Coronavirus - Page 61 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I know I’ll regret it but think I’ll buy a PlayStation 4. Healthier than watching YouTube and falling down the corona black hole 

Play Zombie apocalypse games to prepare.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as how chess has featured in this thread, for anyone remotely interested (probably only me in fairness) the Candidates Final in Russia (basically to decide who challenges for the World Championship) has been cancelled half way through so that the players can get home before the lockdown there. 

The fact it was still running probably tells you a lot about Putin & his attitudes as it’s a big money-spinner with surprising levels of global interest & sponsorship. 

For the record, there was also a ‘giant-killing’ on the cards with the odds-on favourite struggling. 

Ok, boring thread over - carry on as you were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife works for NHS Scotland in Glasgow and is part of various teams to get staff tested and setup testing centres for the public.  They are looking for minimum 400 temporary staff.  From her take

We don't have enough protective equipment for frontline staff.

We are not testing enough staff to get them back to work.

3:1 ratio of good guys to wanks.  Self isolation from people with recorded high levels of absence.  Bank nurses signing up for shifts then going off sick with now pay.

Wards getting prepared. Lot of staff waiting and preparing for the peak in couple of weeks.

Lack of centralised processing for volunteers.  You need organisation and staff to process.

Full levers of the state slowly turning.  Resources and experiences being shared UK wide.  Army getting involved in logistics and ready to cover prisons.

So after this we need a big review where Scottish Government succeeded and failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan said:

My wife works for NHS Scotland in Glasgow and is part of various teams to get staff tested and setup testing centres for the public.  They are looking for minimum 400 temporary staff.  From her take

We don't have enough protective equipment for frontline staff.

We are not testing enough staff to get them back to work.

3:1 ratio of good guys to wanks.  Self isolation from people with recorded high levels of absence.  Bank nurses signing up for shifts then going off sick with now pay.

Wards getting prepared. Lot of staff waiting and preparing for the peak in couple of weeks.

Lack of centralised processing for volunteers.  You need organisation and staff to process.

Full levers of the state slowly turning.  Resources and experiences being shared UK wide.  Army getting involved in logistics and ready to cover prisons.

So after this we need a big review where Scottish Government succeeded and failed.

That’s ridiculous that bank nurses are able to sign up and then go off sick with pay. 

Its the same here in New South Wales with protective equipment. Both our ward managers made their one appearance in the nurses station today, moan about the clutter but still refuse to restrict visitors and patient leave off the ward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early days it was much more risky extrapolating the historical data trends into future data trends. But now we are approaching 500,000 cases and it will be a million cases quite quickly from here. At this point you can start looking at the past to predict the future with increasing degrees of accuracy. These are basic and simple statistical extrapolations, but they are useful for understanding where this thing is going and how fast, especially if you look at them over time and see how they are changing. 

I appreciate people are starting to be afraid but 1% of the world population is roughly 78 million cases. Currently the total number of cases worldwide is around half a million. So things are not as bad as it feels. They are definitely on the edge but we still have time. This thing can be curbed but believe it or not a lot of folk still don't take it that seriously.

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

It's your earlier point about too many unknown variables that I think is key. People can speculate all they want, but we need reminding every now and again that raw numbers mean next to nowt.

The only data that we can be fairly sure of, is the number of deaths. Looking at the UK and Scotland specifically we can also be fairly confident about the number for severe plus critical cases. But other than that is all estimations. The estimations can also be useful if based on sound logical thinking but there is always a very good chance that something pop up that we didn't know about. 

It's all good exercise for the brain even if it does turn out to be utter bollocks.

Japan seems to have this under control. What have they done differently? Or, have they just stopped counting?;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I know I’ll regret it but think I’ll buy a PlayStation 4. Healthier than watching YouTube and falling down the corona black hole 

The very same thing crossed my mind as well. I haven't owned a console for about 8 years. The final Straw was LA Noir and after sifting through another murder scene I decided modern games were too detailed but I'm starting to think otherwise again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huddersfield said:

Sorry to outpedant you 😁

Greater Manchester is a district council area - the biggest component part is Manchester itself with a (give or take) population of about half a million. The rest comprises several small & larger towns surrounding Manchester, such as Bury, Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, etc., whose population generally wouldn't thank you for saying they come from Manchester.

