|
Post by Blueside on Mar 12, 2020 15:08:25 GMT
The problem with this is that recent modelling estimated that under a do nothing scenario in the UK there could be up to 1 in 5 people infected with it at any one time. So in a population of say 50,000,000 that is 1M people. It is further estimated that up to 100,000 (10%) of these could be hospitalized or could need ITU care which would include clinical oxygen. This country does not have that resource. So, to say that we we'll just carry on isn't quite true. There currently seems to be a worryingly wide misunderstanding or confusion between the actual risk to an individual once infected (i.e. the severity of symptoms) compared to how infectious the virus is and therefore how fast it can spread: that is what makes this pandemic a serious issue. Note that the death rate of 897 in 12,000 cases in Italy is 7.5 % which would make that 10% estimate seem perilous, however the death rate in the UK at this earlier stage is currently around 2%. Maths sir. 1 in 5 is 20%. 20% of 50,000,000=10,000,000 not 1M. And our population is 64M plus Oh, Yes! thank you for correcting me. The 50M was used as it is easier to do % with that round number (still couldn't get it right!); The 100,000 number was on 5 Live last night - I guess that is 1% of 10M which was the projected death rate estimated a few weeks ago. So if 1% is the death rate, then using that 1 in 5 number and a more accurate population figure, those needing ITU will actually be a lot higher than 100,000 (Think i'm right this time?) . Rushed the previous post as I am at work although still finding time to respond!
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 12, 2020 15:09:23 GMT
No. Not that I know of. But that doesn't mean I don't care. I'm sure you care, but the old "we'll get over it" line does kind of make it seem like you don't? Well I'm sorry you read it like that.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 12, 2020 15:12:22 GMT
You can quote me all you like, but nothing of what I've said shows I don't care. And opinions are formed on many things. But you carry on. Well the level of misinformation you’re spreading and upholding does suggest that you don’t care. People have put facts to you, but you still argue against, based on what? Seems odd to me. What information have I been spreading that suggests I don't care? Have I actually said I don't care? Anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 12, 2020 15:12:44 GMT
"the figures are meaningless", "it only effects those in ill health, or aged", "more die of flu than this, it's gotten ridiculous" and "can you put a figure against that?" But of course, "that doesn't mean I don't care" Sounds really empathetic of someone who's opinion is clearly well informed on the matter. You can quote me all you like, but nothing of what I've said shows I don't care. And opinions are formed on many things. But you carry on. The spread of misinformation suggests otherwise. Do you mind telling me how and where you've formed your 'opinions' on: - the figures are meaningless - it only effects those in ill health, or aged"
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 12, 2020 15:14:55 GMT
Well the level of misinformation you’re spreading and upholding does suggest that you don’t care. People have put facts to you, but you still argue against, based on what? Seems odd to me. What information have I been spreading that suggests I don't care? Have I actually said I don't care? Anywhere? Sorry, just deleted the post to re-write it. Bad timing. The information of saying it only effects the ill, or aged. That's simply not true. It also comes across that you're looking down them.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 12, 2020 15:15:28 GMT
Almost certainly. The EFL should subsidise the hit or postpone games, not just play them behind closed doors With what money? Doesn't the EFL's money come from the clubs, or at least any excess money it generates end up at the clubs?
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Mar 12, 2020 15:21:01 GMT
Be interesting to see which clubs are as this discussion is going the most at risk teams to succumb to coronavirus. Imagine oldham and macclesfield.must be in the high category
|
|
|
Post by nickchippenhamgas on Mar 12, 2020 15:22:52 GMT
Are they going to shut London Underground? 5/6 million people a day in very very close proximity answer NO, buses and trains NO Struggling third tier football teams with 6/7 thousand YES!! Makes no sense to me, massive disproportionate response and mass panic for what? Flu kills more people every year, we’re going around like Russia has dropped some nukes on us, the reason they come up with measures like “behind closed doors” football matches is because it makes them look tough, and doesn’t affect London .
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 12, 2020 15:23:18 GMT
What information have I been spreading that suggests I don't care? Have I actually said I don't care? Anywhere? Sorry, just deleted the post to re-write it. Bad timing. The information of saying it only effects the ill, or aged. That's simply not true. It also comes across that you're looking down them. Looking down on them? You seriously think I'm the sort of person that would do that? Wow. Doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 12, 2020 15:26:06 GMT
Jeez some of you.
