Coronavirus

[cstand]

2 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Its Christmas 

Peace on the Coronavirus thread for a day .

[GboroRam]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't remember saying it was?

And I also never said you did, if we're splitting that hair. 

Anyway, back to not posting on this thread for me. If anyone calls you a liar, or racist, or a racist liar, please report it. Or stop complaining about it, one or the other. 

[Guest]

Just now, GboroRam said:

And I also never said you did, if we're splitting that hair. 

Anyway, back to not posting on this thread for me. If anyone calls you a liar, or racist, or a racist liar, please report it. Or stop complaining about it, one or the other. 

I didn't complain about it.

You jumped in one of my posts and then have spent the next hour inventing imaginary scenarios to try and lure me into an argument, well played.

Anyway, back to posting on this thread

 

[Eddie]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

That would equate to 1 in just over cases being hospitalised. 

I know who thought "I must calculate that in a minute and plug the answer in - that'll shut Eddie up" - and then forgot to.

 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Sith Happens said:

Its Christmas 

Happy with that 

[Norman]

4 hours ago, Sith Happens said:

Its Christmas 

This is how I imagine my day at work tomorrow going. 

It probably won't. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I know who thought "I must calculate that in a minute and plug the answer in - that'll shut Eddie up" - and then forgot to.

Think the battery on my calculator must have died!

From memory, the missing number was 8.

Not sure why you think I would want to shut you up?

Find your interpretation of the numbers much more interest and informative than anything that the Government have provided us with in the last 3 months.

[Ghost of Clough]

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Think the battery on my calculator must have died!

From memory, the missing number was 8.

Not sure why you think I would want to shut you up?

Find your interpretation of the numbers much more interest and informative than anything that the Government have provided us with in the last 3 months.

8.4 ?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

8.4 ?

Thank you, could not muster up the energy to look back for the original post.

[Andicis]

On 24/12/2020 at 10:36, Eddie said:

On the contrary, my figures are the number of confirmed deaths (which as of yesterday was 69,051) expressed as a percentage of confirmed cases (which as of yesterday was 2,149,551) which actually comes to 3.21%. 

If we take your ballpark figure (a maximum of 0.5% of cases resulting in deaths) and assuming that the 'official' figure of deaths 'within 28 days of a positive test' is accurate, that would equate to something like 25% of the population on the UK already having had the disease.

 

We all know confirmed cases aren't close to actual cases, regardless as a man who claims to follow the science to claim the death rate is even close to the number you invented would be to ignore all the scientists. None of them think it's even close to the amount you claim. Not. One. It's actually dangerous for you to make such claims, it's embarrassing level fear mongering. Over the entire population, it's 0.5% mortality, as you well know. 

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

We all know confirmed cases aren't close to actual cases, regardless as a man who claims to follow the science to claim the death rate is even close to the number you invented would be to ignore all the scientists. None of them think it's even close to the amount you claim. Not. One. It's actually dangerous for you to make such claims, it's embarrassing level fear mongering. Over the entire population, it's 0.5% mortality, as you well know. 

So, given that 70,000 to 80,000 have died, you are saying that between 14,000,000 and 16,000,000 in the country have already had it.

Basic mathematics. Therefore, given that nobody in the UK has has it twice and died of the second infection,  you are saying that 25% have already been infected. That would mean that we are already one third of the way to 'herd immunity'.

I hope that you are right.

What I utterly resent is people calling me a liar - and you have done precisely that. I took the number of confirmed cases, and expressed the number of confirmed deaths as a percentage of that. That is not invention. 

[tinman]

This is fun

[Albert]

On 24/12/2020 at 00:23, Archied said:

 

Yep and Albert comes on to tell us we would be safer eating a sick bat than being near it breathing as the gut would probably destroy the virus ,,,??? What about the droplets in your mouth ,throat ,hands ,,,,,

This is pretty standard. The issue with zoonoses is being around the animals while they're living usually. 

On 24/12/2020 at 00:23, Archied said:

the prevailing thread through all this is there is an answer for everything that makes no sense the longer we see it and less we fear it and believe , then when that’s running out of legs new stuff is put out , ,kids don’t transmit ,,,my arse there’s never been a virus or bacteria that kids don’t spread like wildfire , now a new strain ( mutant ,big scary word more so than strain) ,won’t affect the vaccine potency ,won’t be more deadly just be wildly more contagious than the most contagious virus we’ve ever seen ( ordinary COVID) so be afraid ,be very afraid ,in fact just be obedient cause if your not afraid of it yourself we are gonna get you with the don’t kill your granny guilt stuff ( anybody getting a vibe of that old time religion yet?)

