Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:38 pm

You sure its in maths?

Yes I remember it well. There was a real feel good factor to me getting my Maths A level an I'd never seen the postman so happy and smiling as much as he was back then

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:42 pm

Yes I remember it well. There was a real feel good factor to me getting my Maths A level an I'd never seen the postman so happy and smiling as much as he was back then

It’s a good feeling when you see people happy, nothing wrong with good vibes & positive energy, anyway back on topic, let’s hope this virus gets sorted out because smiles on the street & more Camaraderie within the workplace could be threatened.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:16 pm

Strangely enough the people doing this for real are not sat on a message board taking the two simplest numbers and misinterpreting them. And the latest from them is...
"current IFR estimates range from 0.3% to 1%."

Maybe you'd best stick with the 3%. It seems like it's the best number going for anybody looking to justify panicking.

Personally, I reckon the Chinese have burnt all the statistics.

Where is your link.

I notice you have moved on to a new set of calcs.

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:06 pm

Where is your link.

I notice you have moved on to a new set of calcs.

What new set of calcs?

I’ll ask again, Lowbankclaret - were you right or wrong when you quoted a 26% death rate?

If you can admit you were wrong to quote that I’ll accept your apology. As for getting personal, why do you keep referring to someone with a “1st degree”...?

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:06 pm

Where is your link.

Did you use all your question marks last time?

Have some on me.

¿??????¿??????¿????????¿?????????¿ (some appear to have gone for a Burton)

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:20 pm

Is what you previously posted on this thread...



All I have done on this thread is to highlight why your closed case calculations were misleading, now you’re attempting to changed your mind with a slight of hand and you’re now using another (more accurate, but still not the right way to define predicted death rate) calculation. It has been stated many times why you were initially wrong. So I’ll ask again, we’re you right or wrong when you quoted a 26% death rate?

No I have not, I have used the WHO method of calculation. That you all are saying is not real anyway.

It’s still flawed.

I have come to the conclusion you guys just argue just because you can but cannot put any sort of data or calcs to back you up.

I am going to bug out because you lot just cannot argue on an intellectual level high enough.

I am out!

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pm

...you lot just cannot argue on an intellectual level high enough...

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pm

No I have not, I have used the WHO method of calculation. That you all are saying is not real anyway.

It’s still flawed.

I have come to the conclusion you guys just argue just because you can but cannot put any sort of data or calcs to back you up.

I am going to bug out because you lot just cannot argue on an intellectual level high enough.

I am out!

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:11 pm

I’ll ask again, Lowbankclaret - were you right or wrong when you quoted a 26% death rate?

If you can admit you were wrong to quote that I’ll accept your apology. As for getting personal, why do you keep referring to someone with a “1st degree”...?

You’ll gain more respect if you just answer the question

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pm

No I have not, I have used the WHO method of calculation. That you all are saying is not real anyway.

"...the WHO method of calculation" of what?

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:20 pm

Is what you previously posted on this thread...



All I have done on this thread is to highlight why your closed case calculations were misleading, now you’re attempting to changed your mind with a slight of hand and you’re now using another (more accurate, but still not the right way to define predicted death rate) calculation. It has been stated many times why you were initially wrong. So I’ll ask again, were you right or wrong when you quoted a 26% death rate?

Well, he did say 26% have died, 74% have recovered. Not exactly flu like numbers, Now the died percentage should drop over time.

Isn't this precisely what actually happened since he said that??

The figure for Italy is 11 deaths out of 280 tested positive. Thats an alarming death rate of nearly 4 % and is likely to get worse unless all the remaining 269 recover ( highly unlikely )

The other very real worry is the effect on the world economy as a result of a sustained period of the virus being active.

Already its difficult to get supplies of antiseptic hand wash and wipes due to panic buying.

Will football matches played behind closed doors be televised so that fans can still watch whilst self-isolating.

Sorry if it's already been covered but what exactly does "self-isolation" involve? Building a bunker in your garden? I'm not trying to be funny because we're talking about people dying but I'm just a bit perplexed by this "advice".

Staying at home and avoiding contact with other people. Shopping online or having friends do the shopping and leaving it at the front door.

ecc wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:02 am

Sorry if it's already been covered but what exactly does "self-isolation" involve? Building a bunker in your garden? I'm not trying to be funny because we're talking about people dying but I'm just a bit perplexed by this "advice".

Keeping yourself away from everybody else including the other people in your house.

"stay at home
don't go to work, school or public areas
don't use public transport like buses, trains, tubes or taxis
avoid visitors to your home
ask friends, family members or delivery services to carry out errands for you"

"Separate yourself from other people in your home and if you share facilities regular cleaning will be required.
You should stay in a well-ventilated room with a window that can be opened, separate from other people in your home."

Seems unlikely to me.

I agree its not going to happen
Can you envisage Dave Burnley self-isolating if the Clarets are playing.

Thats why the virus wont be able to be contained but we need to try to slow down the rate of spread to give give the scientists time to develop a vaccine.

paulatky wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:27 am

I agree its not going to happen
Can you envisage Dave Burnley self-isolating if the Clarets are playing.

