Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: So here's the deal on this virus

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman View Post
    I'm not good at stats etc but in our population I'd say we have, out of a population of 60 million about 30 million are between 20 and 50 which, in anyone's book is an age range that death would be considered extremely untimely.

    Are we saying that 1% of that age range in the UK would have perished in herd immunity? Is that not 300,000? I'm not sure how that would have played with the electorate.
    Just to clarify my thought, the CFR (Case Fatality Ratio is 0.5%, although I've seen 0.13% - 0.2% from credible sources. I'm going with 0.5%. That's 5 out of 1,000 with 4 either over the age of 70 and/or have a co-morbidity So the remaining 1 out of 1000 is outside that data set This is 0.1%, not 1%, which puts your example with a death rate of 30,000, not 300,000. Also, using your examples assumes 100% contract the virus, which in this medical field of communicable disease is way, way too high if not impossible. Also, that 30,000 is over a life span, not in the next few months. I wonder how many in that 30 million die is the regular old flu or any communicable diseases?

    This is still something to be of utmost concern, it's no picnic to deal with and you can die. However, there are plenty of scary bugs out there and any one can get you. This is one of them, but it appears that it's not more than the rest. It is highly contagious, but not all that deadly in the grand scheme.

    So the move, it seems to me, is to greatly restrict who the old folks come into contact with. Retirement homes should have visiting procedures in place. Those at risk with preconditions should be educated and THEY are the ones who should restrict where they go so they aren't in crowds and THEY should wear masks. We also need 1) preventatives that build our immune system like zinc. 2) Safe sanitary practices and 3) Develop a protocol that lessens the severity and length once contracted. Maybe hydroxychloroquine is 3), maybe not. But that's the route to take, imo.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    You conclude by calculating the "cost" as being 1 in 1,000 infected people under 70 without co-morbidities dying. So a 71-year-old with diabetes who falls victim isn't part of your cost?
    Hi Monty. don't think I referred to this as a cost, but in my "high risk" data set yes, he is in there. He is over 70 and has diabetes so he's definitely in there!

    Keep in mind I'm looking strictly at deaths, not the likelihood of who can get it. I don't know that but I'd guess it depends on your level of exposure regardless of age or health condition. As to your 71 year old straw man keep in mind that I am talking about everyone. I have no idea if your Dad, sorry, person will die. Out of this set 996 of 1000 who contract the virus survive. So his odds are still good, but not a 999 out of 1000 survival rate like the 'lucky' ones outside that group. It's like Life Insurance companies. If they have a large sample they can be pretty accurate as to how many of their 71 year old policyholders will die... they just don't know which ones specifically.

    You could get more granular in the data if you want to scare the **** out of folks. I'll bet a set of 95 year old folks with diabetes, lung cancer and COPD have a much higher Death Rate, but those are the parameters I set to make my point.

    It's a horrific, lonely death. Something your 71 year old should consider as he lives his daily life. Maybe he doesn't go to that stuffy concert hall to see the Fleetwood Mac tribute band. We'll know more about seasonal effects but I'll bet you should be more on your guard in autumn/winter. Maybe he doesn't hug friends at the Temple. Maybe he takes to wearing a mask everywhere. At least it's his choice, not the government or the Corona Police.
    Last edited by Chief Arrowhead; 05-01-2020 at 07:22 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief Arrowhead View Post
    Hi Monty. don't think I referred to this as a cost, but in my "high risk" data set yes, he is in there. He is over 70 and has diabetes so he's definitely in there!

    Keep in mind I'm looking strictly at deaths, not the likelihood of who can get it. I don't know that but I'd guess it depends on your level of exposure regardless of age or health condition. As to your 71 year old straw man keep in mind that I am talking about everyone. I have no idea if your Dad, sorry, person will die. Out of this set 996 of 1000 who contract the virus survive. So his odds are still good, but not a 999 out of 1000 survival rate like the 'lucky' ones outside that group. It's like Life Insurance companies. If they have a large sample they can be pretty accurate as to how many of their 71 year old policyholders will die... they just don't know which ones specifically.

    You could get more granular in the data if you want to scare the **** out of folks. I'll bet a set of 95 year old folks with diabetes, lung cancer and COPD have a much higher Death Rate, but those are the parameters I set to make my point.

