Coronavirus Pandemic

[Deckard]

I somehow dont think that the percentage of deaths attributed to this virus for the super-rich old will be anywhere near the ratio for us mortals somehow...... if Murdoch, Johnson, Gates or Prince Charles dies then we know we are screwed.

[tufty]

Boris was at Kettering Hospital the day before.
Kettering was not treating any victims of coronavirus at that time.

Boris Johnson lying? Whatever shall we do?

[(o)(o)]

Johnson quote :

Here's the thing about that quote.
Boris was at Kettering Hospital the day before.
Kettering was not treating any victims of coronavirus at that time.

It's also outside the 14-19 day incubation time, so even if he did shake hands there - he didn't catch it there.

It was the lax approach I was highlighting there, not necessarily that he caught it that day.

However it's not 100% consensus there is a 19 day incubation time - the vast majority see symptoms in 5 days.. however research on JAMA indicates outliers of 24-28 days.

[funkstar]

Here's a thing.

Johnson visited QE2 on 11/3/20.

What happens if the PM accidentally kills the Queen?

Charles will finally get the corona-tion he's been wishing for.

...


Is that the door, I'll see myself out, okay, bye

[Little stoned kiwi]

We all should have been planning and preparing - and ramping up for the response - when China told us that it had a pandemic-level problem on its hands.

You mean allowing the economy to grind to a halt as precautionary measure instead of the "wait and see, fingers crossed" approach first? Even preparing for the worst case pandemic producing ventilators only to find it wasn't needed would have been a waste of precious profitable production.
That's communist talk, you silly socialist. Caring about people more than the economy and it's squiggly lines.

[RiK]

Til Lindemann (Rammstein frontman) has it bad...

https://www.bild.de/unterhaltung/leute/ ... .bild.html

[Ollie]

Interestingly, in the UK, much more likely dead than recovered going by that graph.

IMO, that's more than likely a reflection of how terribly the UK is doing in terms of detection.

I'm not so sure. If you go back 2 weeks in the UK, you have 798 confirmed - i.e., detected - cases, but so far only 135 confirmed recoveries. Meanwhile 578 deaths, which suggests that either the death rate in the UK is rather higher than elsewhere, or that people who die are dying faster and people who recover are recovering more slowly than elsewhere.

Well yeah, but you're only going to get confirmed recoveries from confirmed *cases*. So if detection is bad, recovery rate will also be bad.

But why is recovery rate as a proportion of detection rate so bad? Why, out of all the confirmed cases that ought to have recovered by now, have apparently less than a fifth of that number actually recovered? The number of unconfirmed cases that may or may not have recovered doesn't enter into it.

[rowan]

I somehow dont think that the percentage of deaths attributed to this virus for the super-rich old will be anywhere near the ratio for us mortals somehow...... if Murdoch, Johnson, Gates or Prince Charles dies then we know we are screwed.

I'd like to think it's a bit of a wake up call to the people in power, that in all the issues they have to talk about which they may not really believe in, month in, month out, may actually turn out to be real for the folk that live with them.
When they are being informed about all kinds of other topics such as poverty, shelter, homelessness, disability aid, sexism, just ... any issue which they may be utterly abstracted from whilst happily making cuts, well, maybe the experts just may have a point.

As regards if the well-off don't make it - even with the best healthcare it cannot halt nature, only lessen the chances.
It doesn't mean we're screwed at all, chin up

[Harlequin]

But why is recovery rate as a proportion of detection rate so bad? Why, out of all the confirmed cases that ought to have recovered by now, have apparently less than a fifth of that number actually recovered? The number of unconfirmed cases that may or may not have recovered doesn't enter into it.

Because, on average, it takes much longer to recover after confirmation than it does to die?

[Ollie]

But why is recovery rate as a proportion of detection rate so bad? Why, out of all the confirmed cases that ought to have recovered by now, have apparently less than a fifth of that number actually recovered? The number of unconfirmed cases that may or may not have recovered doesn't enter into it.

Because, on average, it takes much longer to recover after confirmation than it does to die?

Most people ought to have recovered within 2 weeks of first showing symptoms. If that's not the case here, why are people in the UK taking longer than average to recover?

