- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
The pm is on about day 15 on that graph. It does mean we won’t see the results of the lockdown until mid April at the earliest
Big Numbers today
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The serious media have been saying they can't see much chance of the lock down being changed when the review date arrives which is I think is the end of this week ish.
Personally I don't think it will end until it gives them good statistics on the effect of the lockdown also needing to bear in mind further peaks. Not much mention now of the 70+ isolating for 3 months. I could only find figures for 65+, getting on for 15million people. Looks like there are near 2million 80+.
As I am 71, wife 70 can't help being interested in that. We still need to shop regularly. Looks to be around once a week and a bit and that is not easy.Not been much mention of this by the media. It was mentioned in a daily brief
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...are-their-coronavirus-symptoms-to-help-others
The statistics people probably wont like the idea as "people" fill it in so unreliable. Me, I'd like to kick their backsides for not putting something up much sooner that people could update as things progressed but being fair people would probably mess it up as currently lots of people will be wondering about anything they notice about themselves. Some % will be over the top.
any exit strategy requires data feedback from comprehensive testing, anti gen and antibody. Until that is in place, I cant see any end to the lockdown in sight.
I heard a scientist say yesterday that we should expect the lockdown to continue until Christmas in some form. Its likely that that the lockdown will end in stages, possibly with use of an immunity passport.
Sponsored Links
Don't know. Who's to say that the immune can't still pass it on. It means they can fight it. They have lots of questions that need an answer and the one thing they do know is that this one is very contagious and weather warming up is unlikely to have any effect. They are also not keen on an immunity test that is 90% accurate but some have said may have to use it anyway. The numbers mentioned suggest statistical sampling - that could be why they don't like 90%
There is some info that was given with less detail in one of the briefs
https://assets.publishing.service.g...121/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-strategy.pdf
I don't see that figure. where did you find it?
Are you working from
"Catherine Calderwood, Scotland’s chief medical officer, said every death meant there were roughly 1,000 coronavirus infections in the general population"
because that 1,000 includes an (unknown) number who are infected, and have not died yet, but will.
Other countries have used green but on a mobile phone.
May have that wrong but but believe certain colours could change while people are walking around or they could get a text that says they are now at some risk or even have been near some one that now has it.
May have that wrong but but believe certain colours could change while people are walking around or they could get a text that says they are now at some risk or even have been near some one that now has it.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 3,305
- Reaction score
- 820
- Country
and others, it seems a fairly common utterance form CMO's Gov's etc in estimating how wide spread the infection may be. Yes of course some of that 1000 will die, by which time many many more will be infected.
The truth is until widescale testing is carried out we have no idea how widespread this is, no one knows how may people have been affected who have remained mostly symptom free. So no one has a clue what the mortality rate is.
1:1000 would still be disastrous, if 80% of the population get it, that would be close on 50,000 deaths
I suspect we will all be exposed to it in the next year.
What figure are you believing?
don't know yet. I only know that the "confirmed cases" numbers are much too low, because we do not have the capability to test many people. UK testing capacity, and numbers tested to date, are very unsatisfactory.
If a road safety organisation only tested the brakes on one car in a million, and found thirty of them had faulty brakes, it would never say "we only have thirty confirmed cases of faulty brakes in the country"
unless it was deliberately (or incompetently) conveying a misleading impression.
I'm prepared to believe that the death rate for infected people is in the region of 1% to 3% (greatly higher in at-risk groups, greatly lower in children).
If a road safety organisation only tested the brakes on one car in a million, and found thirty of them had faulty brakes, it would never say "we only have thirty confirmed cases of faulty brakes in the country"
unless it was deliberately (or incompetently) conveying a misleading impression.
I'm prepared to believe that the death rate for infected people is in the region of 1% to 3% (greatly higher in at-risk groups, greatly lower in children).
It could higher than that if the age spread of the population is taken into account. I'm not going to try to do the sums but info is around for 65+ and 80+. It's a lot of people. 80% is loosely people out of those groups from memory.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
Seems reasonable and seems on par with other countries. Roughly 3 times more potent than seasonal flu.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
correction more like 10. 3x was the number they were calling back in feb.
Trouble is - it relies on "reported cases" which we know isn't accurate.
Trouble is - it relies on "reported cases" which we know isn't accurate.
Arithmetically in the UK around 800,000 people must die every year (>2,000 a week); most of whom will be old.
If 80% of the population get covid, then most of them won't be old.
If 80% of the population get covid, then most of them won't be old.
Sponsored Links