I agree, this notion that 'kids don't spread' was never really supported by hard date. It was a line pushed by pollies that desperately wanted to keep schools open. As the hard data came in, it suggested the opposite, that kids were a major driver in infections. 

Nobody has ever said that Covid is the most infectious disease ever, it's just more infectious than things like the flu, etc. 

On 24/12/2020 at 00:23, Archied said:

we slate the Jehovah s who would allow loved ones to die over blood transfusion but we are already so conditioned we would and do allow our loved ones to die alone and scared ? let alone live out tail end of live alone ,scared ,feeling unloved ,isolated and abandoned.

never mind conspiracy theories people need to wake up to the fact that we are being dehumanised 

Poor policy dehumanises, you're confusing the UK's failure of a response with some effort to dehumanise people. Don't put down to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence. 

[maxjam]

There is an interesting breakdown of stats in the attached spreadsheet, especially Tab4

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

There is an interesting breakdown of stats in the attached spreadsheet, especially Tab4

I wonder what 'other' relates to primarily - obesity?

Anyway, Ted McMinn's got it now.

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I wonder what 'other' relates to primarily - obesity?

Anyway, Ted McMinn's got it now.

Cancer isnt mentioned i dont think, so will no doubt be included within the 'other' section. But yes probably relates to obesity too.

 

[GboroRam]

38 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Cancer isnt mentioned i dont think, so will no doubt be included within the 'other' section. But yes probably relates to obesity too.

 

I'd imagine most of the diabetics will be type 2 and likely classed as obese in the majority of cases. It shows how unhealthy we are as a nation. 

[Albert]

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

There is an interesting breakdown of stats in the attached spreadsheet, especially Tab4

What's more interesting is the implications of highlighting this. 

Over 60, or have a preexisting conditions makes someone's life not valued? Pre-existing conditions is a very broad term, many of these conditions don't significantly impact lifespan. 

This is also the deaths in hospital, not all deaths. 

[maxjam]

23 minutes ago, Albert said:

What's more interesting is the implications of highlighting this. 

Over 60, or have a preexisting conditions makes someone's life not valued? Pre-existing conditions is a very broad term, many of these conditions don't significantly impact lifespan. 

This is also the deaths in hospital, not all deaths. 

I guess they used 60yo as most people have retired or are seriously thinking about retirement by then.  Less than 2000 ppl have died in total (inc 60-79yo 799 and 80+ 735 age brackets) without existing underlying conditions.  An argument for shielding the elderly/vulnerable whilst keeping people at work.

As for the figures being hospital deaths only, the data states 45,466 deaths in England (not the UK) up to Dec 16th.  How many more deaths in England were there by that date and what were the numbers for people under 60 with no previous underlying conditions? 

I'm betting its a lower percentage than those that died in hospitals given the fact we know care homes were a hotbed for covid certainly during the early days and the later media scare stories about thousands of university students with covid didn't lead to follow up stories of hundreds of them dying.

 

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I guess they used 60yo as most people have retired or are seriously thinking about retirement by then.  Less than 2000 ppl have died in total (inc 60-79yo 799 and 80+ 735 age brackets) without existing underlying conditions.  An argument for shielding the elderly/vulnerable whilst keeping people at work.

Not really sure why this argument is even given time of day at this point. We know it is simply a fantasy, it has worked no where, and in Sweden where they attempted it, their King has literally made a public apology that they went with such a bad strategy. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

As for the figures being hospital deaths only, the data states 45,466 deaths in England (not the UK) up to Dec 16th.  How many more deaths in England were there by that date and what were the numbers for people under 60 with no previous underlying conditions? 

Don't know, that's the point. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm betting its a lower percentage than those that died in hospitals given the fact we know care homes were a hotbed for covid certainly during the early days and the later media scare stories about thousands of university students with covid didn't lead to follow up stories of hundreds of them dying.

 

Again, the implication of your argument seems to be that older people, and people with 'pre-existing conditions' don't matter as much.