I recall trying to reassure people that Lowbankclarets percentages were massively wrong, so if that came across as making out I didn’t think it was serious then I understand why you could think that. I’ve also stated that I’m in a high risk group, and that I have already been in close proximity to someone who has it - and I’m still not overly worried. Does that mean I think it’s not serious, no, it means I’m capable of making a sound judgment based upon what the current facts are. If the facts change (I.e. this virus mutates and becomes more deadly - which if you understand virology may actually be a good thing in the long term) then I may change my opinion.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:37 pmYou did about 3/4 weeks ago, you didn’t say outright it’s not serious, but the impression & general feeling from your posts suggested, it’s nothing to worry about & it’ll all blow over kind of thing & the numbers are dropping, in mitigation & defence, you wasn’t by yourself & the information at the time wasn’t as comprehensive & the vaccine outlook wasn’t as bleak. A few of us all along maintained the stance of how severe things were developing & don’t think I derive any pleasure from being correct I don’t, it’s absolutely dreadful what’s happening.
Covid-19
Re: Coronavirus
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Zlatan, you've been one of the few on here who has stuck to the middle ground of "serious, not apocalyptic, not trivial". Which is what the various experts seem to b saying. So, you've found yourself in disagreement with both sides pretty equally. I have to say you've responded to those with more phlegm (no pun intended) and better humour than I can.Zlatan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:50 pmI recall trying to reassure people that Lowbankclarets percentages were massively wrong, so if that came across as making out I didn’t think it was serious then I understand why you could think that. I’ve also stated that I’m in a high risk group, and that I have already been in close proximity to someone who has it - and I’m still not overly worried. Does that mean I think it’s not serious, no, it means I’m capable of making a sound judgment based upon what the current facts are. If the facts change (I.e. this virus mutates and becomes more deadly - which if you understand virology may actually be a good thing in the long term) then I may change my opinion.
Re: Coronavirus
Thanks, I do genuinely hope we look back on this and all have a good laugh about it once it’s all done and dusted, because that would mean that we’re all still here. I for one won’t be in the “I told you so” camp though whatever happens because it doesn’t help. I may be very wrong and it may be the apocalypse, but I really don’t think it is, and because I don’t think it is I am trying to reassure people that it’s not.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:08 pmZlatan, you've been one of the few on here who has stuck to the middle ground of "serious, not apocalyptic, not trivial". Which is what the various experts seem to b saying. So, you've found yourself in disagreement with both sides pretty equally. I have to say you've responded to those with more phlegm (no pun intended) and better humour than I can.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
To be honest, if I'm wrong on either side, I'd prefer the apocalypse because then nobody can tell me they said so...Zlatan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:12 pmThanks, I do genuinely hope we look back on this and all have a good laugh about it once it’s all done and dusted, because that would mean that we’re all still here. I for one won’t be in the “I told you so” camp though whatever happens because it doesn’t help. I may be very wrong and it may be the apocalypse, but I really don’t think it is, and because I don’t think it is I am trying to reassure people that it’s not.
This user liked this post: Zlatan
Re: Coronavirus
Juventus defender just tested positive
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
Has this family member given you any more information since then?Zlatan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:45 pmWho the Hell says that? Don’t tell me you read it on Facebook... look, my “expertise” in all this is limited to common sense, but I do know a very good virologist (family member) who is currently actively researching the treatments for this - it’s no more virulent than standard influenza, normal measures for containing an influenza outbreak apply here, and the mortality rates are expected to be similar - it’s really important to not panic and worry yourself too much - stress will inhibit your immune system you know...
Re: Coronavirus
Nope, he still maintains that in virus terms it’s no worse than influenza.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:15 pmHas this family member given you any more information since then?
I sense others scouring the thread for evidence to catch me out, you’ll find it somewhere I’m sure - because anything can be taken out of context...
This user liked this post: thatdberight
Re: Coronavirus
Juventus player has tested positive
Re: Coronavirus
Death for this new virus seems to have consensus of between 1-1.5%.
