Coronavirus (OLD)

ITALY - UK Trajectory:

At 10 deaths in Italy, was on Feb 25th
16 days later, on March 12th, it was 1016 deaths.

At 10 deaths in UK, was on March 12th
16 days later, on March 28th, we're at 1028* deaths.

The UK trajectory, is *AHEAD*, albeit marginally of Italy in COVID-19 deaths.

* Updated figures as of 15:34.

Originally Posted by Mick

ITALY - UK Trajectory:

At 10 deaths in Italy, was on Feb 25th
16 days later, on March 12th, it was 1016 deaths.

At 10 deaths in UK, was on March 12th
16 days later, on March 28th, we're at 1028* deaths.

The UK trajectory, is *AHEAD*, albeit marginally of Italy in COVID-19 deaths.

* Updated figures as of 15:34.

Here's hoping our containment strategy flattens the curve.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mick

ITALY - UK Trajectory:

At 10 deaths in Italy, was on Feb 25th
16 days later, on March 12th, it was 1016 deaths.

At 10 deaths in UK, was on March 12th
16 days later, on March 28th, we're at 1028* deaths.

The UK trajectory, is *AHEAD*, albeit marginally of Italy in COVID-19 deaths.

* Updated figures as of 15:34.

That’s very worrying. Anyone know how many deaths Italy had before their lockdown commenced?

[nomadking]

You can't compare simple raw numbers. Things like population size, distribution, and behaviour are all factors.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And the number of fatalities currently represents 0.0016% of the population. That puts the risk of you dying from this into perspective.

Most people won't die, but those that do are more likely to be over 70, ill or disabled. That's not to say that no young people haven't died, because they have.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can't compare simple raw numbers. Things like population size, distribution, and behaviour are all factors.

Population similar, distribution worse for us as it’s more uniform, we are ill behaved (see last weekend). Easy comparisons for anyone willing to make them.

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

That’s very worrying. Anyone know how many deaths Italy had before their lockdown commenced?

800 approx.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can't compare simple raw numbers. Things like population size, distribution, and behaviour are all factors.

True as IIRC Italy has an older population.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Population similar, distribution worse for us as it’s more uniform, we are ill behaved (see last weekend). Easy comparisons for anyone willing to make them.

It is behaviour of a more personal or social nature that has the impact, ie interchange of saliva. People do not have a 2m radius of fug about them like BO. Realistically, unless somebody is coughing or sneezing or exchanging saliva in some way, there is little chance of transmission if people are independently going out and not gathering. On the other hand if a shop worker is coughing(eg yesterday in Tescos), they shouldn't be there.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And the number of fatalities currently represents 0.0016% of the population. That puts the risk of you dying from this into perspective.

I too would like to take you up on this. The human is intent on preserving his/her own life. This must weigh on how people see the percentage. One can't write people off in this way.

To be sure, I can see you're not advocating this callousness in any way. But the
risk of dying for old folk is a different percentage when seen against the number contracting the virus.

The only statistics that matter are the number of deaths both gross and over-70s.

[denphone]

According to Reuters, the number of people who have died after catching the new coronavirus in Italy has risen by 889 to 10,023.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...efing-11965046

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is behaviour of a more personal or social nature that has the impact, ie interchange of saliva. People do not have a 2m radius of fug about them like BO. Realistically, unless somebody is coughing or sneezing or exchanging saliva in some way, there is little chance of transmission if people are independently going out and not gathering. On the other hand if a shop worker is coughing(eg yesterday in Tescos), they shouldn't be there.

While I’m sure exchange of saliva is a factor clearly all 600 000 worldwide cases don’t like to kissing or being spat at. The transmission rate is far too high for that alone.

I’m unsure how this links to Italian behaviour being different from ours. Unless you are aiming at continental embraces to say hello - in which case again that makes our statistics here worse by comparison.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

True as IIRC Italy has an older population.

True

Italy has a population of 61 million, with 14 million over 65

UK has a population of 67 million, with 12.2 million over 65

Percentage wise that means -

Italy - 23%
UK - 18.3%

Over 65.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I too would like to take you up on this. The human is intent on preserving his/her own life. This must weigh on how people see the percentage. One can't write people off in this way.

To be sure, I can see you're not advocating this callousness in any way. But the
risk of dying for old folk is a different percentage when seen against the number contracting the virus.

The only statistics that matter are the number of deaths both gross and over-70s.

It also only currently represents that. It will go far higher. To the extent it cripples the healthcare system and people start dying from all kinds of unrelated issues (cancer etc.) because there was no resource to treat them, despite perhaps never having coronavirus.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

According to Reuters, the number of people who have died after catching the new coronavirus in Italy has risen by 889 to 10,023.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...efing-11965046

It really frustrates me that the vital statistic of age group within the fatalities is not being highlighted. However, a useful search reveals this on Case Fatality Rates:

Age (deaths/cases)------------CFR (95% CI)
≤ 9 years----------------------(0/416) 0%
10 to 19 years (1/549)--------0.18% (0.03 to 1.02%)
20 to 49 years (63/19790)---0.32% (0.25% to 0.41%)
50 to 59 years (130/10,008)--1.3% (1.1% to 1.5%)
60 to 69. years (309/8583)---3.6% (3.2% to 4.0%)
70 to 79 years (312/3918)----8.0% (7.2% to 8.9%)
≥80 years (208/1408)--------14.8% (13.0% to 16.7%)

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

While I’m sure exchange of saliva is a factor clearly all 600 000 worldwide cases don’t like to kissing or being spat at. The transmission rate is far too high for that alone.

I’m unsure how this links to Italian behaviour being different from ours. Unless you are aiming at continental embraces to say hello - in which case again that makes our statistics here worse by comparison.

So how many of those with the virus have been coughed or sneezed upon? With the group in the Peak District who had a picnic and used a shisha, if just one of them has the virus, they WILL ALL have it now. They will now return to their homes and likely congregate in groups and use a shisha, and they WILL ALL also get it. Just an example of why the transmission via saliva need highlighting. Things like shouting and speaking are likely to spread saliva droplets.

From the past the evidence is that enclosed spaces are a huge factor, especially ships. That would include offices and hospitals. It's not unlikely that merely breathing helps spread it.

Impact of mass gatherings on an influenza pandemic

In conclusion there is limited data indicating that mass gatherings are associated with influenza transmission and this theme is continued with the inclusion of new evidence for the update. Certain unique events such as the Hajj, specialised settings including civilian and military ships- a new theme for this update, indoor venues and crowded outdoor venues provide the primary evidence base to suggest mass gatherings can be associated with Influenza outbreaks. Some evidence suggests that restricting mass gatherings together with other social distancing measures may help to reduce transmission. However, the evidence is still not strong enough to warrant advocating legislated restrictions. Therefore, in a pandemic situation a cautious policy of voluntary avoidance of mass gatherings would is still the most prudent message. Operational considerations including practical implications of policy directed at restricting mass gathering events should be carefully considered.