0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
apologies if already posted''Scientists and medics are using this phrase a lot, and it means the highest potential rate of cases. For the UK, the peak is expected to fall in three months’ time, likely in the summer months, and tail off throughout the autumn, the government said. Vallance said that the UK is around four weeks behind Italy, where there have been 1,000 deaths and more than 15,000 cases. The peak also brings the biggest period of challenge for the NHS. There are 5,000 ventilated beds but the service is looking to increase that number. Without a cure, the main treatment is oxygen therapy, which can be provided through a mask, and the NHS is looking to increase supplies''https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-governments-coronavirus-advice-and-why-it-gave-it
Quote from: SydneyRover on March 13, 2020, 01:05:55 pmapologies if already posted''Scientists and medics are using this phrase a lot, and it means the highest potential rate of cases. For the UK, the peak is expected to fall in three months’ time, likely in the summer months, and tail off throughout the autumn, the government said. Vallance said that the UK is around four weeks behind Italy, where there have been 1,000 deaths and more than 15,000 cases. The peak also brings the biggest period of challenge for the NHS. There are 5,000 ventilated beds but the service is looking to increase that number. Without a cure, the main treatment is oxygen therapy, which can be provided through a mask, and the NHS is looking to increase supplies''https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-governments-coronavirus-advice-and-why-it-gave-itI wonder..... could this oxygen therapy be administered at home.... my Mum (now dead God bless her) spent many years using a nebuliser at home to breath in various drugs - this was twenty years ago, but the one she had was linked to a tank of oxygen...
Number of cases up to 798......
Quote from: albie on March 12, 2020, 11:33:05 pmI just can't see how non-intervention does anything other than increase the rate of infection in the near term.This has the effect of bringing the peak forwards, when the objective is to delay the peak, and extend it over a longer period to give relief to the NHS.Johnson is being led by Cummings and his nudge theory unit. The big idea is that "herd immunity" will be achieved , and the virus will peter out as more become resistant.We have no idea that this new virus will behave in this way. The evidence to date is that strong interventions at the earliest point have delivered measurable results in China, South Korea and Singapore.Why we should ignore the emerging evidence base to test an ungrounded theory is just perplexing.For your consideration;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUzGVw_iacsI respectfully disagree with most of that.1) The primary aim is not to slow down the arrival of the peak. There IS some benefit to that (pushing the peak into a time when the weather is better so there are fewer other respiratory illnesses) but that is secondary. The primary aim is to SPREAD the peak. There will be a huge spike in cases at the time of the peak and the crucial thing is to try to spread that glut over as many weeks as possible. If we are going to end up with tens of millions of cases, you spread the peak by taking drastic action when the total number of cases is starting to rise towards 1million plus. Taking drastic action now won't help that. But it will stretch our stamina. Impose drastic measures for two months and maybe we can bear it. Impose them for 6 months and we'll break.2) No-one that I have seen is taking about herd immunity. If they are, they want putting in a sealed box for the duration. Thereis no way of getting immunity to this virus short of getting the virus. In the absence of a vaccine, you are not going to get herd immunity without people succumbing to the virus, so that is self-defeating. Cummings is a megalomaniac, but he's not stupid on basic science, and that would be a very, very stupid thing to propose.3) Yes, strong action has halted the spread of the virus. But as I say, can you keep that up for the long haul? I'm not convinced that China, Taiwan and Singapore can keep this under control when it is on the loose in the rest of the world. If they CAN, it will be by essentially isolating themselves from the world for a very long period (at least 12 months until there is a vaccine). Do you think we have the social or political will to do that, or the economic resilience to cope with the consequences of doing it?4) As for your video, I gave up after 45 seconds. I have no axe to grid for Johnson, but a video that takes his words on "taking it on the chin" totally out of context (he went on to say that that is not what we should do) is not helping. It's playing politics. This is absolutely NOT the time for that. For the record, I'd say it was a very clumsy thing for Johnson to say and a sensible politician would not have said it. But to imply that this is our policy is, frankly, disgraceful. https://fullfact.org/health/boris-johnson-coronavirus-this-morning/
I just can't see how non-intervention does anything other than increase the rate of infection in the near term.This has the effect of bringing the peak forwards, when the objective is to delay the peak, and extend it over a longer period to give relief to the NHS.Johnson is being led by Cummings and his nudge theory unit. The big idea is that "herd immunity" will be achieved , and the virus will peter out as more become resistant.We have no idea that this new virus will behave in this way. The evidence to date is that strong interventions at the earliest point have delivered measurable results in China, South Korea and Singapore.Why we should ignore the emerging evidence base to test an ungrounded theory is just perplexing.For your consideration;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUzGVw_iacs
The case fatality rate from some countries based on existing data.UK - 1.25%South Korea - 0.84%Netherlands - 0.62%Germany - 0.22%One of the things that has struck me so far is how the case mortality rate can differ based on location and time. In Wuhan as of Feb 1st it was 5.8% but 0.7% across the rest of China. Last I heard Italy is hovering at 5%. Demographics explain part of the difference, but it seems localised healthcare systems capacity to cope also make a significant difference.Also read that at the height of the epidemic in China, only 5% of cases were recorded and diagnosed. The scientific lit seem to suggest around 80% of cases are mild (some undetectable) but alot of country specific data is suggestinging its much higher than that.
Quote from: Copps is Magic on March 13, 2020, 03:02:10 pmThe case fatality rate from some countries based on existing data.UK - 1.25%South Korea - 0.84%Netherlands - 0.62%Germany - 0.22%One of the things that has struck me so far is how the case mortality rate can differ based on location and time. In Wuhan as of Feb 1st it was 5.8% but 0.7% across the rest of China. Last I heard Italy is hovering at 5%. Demographics explain part of the difference, but it seems localised healthcare systems capacity to cope also make a significant difference.Also read that at the height of the epidemic in China, only 5% of cases were recorded and diagnosed. The scientific lit seem to suggest around 80% of cases are mild (some undetectable) but alot of country specific data is suggestinging its much higher than that.Copps.Two points. Which act in opposite directions.1) It's mostly inaccurate to base conclusions on fatality rates on recorded deaths/recorded cases. Because, as you say, the number of recorded cases is in general, a big underestimate of the actual number of cases. So if you DO do it that way, it tends to overestimate the death rate.2) On the other hand, people don't die immediately when they get the virus. There's a delay of several days. So, when the number of cases is expanding rapidly, even if you know the actual number of cases now, you shouldn't calculate the death rate on recorded total deaths today/actual cases today. You should base it on recorded total deaths today/actual number of cases maybe a week ago. So the denominator is a lot smaller and the actual death rate a lot higher.South Korea has tested a higher proportion of its population than anywhere. So they probably have the best estimate of total actual cases. And if you look at their recorded deaths/number of recorded cases a week ago, you get a death rate of about 1.1%. Accepting that they won't have picked up every case, that's probably a bit high. But it more or less agrees with what the experts are saying, that something around 1% or a bit less is what they expect. (And they will be doing FAR better modelling than my fag packet calcs here.)It makes sense to plan for 1% and hope like hell that is pessimistic.
Can someone explain the difference between the symptoms of flu to those of coronavirus?Pre Christmas I had a temperature aches and a persistant cough and felt absolutely crap, I had had my annual flu jab in Octobe, lasted about 2 weeks put that down to flu or was I wrong?
I was listening to a Radio 5 interview yesterday with some professor expert on disease and she spoke about herd immunity. As I understand what she said was that herd immunity can't happen until the population at large has built up immunity from previous rounds of the disease and that with a new virus such as Covid 19 everyone in the population is 'naive' and has no immunity until they've had and recovered from the illness. Herd immunity, therefore has no relevance to us for this crisis.
Notably, the full denominator remains unknown because asymptomatic cases or patients with very mild symptoms might not be tested and will not be identified. Such cases therefore cannot be included in the estimation of actual mortality rates, since actual estimates pertain to clinically apparent COVID-19 cases.
I mean, that is just one (extremely skewed in my opinion) way of looking at how you calculate a 'case morality rate'. The key is the last few lines of the first paragraph.QuoteNotably, the full denominator remains unknown because asymptomatic cases or patients with very mild symptoms might not be tested and will not be identified. Such cases therefore cannot be included in the estimation of actual mortality rates, since actual estimates pertain to clinically apparent COVID-19 cases.In plane speaking, this virus does not kill anywhere near 5-20% of people infected because we don't know how many people are infected.
Coronavirus usually caused fever, a dry cough, and shortness of breath. Normal flu doesn't cause shortness of breath. It's when you get all 3 together that you should start to worry.
Quote from: ravenrover on March 13, 2020, 07:38:40 pmCan someone explain the difference between the symptoms of flu to those of coronavirus?Pre Christmas I had a temperature aches and a persistant cough and felt absolutely crap, I had had my annual flu jab in Octobe, lasted about 2 weeks put that down to flu or was I wrong?The first recorded case outside of China was 14th Jan in Thailand.