Coronavirus (OLD)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Than India or China? You learn something new every day on here.

Actually the best comparison is infections per capita. Deaths doesn't account for the capability of healthcare systems where poorer countries would be disproportionately affected.

Unless of course you are the richest country in the world and don't provide universal healthcare...

I was referring to comparisons with Europe, jfman.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I was referring to comparisons with Europe, jfman.

Ah selective comparisons. Carry on, Old Boy.

As the USA continues to mismanage this crisis it's only a matter of time before it shatters all records going.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Of course we accept statistics from other countries as accurate and Gospel, just our government that are inept n’er do wells that manipulate the numbers.

But we're not manipulating the numbers and neither is there a suggestion France, Spain or Italy are.

It does look like we're going to have the worst death toll in Europe.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's bound to be higher as the US has a higher population. It is ludicrous to compare infection rates and deaths between countries in absolute numbers. Compare deaths per million and you get a more realistic comparison, but even that takes no account of population density.

It is debatable if comparing deaths per million is as effective here because we're talking about managing the spread of virus. The more people there is then the more people it could *eventually* spread too but in the early stages of a pandemic then it's about how quickly it's spreading though a small number of the population.

i.e There is no reason for New York to have a higher death rate than London because the U.S.A as a whole has more people on it. Population density on the other hand....

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

What you mean to say is that you don't think the efforts to contain it would be cost effective.

Err, nope...I didn’t even consider the cost of anything. Just on the practicality of it, it is not possible to be 100% , which is what believe “totally” means. So no you’re wrong in trying to transpose what you think into what I posted.

There's no scientific evidence to suggest it's not containable, if we adequately control human behaviour, restrict movement, test, trace and isolate just like any other virus.

. 100% ? Totally contain it? ...................with 0% risk to anyone?

I don’t need to see scientific evidence to know that is highly unlikely if not impossible.

This exercise obviously not helped by Herd Immunity Week.

That's not true - there's nothing wrong with people in small groups so long as there is no mixing between groups. These could be streets, villages, towns, etc.

Ok junior virologist, if you can guarantee 0% risk of infection in that scenario, I’ll jump on board with you...............can you?

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

But we're not manipulating the numbers and neither is there a suggestion France, Spain or Italy are.

It just seems to me......as a pretty sophisticated and switched on country that as we find it difficult to obtain numbers for those that have died, outside of hospital, of COVID, why we should blindly accept figures from other countries as being spot on.


And as I type away, I’m pretty certain that all the stats on this graph are for hospital deaths anyway, from all nations ( happy to be wrong?)

It does look like we're going to have the worst death toll in Europe.

I would disagree until all the data has been processed.

Re care homes in other countries

https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uplo...17-April-4.pdf

Data from 3 epidemiological studies in the United States shows that as many as half of people with COVID-19 infections in care homes were asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) at the time of testing. New data from Belgium shows that 73% of staff and 69% of residents who tested positive were asymptomatic.

• Official data from 7 countries suggests that the share of care home residents whose deaths are linked to COVID-19 is much lower in 2 countries where there have been fewer deaths in total (14% in Australia, where there have been 63 deaths, and 20% in Singapore, where there have been 10 deaths).
• In the remaining 5 countries for which we have official data (Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland and Norway), and where the number of total deaths ranges from 136 to 17,167, the % of COVID-related deaths in care homes ranges from 49% to 64%).
• Data reported by media as coming from official sources for Portugal and Spain suggests rates of 33% and 53% respectively.
• The authors have considered that it is not possible to draw accurate estimates from the data that is currently in public domain in the United Kingdom.

[1andrew1]

Removed.

Completely irrelevant and just a dig at other members, stop.

[pip08456]

New Zealand claims 'elimination' of coronavirus with new cases in single digits


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/a...ntl/index.html

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by pip08456

New Zealand claims 'elimination' of coronavirus with new cases in single digits


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/a...ntl/index.html

That's what happens when you have an effective Govt. that takes quick decisive early action.

We might find that UK citizens are no longer welcome abroad. Looks like the Australian cricket team won't come here this summer, whatever assurances we give. Visiting the UK is too big a risk.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...y_to_clipboard

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Err, nope...I didn’t even consider the cost of anything. Just on the practicality of it, it is not possible to be 100% , which is what believe “totally” means. So no you’re wrong in trying to transpose what you think into what I posted.

. 100% ? Totally contain it? ...................with 0% risk to anyone?

Then you are just plain wrong then.

I don’t need to see scientific evidence to know that is highly unlikely if not impossible.

You don’t need scientific evidence? What else should we rely on? Gut instinct? If I’m certain of anything it’s that Coronavirus won’t be resolved, or the economy recover, by ignoring scientific evidence.