Thats why the virus wont be able to be contained but we need to try to slow down the rate of spread to give give the scientists time to develop a vaccine.

Nature more likely to help as we get into spring although that's not a given. Nothing seems to suggest a vaccine could launch before next flu season in winter 2020/21.

Yes agree thats the very earliest thats why its so important to slow the spread of the virus to give more people a chance of surviving by having access to a vaccine

Can any of you brain boxes work out the death rate for Italy? 11 deaths out of 322 reported cases.

Any ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?

Some intresting 'debates' on here regarding the stats, information, disinformation, misleading the public, spreading alarm and panic.

It's a football message board and unlikely to supercede any official advice and information. In fact it's unlikely to have been read by more than a few hundred people across the globe.

Calm down and stop winding yourselves into a frenzy!

50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.

If it be your will wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:26 pm

Well, he did say 26% have died, 74% have recovered. Not exactly flu like numbers, Now the died percentage should drop over time.

Isn't this precisely what actually happened since he said that??

I think you need to read the thread in chronological order, their position changed over time as a result of people questioning them. Initially they insisted they were right to quote the over inflated figure because they did not grasp that they used the wrong official figures.

I too am done discussing the figures, they are all available for anyone to read and interpret as they wish, just please don’t make up scare stories which could cause some people to worry unnecessarily.

KellyClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 am

Can any of you brain boxes work out the death rate for Italy? 11 deaths out of 322 reported cases.

Any ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?

No, we can't.

Could be any number of reasons - almost all of which are statistical - but until someone who's actually doing the studies comes out with a public pronouncement, it would just be making it up to believe it was important or signalled any change in what they've already said.

KellyClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 am

Can any of you brain boxes work out the death rate for Italy? 11 deaths out of 322 reported cases.

Any ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?

I’m fairly sure that rate is almost identical to China, but be mindful that only a few deaths in a small sample will vastly skew the rate

11 deaths out of 322 cases in one area doesn't then mean that that rate will continue if the numbers were bigger.

Even so this is still 3%+ or so.

ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:12 am

50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.

I have told you a million times - dont exaggerate

paulatky wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:08 am

I have told you a million times - dont exaggerate

Some updated stats from the BBC today.

Once you've had coronavirus, will you be immune?

Nobody knows for sure. Initially you would expect the body to remember how to fight the virus, but this "memory" can wane, and it is uncertain how long any protection might last.

Is the coronavirus worse than flu or Sars?

The answer is not as straightforward as it might seem. The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%). However, what matters is how many people it can infect. Flu has a low death rate, but it kills hundreds of thousands of people each year because it infects so many. We still do not know if this new coronavirus is going to spread round the world.

Who is worst affected by the virus?

The old and the sick. The current fatality rate is less than 0.5% for people under the age of 50. But it rises to 8% for people in their 70s and 15% for people over 80. Meanwhile, nearly 11% of people with diseases of the heart died when infected. As did 7% of people with diabetes and 6% of people with long-term lung problems. The average for healthy people is 0.9%.

The last stats should concern me as I have major heart problems but at the moment, I'm not too worried at all.

By the way, I went on holiday to Malaysia during the SARS epidemic. Everyone was checked at KL airport from every flight both going in and coming out. My ex and I had a great holiday in Penang with no ill effects and we didn't even think about SARS whilst we were there.

N.B. Please note that the BBC and Channel 4 News appear to be giving measured, sensible advice, whilst the newspapers are sensationaliseing the story in an effort to sell more of their rags. They should be ashamed of themselves.

One of the reasons (possibly the main or only one) that this virus will kill more than the "normal" flu viruses, is that the old and vulnerable generally get injections against flu so less of them catch it. They can't get vaccinated against this one.

Incidentally, there are already 4 other types of coronavirus pandemic. None of them do much harm (relatively speaking).

KellyClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 am

Any ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?

Perhaps there's a truth deficiency?

CJW wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:10 am

Perhaps there's a truth deficiency?

A tinfoil hat is proven to be a safe and effective vaccine against this virus.

I have no idea what the means but will assume it was a clever and witty ripost.

CJW wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:15 am

I have no idea what the means but will assume it was a clever and witty ripost.

You learn something new every day. "Ripost" is an acceptable variant spelling.

Is coronavirus just a massive advert for Netflix...?

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11497904/

If it be your will wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:40 pm

I consider this somewhat disrespectful. I imagine I could go on every single thread saying things like "Wot? You think you're some sort of expert on .......... now do ya??"

Those wanting to discuss this are just interested in the subject. There's really nothing else to it.

Just a quick reply mate to put things into some context (I'm not going to mention the virus because I don't know anything about it - a bit like most on here ). My point was that as with all stats they can be massaged to support any argument you like. My laugh at what has been going on on this thread is that so many have been trying to stretch stats to fit their argument (badly) - a classic case of there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Having had a cursory glance at the thread it seems that there is a competition amongst some posters to find the worst case scenario and then trying to back it up with badly massaged stats. The best one is where a couple of guys where arguing over the same stats - both putting there own spin on what could be concluded from them (and that is what is wrong with stats in general).
Enjoy the thread mate, I don't have a problem with people saying what they wish, I just think it was funny reading.