Seasonable flu is 0.1% so by my calculation thats 10 times worse than the flu
-
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:02 pm
- Been Liked: 168 times
- Has Liked: 110 times
Re: Coronavirus
Boris Johnson expected to announce we've moved to "delay phase" tomorrow. Meaning potentially schools closed, sporting events & large gatherings cancelled as well as encouraging to work from home
Now fully expect football games to be cancelled from this weekend
Now fully expect football games to be cancelled from this weekend
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
That doesn't the mean virus itself worse than Flu, it just means an awful lot of people are protected from Flu by having been vaccinated against it.
Last edited by Gordaleman on Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Zlatan
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
You obviously didn't listen to the Health Minister's statement this evening.damo_whitehead wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:40 pmBoris Johnson expected to announce we've moved to "delay phase" tomorrow. Meaning potentially schools closed, sporting events & large gatherings cancelled as well as encouraging to work from home
Now fully expect football games to be cancelled from this weekend
-
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:02 pm
- Been Liked: 168 times
- Has Liked: 110 times
Re: Coronavirus
You're right I didn'tGordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:43 pmYou obviously didn't listen to the Health Minister's statement this evening.
Re: Coronavirus
Exactly the point, thanksGordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:41 pmThat doesn't the virus itself worse than Flu, it just means an awful lot of people are protected from Flu by having been vaccinated against it.
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
For crying out loud, give it up. No sane person thinks this virus is in any way comparable to seasonal flu.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:41 pmThat doesn't the virus itself worse than Flu, it just means an awful lot of people are protected from Flu by having been vaccinated against it.
(And this isn't just a mindless insult either: Politicians react to majority opinion. Unless an overwhelming majority of us accept the blindingly obvious fact that this virus is dramatically more dangerous than seasonal flu, there'll be no democratic consent for the considerable sacrifices that will be required to achieve the best possible outcome.)
This user liked this post: paulatky
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Why don't you think about what someone writes before jumping in?If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:54 pmFor crying out loud, give it up. No sane person thinks this virus is in any way comparable to seasonal flu.
(And this isn't just a mindless insult either: Politicians react to majority opinion. Unless an overwhelming majority of us accept the blindingly obvious fact that this virus is dramatically more dangerous than seasonal flu, there'll be no democratic consent for the considerable sacrifices that will be required to achieve the best possible outcome.)
I didn't say it wasn't more dangerous than Flu. What I said, was that the virus itself was no worse than Flu and it isn't. The difference is that we now have a vaccine for Flu, which saves a lot of people suffering from it, and as yet, we don't have one for Covid 19.
Have you got it now?
Re: Coronavirus
At least part of the difference between the death rate of this and of seasonal flu, is because we don't have a vaccine and we don't have any antibodies. Anyone got any estimates as to how much this is?
Re: Coronavirus
To me it means 1 in a 1000 who get flu die from it whereas this new virus 1 in 100 who get will die.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:41 pmThat doesn't the mean virus itself worse than Flu, it just means an awful lot of people are protected from Flu by having been vaccinated against it.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
That would be a complicated old bit of work which I'm sure somebody expert knows but it's such an esoteric point I can't imagine they'll ever be asked (althoug I know at least one person who will answer it simplistically).
Seasonal flu death rate : 0.1%ish
IFR for this new virus : 1% ish - best estimate?
That's of people who get each disease. So you could argue the vaccine is irrelevant. For every 1,000 people who get seasonal flu, 1 will die. The best science available suggests 10 will die of this new virus. 10 times more dangerous.
But then, we vaccinate many of the most vulnerable against seasonal flu. So, if we had a vaccine against this, maybe it would go to 0.1%. But then there are some studies suggesting vaccination doesn't do much good so maybe seasonal flu's mortality rate without a vaccine isn't that much higher than 0.1%. Or maybe it is. And then you get into the impact of a novel virus running through a population and whether healthcare systems would be swamped causing worse outcomes.
