:02 pm

Is my lie...

So you didn't say this then...?



but I'm the one lying... OK then...

I can at least see where you've gone wrong now. You consider those two statements to be equivalent, which of course they are clearly not.

To clarify, no, there will definitely not be 1 million deaths in the UK within a month. That would obviously be utterly ridiculous. But something dramatic will need to occur to prevent an eventual outcome of 1 million deaths in the UK from Covid-19 ('eventual' as in maybe 6 months from now), and this dramatic thing it will need to occur in the next few weeks to alter this eventual trajectory. If it does not occur in the next few weeks, it'll be too late to avoid this outcome. This could be a lockdown, a drug discovery, or something else hitherto unknown, but whatever it is it will need to big to prevent this eventual outcome.

Obviously, you already knew that is what I meant, but, as always, you chose the 'mindless discredit' option instead.

Top article on Bloomberg, corona virus survivors can be infectious for up to 5 weeks after recovering.
Tried to link it but failed.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Quote me where I called you racist

Lowbank wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Ringo, your coming across as a raving racist.

Under this post it it said "this user liked this post - Zlatan.

Lowbank wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Whilst we have had debates, fall outs, name calling and bullying on this thread.

Only one one person pops up with racist remarks.

No surprise to me it’s Ringo.

To which you boasted.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Personally I’d like him banned from the forum because he ruins debate

That's you calling for me to be banned after I'd been labelled "racist" for simply suggesting nothing more than border checks could help spread the virus.

Why aren't we following suit with other EU countries in terms of our defence against spreading it?

RingoMcCartney wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:25 pm

Under this post it it said "this user liked this post - Zlatan.




To which you boasted.



That's you calling for me to be banned after I'd been labelled "racist" for simply suggesting nothing more than border checks could help spread the virus.

So in summary he didn’t call you racist.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Quote me where I called you racist

Claret32yrs wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

: Just an observation Zlatan. Didn't you say you'd had enough of this thread once crazy boy Ringo started posting bizarre stuff?

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:11 pm

I remembered the FOE option...

You're using the FOE option are you?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:32 am

He has probably had a panic room installed at home due to someone sneezing down the road

I sold a number of my shares very early on as I saw the stock market crash coming. I was also thinking about putting a couple of my buy to let properties on the market to sell before the market crashes but thought that would be unfair on my tenants having something else to worry about at this time.