Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, phart said:

It's the difference between how many people die of the virus and how many people die cause they can't get treatment for the virus.

 

13 minutes ago, beardy said:

The Hammer and Dance talk about the collateral damage. If your ICU is full ov Covid 19 then you limit other people who can access it. There will be massive collateral deaths.

Just reading it now. Wow that is another dimension I had not even thought about.

It's the difference between how many people die of the virus and how many people die cause they can't get treatment because of the virus.

What happens if you have a heart attack but the ambulance takes 50 minutes to come instead of 8 (too many coronavirus cases) and once you arrive, there’s no ICU and no doctor available? You die.

There are 4 million admissions to the ICU in the US every year, and 500k (~13%) of them die. Without ICU beds, that share would likely go much closer to 80%. Even if only 50% died, in a year-long epidemic you go from 500k deaths a year to 2M, so you’re adding 1.5M deaths, just with collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

prince Charles now has the virus

 

Elderly Londoner who ignored government advice to travel to holiday home in Scotland tests positive for COVID-19.

h/t @Cove_Sheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeezo so if things start getting out of hand you will not just have to avoid getting the virus but avoid getting any and every other serious medical condition as well during the crisis period.

Not just falling ill for some other reason but random shit like getting hit by a car might prove fatal whereas before they would have been able to save you. It could be anything that requires urgent medical care which is probably just not going to be available if they are totally overwhelmed.

The ramifications of this thing just don't end at this point. Social unrest, the lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, aaid said:

Elderly Londoner who ignored government advice to travel to holiday home in Scotland tests positive for COVID-19.

h/t @Cove_Sheep

Hopefully he visited his manmmy on Mothers Day,,,,,, 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

prince Charles now has the virus

 

Wish the cunt had stayed down at his actual residence instead of traipsing up north with his hangers on potentially spreading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tartan_McCole said:

Wish the cunt had stayed down at his actual residence instead of traipsing up north with his hangers on potentially spreading it.

Agreed. Fuckin prick. Stay in your own country with yir entourage. Cunt...😡😡😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thplinth said:

If you assume that all the current mild cases recover and all the current serious cases die you get an overall death rate of...

18,928 deaths + 13,115 critical cases = 32,043 total deaths

109,179 recovered +282,702 mild cases = 391,981 recovered

Death rate 32,043 / 391,981 = 8.175% death rate

So if the whole population of earth caught it ...

7,800 million people x .08175 = 637.65 million deaths

If a quarter of the world population get it = 159.4 million deaths

If just 10% of the world gets it = 63.8 million deaths.

If 1% get it = 6.38 million deaths

It is shaping up to be pretty bad.

That overall death rate has been rising as well not falling. It used to be closer to 6 or 7%. It is currently running 15% but the deaths come in faster than the recoveries. Even by assuming what I do above it is still 8.175%.

No wonder they are desperately trying stamp on it now.

Should that death rate not include those dead + recovered so 32,043/424,024 = 7.557%
 

still high but slightly better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thplinth said:

If you assume that all the current mild cases recover and all the current serious cases die you get an overall death rate of...

18,928 deaths + 13,115 critical cases = 32,043 total deaths

109,179 recovered +282,702 mild cases = 391,981 recovered

Death rate 32,043 / 391,981 = 8.175% death rate

So if the whole population of earth caught it ...

7,800 million people x .08175 = 637.65 million deaths

If a quarter of the world population get it = 159.4 million deaths

If just 10% of the world gets it = 63.8 million deaths.

If 1% get it = 6.38 million deaths

It is shaping up to be pretty bad.

That overall death rate has been rising as well not falling. It used to be closer to 6 or 7%. It is currently running 15% but the deaths come in faster than the recoveries. Even by assuming what I do above it is still 8.175%.

No wonder they are desperately trying stamp on it now.

Surely all of the current serious cases won't die though?

I have seen a few experts saying the true death rate will likely be around 1%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phart said:

It's the difference between how many people die of the virus and how many people die cause they can't get treatment for the virus.