What's (almost) certain is that, given we do have a flu vaccine, this new virus has potential to cause more deaths in 2020 than flu. Which is why we're trying to avoid it getting a clean run at us.
I think it's unlikely that one of the probably relatively small number of people who could go some way to quantifying (or rubbishing) those caveats and adding more of their own is lurking on this board.
This user liked this post: paulatky
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
Almost negligible. uptake of the vaccine is only about 75% amongst those that are offered it on the NHS (<5y; >65; an underlying condition), so the majority of the UK don't even receive a flu vaccine. In a good year it offers maybe 50% protection, in a bad year it can go close to 10%. If nobody had the flu vaccine at all, it's reasonable to suppose there might be twice as many seasonal flu deaths than there currently are.
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.
(Edit - I didn't address the antibodies bit did I? The lack of any immunity to this novel virus is probably the very reason why it's so much more dangerous. Remember in school how we learnt of the Spanish introducing common European diseases like measles into Latin America, to a population that had no history of exposure, and were therefore genetically completely naive to such diseases, and it wiped out millions?)
Last edited by If it be your will on Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Coronavirus
So in summary of the above posts this new virus is at least 10 times as deadly ad seasonal flu
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
One interesting thing about that graph - it doesn't seem to have made any difference that the UK's precautions and actions seem to be less thorough than others. We're still towards the bottom of the Europeans.
Re: Coronavirus
Tell me moreGordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:30 pmSo you STILL don't understand. Fine, not much point in trying to explain again.
Many moons ago I did get a 2.1 degree in statistics
This user liked this post: RingoMcCartney
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Explain whats wrong with my logic in that case
Seems like So if it be your will agrees with me.
So with respect maybe you have it wrong
Seems like So if it be your will agrees with me.
So with respect maybe you have it wrong
Last edited by paulatky on Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
Remember that seasonal flu only infects between 5-20% of the population each year. Even without a vaccine it would be rare for it to top 30%. Without draconian containment measures (Italy/China) Covid-19 will likely infect 50-80%.thatdberight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:15 pmThat would be a complicated old bit of work which I'm sure somebody expert knows but it's such an esoteric point I can't imagine they'll ever be asked (althoug I know at least one person who will answer it simplistically).
Seasonal flu death rate : 0.1%ish
IFR for this new virus : 1% ish - best estimate?
That's of people who get each disease. So you could argue the vaccine is irrelevant. For every 1,000 people who get seasonal flu, 1 will die. The best science available suggests 10 will die of this new virus. 10 times more dangerous.
But then, we vaccinate many of the most vulnerable against seasonal flu. So, if we had a vaccine against this, maybe it would go to 0.1%. But then there are some studies suggesting vaccination doesn't do much good so maybe seasonal flu's mortality rate without a vaccine isn't that much higher than 0.1%. Or maybe it is. And then you get into the impact of a novel virus running through a population and whether healthcare systems would be swamped causing worse outcomes.
What's (almost) certain is that, given we do have a flu vaccine, this new virus has potential to cause more deaths in 2020 than flu. Which is why we're trying to avoid it getting a clean run at us.
I think it's unlikely that one of the probably relatively small number of people who could go some way to quantifying (or rubbishing) those caveats and adding more of their own is lurking on this board.
It's not just the higher case fatality rate of Covid-19 to consider, it's the likely higher total case numbers, too.
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Your statement is wrong. Lots of people get Flu every year but don't notice it. Because they have been vaccinated, their antibodies are ready for it and they fight it off before they even become aware of it. Vaccines do NOT stop you getting infections. They just mitigate the effects.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:57 pmRemember that seasonal flu only infects between 5-20% of the population each year. Even without a vaccine it would be rare for it to top 30%. Without draconian containment measures (Italy/China) Covid-19 will likely infect 50-80%.
It's not just the higher mortality rate to consider, it's the higher total case numbers, too.