1. this isn't instead of flu, it's on top of flu. 2. its worse than flu - it has a much, much higher death and hospitalisation rate 3. its more contageous than flu 4. unlike flu, we have no natural immunity, and no vaccine. There's a reason why vulnerable people are vaccinated against new strains of flu every year. 5. Vulnerable people are not those 'about to die anyway' or anything like it, so cannot just be discounted. I'm thinking of my mum, who has 20+ years of decent life ahead that she could be robbed of, my friend in his 40's with diabeties, or my friend in her 30's with severe asthma, who are given flu jabs. They can otherwise expect to live full lives but may die early because of this. 6. By slowing the spread of the virus, we can prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by peaks of infection. Evidence shows that if the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, then the fatality rate can be up to 10 times lower than if it is overwhelmed. That's potentially 10s of thousands of lives saved, millions across the world.
Don't be selfish, wash your hands and avoid large gatherings.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Mar 12, 2020 15:28:06 GMT
Euro 2020 postponed till next year apparently.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 12, 2020 15:32:28 GMT
Flu kills more people every year, Does it? How do you know? The pandemic has only just started. I'll bet you a fiver that this kills at least 20 times more people this year across the world than flu does in an average year. And this is as well as flu, not instead of!
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Mar 12, 2020 15:32:30 GMT
Jeez some of you. 1. this isn't instead of flu, it's on top of flu. 2. its worse than flu - it has a much, much higher death and hospitalisation rate 3. its more contageous than flu 4. unlike flu, we have no natural immunity, and no vaccine. There's a reason why vulnerable people are vaccinated against new strains of flu every year. 5. Vulnerable people are not those 'about to die anyway' or anything like it, so cannot just be discounted. I'm thinking of my mum, who has 20+ years of decent life ahead that she could be robbed of, my friend in his 40's with diabeties, or my friend in her 30's with severe asthma, who are given flu jabs. They can otherwise expect to live full lives but may die early because of this. 6. By delaying the spread of the virus, we can prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by peaks of infection. Evidence shows that if the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, then the fatality rate can be up to a 10th lower than if it is overwhelmed. That's potentially 10s of thousands of lives saved, millions across the world. Don't be selfish, wash your hands and avoid large gathering. Agree with all of this except point 2. I believe your point 2 is wrong, See my previous post, flu currently kills more and the death rate is higher, however as I said in my post, your point 3 is the key to why this virus is such a concern. EDIT, to clarify mine and I suspect a few others stats, my post referring to death rate means the percentage of deaths of those who are confirmed as infected, not a percentage of the total population or the total number of UK or world deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Mar 12, 2020 15:33:05 GMT
Are they going to shut London Underground? 5/6 million people a day in very very close proximity answer NO, buses and trains NO Struggling third tier football teams with 6/7 thousand YES!! Makes no sense to me, massive disproportionate response and mass panic for what? Flu kills more people every year, we’re going around like Russia has dropped some nukes on us, the reason they come up with measures like “behind closed doors” football matches is because it makes them look tough, and doesn’t affect London . Does the phrase managing risk mean anything to you? Risk is always managed to be "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Currently (and who says it won't change) it is not reasonably practicable to close down the London Underground. It IS reasonably practicable to close down public events for entertainment only. Yes this will have implications, but nowhere near the scale of implications if public transport networks were suspended.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 12, 2020 15:38:03 GMT
Jeez some of you. 1. this isn't instead of flu, it's on top of flu. 2. its worse than flu - it has a much, much higher death and hospitalisation rate 3. its more contageous than flu 4. unlike flu, we have no natural immunity, and no vaccine. There's a reason why vulnerable people are vaccinated against new strains of flu every year. 5. Vulnerable people are not those 'about to die anyway' or anything like it, so cannot just be discounted. I'm thinking of my mum, who has 20+ years of decent life ahead that she could be robbed of, my friend in his 40's with diabeties, or my friend in her 30's with severe asthma, who are given flu jabs. They can otherwise expect to live full lives but may die early because of this. 6. By delaying the spread of the virus, we can prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by peaks of infection. Evidence shows that if the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, then the fatality rate can be up to a 10th lower than if it is overwhelmed. That's potentially 10s of thousands of lives saved, millions across the world. Don't be selfish, wash your hands and avoid large gathering. Agree with all of this except point 2. I believe your point 2 is wrong, See my previous post, flu currently kills more and the death rate is higher, however as I said in my post, your point 3 is the key to why this virus is such a concern. where you getting that from dude? Flu death rate around 0.1% of known infections, hospitalisation rate around 1%. Corvid-19 death rate around 2% of known infections, hospitalisation rate around 5%. Current best estimates
