Can You Appreciate This Foreign Language...
Music6 mins ago
Covid19 Death Rates Of 0.05% To 0.1%
Do the death rates of 0.05% and lower, to highs of 0.1% depending on the area, do they really warrant the draconian measures imposed upon the population of many countries.
Further to that, from my personal experience, which is a small town, although restrictions were imposed, it seemed as busy as any time when out and about in shops etc. yet no one in the area got the disease and the death rate is zero in the larger area.
That follows in line with the 0.05% and lower death rates worldwide.
Further to that, from my personal experience, which is a small town, although restrictions were imposed, it seemed as busy as any time when out and about in shops etc. yet no one in the area got the disease and the death rate is zero in the larger area.
That follows in line with the 0.05% and lower death rates worldwide.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Johnson ignored Valances' advice to begin with. Cos Johnson wants to ruin this country. That's the only good job he's doing right now. He knows he's ruining it and he doesn't care. He's said as much in his briefings. //
Are you not contradicting yourself there 10CS? Should Johnson have ignored Vallance's advice or not?
Are you not contradicting yourself there 10CS? Should Johnson have ignored Vallance's advice or not?
No one knows for sure and authorities aren't prepared to take the risk (I think Sweden is realising they were a bit lax). Authorities are trying to walk the line, finding the best compromise and progression they can. Some will stumble upon a better course of action than others, to their good fortune.
Yes, that's what I meant in my first post. In a year's time we'll have a lot more data and knowledge and with the benefit of hindsight will probably realise we could have done quite a few things differently. It would have been a brave government to take the risk of the health service being completely overrun.
I think flobadob is just saying that a more targeted approach may have been sufficient. (Shielding of over 70s and those with heart, breathing, diabetes, dementia, test all care homes residents and staff weekly, maybe just stop large gatherings such as concerts, theatres, restrict use of public transport, social distancing for all in all shops, hairdressers only open for under 60s, maybe some stronger BAME guidance).
With hindsight that may be the conclusion.
I think Gromit's world figures need to be treated carefully. I do not believe that many countries know or are telling us their figures.
If we use Europe and US the excess deaths figures suggest around 1 in a 1000 people have died due in some way to Covid in the last 3 months. That seems a lot to me in 3 months. We certainly had to act
With hindsight that may be the conclusion.
I think Gromit's world figures need to be treated carefully. I do not believe that many countries know or are telling us their figures.
If we use Europe and US the excess deaths figures suggest around 1 in a 1000 people have died due in some way to Covid in the last 3 months. That seems a lot to me in 3 months. We certainly had to act
Sorry Gromit, my 1 in 1000 figure is overstating things for USA (outside New York at least), but may not be too far out for UK, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, France when full excess mortality figures are used.
The success stories suggest to me that countries who locked down early did best- China (Wuhan), S Korea, Germany, Australia/NZ- and UK was probably a few weeks too late and our people less compliant. I think Gromit may agree with that I'm not sure there is any evidence that lockdowns have been ineffective or an overreaction but as I said earlier we may conclude that a more targeted quicker approach coupled with better early testing would have saved lives and reduced the impact on the economy.
The success stories suggest to me that countries who locked down early did best- China (Wuhan), S Korea, Germany, Australia/NZ- and UK was probably a few weeks too late and our people less compliant. I think Gromit may agree with that I'm not sure there is any evidence that lockdowns have been ineffective or an overreaction but as I said earlier we may conclude that a more targeted quicker approach coupled with better early testing would have saved lives and reduced the impact on the economy.
It's misleading to compare total deaths so far to the entire population, for two reasons:
1. Not everybody in the world has had Covid-19;
2. Not everybody who will die of/from/with Covid-19 has done so yet.
What's more important in assessing the risk is, for example, looking at the speed of deaths compared to what could be expected. And in that regard it does seem that the draconian measures were well-motivated. It will never be possible to be certain on this, but it's hard to take seriously the suggestion that lockdowns and enhanced social distancing measures didn't help to bring the disease under control. Yes, there is good evidence now that the disease was a serious threat only to the older or those with certain underlying conditions, eg diabetes or heart problems, but Governments could hardly *not* act to ward off the possibility of something far worse.