Re: Coronavirus
Most sane people would consider they havent got flu if they had no symtons.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:03 amYour statement is wrong. Lots of people get Flu every year but don't notice it. Because they have been vaccinated, their antibodies are ready for it and they fight it off before they even become aware of it. Vaccines do NOT stop you getting infections.
As SD would say,I think you are over complicating it. Why I dont know,maybe its just because you like an argument
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Agreed - but we vaccinate selectively.If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:57 pmRemember that seasonal flu only infects between 5-20% of the population each year. Even without a vaccine it would be rare for it to top 30%. Without draconian containment measures (Italy/China) Covid-19 will likely infect 50-80%.
It's not just the higher case fatality rate of Covid-19 to consider, it's the likely higher total case numbers, too.
Like I say, I think that's really complicated analysis.
Re: Coronavirus
Of course vaccines stop you getting infections but some are better than others. The reasons we have eradicated small pox and polio is because of vaccines. Because flu mutates and most years changes a bit and other times changes a lot there is a lot of immunity most years but when the virus changes significantly there is little herd immunity and pandemics occur. This seasons flu vaccine is about 45% effective against the present virus in circulation
Covid-19 is a result of a new strain of virus for which there is little or no herd immunity although a number (maybe large or small) of folk may not have the make up to become infected like some with HIV.
Covid-19 is a result of a new strain of virus for which there is little or no herd immunity although a number (maybe large or small) of folk may not have the make up to become infected like some with HIV.
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
That's another problem. As you say, polio and smallpox have been eliminated but only with the help of very efficient vaccines. We haven't got a vaccine for this, and until we do, there isn't a chance of eliminating it.
So how long do emergency measures delay it for? If, as they say, 40 million of us are going to get it, and they can reduce the incidence to 1 million per year by emergency measures, do we stay in lockdown for 40 years?
We can only do this short term. We can't tank the economy in a bid to defeat Coronavirus because if we do, people will die of all the other diseases we can't afford to treat.
-
- Posts: 3981
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 853 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
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.dsr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:46 amThat's another problem. As you say, polio and smallpox have been eliminated but only with the help of very efficient vaccines. We haven't got a vaccine for this, and until we do, there isn't a chance of eliminating it.
So how long do emergency measures delay it for? If, as they say, 40 million of us are going to get it, and they can reduce the incidence to 1 million per year by emergency measures, do we stay in lockdown for 40 years?
We can only do this short term. We can't tank the economy in a bid to defeat Coronavirus because if we do, people will die of all the other diseases we can't afford to treat.
This user liked this post: CombatClaret
-
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 365 times
Re: Coronavirus
US bans travellers from Europe for 30 days.
However their own citizen can travel back, does that sound sensible?
However their own citizen can travel back, does that sound sensible?
-
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2589 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: Coronavirus
I think dsr has a point. It is only a delay tactic, almost everyone will get it. The idea you can ‘lockdown’ the planet for weeks until it dies off is ludicrously fanciful.
Once China gets back to work, it’s flaring up again there no doubt, same in Italy.
Once China gets back to work, it’s flaring up again there no doubt, same in Italy.
-
- Posts: 4381
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1825 times
- Has Liked: 929 times
Re: Coronavirus
We're only toward the bottom because of time not our precautions or lack of, we're showing exactly the same 33% growth rate as pre-lock down Italy just 13 days behind.
-
- Posts: 17774
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4044 times
- Has Liked: 1846 times
Re: Coronavirus
Presumably those returning citizens will be checkedLoyalclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:01 amUS bans travellers from Europe for 30 days.
However their own citizen can travel back, does that sound sensible?
and/or isolated.
This user liked this post: Loyalclaret
Re: Coronavirus
CombatClaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:03 amWe're only toward the bottom because of time not our precautions or lack of, we're showing exactly the same 33% growth rate as pre-lock down Italy just 13 days behind.
Absolutely spot on . You will upset the naive face in sand burrowers with these statements though.
