CoronaVirus

This board is a temporary one for topics and posts to to with the Coronavirus pandemic. Please put all relevant material in here, rather than the other boards.

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Bill Shankly » Thu May 28, 2020 6:36 pm

As permanently shielded I am disgusted to hear because of one idiot people will not use an app or track and trace to make a political statement.We should all be doing what we can to drive the infection rate to zero there are still 000s being infected and hundreds dying.The fact Dominic Cummings did not follow the rules is selfish and wrong as his family unit may increased the spread en route.
So come on guys show some common sense and please try and help me and a million+ others still trapped not able to go out or see family despite lockdown easing changes announced tonight.
If we dont drive it out we could all be in lockdown again.
Bill Shankly
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Kentstripe » Thu May 28, 2020 6:39 pm

Eco-Exile wrote:As for harm of risk to infection of others, that is part of the point of the protest; to show the government that their actions do have consequences and they need to be more responsible and accountable.


That doesn't stop you being responsible for your own actions. If you choose to potentially put other people at an increased risk of infection as a form of protest or to make a point, then you could be the reason someone in the country dies. Is it worth it?
User avatar
Kentstripe
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 6011
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Eco-Exile » Thu May 28, 2020 6:45 pm

Bill Shankly wrote:As permanently shielded I am disgusted to hear because of one idiot people will not use an app or track and trace to make a political statement.We should all be doing what we can to drive the infection rate to zero there are still 000s being infected and hundreds dying.The fact Dominic Cummings did not follow the rules is selfish and wrong as his family unit may increased the spread en route.
So come on guys show some common sense and please try and help me and a million+ others still trapped not able to go out or see family despite lockdown easing changes announced tonight.
If we dont drive it out we could all be in lockdown again.


Write to Siobahn Baillie or your Conservative MP to express your concern over the way people are reacting to Cummings.
Eco-Exile
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby michael » Thu May 28, 2020 6:54 pm

Red emphasis added by moderator>

i simply wondered why a moderator would chose to do that ?
whilst i may agree with most of what DD writes ,and i am sure will thus be factually correct, i am prefer to make my own judgement /opinion ,and can't see the reason for a moderator to 'do an Emily ' .
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Eco-Exile » Thu May 28, 2020 7:13 pm

michael wrote:Red emphasis added by moderator>

i simply wondered why a moderator would chose to do that ?
whilst i may agree with most of what DD writes ,and i am sure will thus be factually correct, i am prefer to make my own judgement /opinion ,and can't see the reason for a moderator to 'do an Emily ' .


What did the moderator do?
Eco-Exile
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby michael » Thu May 28, 2020 7:16 pm

when football does return as a 'spectator sport ',(i think september/october worst way ),i anticipate attendances being well down.

there will be those who genuinely will not attend simply because of health/affordabilty reasons, but is there also a truth in the fact that working becomes a habit /football becomes a habit ;and many have got comfortable with breaking both habits ?

Have we found alternative things to do /enjoy ?

Have many realised that ultimately-'it is only a game ' could never be more true ?

i'll be coming back to watch-but have i missed football/sport as much as i thought i would ? -no.

Does football (sport in general ) have a massive selling job to do as a game per se ?
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby michael » Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 pm

Eco-Exile wrote:
michael wrote:Red emphasis added by moderator>

i simply wondered why a moderator would chose to do that ?
whilst i may agree with most of what DD writes ,and i am sure will thus be factually correct, i am prefer to make my own judgement /opinion ,and can't see the reason for a moderator to 'do an Emily ' .


What did the moderator do?


you may wish to refer to DD's post on previous page at 12.41 today .

to be fair-no rule saying that a moderator cannot have an opinion .but just struck me as odd,unusual and unnecessary
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby michael » Thu May 28, 2020 7:24 pm

perhaps i interpreted it wrong , and it was DD who asked the moderator to add the red emphasis bit ,albeit we can edit our own posts

still seemed odd and unusual either way .
never mind
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby dursleydog » Thu May 28, 2020 7:36 pm

michael wrote:perhaps i interpreted it wrong , and it was DD who asked the moderator to add the red emphasis bit ,albeit we can edit our own posts

still seemed odd and unusual either way .
never mind


I certainly didn’t ask a moderator, this is the first I’ve seen of it :lol:

I don’t personally mind as they didn’t change what I said in any way, although it is slightly odd. If they intended it as a soft warning to OTC about being careful about the kind of info sources we share with each other on here I’d prefer them to message him directly.
User avatar
dursleydog
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Eco-Exile » Thu May 28, 2020 9:21 pm

Ah I see. Yes it looks to me like the moderator has had enough of Old Tom Cat posting factually wrong information and acted to emphasise the invalid nature of the source Old Tom Cat referenced.

