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
Covid-19
-
- Posts: 12362
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Coronavirus
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:42 pmYes 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
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Where is your link.thatdberight wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:16 pmStrangely 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.
I notice you have moved on to a new set of calcs.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
What new set of calcs?Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:06 pmWhere is your link.
I notice you have moved on to a new set of calcs.
Re: Coronavirus
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”...?
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”...?
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Did you use all your question marks last time?
Have some on me.
¿??????¿??????¿????????¿?????????¿ (some appear to have gone for a Burton)
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
No I have not, I have used the WHO method of calculation. That you all are saying is not real anyway.Zlatan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:20 pmIs 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?
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!
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pm...you lot just cannot argue on an intellectual level high enough...
This user liked this post: Greenmile
Re: Coronavirus
Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pmNo 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!
You’ll gain more respect if you just answer the question
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
"...the WHO method of calculation" of what?Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pmNo I have not, I have used the WHO method of calculation. That you all are saying is not real anyway.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
Well, he did say 26% have died, 74% have recovered. Not exactly flu like numbers, Now the died percentage should drop over time.Zlatan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:20 pmIs 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?
Isn't this precisely what actually happened since he said that??
Re: Coronavirus
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.
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.
Re: Coronavirus
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".
Re: Coronavirus
Staying at home and avoiding contact with other people. Shopping online or having friends do the shopping and leaving it at the front door.
This user liked this post: KateR
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.
Re: Coronavirus
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.paulatky wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:27 amI 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.
Re: Coronavirus
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
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:54 am
- Been Liked: 29 times
Re: Coronavirus
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?
Any ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?
-
- Posts: 7210
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:11 pm
- Been Liked: 2378 times
- Has Liked: 3801 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: Coronavirus
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!
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!
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Coronavirus
50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.
Re: Coronavirus
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.If it be your will wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:26 pmWell, 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 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.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
No, we can't.KellyClaret wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 amCan 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?
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.
Re: Coronavirus
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 rateKellyClaret wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 amCan 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?
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Coronavirus
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.
Even so this is still 3%+ or so.
Re: Coronavirus
I have told you a million times - dont exaggerateClaretAndJew wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:12 am50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.
These 2 users liked this post: Zlatan SalouClaret
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Coronavirus
These 2 users liked this post: Zlatan SalouClaret
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.
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.
These 2 users liked this post: thatdberight Zlatan
Re: Coronavirus
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.
Re: Coronavirus
Incidentally, there are already 4 other types of coronavirus pandemic. None of them do much harm (relatively speaking).
This user liked this post: Gordaleman
Re: Coronavirus
Perhaps there's a truth deficiency?KellyClaret wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:44 amAny ideas on why this rate is vastly different to the numbers coming out of China?
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I have no idea what the means but will assume it was a clever and witty ripost.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
This user liked this post: thatdberight
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Coronavirus
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).If it be your will wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:40 pmI 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.
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.
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat If it be your will
Re: Coronavirus
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
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Maybe, but there's still no need to go into all out panic mode as so many appear to be doing.
Re: Coronavirus
An honour to serve.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:17 amYou learn something new every day. "Ripost" is an acceptable variant spelling.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:54 amThe 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%.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
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?thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:21 pmI'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 happy it's as low as it is.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
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%.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:29 pmBe 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.
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.
Last edited by thatdberight on Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Coronavirus
Oh FFS - don’t you two start on each other...
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I apologise in that case. My misunderstanding. I'll edit the post - not to hide it but to withdraw it. Again, apologies.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:50 pmI wasn't starting on ANYBODY. And I wasn't calling thatedberight a fearmonger. I was refering to those who are.
-
- Posts: 6505
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
- Been Liked: 977 times
- Has Liked: 204 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 10310
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3337 times
- Has Liked: 1954 times
Re: Coronavirus
Doctors say that they have a 50 - 50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:12 am50 billion people currently have the virus according to statistics I've seen.
This user liked this post: thatdberight
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:50 pmI wasn't starting on ANYBODY. And I wasn't calling thatedberight a fearmonger. I was refering to those who are.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: Coronavirus
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 donehouseboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:51 amJust 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.
This user liked this post: houseboy
-
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1049 times
- Has Liked: 723 times
Re: Coronavirus
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...Claretmatt4 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:04 pmDue 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!
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...