I take your point on naming, on numbers though. The definition of what constitutes Greater Glasgow is pretty nebulous and not without controversy.   However, if you were to take the local council areas of Glasgow CIty, East and West Dunbartonshire, North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire (why is it East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire) that's probably a fair approximation.   Those council areas give a total population of 1.756 million.   However what is important is population density as that drives - to an extent - how many people you will come into close contact.   The population density is 1427 people per square mile.   

In this context that number is probably far too low.   South Lanarkshire is geographically a large council area - it's actually larger than all the other council areas combined but it's population is concentrated to the north and closer to Glasgow, i.e. Hamilton, Rutherglen, East Kilbride, etc - some of which would be considered as "Glasgow" by any reasonable person.

If you take South Lanarkshire out then it becomes 2629 people per square mile.   That's probably a closer number for "Greater Glasgow".

Greater Manchester in comparison has a population of 2.812 million and density of 5,710 people per square mile - so almost twice that of Glasgow.

Merseyside which abuts Greater Manchester has a similar density.

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The only data that we can be fairly sure of, is the number of deaths. Looking at the UK and Scotland specifically we can also be fairly confident about the number for severe plus critical cases. But other than that is all estimations. The estimations can also be useful if based on sound logical thinking but there is always a very good chance that something pop up that we didn't know about. 

It's all good exercise for the brain even if it does turn out to be utter bollocks.

Japan seems to have this under control. What have they done differently? Or, have they just stopped counting?;)

 

 

They're getting worried that it's about to take off again. Tokyo is showing a surge of cases. At the moment, life's pretty normal (restaurants, bars, shops all normal), but feeling that might change. It's getting towards the end of the spring break, and people are coming back from abroad, plus schools are due to open soon. Feels like we've just had a pause.

Yes, you have the numbers of deaths, but little context - such as age, underlying conditions, location, approximate date of infection, period from infection to death (to give some indication of the effect of shutdown), percentage of negative/positive tests, criteria for testing. No doubt these figures are available to some and increasingly accurate models are being developed, but as aaid says, no one here has them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

First there was an angry under reaction now there is an angry over reaction. I am past caring at this point.

I am sorry for your loss but you said it was an unrelated illness and I assume from your posts not entirely unexpected so why you are having a go on this coronavirus thread I am not sure.

This will be my last post on it but I was trying to show why the authorities are reacting the way they are. That should have been obvious as I was taking a range of infection rates and seeing what that might mean given the mortality rates we are seeing. Even if it hits 1% of the world population it would be very serious and that combined with the high rate of infectiousness means we need to go into serious lockdown now (see the Hammer & the Dance article referenced above).

Anyhoo fuck it, not worth the snide pish that this thread is degenerating into now.

Thanks for sparking this Tidy. Nice one.

Oi !  I posted a tongue in cheek point that the figures mean bugger all.
If people agree and you don't like the aftermath dont blame me.  If you have the right to post the ‘data’ then I bloody well think I have the right to denounce it. 

You are being childish.I know because I have a tendency to be childish too.  You post loads of good thought provoking stuff and no one is asking you to stop . But I personally don't think creative numbers are helping at all.

Thats my last word on the subject too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

They're getting worried that it's about to take off again. Tokyo is showing a surge of cases. At the moment, life's pretty normal (restaurants, bars, shops all normal), but feeling that might change. It's getting towards the end of the spring break, and people are coming back from abroad, plus schools are due to open soon. Feels like we've just had a pause.

Yes, you have the numbers of deaths, but little context - such as age, underlying conditions, location, approximate date of infection, period from infection to death (to give some indication of the effect of shutdown), percentage of negative/positive tests, criteria for testing. No doubt these figures are available to some and increasingly accurate models are being developed, but as aaid says, no one here has them.

The data is out there to see ICNARC published data for the first 225 cases in England and Wales. 

There are some heartening aspects like length of ventilation however the age, gender and BMI spread are a bit concerning. 

There is a wealth of information, a lot of it very good. The trouble is there is an incredible amount of it. The speed some of it is moving is amazing. 

Interestingly none of it is behind journal paywalls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

I take your point on naming, on numbers though. The definition of what constitutes Greater Glasgow is pretty nebulous and not without controversy.   However, if you were to take the local council areas of Glasgow CIty, East and West Dunbartonshire, North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire (why is it East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire) that's probably a fair approximation.   Those council areas give a total population of 1.756 million.   However what is important is population density as that drives - to an extent - how many people you will come into close contact.   The population density is 1427 people per square mile.   

In this context that number is probably far too low.   South Lanarkshire is geographically a large council area - it's actually larger than all the other council areas combined but it's population is concentrated to the north and closer to Glasgow, i.e. Hamilton, Rutherglen, East Kilbride, etc - some of which would be considered as "Glasgow" by any reasonable person.

If you take South Lanarkshire out then it becomes 2629 people per square mile.   That's probably a closer number for "Greater Glasgow".

Greater Manchester in comparison has a population of 2.812 million and density of 5,710 people per square mile - so almost twice that of Glasgow.

Merseyside which abuts Greater Manchester has a similar density.

I agree completely about population density...& that's probably a better guide. I don't know the Greater Glasgow area in any sort of detail, but where Manchester is concerned (& I'm going to guess it's the same for most cities), population density will be concentrated very unevenly. There are parts of Huddersfield that feel to me like they could easily become 'hotspots'...particularly some of the areas where the poorer end of the Pakistani communities live; very compact, old school back-to-back terraced houses; quite overcrowded; families in & out of each others places all the time. There's also disproportionately high levels of certain health issues there as well.

I guess  you'd need to think in terms of smaller 'micro' areas...how many people live in areas where population density is above a particular level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The only data that we can be fairly sure of, is the number of deaths. Looking at the UK and Scotland specifically we can also be fairly confident about the number for severe plus critical cases. But other than that is all estimations. The estimations can also be useful if based on sound logical thinking but there is always a very good chance that something pop up that we didn't know about. 

It's all good exercise for the brain even if it does turn out to be utter bollocks.

Japan seems to have this under control. What have they done differently? Or, have they just stopped counting?;)

 

 

The one key piece of data which it seems no-one in the world has is the number of people who have caught it but have either had it and had no symptoms or very mild symptoms and who haven't reported it.    Anecdotally, that seems to be orders of magnitude higher than reported cases, but of course no one knows right now.  The only way you will know that is by mass testing of the population which isn't happening now.    I remember seeing a news conference with Chris Whitty, the UK medical guy - it seems like months ago but in reality was probably only a couple of weeks.   He was asked what one piece of data are you lacking which would make this easier for you - his reply was, number of people infected without symptoms.

You can look at rates in other countries who are ahead in the curve, e.g. Italy and draw a comparison between the number of reported cases there and the number of deaths and extrapolate that to the UK.  That's not without its own problems though as not withstanding demographic differences - Italy has an older population than the UK - are the systems whereby cases are reported the same, put simply what is the testing procedure, in the UK it's a case of only report it if you get bad, otherwise self isolate - was that the same in Italy at the same point?   I don't know what the answer to that is BTW, but if you assume it is then it's a pretty big assumption.

What you can't do though is take a rate that is based on deaths/confirmed cases and then use that to say "what if 25% of the population get it or what if 50% or what if..." because if say 50% of the population get it, what we don't know is what percentage of those people would be in the category of "reported cases".

I'm making the numbers up to demonstrate the point here. 

Lets say the death rate from confirmed cases is 5% and lets say 10% of people who catch it have serious enough symptoms that they would contact the NHS.

If 50% of the population catches it then the death rate is 

5% (people who die) of 10% (people with serious symptoms) of 25% (people infected).

Or 0.125% of the population.

It is not 5% (people who die) of 25%  (people infected)

That's not epidemiology, its just arithmetic.

For clarity - not adding to you post not disagreeing with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Oi !  I posted a tongue in cheek point that the figures mean bugger all.
If people agree and you don't like the aftermath dont blame me.  If you have the right to post the ‘data’ then I bloody well think I have the right to denounce it. 

You are being childish.I know because I have a tendency to be childish too.  You post loads of good thought provoking stuff and no one is asking you to stop . But I personally don't think creative numbers are helping at all.

Thats my last word on the subject too. 

It came across as angry and rude TBH and totally out of the blue. You seemed to miss the point as well. 

The numbers were quoted from the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ web page at the time. If you think doing basic arithmetic and extrapolations on the real data are 'creative numbers' then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. 