[Harlequin]

But why is recovery rate as a proportion of detection rate so bad? Why, out of all the confirmed cases that ought to have recovered by now, have apparently less than a fifth of that number actually recovered? The number of unconfirmed cases that may or may not have recovered doesn't enter into it.

Because, on average, it takes much longer to recover after confirmation than it does to die?

Most people ought to have recovered within 2 weeks of first showing symptoms. If that's not the case here, why are people in the UK taking longer than average to recover?

I would think one reason might be that many people are first confirmed a week or less before death, especially if they do not seek medical attention until severely ill. Some die before being confirmed. Also,

With severe cases, recovery can take six weeks or more.

[PFVA]

Around here there will be strict enforcement by the police to stop people from travelling during the weekends and during Easter. Makes sense. There is a lot of municipalities thru out the country that don't have any cases. We don't need people to go around spreading the virus everywhere.

Officially confirmed too that cloroquine is being used to treat patients with severe symptoms in the hospitals. Not being used for those with mild symptoms that are being treated at home.

As a sideline movement at the hospitals regular urgences has gone down to 1/3 of what it used to be.

Officially now 4268 cases and 76 deaths.

[KlaxonCow]

Why, out of all the confirmed cases that ought to have recovered by now, have apparently less than a fifth of that number actually recovered?

I've been wondering that, because the UK's "recovered" number hasn't actually budged from 135 for a few days.

Is this because the UK isn't keeping track of this / reporting it anymore? Therefore, the "recovered" statistic is stuck at the last point where these numbers were reported?

Scrolling through the daily numbers, there's only 8 occasions where it's non-zero. John Hopkins University has 151, but they're counting Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, etc. as part of "United Kingdom" and they've also got 135 for the UK itself.

This makes me think that the UK government just isn't reporting "recoveries" at all, and the few occasions where it's non-zero are "from other sources" (e.g. any Brits that were aboard the Diamond Princess - the cruise ship numbers are known, reported by its owners / Japan, and you cream off the number of Brits who were aboard and add those to the UK stats, and "events" like that can get you a drip feed of some UK "recoveries" but, officially, no numbers are being given out at all?).

Basically, I don't think you can glean anything particularly useful from the UK "recovery" stats right now because, most days, the daily stats read zero - with only 8 non-zero "bumps" in that data going back several weeks (more than sufficient time for the early cases to surely have moved into the "recovered" category, but they don't seem to be coming through on the daily numbers).

I don't think the government is officially handing out those numbers. Even before we get into the "only testing at hospital" policy, which means anyone who gets this, self-isolates at home and recovers - never needing hospitalisation - is, right now, not even being tested to confirm they even had it in the first place.

I don't buy the government's "the WHO's 'testing, testing, testing' advice was for developing countries, not us" excuses - I just think that our testing capacity is not good enough, so it's being rationed to "medical necessity" only - and it really, really, really needs to be ramped up with haste and urgency. In fact, could a journalist out there contact the WHO and get them to explicitly say "no, we meant absolutely everyone when we advised 'testing, testing, testing'", in order to dispel this "they didn't mean us" bullshit from future briefings and help mount the pressure on them to get this testing regime ramped up and sorted out, pronto?

[KlaxonCow]

Because, on average, it takes much longer to recover after confirmation than it does to die?

Actually, from what I've read and seen, the opposite seems to be true.

Scrolling through the daily stats, the UK just seems not to be officially reporting "recoveries", as it's been stuck on 135 for a good few days, and we've only got 2 non-zero "bumps" in the past 10 days. The UK's non-standard testing policies seem to cut both ways - they're not actively tracking "recovered", as well as not testing outside hospitals.

Which is a great way, Boris, to make our numbers look atrociously bad, as it's leaving out all the "good news" of people getting through this at the other end, and only testing those who're already bad enough to require hospitalisation, so who're the most likely not to make it through.

[Harlequin]

Because, on average, it takes much longer to recover after confirmation than it does to die?

Actually, from what I've read and seen, the opposite seems to be true.

On average, it takes much longer to die than to recover?

Would that imply hoards of the unrecovered undead?

I suppose you are correct, strictly writing. I meant longer to recover from C19 than to die from C19, though.