Coronavirus

[jimmyp]

6 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

If your relatively healthy and 21 more like 1 in a 1000,00 chance of death than 1 in 10000, more chance of being runover or dying through an alternative disease.

If your fit healthy or young, your chances of living are very high I would agree.

6 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

  Not to say its a joke, because its not for those who die but I agree the restrictions are only beneficial for those who need them if you don't your basically just getting the negative effects for something that doesn't impact you. 

Is having a fully functioning NHS not of benefit to you? 

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

If you have no idea why are you using those figures to work out the infection fatality rate?

Who said anything about infection fatality rate?

[jimmyp]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Who said anything about infection fatality rate?

So to clarify, your just confirming that 21 people under 19 have died from covid-19. 

Thanks for that input. 

Very helpful for a conversation about your chances of death from a virus if your 21 years old.

 

[Albert]

5 hours ago, Andicis said:

You plucked a number of death figures from the air, how are you any different from me? Fit your agenda though, didn't it.

They didn't. They were using an estimate based on how the death rate changed with previous lockdowns. The same can be applied to the current lockdown too. Based on the trends seen after first the tier system, then the lockdown, as many as 15k deaths may have been averted already just from the current restrictions, this being from the trend seen in September and October. 

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

What good did lockdown do and why are we coming out of it?!? 

According to this more of the country will be living under harsher conditions than before we went into lockdown.

 

 

Well, the trend has been turned, and cases are indeed going down now. That surely is a positive. Things were already slowing with the tier system, and properly managed they may be able to keep that going and use this as an exit strategy, which would be nice. 

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

''If there had been no lockdowns and everyone had just gone about their merry way, we would have been looking at upwards of a quarter of a million deaths.''

In what way is that an OFFICIAL statistic Eddie. Be as condescending as you like though. 

You know what my agenda is? Actually being able to get a job and being able to live my life, which I've not been able to do for 2020, for a virus with a less than 0.01% chance of killing me. 

 

57 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its much lower at a guess.

Under 19s is roughly 0.0000013%

The CDC provide estimates for the IFR for particular age groups based on current data. They are as follows [Source]:

0-19 years: 0.003%

20-49 years: 0.02%

50-69 years: 0.5%

70+ years: 5.4%

So, @Andicis' estimate for their risk of dying is in the right ball park. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

Those rules eh...when applied to pub and restaurants, the tiers make a great deal of difference. When it comes to the gym it barely does, I thought we were supposed to keep fit to fight the virus. One day it might make sense but for now, not a lot...

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

They didn't. They were using an estimate based on how the death rate changed with previous lockdowns. The same can be applied to the current lockdown too. Based on the trends seen after first the tier system, then the lockdown, as many as 15k deaths may have been averted already just from the current restrictions, this being from the trend seen in September and October. 

Well, the trend has been turned, and cases are indeed going down now. That surely is a positive. Things were already slowing with the tier system, and properly managed they may be able to keep that going and use this as an exit strategy, which would be nice. 

 

The CDC provide estimates for the IFR for particular age groups based on current data. They are as follows [Source]:

0-19 years: 0.003%

20-49 years: 0.02%

50-69 years: 0.5%

70+ years: 5.4%

So, @Andicis' estimate for their risk of dying is in the right ball park. 

Thanks Albert, those were the figures I was after out of curiosity. 

[G STAR RAM]

15 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So to clarify, your just confirming that 21 people under 19 have died from covid-19. 

Thanks for that input. 

Very helpful for a conversation about your chances of death from a virus if your 21 years old.

 

Yep and 17 of them had underlying health conditions.

So as sad as it is that 4 people died I dont think the chances of under 19s dying from the disease even warrants discussion.

Plus at no point in time did @Andicismention IFR, you introduced that into the discussion afterwards.

[rammieib]

2 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

Your situation really sucks matey and you have my sympathy and wishes that it gets better soon.

I don't have any answers. People who are sure that we should do this or do that lose me because nobody knows. Both sides of the argument can make a solid case and people suffer either way.

But the point I wanted to make is this.

Can you imagine if Johnson had come out and said, 'I'm suggesting that members of the Government take a 10% pay cut and MPs in general agree to a 5% pay cut to show our solidarity with front line workers both in the healthcare sector, first responders and even supermarket workers' how revered he'd be?

None of them would end up hungry or lose their houses, but they would demonstrate real compassion and leadership.

Any MP who is okay with getting a 4% increase as pay freezes are implemented for people on the front line should be voted out.

But of course, it doesn't work like that which is why a failed businessman who lost an election by 5 million votes is still supported by 70+ million Americans and claiming he won.

Hugs to your wife.

 

Thanks Bob. We’re also very lucky and appreciate that fact. My parents live in the same village and although they stay safe they do realise life isn’t for being locked up. They pick our 5-year old up and we’re there most days and they have no issue. My wife talks to my family more than I do!

I’m pretty safe work wise and earn a good salary, my wife has a good maternity scheme from her company and I believe is also sage for when she goes back next April. We have a decent house, a garden and our school for the 5-year old has been pretty good throughout as well. 

Just obviously for my wife who is really family orientated, who would go back to Dublin every six weeks but has now been trapped at home for a while with a six month old, I do feel for her.

I just want to be clear we have a lot more than others, are very grateful and appreciative for that and have good health.

For what it’s worth, I think there would be quite a few MP’s out there who actually share your view completely and would turn this pay rise down without blinking. I don’t tarnish them all with the same brush.

[Norman]

Serious question. 

