Coronavirus vs Natural Deaths

[Whorty]

Then what data set should be used?
We’re told by the brains on here that we can’t use the Contagion! Data set as it ended up being on a BBC documentary and is thus left wing biased science, and not Wail approved.

the problem isn't with the data set per se, but the model the data set is being fed into. We're not talking a simple regression type, one variable, forecasting model here; there are hundreds of possible factors that will/could influence the spread of the virus one of which 'may' be the social norms of each country - as already stated, Italians tend to live more multi-generational where-as Brits tend not to, as a specific example. But even within the UK there are various factors that makes it hard to have a single model even for one country (e.g. a model for a rural community would not be the same as that for a hotspot of the virus that we're seeing in the Midlands).

This is why it's far too simplistic to say, look at Italy, this will happen to us; picking the worst case country, and assuming we will follow their virus progression, is as naive as picking the best case country and arguing we will be like that instead without understanding all the factors involved in the rate of the spread.

[SueEllen]

No quite the right question. The NHS advises everyone to be vaccinated however, it's free for the over 60s and others at risk.

Tragically, a local healthy 15yo died of flue last year and a very healthy 20yo girl who though it was ok to get out of bed and drive to her boyfriend's house.

NHS England doesn't advise healthy people to be vaccinated unless they are primary aged children, or work in health or social care.

So your 15 and 20 year olds unless try had underlying health issues like asthma, diabetes or any other conditions that caused a weakened immune system were actually following NHS advice.

[SueEllen]

There's another twist right there. If we "breed" more children than the amount that die off. Kind of depends doesn't it? If t'interweb stays up then we might not breed more.

And I seem to recall China is now having a few issues as most of the people who had children wanted Boys and there's not enough girls to go around. Or was that Japan? One or the other, maybe both.

When I was working at the Science museum there was a section in there that covered Florence Nightingale's work. She basically worked out how many children were still born by wealth of the families. Scary but quite interesting stuff..

But:

2018.
731,213 Live births (not adding the children that didn't make it)

616,014 deaths.

According to ONS.

Get breeding people!

It's China and India who have a preference for boys.

In Japan parents are just happy their child has got married and produced one or more kids.

[SueEllen]

the problem isn't with the data set per se, but the model the data set is being fed into. We're not talking a simple regression type, one variable, forecasting model here; there are hundreds of possible factors that will/could influence the spread of the virus one of which 'may' be the social norms of each country - as already stated, Italians tend to live more multi-generational where-as Brits tend not to, as a specific example. But even within the UK there are various factors that makes it hard to have a single model even for one country (e.g. a model for a rural community would not be the same as that for a hotspot of the virus that we're seeing in the Midlands).

This is why it's far too simplistic to say, look at Italy, this will happen to us; picking the worst case country, and assuming we will follow their virus progression, is as naive as picking the best case country and arguing we will be like that instead without understanding all the factors involved in the rate of the spread.

If the Italian or another countries dataset won't do for modelling in the UK then we are only left with The Contagion! dataset. There were biases in the participants e.g. they engaged in social media, they listen to BBC radio and/or watched BBC TV but every dataset has biases in it.

[sasguru]

Lots of complete bollocks being talked by people who should know better. I expect it from proven cretins like Minnie. Basically CV19 has a death rate at best 5 times that of normal flu (on average) and more likely 10 times (0.5 to 1% compared with 0.1%; and those are very conservative figures). And that rate rises sharply with age. For anyone above 50 you really don't want to get it especially if you have another condition. And what hasn't been talked about much is that in many you get permanent lung damage.
The reason Italian and Spanish (and soon to be UK) hospitals are overwhelmed is that 10-15% need hospital treatment. France has said 50% of those needing hospital treatment are under 60.
Anyone who doesn't think this a medical health emergency is a moron.