Although it’s nice to see you roll back your opinion to “unlikely”.

Ok junior virologist, if you can guarantee 0% risk of infection in that scenario, I’ll jump on board with you...............can you?

No need for insults so I’m not going to rise to the bait. These are scientifically proven techniques for controlling virus spread.

[Russ]

Let's take a moment to pay tribute to the wonderful people who helped America get to 1 million cases:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/sta...919006210?s=20

I thought CF'ers might find this item that I found on Twitter informative - she explains clearly why lockdown (to get the number of infected down) then track and trace is the optimal policy until a vaccine is available (uses US figures, but I'm sure they are the same for us).

https://twitter.com/rachel_elisse/st...17792488062982

[B]Rachel Coleman[B] @rachel_elisse - 5:24 PM · Apr 27, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Guys. Guys. I am seeing people asking why we locked down if the lockdown is slowing our ability to get herd immunity. But herd immunity, absent a vaccine, was never the goal! If we reach herd immunity, it will mean we failed. It would mean 2 million people had died.

To get to herd immunity, AT LEAST 60% would have to have had COVID. (And that assumes having it conveys immunity.) If we assume a 1% fatality rate — which is right in the middle of the 0.6% to 1.5% range most experts have suggested — that is two million people dead.

The point of lockdowns was to AVOID this. Absent a vaccine, herd immunity is NOT THE GOAL. Why? Because herd immunity, absent a vaccine, requires millions of deaths. And unless you staff nursing homes with robots — and that is just the start — you CAN’T shield the vulnerable.

Complaining that the lockdowns are preventing us from getting to herd immunity amounts to complaining that lives are being saved. Absent a vaccine, getting to herd immunity and saving lives are incompatible. We locked down to save lives.

We locked down to prevent to virus from running through our populace, bc that would mean an untold loss of life, and now people are complaining that ... the virus is not running through our populace. What. Nothing has changed! It’s still deadly! That’s why we locked down!

Let me add one thing. NYC has gotten to an infection rate of 20% — a third of what we need to have herd immunity — and that has cost nearly 20,000 lives. Getting to 60% would mean another 40,000 dead in NYC. That is not something anyone should want.

Absent a vaccine, making herd immunity our goal means accepting that millions of people will die. I’m not willing to accept that. I still think we can save many of those lives. How? By slowing the virus’ transmission until we have a vaccine.

The goal of the current lockdown is to flatten the curve both to prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed AND to bring the number of infections down to a level where we can control infections through a process referred to as test, trace, isolate.

Maybe the focus on flattening the curve meant there wasn't enough focus on the reason WHY. It was NEVER about preventing our healthcare system from being overwhelmed so that the virus could go through our populace more slowly until we get to herd immunity.

The goal is not just to protect our healthcare system but ALSO to bring the infection rate down so that we can have a shot at that rate low for the next year or more, until we have a vaccine. Test trace isolate doesn't work when we have millions of infections at the start.

Last thing to note: there are some who argue that the virus is less deadly than thought, perhaps no more deadly than the flu. If that were the case, it might make sense to let the virus go. But that also flies in the face of the evidence.

NYC already has a death rate of 0.2%, twice the rate of the flu, FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION of the city. Bc antibody tests suggest only 20% has been infected, you need to multiply that rate by 5. If every New Yorker caught this, 1 in 100 people IN THE ENTIRE CITY would die.

I get that people want to believe this isn't that deadly so that we can go back to normal, but you can't gaslight a virus. Our options haven't changed -- lock down until case counts are down and then find a new normal with longterm social distancing, or let millions die.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Russ

Let's take a moment to pay tribute to the wonderful people who helped America get to 1 million deaths:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/sta...919006210?s=20

l think that is one million Covid 19 cases Russ.

Meanwhile Trump suggested that doctors study the idea of people receiving injections of disinfectant to combat the virus.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

That's what happens when you have an effective Govt. that takes quick decisive early action.

We might find that UK citizens are no longer welcome abroad. Looks like the Australian cricket team won't come here this summer, whatever assurances we give. Visiting the UK is too big a risk.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...y_to_clipboard

So we win by default,now that's my kind of cricket.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by denphone

l think that is one million Covid 18 cases Russ.

Meanwhile Trump suggested that doctors study the idea of people receiving injections of disinfectant to combat the virus.

Thanks, amended

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Russ

Let's take a moment to pay tribute to the wonderful people who helped America get to 1 million cases:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/sta...919006210?s=20

Absolutely every single one of them were trying to talk up the stock market.

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Covid 18

Was that better or worse than 19, den?