I think that's it in a nutshell. The NHS runs almost at the brink of meltdown every year. It's a reflection of how badly our NHS has been allowed to be run down, that this one new virus could cause the NHS to collapse completely. If we had 10 times more ICU beds and the people to staff them then I don't we would be in lockdown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the simple truth is we'll never know the true rate ever. My daughter & her partner look like they might have it, but both are just describing 'a bit of a nasty cough' they can't shake off...so it might be, it might not be, but not a big enough problem to warrant getting medics involved at this point. They are unlikely ever to be tested. So we're only ever going to get a figure based on deaths as a percentage of positive tests. That's bound to give us a statistically higher death rate than reality. Beyond that, we're guessing really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Crazily I foresee the next wave of 'panic buying' will be when the realization hits the herd that they'd be better off getting it now and getting a place in an ICU than later when things could be already overwhelmed. I expect them all to be out licking windows and door handles very soon... 

:lol:

I think we might have already missed the boat on that one. Especially anyone in London.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaid said:

Elderly Londoner who ignored government advice to travel to holiday home in Scotland tests positive for COVID-19.

h/t @Cove_Sheep

Awe fuk, is he in Scotland taking up one of our ICU beds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I think the simple truth is we'll never know the true rate ever. My daughter & her partner look like they might have it, but both are just describing 'a bit of a nasty cough' they can't shake off...so it might be, it might not be, but not a big enough problem to warrant getting medics involved at this point. They are unlikely ever to be tested. So we're only ever going to get a figure based on deaths as a percentage of positive tests. That's bound to give us a statistically higher death rate than reality. Beyond that, we're guessing really.

I think that the best data will come out of places like S Korea and China. After it's under control and things get back to some normality (whatever the new normal will be), they will go back and test huge more chunks of the population who haven't already been tested to get a idea of how many folk had it and how badly they were affected. They won't be testing for the actual virus but for antibodies to get a feel for how widespread it was. They will also be able to use this data to get an idea about immunity levels after having the virus. We probably won't do that here because it will be considered too expensive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

If we had 10 times more ICU beds and the people to staff them then I don't we would be in lockdown.  

Easy to say that now but any other year that amount of ICU beds would be unnecessary. 

Edited by ParisInAKilt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dohadeer said:

That doesn’t look anything like the type of legitimate source that you should be sharing.

When you say "source", what's illegitimate, the quotes and videos, or the website that hosts them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f188de9d80da6354348712a4d49b4f31--evil-q

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation." 

Edited by Scotty CTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Easy to say that now but any other year that amount of ICU beds would be unnecessary. 

The NHS is always short of beds (and people to staff them). Just because they are ICU beds doesn't mean that they can't be used for other patients at times when there is less demand for the ICU bit.

One positive that might come out of this is that the HNS might just get wee bit more respect and funding from the politicians and folk who control the purse strings. Wouldn't bet on it though.

Edited by Orraloon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I think the simple truth is we'll never know the true rate ever. My daughter & her partner look like they might have it, but both are just describing 'a bit of a nasty cough' they can't shake off...so it might be, it might not be, but not a big enough problem to warrant getting medics involved at this point. They are unlikely ever to be tested. So we're only ever going to get a figure based on deaths as a percentage of positive tests. That's bound to give us a statistically higher death rate than reality. Beyond that, we're guessing really.

I think we will start to get a better estimate.    In Scotland, anyway, they have been talking about ramping up community testing.   That's something they do as a matter of course all the time to track things like flu.  They test random people - essentially people who visit their GPs, hospitals and clinics for unrelated reasons.   They are going to extend that testing to test for COVID-19 and increase the level of testing.   I think Jeane Freeman said that would extend to a sample group that would scale to 1.5 million - so about 25% or the population.  Note, that doesn't mean that 1.5 million people will be tested but they will test a large enough sample that they can extrapolate to that level - don't ask me how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

I had a wee thought last night that made me feel a wee 

The NHS is always short of beds (and people to staff them). Just because they are ICU beds doesn't mean that they can't be used for other patients at times when there is less demand for the ICU bit.

One positive that might come out of this is that the HNS might just get wee bit more respect and funding from the politicians and folk who control the purse strings. Wouldn't bet on it though.

Fair points. 
I also wouldn’t bet on that. And I’m a terrible gambler. 
Think a lot more could be done on disease prevention as well, especially related to lifestyle choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...