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Mar 12, 2020 15:38:33 GMT
Are they going to shut London Underground? 5/6 million people a day in very very close proximity answer NO, buses and trains NO Struggling third tier football teams with 6/7 thousand YES!! Makes no sense to me, massive disproportionate response and mass panic for what? Flu kills more people every year, we’re going around like Russia has dropped some nukes on us, the reason they come up with measures like “behind closed doors” football matches is because it makes them look tough, and doesn’t affect London . Does the phrase managing risk mean anything to you? Risk is always managed to be "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Currently (and who says it won't change) it is not reasonably practicable to close down the London Underground. It IS reasonably practicable to close down public events for entertainment only. Yes this will have implications, but nowhere near the scale of implications if public transport networks were suspended. We become victims of our insignificance!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 15:39:12 GMT
Are they going to shut London Underground? 5/6 million people a day in very very close proximity answer NO, buses and trains NO Struggling third tier football teams with 6/7 thousand YES!! Makes no sense to me, massive disproportionate response and mass panic for what? Flu kills more people every year, we’re going around like Russia has dropped some nukes on us, the reason they come up with measures like “behind closed doors” football matches is because it makes them look tough, and doesn’t affect London . Does the phrase managing risk mean anything to you? Risk is always managed to be "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Currently (and who says it won't change) it is not reasonably practicable to close down the London Underground. It IS reasonably practicable to close down public events for entertainment only. Yes this will have implications, but nowhere near the scale of implications if public transport networks were suspended. Now, now, calm, logical fact based opinion. Whatever next?
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Mar 12, 2020 15:39:16 GMT
Does the phrase managing risk mean anything to you? Risk is always managed to be "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Currently (and who says it won't change) it is not reasonably practicable to close down the London Underground. It IS reasonably practicable to close down public events for entertainment only. Yes this will have implications, but nowhere near the scale of implications if public transport networks were suspended. We become victims of our insignificance! Exactly. Sad but true and also as hard as it is to admit, it would be the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by nickchippenhamgas on Mar 12, 2020 15:40:22 GMT
Jeez some of you. 1. this isn't instead of flu, it's on top of flu. 2. its worse than flu - it has a much, much higher death and hospitalisation rate 3. its more contageous than flu 4. unlike flu, we have no natural immunity, and no vaccine. There's a reason why vulnerable people are vaccinated against new strains of flu every year. 5. Vulnerable people are not those 'about to die anyway' or anything like it, so cannot just be discounted. I'm thinking of my mum, who has 20+ years of decent life ahead that she could be robbed of, my friend in his 40's with diabeties, or my friend in her 30's with severe asthma, who are given flu jabs. They can otherwise expect to live full lives but may die early because of this. 6. By delaying the spread of the virus, we can prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by peaks of infection. Evidence shows that if the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, then the fatality rate can be up to a 10th lower than if it is overwhelmed. That's potentially 10s of thousands of lives saved, millions across the world. Don't be selfish, wash your hands and avoid large gathering. Agree with all of this except point 2. I believe your point 2 is wrong, See my previous post, flu currently kills more and the death rate is higher, however as I said in my post, your point 3 is the key to why this virus is such a concern. flu kills 600 people a year in this country and infects around 600,000 people, as of Tuesday night I was watching news programs saying apocalyptic things with 6 deaths with the peak expected around easter time I’m not making light of it but the figures do add up, and tell me why London Underground is still operating? Us playing some meaningless end of season matches behind closed doors will stop nothing,
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Mar 12, 2020 15:42:56 GMT
Agree with all of this except point 2. I believe your point 2 is wrong, See my previous post, flu currently kills more and the death rate is higher, however as I said in my post, your point 3 is the key to why this virus is such a concern. where you getting that from dude? Flu death rate around 0.1% of known infections, hospitalisation rate around 1%. Corvid-19 death rate around 2% of known infections, hospitalisation rate around 5%. Current best estimates Facts are always best. I thought I had read the death rates earlier last month - I can't remember the source (maybe it was a prediction?) so will stand corrected on the flu death rate. Thus I agree with all your points!
|
|