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

The one key piece of data which it seems no-one in the world has is the number of people who have caught it but have either had it and had no symptoms or very mild symptoms and who haven't reported it.    Anecdotally, that seems to be orders of magnitude higher than reported cases, but of course no one knows right now.  The only way you will know that is by mass testing of the population which isn't happening now.    I remember seeing a news conference with Chris Whitty, the UK medical guy - it seems like months ago but in reality was probably only a couple of weeks.   He was asked what one piece of data are you lacking which would make this easier for you - his reply was, number of people infected without symptoms.

You can look at rates in other countries who are ahead in the curve, e.g. Italy and draw a comparison between the number of reported cases there and the number of deaths and extrapolate that to the UK.  That's not without its own problems though as not withstanding demographic differences - Italy has an older population than the UK - are the systems whereby cases are reported the same, put simply what is the testing procedure, in the UK it's a case of only report it if you get bad, otherwise self isolate - was that the same in Italy at the same point?   I don't know what the answer to that is BTW, but if you assume it is then it's a pretty big assumption.

What you can't do though is take a rate that is based on deaths/confirmed cases and then use that to say "what if 25% of the population get it or what if 50% or what if..." because if say 50% of the population get it, what we don't know is what percentage of those people would be in the category of "reported cases".

I'm making the numbers up to demonstrate the point here. 

Lets say the death rate from confirmed cases is 5% and lets say 10% of people who catch it have serious enough symptoms that they would contact the NHS.

If 50% of the population catches it then the death rate is 

5% (people who die) of 10% (people with serious symptoms) of 25% (people infected).

Or 0.125% of the population.

It is not 5% (people who die) of 25%  (people infected)

That's not epidemiology, its just arithmetic.

For clarity - not adding to you post not disagreeing with it.

The denominator will likely never be known. However the numerator is fvcking the health care systems of every country in the world. Not to mention the economy. 

It may end up having a mortality of around 0.1 like the flu. However the current state is unlike anything I've ever seen. 

H1N1 in 2009 didn't feel like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, thplinth said:

It came across as angry and rude TBH and totally out of the blue. You seemed to miss the point as well. 

The numbers were quoted from the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ web page at the time. If you think doing basic arithmetic and extrapolations on the real data are 'creative numbers' then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. 

I was not angry and did not intend to be rude. I was tired. The problem with written communication is that it is open to interpretation. 
Yes , we will agree to disagree on the numbers. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listening to Call Kaye on Radio Scotland - kill me now.

They've just quoted Catherine Calderwood - the CMO for Scotland - saying that for every 1 death in Scotland they estimate there are 1000 cases in the community and for every person in ICU - that's currently in ICU, not who have been in ICU - there are 500 cases in the community.

I don't know what she's basing those numbers on but I assume she has the best available data and knows what she's talking about.

Important to add some perspective.

Just to point out that it wasn't Kaye Adams quoting those numbers but one of the guests, a doctor.

 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Oi !  I posted a tongue in cheek point that the figures mean bugger all.
If people agree and you don't like the aftermath dont blame me.  If you have the right to post the ‘data’ then I bloody well think I have the right to denounce it. 

You are being childish.I know because I have a tendency to be childish too.  You post loads of good thought provoking stuff and no one is asking you to stop . But I personally don't think creative numbers are helping at all.

Thats my last word on the subject too. 

The numbers help me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

How many folk has that parasite infected so far? Fukin bawbag. He probably needs three servants to wipe his erse every day.

Well he famously has someone put his toothpaste on his toothbrush so nothing would surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Kate Forbes on The Nine the other night, thought she came across really well. For anyone interested she starts just after 6 mins in. Compare her to Matt Hancock who comes on shortly after.  
Not sure if this link works, I havent tried posting link to an iplayer before. It was from 24 march.

The Nine, 24/03/2020: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000gsbd via @bbciplayer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

It came across as angry and rude TBH and totally out of the blue. You seemed to miss the point as well. 

The numbers were quoted from the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ web page at the time. If you think doing basic arithmetic and extrapolations on the real data are 'creative numbers' then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. 

I check the WHO site everyday although it's stats seem to be about 24 hrs other news reports and the site you've linked.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd

However scary things are in Europe I really dread to think what could happen in other parts of the world with less developed medical systems and structures e.g. Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...