Anyway, on the case of football I know many who are desperate for it to return and the latest Premier League news is a real light at the end of the Covid tunnel.

Personally I hope when FGR and all teams return that fans also return in numbers when allows to do so. However I also hope that society has changed and there is less anger and swearing and general low quality behaviour at stadiums and that clubs are more friendly and kind in how they treat fans.

The slow campaign agains the South Stand by the Club, the relocation of season ticket holders, the lack of decent access for disabled fans in the East Stand, etc are all things which seem petty and pointless in the current circumstances. Football can change for the better.
Eco-Exile
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu May 28, 2020 11:25 pm

Greeners wrote:Hi
dursleydog wrote: I have security concerns about the app (there’s no need to use a centralised data storage system, massive security risk),


You should have concerns, but you apparently don't, you have used just such a system to post the above items and all your other contributions.

I’m not sure that the FGR forum records the location of the poster when they posted, or who was close by at the time.

I hope to be corrected, but the differences between a UK Gov commissioned app at £250m and an Apple/Google phone led approach appear to be that if a target is a gay Muslim the Apple/Google approach will not out him by collecting evidence of his location and close overnight associations with a man/men. The UK government app quite possibly will. That might be OK, until you look at who has the contract for the UK government app.

I will not be using the app.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby michael » Fri May 29, 2020 12:30 am

does the govmnt app. still record/store/memorise when the phone is simply turned off ,in the same way that if turned off overnight, a message received overnight will surface in the morning when phone turned back on ?

no mention of it so far to best of my knowledge, (or indeed used elsewhere in the world ) but as a phone can locate us at any moment to about ten metres , is it a bit surprising that the trace aspect does not also engage the use of/link in security cameras which probably cover our movements in 50% of the UK,and endeavour to identify anyone we are in proximity of that way as well.
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby dursleydog » Fri May 29, 2020 10:09 am

Ok so as I understand it this is how the app works and an outline of some of my concerns and thoughts with it.

The purpose of the app is to detect the bluetooth signal of other phones with the app and use that to record the phones with the app which it comes into close proximity with. This has to run continuously in the background, and record the IDs of phones it has detected. These IDs are supposed to be anonymised, just a randomised number with no name or details attached, a key code. All this data is stored on your phone, and is systematically deleted when it is a few weeks old and hasn't been called upon. If you report on the app that you have developed covid systems, you press a button that gives the app permission to send out the data. This is where the differences and concerns come into play.

Apple and Google have developed in partnership with EU countries an app (which they have made open source for other countries who are perhaps struggling to develop an equivalent to use and adapt for their own purposes), and their's uses decentralised data storage. With this method, the phone of the infected person sends the data to the phones it has come into contact with directly via referencing a database of just the key codes, the contact data is never stored in a central database and can never be accessed in one go. The skeleton of this app is available for us to use right now, but we're still refusing to use it.

Instead, we're pursuing a centralised approach where when you press that button, your phone sends not just it's key code, but all the data of who you've come into contact with as well. The centralised database is then accessed by a server to send the message to self-isolate to all the phones of the people you've come into contact with in the last few days, and tells them to self-isolate. The trouble with this system is that obviously, all the contact data, the key codes of everyone you've come into close contact with, is stored in one central place that can be accessed for purposes other than which it was intended. Apple, Android, and Google have serious concerns around this method of data storage with something like movement data, and their operating systems don't allow apps that use this to run continuously in the background collecting data. (In this example, the phones wouldn't detect each other unless both of them had the app open and running in the foreground, rendering it pretty useless given it's supposed to be detecting everyone you come into contact with while you're walking along with your phone in your pocket.) The developers of our app have managed to bodge a way around this to get it to run, but it shows the concern the makers of the operating systems have with these kind of apps. It's not just about worries than the government are going to use the data to research say, electoral tactics (Again, we come back to Dom Cummings, Vote Leave, Cambridge Analytica... this is exactly the kind of tool someone like Cummings would be tempted to use and sets so much stock by.) It's about the database being an obvious target for cyberattacks as well and hacking as well.

