[Johnny Brown]

Yes. (in reply to barro's edited post)

[Bonjoy]

I think 10000 - 15000 people are killed by flu in Uk every year, surely coronavirus will mainly take a big chunk of this group and not a group on top of this.

The UK population is 66.44 milliion
We're told to expect between 40% and 80% to be infected
Case fatality rates quoted range from 1% to 5%
Based on those figures the UK deathtoll would be between 265,760 and 2,657,600

[gme]

Have a read of what's going on in Italy Gav. It's on top. Why would people stop getting normal flu? Plus once the hospitals are full, people start dying who wouldn't have.

So the deaths are going to increase due to lack of care not due to the virus. Whilst i can believe this is the case for a small amount i would have thought that there would be a reduction in the number of people dying of "normal flu". I am interested in what this amount will be.

For this to have the same death toll as the flu does each year, based on a 3% death rate from Coronavirus we will need to have 43 million cases in the uk. This is 2/3rds of our population. Spanish flu only effected 25% ish.

If this was hitting healthy people outside of the usual group i would be more concerned but as it is i think we will just end up with a "bad year" on the flu stats. 

Both of my parents would be f**ked if they get it i suspect but the same could be said of any flu.

[gme]

I think 10000 - 15000 people are killed by flu in Uk every year, surely coronavirus will mainly take a big chunk of this group and not a group on top of this.

The UK population is 66.44 milliion
We're told to expect between 40% and 80% to be infected
Case fatality rates quoted range from 1% to 5%
Based on those figures the UK deathtoll would be between 265,760 and 2,657,600

No idea where the 40-80% figures come from as this is far worse than any pandemic ever. Worse cases are 30% ish.

[gme]

Worse cases historically i mean. This could obviously be a lot worse.

[SA Chris]

Both of my parents would be f**ked if they get it i suspect but the same could be said of any flu.

Difference is I know my elderly relatives faithfully get an annual flu shot. I know it's not 100 effective, but seems to work for them most years.

There is no prophylactic effective against CV-19 at present.

[Paul B]

No idea where the 40-80% figures come from as this is far worse than any pandemic ever. Worse cases are 30% ish.

I haven't had chance to scrutinise these (or the source thereof) but the X-axis may be of interest:



More pretty pictures here:
https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2020/03/corona-mobile-1.png

[Johnny Brown]

I think 10000 - 15000 people are killed by flu in Uk every year, surely coronavirus will mainly take a big chunk of this group and not a group on top of this.

For this to have the same death toll as the flu does each year, based on a 3% death rate from Coronavirus we will need to have 43 million cases in the uk.

Eh? 3% of 43 million is 1,290,000.

For 15,000 to die at 3% we'd need 0.5 million cases, or 0.75% infected.

Italy's stats today: 10,100 cases, 649 deaths, 724 recovered.

[Will Hunt]

When you go to the wall, make sure you stick to blob jumping, not fomite fondling.
https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/coronavirus-covid-19-case-linked-to-gyms-boulderclimbing-and-climb-central

[gme]

I think 10000 - 15000 people are killed by flu in Uk every year, surely coronavirus will mainly take a big chunk of this group and not a group on top of this.

For this to have the same death toll as the flu does each year, based on a 3% death rate from Coronavirus we will need to have 43 million cases in the uk.

Eh? 3% of 43 million is 1,290,000.

For 15,000 to die at 3% we'd need 0.5 million cases, or 0.75% infected.

Italy's stats today: 10,100 cases, 649 deaths, 724 recovered.

Sorry did the numbers in my head. should have been 430000.

I am not questioning the seriousness of it just trying to get some context.

I do however think it wont be anywhere near as bad as we think. Looking forward to getting a holiday bargain to Garda in a few months.

[Johnny Brown]

How bad it will be will depend entirely on how quickly we move into lockdown. Hopefully we will do so early and the worst of it will be people moaning that it didn't seem bad enough to justify it.

[andy popp]

A longer post - on a different point. I've had a few conversations and been mulling the following over the last few days....

We don't know how this is all going to pan out at the moment (for the better or for the worse) - but I hope some positives will come from this too. These include:

1. Changing the 9-5 in the office work ethic - and making homeworking and remote working more the norm than the exception. I hope and suspect that many changes in the workplace that are happening right now because of CV19 will lead to a long lasting shift in this. Of course many jobs require a workplace - but many in our largely service driven economy do not - and I hope this can show that people can carry on doing whatever spreadsheet shuffling they may do equally as well at home as at work.

2. Putting a dent in our short haul flight addiction. Maybe less optimism for this - folk may well return to business as usual once this changes. But - with the travel restrictions and downturn in flying I hope people start to realise that they don't need to have five europe mini breaks a year and can have just as relaxing/equivalent break closer to home (with less emissions required...). There are lots of positives in terms of widening peoples perspectives and breaking down cultural barriers of going to lots of places - but I can't help but think we do too much of it.

3. A slower pace of life. Already (from my observations) the roads and public transport are noticably quieter... Not so much self quarantine, but people making concious decisions to go out less, spending more time at home etc.. are these necessarily bad things? (thuogh it may just lead to Netflix dependancy issues :D )

4. If we do less - will we consume less - and leading to a wider point does this mean less of an emphasis on the growth growth growth economic model that the world seems to have subscribed to? I doubt CV19 will stop this - but maybe putting a dent in it and slowing things down globally isnt such a bad thing... (I await someone with stocks and shares pension/isa/savings to come back at me otherwise with this..)

Anyway - just some general musings about how it may change the world we live in - possibly in some positive ways. None of the above is evidence based

I've been thinking about exactly this the last few days and talked about it with my class on Monday. Will there be a completely full return to business as usual? n

[sdm]

How bad it will be will depend entirely on how quickly we move into lockdown. Hopefully we will do so early and the worst of it will be people moaning that it didn't seem bad enough to justify it.