[GigiBronz]

70% of the population could get infected. 10-15% needing ICU. If the hospitals get overwhelmed, which they are even now. A good part of those 10-15% will end up dead. People of all ages not only the old.
It is basic logic how people don't seem to grasp it is beyond me.
It will be a national massacre. If the people in charge now continue to make mentions about "herd immunity" and putting economy before human capital. People will remember that measures were not taken, quite the opposite, people sent to work you'll have riots and totally loose any trust they have in the establishment.
I do hope we do not get there...

[Old Greg]

Lots of complete bollocks being talked by people who should know better. I expect it from proven cretins like Minnie. Basically CV19 has a death rate at best 5 times that of normal flu (on average) and more likely 10 times (0.5 to 1% compared with 0.1%; and those are very conservative figures). And that rate rises sharply with age. For anyone above 50 you really don't want to get it especially if you have another condition. And what hasn't been talked about much is that in many you get permanent lung damage.
The reason Italian and Spanish (and soon to be UK) hospitals are overwhelmed is that 10-15% need hospital treatment. France has said 50% of those needing hospital treatment are under 60.
Anyone who doesn't think this a medical health emergency is a moron.

I wont believe it until confirmed by oPM's dentist.

[minestrone]

Lots of complete bollocks being talked by people who should know better. I expect it from proven cretins like Minnie. Basically CV19 has a death rate at best 5 times that of normal flu (on average) and more likely 10 times (0.5 to 1% compared with 0.1%; and those are very conservative figures). And that rate rises sharply with age. For anyone above 50 you really don't want to get it especially if you have another condition. And what hasn't been talked about much is that in many you get permanent lung damage.
The reason Italian and Spanish (and soon to be UK) hospitals are overwhelmed is that 10-15% need hospital treatment. France has said 50% of those needing hospital treatment are under 60.
Anyone who doesn't think this a medical health emergency is a moron.

Are you still running 5ks in 35 minutes?

Sorry chief but you're fooked if you get it.

[sasguru]

Are you still running 5ks in 35 minutes?

Sorry chief but you're fooked if you get it.

Did your missus tell you that? Bottom of her class was she?

I'm sure your pillow-sized liver will pull you through.

[Whorty]

70% of the population could get infected.

Really? Where is the evidence that 70% of the population will get infected? In China it is currently 288,000 out of 1.6 billion. In Italy it is 47,000 out of 60 million. Neither of these figures is even anywhere near 1% let alone 70% There is zero evidence outside of computer models that the spread of this virus will hit 70%.

The 70% figure is based on no change to how we all interact and is worse case scenario. Not sure whether you've noticed or not, but the world over is changing lots of stuff, all of which will have a big impact on the spread of the virus.

If the hospitals get overwhelmed, which they are even now.

Or, the facts, 1 hospital in the UK asked for help from local hospitals for 1 day. I'm not saying the hospitals won't get stretched, but the facts are today they are not 'overwhelmed'. That's just hysteria mate.

As for use of ICU, reports are that only those who it appears can be saved are going into ICU; those the docs triage and do not think will pull through even with ICU care go into palliative care. That is why, of those going into ICU, there are larger %'s of younger sufferers.

7A good part of those 10-15% will end up dead.

Not true. You're making this up. The death rate is estimated at, and I quote:

It is probably about or a bit less than 1%. Much higher figures have been flying about, but the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, is one of those who believes it will prove to be 1% or lower.

So, less than 10% of your 10-15%. If you're going to quote figures, at least make them factual and not made up.

It is basic logic how people don't seem to grasp it is beyond me.

It is indeed basic logic .... shame you don't understand the numbers but are reading too many scare stories.

It will be a national massacre.

No it won't - this is hysterics. At present there is no evidence that the overall death rate for the country will be any worse this year than a normal year. Deaths will be attributed to Coronavirus rather than other causes, but we may not see more deaths.

If the people in charge now continue to make mentions about "herd immunity" and putting economy before human capital.

They are not. As much as I dislike this government even I concede that they are not putting the economy before human capital.

We need less hysterics and more common sense. We can all control our own actions - if we all assume we're infected, and act accordingly to protect others from getting the virus from us, then we can control the spread.