The reasons originally given for why we'd taken a different approach haven't really held up. This article from digital health from the time the app was in early development has a decent overview at the time as the Chief Executive of NHSX justified the decision. https://www.digitalhealth.net/2020/04/n ... acing-app/

The thing that stood out to me was the claim that we "couldn't afford to wait" for the Apple and Google app and that a centralised system would be quicker to set up. Fine. Except they were clearly aiming for a Mid-May widespread launch and we're now not expecting the app to be ready until July. It's clearly not proven to be quicker to set up, partly because of all the problems with run into with a centralised data storage approach. At best, this seems like a case of unwise British exceptionalism hindering our ability to get an effective contact tracing setup in place quickly. At worst, they've decided to use this as an opportunity to collect a truly unprecedented amount of movement data and this explains their obtuse reluctance to pivot to a more secure system that is sat there begging for us to use.It does end up coming down to do you trust the government with this data, both with regards to their motives (using the database for research purposes we never agreed to) and competence (protecting the database from cyberattacks, not losing all the data). Given their track record, and especially their actions this past week, I can understand people not trusting them with this data.

Personally, if they pivoted to a decentralised system, I'd use it without a moment's hesitation. If they'd sacked Cummings this weekend, I'd use it with very little hesitation. With things as they stand I'm properly torn over it. I know that it will save lives if the uptake is high enough to make a difference, but the trust is shot to pieces which makes me think the uptake won't be high enough, so then do I want them to have my data? Absolutely not, but then I'm part of the problem, and my train of thought runs around in circles. I think I'll probably end up getting it and while I'll be extremely unhappy about that, the important thing above all else is to try and reduce the spread and save lives.

Also worth pointing out this is a largely separate issue to the physical contact tracing, which is just getting started now and involves people ringing round the contacts of positive covid cases and instructing them to pre-emptively self-isolate whether they have symptoms or not. While it's pretty obvious the govt defence of Cummings' actions has driven a bulldozer through this guidance, ignoring it out of some sort of protest is petty and could lead to unnecessary deaths. Like I said previously, it's up to all of us to be better than our leaders right now.
User avatar
dursleydog
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby Eco-Exile » Fri May 29, 2020 3:45 pm

Some one I know is going to get a second phone (a very cheap android phone), and a PAYG sim, with the view to register the app in an anonymous/fake name and new email address which doesn’t have their name in.
Eco-Exile
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby The Old TomCat » Fri May 29, 2020 6:25 pm

Just checked the death stat for those who have been infected by CoronaVirus and it is around 1.4%.
Overwhelmingly most of those unfortunates had underlying health problems or were of advanced age.
It is claimed that perhaps 19 million Brits have had CV19 or around a third of UK population.

With the loosening of the lock down it is almost assured that infections and deaths with go up from current numbers.
But I suspect those in most danger of facing death from this horrible virus will ensure they stay safe. Therefore it may well be that infections increase but hopefully death rates reduce.

I am in that ‘at risk’ group so will ensure I maintain many of the lock down rules. I’m not too bothered if younger members of the community do congregate together if the worst they will get is similar to a heavy dose of flu.
In fact I would be happy if that was the case because it would make it safer for those of us ‘at risk’ to venture into outside world at a later date.

And with such a large proportion of the UK population having had CV19 other countries rates of casualties could fall in line with ours. Those countries who adopted an earlier lock down than UK will have proportionally a greater number of potential victims.
User avatar
The Old TomCat
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Location: Stroud

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby dursleydog » Fri May 29, 2020 7:27 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:Just checked the death stat for those who have been infected by CoronaVirus and it is around 1.4%.
Overwhelmingly most of those unfortunates had underlying health problems or were of advanced age.
It is claimed that perhaps 19 million Brits have had CV19 or around a third of UK population.

With the loosening of the lock down it is almost assured that infections and deaths with go up from current numbers.
But I suspect those in most danger of facing death from this horrible virus will ensure they stay safe. Therefore it may well be that infections increase but hopefully death rates reduce.

I am in that ‘at risk’ group so will ensure I maintain many of the lock down rules. I’m not too bothered if younger members of the community do congregate together if the worst they will get is similar to a heavy dose of flu.
In fact I would be happy if that was the case because it would make it safer for those of us ‘at risk’ to venture into outside world at a later date.

And with such a large proportion of the UK population having had CV19 other countries rates of casualties could fall in line with ours. Those countries who adopted an earlier lock down than UK will have proportionally a greater number of potential victims.



Unfortunately there's some flawed hypotheses being drawn here from incorrect starting facts.

No idea where you've got 19m infected and with immunity from. Antibody testing in Spain and France concluded only around 6% of the population has immunity (rising to as high as 11% in the worst effected areas). We've definitely done worse in terms of the number of infections, but that quite that much worse.

The ONS study on antibody testing found that an estimated 6.78% of the population had immunity. Not around 33% as you claim. (Results here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... r-covid-19)

This would translate to 4.47m infected, or in other words, about 61.5m to go if we gave up on containing it...

You are correct on the mortality rate. Using our numbers of 4.47m infections from the ONS, and 60,000 deaths (as estimated from the most recently available excess mortality stats), that gives the UK a mortality rate of 1.34%, pretty much bang in line with the 1.4% observed as an average across other countries. Again, a strong indicator that excess mortality stats are the most accurate.

However, there are some other inaccuracies. For a lot of young people it is not just "like the flu". While the death rate is far far lower once you get below the age of about 60 (underlying medical conditions aside) there have still been hundreds of deaths of younger people, many of whom were quite healthy. The tragic death toll of our NHS and care worker front line is a terrible example of that. Unfortunately you are still trying to apply herd immunity mild but novel influenza logic to a virus that behaves very very differently. Interestingly, also in the ONS survey they found that the number with antibodies in younger groups was higher (closer to 10%) compared with the elderly (approx 3%), suggesting shielding has sort of worked. Of course, the death toll shows that "sort of" working isn't nearly good enough, and sadly the lack of infections among the elderly also points to the potential rises in death rate we could yet see. the care home situation is evidence enough that shielding has only been partially successful if you're a glass half full type of person, scuppered with holes if you're a glass half empty type.

Sadly, the only point I agree with you on is that we are likely set towards a second peak. SAGE scientists have begun to break ranks and it's emerging the government has completely ignored the scientific advice surrounding reopening. Today, Prof John Edmunds, a senior SAGE member, said "8,000 current infections a day is too high, and many scientists would have preferred incidence to be lower before we begin to relax lockdown measures." He went onto say that "lifting the lockdown was a political decision" and that the best case scenario is "incidence is kept to it's current level" , Meaning a steady 8k infections/day , in turn meaning our death rate would plateau out at between 80-120 deaths/day and never dropping below that, quite high compared with other badly effected countries, incredibly high compared with the ones who handled it well. And that number of estimated infections excludes hospitals and care homes, meaning the daily death toll we'd stabilise at would likely be closer to 200. Or to put in football terms, 2 Hillsborough Disasters every single day, and calling that under control and an acceptable level of deaths. I'm personally very much not ok with that. Link to the John Edmunds quotes here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52849691

Your last two sentences are incorrect on both the facts underpinning it as the ONS stats lay out, and on the conclusion you've drawn from them.
User avatar
dursleydog
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby The Old TomCat » Fri May 29, 2020 8:21 pm

dursleydog wrote:

Unfortunately there's some flawed hypotheses being drawn here from incorrect starting facts.
No idea where you've got 19m infected and with immunity from. Antibody testing in Spain and France concluded only around 6% of the population has immunity (rising to as high as 11% in the worst effected areas). We've definitely done worse in terms of the number of infections, but that quite that much worse.

The ONS study on antibody testing found that an estimated 6.78% of the population had immunity. Not around 33% as you claim. (Results here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... r-covid-19)

This would translate to 4.47m infected, or in other words, about 61.5m to go if we gave up on containing it...

You are correct on the mortality rate. Using our numbers of 4.47m infections from the ONS, and 60,000 deaths (as estimated from the most recently available excess mortality stats), that gives the UK a mortality rate of 1.34%, pretty much bang in line with the 1.4% observed as an average across other countries. Again, a strong indicator that excess mortality stats are the most accurate.