As for those discussing it are doing so out of 'interest', from what I read it just looked like many were just, as usual, trying to win an argument.

Never mind eh...from one or two of the conclusions I expect none of us will be here in 6 months.

Gordaleman, I think the difference between SARS and this virus was that SARS was less easily transmitted and died a death so to speak early on and as a result moves to develop a vaccine were stopped

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:18 pm

Gordaleman, I think the difference between SARS and this virus was that SARS was less easily transmitted and died a death so to speak early on and as a result moves to develop a vaccine were stopped

Maybe, but there's still no need to go into all out panic mode as so many appear to be doing.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:17 am

You learn something new every day. "Ripost" is an acceptable variant spelling.

An honour to serve.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:54 am

The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected.

The old and the sick. The current fatality rate is less than 0.5% for people under the age of 50. But it rises to 8% for people in their 70s and 15% for people over 80. Meanwhile, nearly 11% of people with diseases of the heart died when infected. As did 7% of people with diabetes and 6% of people with long-term lung problems. The average for healthy people is 0.9%.

I'm slightly surprised going on what I recall from the various reports but that split of 1.0% total; 0.9% "healthy people" seems odd to me. It seems many of the reported cases (where specifics are given) aren't in good health. I'm surprised the 0.9% is as close to the 1.0% as given there. That's if the measures are consistent.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:21 pm

I'm slightly surprised going on what I recall from the various reports but that split of 1.0% total; 0.9% "healthy people" seems odd to me. It seems many of the reported cases (where specifics are given) aren't in good health. I'm surprised the 0.9% is as close to the 1.0% as given there. That's if the measures are consistent.

Be as surprised as you like mate. That doesn't mean the figures are wrong. Perhaps they just don't fit well with the fear mongers?

Be happy it's as low as it is.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:29 pm

Be as surprised as you like mate. That doesn't mean the figures are wrong. Perhaps they just don't fit well with the fear mongers?

Be happy it's as low as it is.

I found the source. The 1% is the estimate of IFR and the 0.9% is based on the CFR. The mortality rate for "healthy people" (not that they're the only ones who matter) will therefore be estimated below the 0.9%.

The figures aren't "wrong". They're just talking to different things. Edit: That was probably implicit but not (to me) entirely clear in the phrasing of the report.

Oh FFS - don’t you two start on each other...

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:54 pm

Oh FFS - don’t you two start on each other...

I wasn't starting on ANYBODY. And I wasn't calling thatedberight a fearmonger. I was refering to those who are.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:50 pm

I wasn't starting on ANYBODY. And I wasn't calling thatedberight a fearmonger. I was refering to those who are.

I apologise in that case. My misunderstanding. I'll edit the post - not to hide it but to withdraw it. Again, apologies.

I noticed that both the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror managed to incorporate the words "Killer Virus" into their front page headlines today.

Then, of course, the media asks the question(s) "Are people over reacting?" "Are governments over reacting?"

All provides yet more column inches and media discussion with experts from every UK university offering their opinions in turn.

ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:12 am

50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.

Doctors say that they have a 50 - 50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:50 pm

I wasn't starting on ANYBODY. And I wasn't calling thatedberight a fearmonger. I was refering to those who are.

I think you are becoming a little bit obsessive about people panicking & fear mongering, people are just discussing it in a calm composed manner. The only person coming across irrational is you, I get the impression you are panicking that people are panicking when nothing of the sort is being played out.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:51 am

Just a quick reply mate to put things into some context (I'm not going to mention the virus because I don't know anything about it - a bit like most on here ). My point was that as with all stats they can be massaged to support any argument you like. My laugh at what has been going on on this thread is that so many have been trying to stretch stats to fit their argument (badly) - a classic case of there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Having had a cursory glance at the thread it seems that there is a competition amongst some posters to find the worst case scenario and then trying to back it up with badly massaged stats. The best one is where a couple of guys where arguing over the same stats - both putting there own spin on what could be concluded from them (and that is what is wrong with stats in general).
Enjoy the thread mate, I don't have a problem with people saying what they wish, I just think it was funny reading.

As for those discussing it are doing so out of 'interest', from what I read it just looked like many were just, as usual, trying to win an argument.

Never mind eh...from one or two of the conclusions I expect none of us will be here in 6 months.

People not researching properly & not staying abreast of any developments in a changing environ, last night the mathematical formulas were actually contradicting each other, but when properly analysed the results weren't that far apart, going hammer & tong you lose clarity, a relative silent observer picks up more as you've done

Claretmatt4 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:04 pm

Due to fly to Venice for a week on Monday... It's in Veneto which is one of the affected regions in Italy.

From the sounds of it a lot of the attractions are closed to the public so I'm not sure if it's worth us even going!

I've now been told my my work if I travel to Venice I'll be expected to self isolate on my return... I can work remotely but my flatmate isn't going to be pleased...

Hoping there is some kind of announcement by the foreign office re. Italy before we fly, or some of the restrictions and closures in Venice are lifted before we go...