If any lockdown is successful, it will almost certainly lead to people moaning about exactly this.

With no vaccine on the horizon, the interesting part of a lockdown will be what happens when it is eased / when people start ignoring it.

This hasn't happened anywhere yet but exponential growth will almost certainly return to areas where it does happen unless the easing is very carefully managed and complied with.

[SA Chris]

Maybe it's Gaia redressing the balance?

Removing a % of the population, and reducing our CO2 output from numerous sources in one fell swoop.

[fatneck]

Our main work concern is how we manage the distribution of emergency crisis food through the Foodbank Network. Most of our volunteers are older people and thus in the higher risk groups.

We can manage most of our debt operation remotely and staff are equipped to work from home.

Contingency planning is a bit of a nightmare and I've got a number of staff on sickness warnings who are concerned about the impact on their disciplinary record!

Also, not going to Font would be fairly gutting....

[gme]

How bad it will be will depend entirely on how quickly we move into lockdown. Hopefully we will do so early and the worst of it will be people moaning that it didn't seem bad enough to justify it.

Are you suggesting a "lockdown" or just a bit of common sense re large gatherings. Surely you dont think we need to do the former.

I bet you just fancy a few weeks off and some quiet trips out on the grit.

[Bonjoy]

No idea where the 40-80% figures come from as this is far worse than any pandemic ever. Worse cases are 30% ish.

The 80% figure comes from Chris Whitty, the UK's chief medical officer, stated as the reasonable worst case scenario. The 40% to 80% range was a quote from someone from the World Health Organisation on Radio 4.

That article Adam posted earlier is very clear and in depth. I'd highly recommend reading it as it cuts through the media noise surrounding the issue and lays out the facts as far as they are known so far. It makes a very compelling case for action rather than delay. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

[Offwidth]

Dominic Raab not following government advice!?

https://twitter.com/dinah_ditch/status/1237728180980592640

[Will Hunt]

Slow-down of emissions are a benefit, but at what cost. Evidence suggests that the increased production post-crisis will outstrip the savings made during the lull, but regardless of that the financial fallout of this is probably going to be huge (perhaps even more damaging than the virus itself...?)

People not booking holidays, people not going to the cinema/shops, people not staying in hotels etc etc etc. So many businesses will fold. And then their employees don't have work and don't spend, compounding the problem. In the face of a recession like that, there's only so many ways that government can offer a liferaft. Wanton consumerism is one thing - fast cars and greed are the ugly face of that - but we live in a service economy and people buying goods and services from each other is what keeps us all fed and watered. 

Whenever I discuss climate change with my brother, I make the case that without very radical change we are all quite fucked in the future. It's true, but when you actually look at what that the required radical change looks like, it quickly becomes apparent that it will kill millions and cause a societal collapse of its own.



Btw, Gav, the point about all these measures is that for them to actually be effective, you have to implement them before you think you need to. By the time you shut the stable door the horse has bolted. What's the point of having a lockdown when it's already become widespread among the population?

[tomtom]

Btw, Gav, the point about all these measures is that for them to actually be effective, you have to implement them before you think you need to. By the time you shut the stable door the horse has bolted.

I think thats probably Gavs point.....

What's the point of having a lockdown when it's already become widespread among the population?

To stop it getting worse! By this it wouldnt matter if people were going around sneezing in peoples faces! Fuck it, lets have CV19 parties - bring yer Granny....

I'd also argue that the lockdown has worked in China - and there is (apparently) a drop in new cases in Lombardy where the lockdown has been in operation for nearly two weeks.

[gme]

[/quote]

To stop it getting worse! By this it wouldnt matter if people were going around sneezing in peoples faces! Fuck it, lets have CV19 parties - bring yer Granny....

I'd also argue that the lockdown has worked in China - and there is (apparently) a drop in new cases in Lombardy where the lockdown has been in operation for nearly two weeks.
[/quote]

Wasnt the lockdown in China a proper one with no movement at all. As far as i am aware you can still do most things in Italy just not large gatherings, School closures and your asked to keep a bit of personal space.

 Businesses, bars etc are open which i could live with.

I will get a box set of the walking dead on tonight so i can see what the future holds.

[tomtom]

Yes - China lockdown was more authoritarian! (I had an interesting discussion with my Chinese PhD student about this yesterday...). A couple of articles appearing today about Italy - all along the lines of "the population finally gets it and is staying indoors/away from people/lying low"...

eg: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-scared-italians-finally-heed-call-to-stay-at-home-as-deaths-rise-11955061

[Will Hunt]

I was trying to make that point, TT, but didn't choose my words very precisely.

Maybe should have said: a lockdown will have maximum effect if you implement it before the virus becomes widespread, but you can still have one anyway once it has, but it won't be as effective.

Btw, Gav, the point about all these measures is that for them to actually be effective, you have to implement them before you think you need to. By the time you shut the stable door the horse has bolted.

I think thats probably Gavs point.....

I think Gav is saying that he wouldn't bother having any sort of lockdown unless things were quite dire, and my point is that Gav is wrong. My point is that the lockdown would be most effective if it was implemented early (maybe not now, but certainly earlier rather than later), at a time when folk like Gav would be saying "what's the point?".

[Bonjoy]

Wasnt the lockdown in China a proper one with no movement at all. As far as i am aware you can still do most things in Italy just not large gatherings, School closures and your asked to keep a bit of personal space.

Good interview here with a guy from WHO who's been to see the Chinese measures. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/health/coronavirus-china-aylward.html

[tomtom]

@will @gme Fair enough.