1. Not everybody in the world has had Covid-19;
2. Not everybody who will die of/from/with Covid-19 has done so yet.
What's more important in assessing the risk is, for example, looking at the speed of deaths compared to what could be expected. And in that regard it does seem that the draconian measures were well-motivated. It will never be possible to be certain on this, but it's hard to take seriously the suggestion that lockdowns and enhanced social distancing measures didn't help to bring the disease under control. Yes, there is good evidence now that the disease was a serious threat only to the older or those with certain underlying conditions, eg diabetes or heart problems, but Governments could hardly *not* act to ward off the possibility of something far worse.
//No. Chris Whitty , Patrick Vallance, Jenny Harries made it up.//
They may not have made it up but at best it was a “guestimate”. To calculate the “R” factor you need to know how many people have been infected. Nobody knows how many have it or have had it. They’ve taken a stab at it by extrapolating some sample testing data but that, too, is a shot in the dark. There are estimates that up to ten times as many people have been infected than the official figure of 281k. I can quite believe that and it means that to quote the R factor with such confidence is nothing more than educated guesswork. That wouldn’t matter too much except that some far-reaching decisions which have long term implications for individuals and the country as a whole are being made on the basis of that guesswork.
It is fast becoming obvious that the cure is causing more damage than the disease (a fear I had from the beginning). The economy has already been trashed almost beyond repair but there are now reports that serious damage to people’s health is being inflicted by concentrating on Covid to such a degree that “ordinary” afflictions (such and cancer, lung and heart disease) are being neglected. I know of one person whose chemo treatment was stopped in March when she was halfway through it. She is not being considered for a resumption before August. Whether her condition remains treatable by then is anybody’s guess but of course if she dies it will be OK because it won’t be down to the virus. I think the bigger question now is who exactly is the lockdown and other restrictive measures supposed to be protecting?
//If we use Europe and US the excess deaths figures suggest around 1 in a 1000 people have died due in some way to Covid in the last 3 months.//
So one in 250 over a year. In the UK approximately one in a hundred of the population die every year.
They may not have made it up but at best it was a “guestimate”. To calculate the “R” factor you need to know how many people have been infected. Nobody knows how many have it or have had it. They’ve taken a stab at it by extrapolating some sample testing data but that, too, is a shot in the dark. There are estimates that up to ten times as many people have been infected than the official figure of 281k. I can quite believe that and it means that to quote the R factor with such confidence is nothing more than educated guesswork. That wouldn’t matter too much except that some far-reaching decisions which have long term implications for individuals and the country as a whole are being made on the basis of that guesswork.
It is fast becoming obvious that the cure is causing more damage than the disease (a fear I had from the beginning). The economy has already been trashed almost beyond repair but there are now reports that serious damage to people’s health is being inflicted by concentrating on Covid to such a degree that “ordinary” afflictions (such and cancer, lung and heart disease) are being neglected. I know of one person whose chemo treatment was stopped in March when she was halfway through it. She is not being considered for a resumption before August. Whether her condition remains treatable by then is anybody’s guess but of course if she dies it will be OK because it won’t be down to the virus. I think the bigger question now is who exactly is the lockdown and other restrictive measures supposed to be protecting?
//If we use Europe and US the excess deaths figures suggest around 1 in a 1000 people have died due in some way to Covid in the last 3 months.//
So one in 250 over a year. In the UK approximately one in a hundred of the population die every year.
// I know of one person whose chemo treatment was stopped in March ... of course if she dies it will be OK because it won’t be down to the virus.//
It clearly won't be OK, but you knew that already. The risk of collateral damage (a horribly cold way of putting it) from Covid-inspired policy was always going to be high, but that doesn't mean that the policy itself wasn't well-motivated. A novel disease that was known to kill in fairly large numbers posed an immediate threat, and needed a response. It's sad but inevitable that rushed responses will have unintended consequences.
The question becomes what would have happened had there been no response -- or, perhaps more reasonably, no government-led response. It's difficult to assess that but it stands to reason that allowing a disease to spread more widely will lead to more people dying.
It clearly won't be OK, but you knew that already. The risk of collateral damage (a horribly cold way of putting it) from Covid-inspired policy was always going to be high, but that doesn't mean that the policy itself wasn't well-motivated. A novel disease that was known to kill in fairly large numbers posed an immediate threat, and needed a response. It's sad but inevitable that rushed responses will have unintended consequences.
The question becomes what would have happened had there been no response -- or, perhaps more reasonably, no government-led response. It's difficult to assess that but it stands to reason that allowing a disease to spread more widely will lead to more people dying.
//The question becomes what would have happened had there been no response -- or, perhaps more reasonably, no government-led response.//
Nobody knows. I don't think the lockdown policy was a rip roaring success. The second highest number of deaths in the world (second only to a country with five times the population) and an infection rate still at around 2,000 a day despite 10 weeks of restrictions. What is known is the effect the lockdown has had on the economy and what is becoming clear is the effect it has had on treating or preventing other illnesses. As I said, it is rapidly becoming evident that the cure is turning out to be more harmful than the disease, which was always likely.
Nobody knows. I don't think the lockdown policy was a rip roaring success. The second highest number of deaths in the world (second only to a country with five times the population) and an infection rate still at around 2,000 a day despite 10 weeks of restrictions. What is known is the effect the lockdown has had on the economy and what is becoming clear is the effect it has had on treating or preventing other illnesses. As I said, it is rapidly becoming evident that the cure is turning out to be more harmful than the disease, which was always likely.
o god New J on Ro - I knew it was gonna be bad when I saw that
OK babies
//How are those figures calculate please flobadob? 0.05% of what and in what period? The deaths haven't stopped yet and may pick up again,//
we have realised have we not that this is a prevalence innit
The number of infection at present today in a snapshot in ENgland
Not death rate - that remains at 70% in over seventies
we have realised this havent we?
now if it 0.1% prevalence today and then tomorrow it is .35% prevalence - then the incidence which is a rate is .25% per day
Even if we didnt know that - we do now. You subtract ( take) big number from small number and divide by a time interval ( a day or 24 h). The Ro for this increase is over 2 ( a bit more maff but I am calling it a day)
This is what had retro and 3T giggling convulsively a day or so ago because it was so 'funny' ( deffo AB )
and now you can continue - I think I have performed a grand reset on this discussion innit ? - I dont think this discussion is any different to the one we had on 24 Mar - oh xc NJ has stopped tootling about how Sweden has done it all without a lockdown
OK babies
//How are those figures calculate please flobadob? 0.05% of what and in what period? The deaths haven't stopped yet and may pick up again,//
we have realised have we not that this is a prevalence innit
The number of infection at present today in a snapshot in ENgland
Not death rate - that remains at 70% in over seventies
we have realised this havent we?
now if it 0.1% prevalence today and then tomorrow it is .35% prevalence - then the incidence which is a rate is .25% per day
Even if we didnt know that - we do now. You subtract ( take) big number from small number and divide by a time interval ( a day or 24 h). The Ro for this increase is over 2 ( a bit more maff but I am calling it a day)
This is what had retro and 3T giggling convulsively a day or so ago because it was so 'funny' ( deffo AB )
and now you can continue - I think I have performed a grand reset on this discussion innit ? - I dont think this discussion is any different to the one we had on 24 Mar - oh xc NJ has stopped tootling about how Sweden has done it all without a lockdown
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Morgan Freeman Speaks His Mind!
History12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