Does being clinically obese count as an underlying health condition?

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yep and 17 of them had underlying health conditions.

So as sad as it is that 4 people died I dont think the chances of under 19s dying from the disease even warrants discussion.

Plus at no point in time did @Andicismention IFR, you introduced that into the discussion afterwards.

Why did you start talking about under 19’s then? 

I asked Andicis a question out of curiosity, he gave a figure that I hadn’t seen before, I asked him if he had a link  as I thought the figure was incorrect. He then highlighted the point he was making and I agreed with him. 

None of that really matters now as Albert has posted the figures that Andicis and I were discussing, at least I presumed that’s the figure we were discussing, after all Andicis was way closer to the actual figure than yours. 

 

 

 

 

[rammieib]

From the States:

 

[jimmyp]

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Why did you start talking about under 19’s then? 

I asked Andicis a question out of curiosity, he gave a figure that I hadn’t seen before, I asked him if he had a link  as I thought the figure was incorrect. He then highlighted the point he was making and I agreed with him. 

None of that really matters now as Albert has posted the figures that Andicis and I were discussing, at least I presumed that’s the figure we were discussing, after all Andicis was way closer to the actual figure than yours. 

 

 

 

 

Edit I didn’t ask him if he had a link, I just asked how he came to that figure

[Angry Ram]

13 minutes ago, Norman said:

Serious question. 

Does being clinically obese count as an underlying health condition?

I would say yes.

[Albert]

28 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yep and 17 of them had underlying health conditions.

So as sad as it is that 4 people died I dont think the chances of under 19s dying from the disease even warrants discussion.

Plus at no point in time did @Andicismention IFR, you introduced that into the discussion afterwards.

@Andicis noted their risk of death, that figure is about infection fatality ratio, hence people started discussing it. 

19 minutes ago, Norman said:

Serious question. 

Does being clinically obese count as an underlying health condition?

Yes, as does asthma. 

11 minutes ago, rammieib said:

From the States:

 

Wow, raw figures without context or comparison of other restrictions. How enlightening. 

[Marriot Ram99]

1 hour ago, jimmyp said:

If your fit healthy or young, your chances of living are very high I would agree.

Is having a fully functioning NHS not of benefit to you? 

I suppose if I need it in an emergency or unforseen circumstance than yes it would be, can't take health for granted even at a young age its just the restrictions are pretty frustrating in relation to the risk for most people. 

[Albert]

17 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

I suppose if I need it in an emergency or unforseen circumstance than yes it would be, can't take health for granted even at a young age its just the restrictions are pretty frustrating in relation to the risk for most people. 

The risks for most people are far more than just the immediate risk of them dying when they have the virus. 

We are still learning about how the long term complications can be. Emerging evidence suggests young, healthy people, even asymptomatic, can suffer some level of organ damage, that alone should be concerning, and not worth the risk at this point in time. 

More than that, the NHS being under pressure prevents a lot of elective and preventative medicine, which will have long term ramifications, even for young people. 

Then there's the costs associated with cleaning up the damage this will have on people that it does more damage too, particularly concerns around changes in spending habits. Those economic consequences are there with or without the lockdowns. 

There's a reason that countries that controlled the virus are doing so well in comparison to others. The issue is that the lame duck strategies of the UK have condemned people to this fate. 

[Stive Pesley]

4 hours ago, maxjam said:

It also appears that we're all destined to end up stuck in tier 2 at best...

 

 

I was saying similar to a friend the other day - the one thing guaranteed about the freedoms of tier 1 is that they lead to more infections and tier 2

But I disagree with that "Tier 2 is your destiny" comment. Surely the aim is to get the infection rate down to the point where you can go to Tier 1 and everyone gets a couple of months to feel alive again (and spend money in the all important economy) while the infection numbers inevitably creep up again. Surely the destiny is to get to Tier 1 just for a bit!

Much like we did in March-June locked down, and then July-October we were all largely tier 1 for a while

Because the alternative is that we all just stay at tier 2 indefinitely, and that's not palatable mentally or economically

 

 

 

 

 

[Albert]

33 minutes ago, Albert said:

The risks for most people are far more than just the immediate risk of them dying when they have the virus. 

We are still learning about how the long term complications can be. Emerging evidence suggests young, healthy people, even asymptomatic, can suffer some level of organ damage, that alone should be concerning, and not worth the risk at this point in time. 

More than that, the NHS being under pressure prevents a lot of elective and preventative medicine, which will have long term ramifications, even for young people. 

Then there's the costs associated with cleaning up the damage this will have on people that it does more damage too, particularly concerns around changes in spending habits. Those economic consequences are there with or without the lockdowns. 

There's a reason that countries that controlled the virus are doing so well in comparison to others. The issue is that the lame duck strategies of the UK have condemned people to this fate. 

Yikes, I really don't know why @Archied keeps posting laughing reactions at discussions of people dying, suffering and losing their livelihoods. Seems pretty cruel to me. 

[B4ev6is]

5 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Won’t work like that though.  You can’t mix households in restaurants and bars still have to serve food. 
it seems it have exited this recent lockdown in a worse tier than when I started. 
Remind me why we locked down again. 
 

So them lot poputaltions can go out and to fine dining places no wander london only 0n teir 2 so there things can go ahead.

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Albert said:

Yikes, I really don't know why @Archied keeps posting laughing reactions at discussions of people dying, suffering and losing their livelihoods. Seems pretty cruel to me. 

Yes , it’s almost like I’m a selfish granny killer isn’t it ? No way I could be laughing at your transparency