    It's a horrific, lonely death. Something your 71 year old should consider as he lives his daily life. Maybe he doesn't go to that stuffy concert hall to see the Fleetwood Mac tribute band. We'll know more about seasonal effects but I'll bet you should be more on your guard in autumn/winter. Maybe he doesn't hug friends at the Temple. Maybe he takes to wearing a mask everywhere. At least it's his choice, not the government or the Corona Police.
    The problem is, the people who you claim to be speaking up for (the general public at large) would very quickly vote their Government out of office if they allowed a situation to develop that even remotely resembled what we've seen in, say, Italy.

    Presumably you think this would be irrational behaviour too. But you then have to explain what a Government should say to its people to convince them that overwhelming your health service is for the "greater good"

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    Too right Chief. Those in power have **** themselves and listened to frauds masquerading as scientists, as a result of which the world as we know it has disappeared. How many will die as a result of the enormous drop in living standards we will all experience?

    It’s a tragedy and there’s **** all we can do about it.
    While I may agree with you from a stoic perspective, C - and I speak as someone who, because of all the drugs in my lungs over decades is dead the second I get it - you have to accept that the Great British Voter {GBV} wanted to close down the economy to save their grannies.

    You think it fine that the GBV chose by 52% to fück the economy just cos granny banged on about the war. What's the difference?

    Democracy in action, init?

    {And with any luck you lot will not only be blamed for the CV deaths, but for the deaths that occure cos BJ did what the plebs wanted and shut down the econ. Win-win. You'll be out of power for a generation and we can build a social-democratic utopia while nuking the Chinks, Septics and 'Stanis.}

  5. #15
    'nuking the Chinks' Almost shot my load there GG , will never happen but hopefully they'll be a collective effort in to not buying their cheap electrical crap for 20 years. That'll learn 'em*

    *Of course if it's cheap we'll buy it, ****s that we are
    'Seems that I was busy doing something close to nothing
    But different than the day before'

    'Met a dwarf that was no good, dressed like Little Red Riding Hood'

    'Now you're unemployed, all non-void
    Walkin' round like you're Pretty Boy Floyd'

  6. #16

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    The problem is, the people who you claim to be speaking up for (the general public at large) would very quickly vote their Government out of office if they allowed a situation to develop that even remotely resembled what we've seen in, say, Italy.

    Presumably you think this would be irrational behaviour too. But you then have to explain what a Government should say to its people to convince them that overwhelming your health service is for the "greater good"
    This is the truth of it. No government in the UK now would be able to survive a situation in which it was perceived to be acting against scientific advice in order to sacrifice lives for the economy - no matter how rational or logical that position is in the long term. And those, unfortunately, were the terms in which this crisis was framed. The government was damned either way. If we want someone to blame for that, we should look in the mirror.

    Oh, and Sweden's situation is simply not comparable. Sweden has a tiny and sparse population and its biggest city has fewer than a million people in it. Saying the UK - with its dense population and teeming megacity - could have done a Sweden is retarded.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    This is the truth of it. No government in the UK now would be able to survive a situation in which it was perceived to be acting against scientific advice in order to sacrifice lives for the economy - no matter how rational or logical that position is in the long term. And those, unfortunately, were the terms in which this crisis was framed. The government was damned either way. If we want someone to blame for that, we should look in the mirror.

    Oh, and Sweden's situation is simply not comparable. Sweden has a tiny and sparse population and its biggest city has fewer than a million people in it. Saying the UK - with its dense population and teeming megacity - could have done a Sweden is retarded.
    Compare Sweden with New Zealand, and the hard line early lock down wins easily...it's the late half hearted approach that we took that has caused issues
    Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pokster View Post
    Compare Sweden with New Zealand, and the hard line early lock down wins easily...it's the late half hearted approach that we took that has caused issues
    No. It almost certainly isn't. In terms of deaths per million, we currently compare similarly or better with countries where the lockdown was earlier and much more severe.

    The fact is that it is way, way too early to start drawing conclusions about the numbers of deaths or why they did or didn't occur. Reporting criteria vary, as does methodology.

    And comparing NZ - an incredibly sparsely-populated country thousands of miles from anywhere - with pretty much anywhere else on earth is totally meaningless.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pokster View Post
    Compare Sweden with New Zealand, and the hard line early lock down wins easily...it's the late half hearted approach that we took that has caused issues
    Why are you comparing anything? When did this turn into a “our dead count is better than yours” contest? If Sweden were trying to have as little deaths as possible I’m pretty sure they’d be in lockdown as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •