Cable Forum
Page 89 of 421 « First 397985868788 89 9091929399139189 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

denphone 25-03-2020 21:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029032)
Have they published the number of infections? Can't seem to find it anywhere.
No nothing announced as of yet.

jfman 25-03-2020 21:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Sky apparently reporting up 1,452 to 9,529 - largest increase to date.

Mr K 25-03-2020 21:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029032)
Have they published the number of infections? Can't seem to find it anywhere.
It's an irrelevant number anyway given the randomness of testing. Unfortunately deaths is the only number we can rely on.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029035)
Sky apparently reporting up 1,452 to 9,529 - largest increase to date.
Means they are testing more? Who can say.

Damien 25-03-2020 21:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029035)
Sky apparently reporting up 1,452 to 9,529 - largest increase to date.
You would expect each day to be higher but it's a stable escalation so far.

jfman 25-03-2020 21:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36029036)
It's an irrelevant number anyway given the randomness of testing. Unfortunately deaths is the only number we can rely on.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------



Means they are testing more? Who can say.
While nobody accepts it's an accurate figure (thanks to the decision not to test) there's still value in the data. Who has it and where will drive healthcare decision making in the coming weeks. It's better to know than to be oblivious to where the trouble spots will come.

Obviously, genuine success comes when in a like for like period with a similar number of tests and similar testing policy the number of new infections decreases. Something we will hopefully see in the next 14 to 21 days.

Paul 25-03-2020 21:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...wales-11963431
Quote:
.. biggest increase in the number of infections across the UK - up 1,452 to 9,529.
Quote:
The number of people who have died in the UK after contracting coronavirus has risen by 43 to 465.
Of the 43 deaths today, all but one had underlying medical issues.

Pierre 25-03-2020 22:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029016)
Are you saying that it’d be impossible? I suggest you back that up.
I’ve made no claim to evidence. You however have, hypothetically.....if you say so, suggested that once you contract the virus and beat it, it can mutate and infect you again.

Which is scaremongering, unless you have the science to back it up. That you obviously don’t

1andrew1 25-03-2020 22:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
NHS staff warned to hide ID after spate of targeted muggings
Robbers targeting doctors and nurses to obtain free food offered for tackling coronavirus
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...geted-muggings

Paul 25-03-2020 23:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36029036)
Unfortunately deaths is the only number we can rely on.
Actually, it isnt.
Any death where the patient has tested positive is being counted, whether the virus was the actual cause or not.

As has been noted many times, most of them had other underlying conditions as well, which could also have been the cause of death.
Just like there is no way to tell how many untested people have the virus, there is no way to know how many deaths would have happened anyway due to other causes.

Sephiroth 26-03-2020 00:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36029036)
It's an irrelevant number anyway given the randomness of testing. Unfortunately deaths is the only number we can rely on.
Mr. K is right. If deaths due to the decline, then infections have declined or treatment has improved. Knowing the number of cases seems to me to be for the benefit of the statisticians rather than the public.

jfman 26-03-2020 02:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36029050)
I’ve made no claim to evidence. You however have, hypothetically.....if you say so, suggested that once you contract the virus and beat it, it can mutate and infect you again.

Which is scaremongering, unless you have the science to back it up. That you obviously don’t
I’m not scaremongering. In fact I explicitly stated the likelihood was statistically extremely unlikely.

You are simply trolling, and I’m unsure why because it’s of little value to the discussion to deliberately misinterpret my words.

Paul 26-03-2020 03:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Home tests are not going to be available just yet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52035615

A few other interesting bits in the report as well.
Quote:
Prof Whitty said that if everyone kept to social distancing rules, the outbreak was "probably manageable" although he conceded it would be a "close-run thing" for the NHS.
Quote:
Prof Ferguson told MPs that he believed the government's current strategy would mean "in some areas of the country, ICUs will get very close to capacity but it won't be breached at a national level".
Quote:
The combination of keeping people in their homes and making more NHS resources available is predicted to bring demand down to a level hospitals can manage. There would be some resurgence of cases later, Prof Ferguson said, but these local outbreaks could hopefully be kept at a low level through more intensive testing.
Quote:
He told the committee that the latest research suggested as many as half to two-thirds of deaths from coronavirus might have happened this year anyway, because most fatalities were among people at the end of their lives or with other health conditions.

jonbxx 26-03-2020 10:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36029055)
Mr. K is right. If deaths due to the decline, then infections have declined or treatment has improved. Knowing the number of cases seems to me to be for the benefit of the statisticians rather than the public.
Yeah, the headline number of the number of confirmed cases is kind of meaningless. There is an argument that you can extrapolate based on the demographics of those tested but that more drives health policy rather than immediate clinical need/treatment

pip08456 26-03-2020 10:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36029056)
I’m not scaremongering. In fact I explicitly stated the likelihood was statistically extremely unlikely.

You are simply trolling, and I’m unsure why because it’s of little value to the discussion to deliberately misinterpret my words.
No you didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36028996)
The Coronavirus could mutate in the person standing next to you and you could catch it again.

Statistically unlikely yes, however so is your contention someone could have it on their hand while testing negative THEN touch their face and catch it.

jfman 26-03-2020 10:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36029055)
Mr. K is right. If deaths due to the decline, then infections have declined or treatment has improved. Knowing the number of cases seems to me to be for the benefit of the statisticians rather than the public.
The problem is deaths will always remain low while demand for NHS treatment is within supply. Meanwhile the virus could be spreading further and we are only saving up our problems for later.

A lot can happen in as little as two and a half weeks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ponse-analysis


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:32.
Page 89 of 421 « First 397985868788 89 9091929399139189 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum