Coronavirus

[j1979]

Have another read of that Wikipedia article. That 53,000 isn't tested and confirmed cases. It's an estimate of new weekly cases, for the week of October 22, based on HPA modelling. Awkward.

But also, why would you assume the same rate of testing, given the easy availability of influenza tests, versus the complete failure of Coronavirus testing?

It's confirmed cases total at that point, not new cases (it's called a running total)

estimated was 435000, cases doubled to 53000 confirmed on that date.

You need to learn to read.

Awkward.

And im not assuming i just applied the same logic, it's also tied in with the offical WHO and Lancet figures on the mortality rate. What a coincidence

[TeePee]

It's confirmed cases total at that point, not new cases (it's called a running total)

estimated was 435000, cases doubled to 53000 confirmed on that date.

You need to learn to read.

Awkward.

And im not assuming i just applied the same logic, it's also tied in with the offical WHO and Lancet figures on the mortality rate. What a coincidence

Go ahead and have another read of that Wikipedia article. You're embarrassing yourself.

[j1979]

Have another read of that Wikipedia article. That 53,000 isn't tested and confirmed cases. It's an estimate of new weekly cases, for the week of October 22, based on HPA modelling. Awkward.

But also, why would you assume the same rate of testing, given the easy availability of influenza tests, versus the complete failure of Coronavirus testing?

Ok you win one point it's new cases but your still a liar, speading complete drivel.

Quite clearly it's more deadly than swine flu.

ans it accualy proves my point, if etimated cases are 435,000 cases and deaths are 128 thats still an estimated mortaility of 0.029%

[TeePee]

Ok you win one point it's new cases but your still a liar, speading complete drivel.

Quite clearly it's more deadly than swine flu.

ans it accualy proves my point, if etimated cases are 435,000 cases and deaths are 128 thats still an estimated mortaility of 0.029%

The actual mortality of Swine flu was lower than the usual seasonal flu, but the CFR was higher. It's a perfect example of why CFR isn't a good indicator of the actual mortality rate.

But now you're calling me a liar. Have a read of the way that you're behaving, and have a think about if that's really the way you want to have a discussion with people. I know these are stressful times, but this kind of thing is just unnecessary. It doesn't help you get your point across. We can have a civil discussion.

[j1979]

The actual mortality of Swine flu was lower than the usual seasonal flu, but the CFR was higher. It's a perfect example of why CFR isn't a good indicator of the actual mortality rate.

But now you're calling me a liar. Have a read of the way that you're behaving, and have a think about if that's really the way you want to have a discussion with people. I know these are stressful times, but this kind of thing is just unnecessary. It doesn't help you get your point across. We can have a civil discussion.

500 people died in the swine flu pandemic in th UK, that many are now dying daily in the UK. Half way through this discussion you went on to say flu is less deadly it has a vacine.

If you want an apples to apples comparison, it's impossible. H1N1 was the 1917/18 (Spanish flu) and the 2009 Swine flu. it's impossible to compare, because many older people were imune as H1N1 was around until 1957 when it was erradicated in Humans and many older people had some level of immunity when it reemerged in 2009.

why do you continue to deny the WHO mortality rate of 1% for coronavirus

[TeePee]

500 people died in the swine flu pandemic in th UK, that many are now dying daily in the UK. Half way through this discussion you went on to say flu is less deadly it has a vacine.

If you want an apples to apples comparison, it's impossible. H1N1 was the 1917/18 (Spanish flu) and the 2009 Swine flu. it's impossible to compare, because many older people were imune as H1N1 was around until 1957 when it was erradicated in Humans and many older people had some level of immunity when it reemerged in 2009.

why do you continue to deny the WHO mortality rate of 1% for coronavirus

The total number dead is only relevant to mortality rate with a denominator.

The WHO rate was based on CFR in China two months ago. It is not based on estimates of total infections. Remember the WHO were saying this couldn't pass between people back in January. More data is needed, and the estimations we have are pretty thin, but are generally being shown to be accurate. Give it time for more data.

[j1979]

The total number dead is only relevant to mortality rate with a denominator.

yes i think everyone understands that!


So you think that the WHO is wrong by a factor of x 10?

[g8ina]

temporarily closed for review by Admin and HEXUS staff. Please be patient guys...

Thanks.

[Zak33]

bored bored bored.

the moment people start calling eah other liars, is the moment it closes.

will ban the next people who are rude to each other.

[Ferral]

I'm going to reopen this but please everyone play fair and adhere to what Zak has said above.

I know tensions can be high for those stuck at home (I feel like tearing someones head off at times), everyone is getting bored so as a community we should be coming together not bickering

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

There seems to be a divide between the media reported numbers and the ONS numbers:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus...death_numbers/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...nglandandwales

It appears the media reported numbers are just for the hospitals and does not include other instances where COVID19 are suspected. So it might be worth also taking into consideration the ONS numbers too,in any future discussions about this.

[j1979]

bored bored bored.

the moment people start calling eah other liars, is the moment it closes.

will ban the next people who are rude to each other.

Just to be clear, I get called out for calling someone a lair and he implied earlier he wished people who politise illness death, then goes on to re-start having digs at the EU. double standards, although I accept i was out of order and leave it there.

I apologise for calling teePee a liar.

Having said that..

It's clear his agenda, that he thinks we should all be getting back to work and that the reprocussions of the economoy are worse tha the virus it's self. That view may be fine from in his own mind from a personal level, but many people have relatives that are extreamly vunerable to this virus. Maybe he has stocks and shares and is worried about losing personal wealth or owns a business he is worried about, or his own job.

This almost global lockdown is there for a reason, this virus has the potenial to kill upto and above 60m people globally if left unchecked, maybe the reprocussions and problems with the global ecconomy could kill the same amount but we can only act on the problems we face here and now. It's called humanity, and I for one think that carrying on and pretending the probem is more or less in line with flu, and we should just get on with it is very dangerous / selfish.

It feels like some in society are prepared to cast those the virus effects to the dogs in the name of market capitalism. I think that is a terrible possition to take and greed, and protectionism is the biggest threat we face in this crisis because that will kill us if we are not careful.

[TeePee]

I do think we should be getting back to work, while protecting the vulnerable.

I disagree with the idea that we should only act on the problems we face now. That's the whole problem. Had we acted sooner, and ramped up testing tracking and treating cases earlier, in the same manner that South Korea and Japan did, we'd have saved a lot of lives. We need to be proactive and attempt to address the problems we are going to face in the future. A worldwide economic collapse would be more deadly than the disease.

A kneejerk overreaction to a perceived problem right in front of us will do more harm than good.

[SeriousSam]

Interesting that there now appears to be a link with reduced symptoms and the BCG (Tuberculosis) Vaccination. May in part explain the differences between Spain and Portugal, but will have to see once more evidence emerges...

[j1979]

USA/ Canada never had the BCG according to wiki and western europe discontinued it along with Austrailia / NZ. Basically any NATO country and the NATO partners. excluding Turkey and current NATO countries that used to be in USSR or warsaw pact.

I see a few conspiricies on the way.


EDIT: Looks very convincing about the bcg vaccine.

Would also explain the low german death rate , East Germans would have got the vaccine, west not as much. Portual vs Spain. Italy never got the vaccine and Turkey was manditory. Mexico vs US, and the lower numbers of deaths in the southern states due to the higher level of immigration.

[DK2019]

I'm going to reopen this but please everyone play fair and adhere to what Zak has said above.

I know tensions can be high for those stuck at home (I feel like tearing someones head off at times), everyone is getting bored so as a community we should be coming together not bickering

I feel like mods need to take misinformation being spread more seriously though. There are members comparing it to the flu and completely downplaying it, even when absurd amounts of people are dying every day.