These 2 users liked this post: thatdberight paulatky
Re: Coronavirus
Please can I ask how far behind the curve is the UK from Italy? China?If it be your will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:19 pmUnless 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.
Considering that the UK is considered to be behind these countries in terms of infections, but our rate of infection has been demonstrated on numerous curves and charts to be similar them, please could you tell me why they haven't experienced over 1M deaths in China? That order of magnitude is massive.
For the record, saying that Covid-19 is not dissimilar to influenza is not incorrect because the stats don't match up - the method of spread and infection are similar; the effects on the body are similar; and in the early days of this it was considered (and I believe it still is) that when we look back with hindsight in 12 months time the infection rates and death rates may also be similar too, but there are currently too many unknowns to accurately predict that. So calling me out for saying previously that this is not too dissimilar to influenza is disingenuous.
Also for the record, there are so many on this thread who are quoting and using statistics, one even claims to have a degree in it yet they have demonstrated clearly that they do not understand how the numbers work. My expertise is with applied mathematics whereas statistics is classified as pure mathematics. The following quotation is interesting regarding the difference between them:
"The easiest way to think of it is that pure maths is maths done for its own sake, while applied maths is maths with a practical use.
You could also think about how maths relates to other subjects and to the real world. Applied maths tries to model, predict and explain things in the real world: for example, one area of applied mathematics is fluid mechanics, which analyses how fluids are affected by forces. Other examples of applied maths might be statistics or probability theory.
Pure maths, on the other hand, is separate from the physical world. It solves problems, finds facts and answers questions that don’t depend on the world around us, but on the rules of mathematics itself."
We have 2 extremes on this thread, those quoting stats of Armageddon and the apocalypse; and those who are pragmatic and don't appear to care and aren't worried at all - the former are placing all their faith in Pure Maths without considering the Applied Maths of the problem, like the latter appear to be doing. There is a "happy" medium people...
I thought it was interesting
This user liked this post: Gordaleman
Re: Coronavirus
I have another question that I think is interesting to consider.
At what point do we start putting red crosses on your door at home? and who will be driving the cart to collect your dead?
Seriously though, I personally want to get this virus and get over it ASAP so that I am allowed to go outside and not worry about it anymore... but that raises another question - how will people who have had this and recovered identify themselves...? Will they need a bar-code tattoo or something to allow them to travel etc...?
At what point do we start putting red crosses on your door at home? and who will be driving the cart to collect your dead?
Seriously though, I personally want to get this virus and get over it ASAP so that I am allowed to go outside and not worry about it anymore... but that raises another question - how will people who have had this and recovered identify themselves...? Will they need a bar-code tattoo or something to allow them to travel etc...?
Re: Coronavirus
That assumes there is no re-infection.Zlatan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:09 amI have another question that I think is interesting to consider.
At what point do we start putting red crosses on your door at home? and who will be driving the cart to collect your dead?
Seriously though, I personally want to get this virus and get over it ASAP so that I am allowed to go outside and not worry about it anymore... but that raises another question - how will people who have had this and recovered identify themselves...? Will they need a bar-code tattoo or something to allow them to travel etc...?
It is thought re-infection rates could be upto 15%
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Who has stated that? I've only seen evidence that the re-infections are where the patient has not actually been cleared properly following infection. Granted there will be a small number of cases where people are re-infected, but it is most likely that this is people who have suppressed immune systems.
Re: Coronavirus
Exactly what I said 5 days ago.CombatClaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:03 amWe're only toward the bottom because of time not our precautions or lack of, we're showing exactly the same 33% growth rate as pre-lock down Italy just 13 days behind.
Expect you will get ridiculed by Grumps like I did.
Re: Coronavirus
Don't think I ridiculed anyone,just questioned their theory.
I for one will be leaving this thread alone from now on , iam fed up of being misquoted to make others look good.
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Coronavirus
Tom Hanks confirmed as having coronavirus.