New coronavirus in/from China

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 21 Apr 2020, 21:48

2.5 million (reported) global cases according to Johns Hopkins

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Apr 2020, 21:53

boisdevie wrote:
Little John wrote: The above is now blindingly obvious and the only thing stopping it from happening is political inertia due to our various political classes having embarked upon one course of action now being too chicken shit to turn round to their populations and tell them the hard truth.
And they say it's the Chinese who suffer from the problems of 'saving face' - our political and media classes could really give the Chinese a masterclass. They've invested their egos so heavily they'd rather screw the economy than admit they'd got it wrong. Amoral wankers.

yep

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:09

You still haven't addressed the additional load on the NHS, LJ. It's not just the elderly who are going to hospital.

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:16

kenneal - lagger wrote:You still haven't addressed the additional load on the NHS, LJ. It's not just the elderly who are going to hospital.

So what proportion of younger people with COVID are using up NHS resouces then? You've said it's not just the elderly that are going to hospital - lets's see some evidence to support your assertion.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:16

kenneal - lagger wrote:You still haven't addressed the additional load on the NHS, LJ. It's not just the elderly who are going to hospital.

Yes I have addressed it. You are just not listening because you have so completely psychologically invested yourself in a particular narrative. It is overwhelmingly the elderly and other vulnerable groups who are represented in the numbers in UK hospitals and that is on the back of those who became infected prior to and in the early days of the only partial lock-down that did not sufficiently target the elderly and vulnerable. If the elderly (say, post 70 years of age) were comprehensively quarantined along with other identifiable vulnerable groups, the load on the NHS would be lower than it is today by a large margin.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:22

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/

From the above, it can be seen that anyone under 50, with no comorbidities, should be out keeping the economy afloat. The rise in death rate in the 50-70 age range will be accounted for by the relatively higher portion of them with identifiable comorbidities and so such people in that age range could be offered quarantine with full state support. Anyone above 70, irrespective of any other consideration, could also be offered quarantine with full state support.

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:53

Suppose the virus was defeated tomorrow morning ...

... would your life go back to pre-virus 'normal?

https://www.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/only- ... -lockdown/

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:55

Vortex2 wrote:Suppose the virus was defeated tomorrow morning ...

... would your life go back to pre-virus 'normal?

https://www.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/only- ... -lockdown/

Meanwhile, in the actual real world as opposed to emotionally incontinent editorial pieces....

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 21 Apr 2020, 22:59

Little John wrote:
Vortex2 wrote:Suppose the virus was defeated tomorrow morning ...

... would your life go back to pre-virus 'normal?

https://www.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/only- ... -lockdown/
Meanwhile, in the actual real world as opposed to emotionally incontinent editorial pieces....

I posed a question.

Was that an answer?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Apr 2020, 23:00

Vortex2 wrote:
Little John wrote:
Vortex2 wrote:Suppose the virus was defeated tomorrow morning ...

... would your life go back to pre-virus 'normal?

https://www.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/only- ... -lockdown/
Meanwhile, in the actual real world as opposed to emotionally incontinent editorial pieces....
I posed a question.

Was that an answer?

Yes

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 22 Apr 2020, 09:09

I am not against any plan as long as it's fair logical and followed properly. If you are going to create a subgroup of at risk - what are you proposing? A retirement on presumably a modest income for anyone who is 'someone at risk of severe illness if you catch coronavirus' according to the NHS letter with no reference number. I could retire at 55. Will it be means tested? 1st we need to know how many people this is, hence the question 4 pages back. The letter is written as if it is for decrepid people but here are the groups:

Solid organ transplant recipients.

People with specific cancers:
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma who are at any stage of treatment
people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer. People having other targeted cancer treatments which can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors.
People who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months, or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs

People with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD).

People with rare diseases and inborn errors of metabolism that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell).

People on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection.

Women who are pregnant with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired.

So this becomes the new 'vibration white finger' 'asbestosis' 'woodbine smokers lung' - whatever the gov needs to remove 5 million from the unemployment figures.

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 22 Apr 2020, 09:19

FT: At 41,000, coronavirus death toll in UK twice as high as official figure

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d0 ... 39799fa6ab

(Weren't the gurus suggesting a 20k maximum a few weeks back? At this rate this wave alone could reach 80k deaths)

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 22 Apr 2020, 09:28

fuzzy wrote:I am not against any plan as long as it's fair logical and followed properly. If you are going to create a subgroup of at risk - what are you proposing? A retirement on presumably a modest income for anyone who is 'someone at risk of severe illness if you catch coronavirus' according to the NHS letter with no reference number. I could retire at 55. Will it be means tested? 1st we need to know how many people this is, hence the question 4 pages back. The letter is written as if it is for decrepid people but here are the groups:

Solid organ transplant recipients.

People with specific cancers:
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma who are at any stage of treatment
people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer. People having other targeted cancer treatments which can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors.
People who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months, or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs

People with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD).

People with rare diseases and inborn errors of metabolism that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell).

People on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection.

Women who are pregnant with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired.

So this becomes the new 'vibration white finger' 'asbestosis' 'woodbine smokers lung' - whatever the gov needs to remove 5 million from the unemployment figures.

Look at the comorbidity and age demographics of those who have been admitted to hospital with Covid-19, those who have spent the most time in hospital with Covid-19 and those who have died in hospital from covid-19. Additionally, look at other institutional settings where people have died such as old folks homes etc. Your vulnerable groups are in those demographics. Where the line is drawn amongst them in terms of support for and/or enforcement of quarantining is, obviously, open to debate.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 22 Apr 2020, 09:31

Vortex2 wrote:FT: At 41,000, coronavirus death toll in UK twice as high as official figure

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d0 ... 39799fa6ab

(Weren't the gurus suggesting a 20k maximum a few weeks back? At this rate this wave alone could reach 80k deaths)

What gurus would that be? Besides which, we already know on here how many people could die if this thing just let rip with no quarantining whatsoever and it would possibly be a damned site bigger than several hundred thousand.

Stop trying to use emotion and cheap hysteria here, of all places, to win an argument because you have run out of logic and evidence to back that argument up.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 22 Apr 2020, 09:41

Vortex2 wrote:FT: At 41,000, coronavirus death toll in UK twice as high as official figure

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d0 ... 39799fa6ab

(Weren't the gurus suggesting a 20k maximum a few weeks back? At this rate this wave alone could reach 80k deaths)

Interesting and I think the right way to measure Covid-19s effect in the end but I think they are drawing conclusions and making projections too early and will therefore miss the mark.
Reason being Covid-19 has hurried up the deaths of people who were going to die later and be in the rest of the years figures and you can only die once.
You may well have the situation of the final quarter of the year having death rates significantly lower then recent historic trends because the Covid-19 has run out of weak victims and the care homes have already been emptied of all the most frail.
Only after they have a complete years figures and perhaps two years will they be able to tell the final tally.