However, there are some other inaccuracies. For a lot of young people it is not just "like the flu". While the death rate is far far lower once you get below the age of about 60 (underlying medical conditions aside) there have still been hundreds of deaths of younger people, many of whom were quite healthy. The tragic death toll of our NHS and care worker front line is a terrible example of that. Unfortunately you are still trying to apply herd immunity mild but novel influenza logic to a virus that behaves very very differently. Interestingly, also in the ONS survey they found that the number with antibodies in younger groups was higher (closer to 10%) compared with the elderly (approx 3%), suggesting shielding has sort of worked. Of course, the death toll shows that "sort of" working isn't nearly good enough, and sadly the lack of infections among the elderly also points to the potential rises in death rate we could yet see. the care home situation is evidence enough that shielding has only been partially successful if you're a glass half full type of person, scuppered with holes if you're a glass half empty type.

Sadly, the only point I agree with you on is that we are likely set towards a second peak. SAGE scientists have begun to break ranks and it's emerging the government has completely ignored the scientific advice surrounding reopening. Today, Prof John Edmunds, a senior SAGE member, said "8,000 current infections a day is too high, and many scientists would have preferred incidence to be lower before we begin to relax lockdown measures." He went onto say that "lifting the lockdown was a political decision" and that the best case scenario is "incidence is kept to it's current level" , Meaning a steady 8k infections/day , in turn meaning our death rate would plateau out at between 80-120 deaths/day and never dropping below that, quite high compared with other badly effected countries, incredibly high compared with the ones who handled it well. And that number of estimated infections excludes hospitals and care homes, meaning the daily death toll we'd stabilise at would likely be closer to 200. Or to put in football terms, 2 Hillsborough Disasters every single day, and calling that under control and an acceptable level of deaths. I'm personally very much not ok with that. Link to the John Edmunds quotes here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52849691

Your last two sentences are incorrect on both the facts underpinning it as the ONS stats lay out, and on the conclusion you've drawn from them.


Disagree with your figures

Death rate for those with CV19 infection is 1.4
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/low ... estimates/

Daily Mirror & others claim around 19 million UK citizen have had CV19
https://fullfact.org/health/19m-coronavirus-manchester/
User avatar
The Old TomCat
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Location: Stroud

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby dursleydog » Fri May 29, 2020 8:36 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:
dursleydog wrote:

Unfortunately there's some flawed hypotheses being drawn here from incorrect starting facts.
No idea where you've got 19m infected and with immunity from. Antibody testing in Spain and France concluded only around 6% of the population has immunity (rising to as high as 11% in the worst effected areas). We've definitely done worse in terms of the number of infections, but that quite that much worse.

The ONS study on antibody testing found that an estimated 6.78% of the population had immunity. Not around 33% as you claim. (Results here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... r-covid-19)

This would translate to 4.47m infected, or in other words, about 61.5m to go if we gave up on containing it...

You are correct on the mortality rate. Using our numbers of 4.47m infections from the ONS, and 60,000 deaths (as estimated from the most recently available excess mortality stats), that gives the UK a mortality rate of 1.34%, pretty much bang in line with the 1.4% observed as an average across other countries. Again, a strong indicator that excess mortality stats are the most accurate.

However, there are some other inaccuracies. For a lot of young people it is not just "like the flu". While the death rate is far far lower once you get below the age of about 60 (underlying medical conditions aside) there have still been hundreds of deaths of younger people, many of whom were quite healthy. The tragic death toll of our NHS and care worker front line is a terrible example of that. Unfortunately you are still trying to apply herd immunity mild but novel influenza logic to a virus that behaves very very differently. Interestingly, also in the ONS survey they found that the number with antibodies in younger groups was higher (closer to 10%) compared with the elderly (approx 3%), suggesting shielding has sort of worked. Of course, the death toll shows that "sort of" working isn't nearly good enough, and sadly the lack of infections among the elderly also points to the potential rises in death rate we could yet see. the care home situation is evidence enough that shielding has only been partially successful if you're a glass half full type of person, scuppered with holes if you're a glass half empty type.

Sadly, the only point I agree with you on is that we are likely set towards a second peak. SAGE scientists have begun to break ranks and it's emerging the government has completely ignored the scientific advice surrounding reopening. Today, Prof John Edmunds, a senior SAGE member, said "8,000 current infections a day is too high, and many scientists would have preferred incidence to be lower before we begin to relax lockdown measures." He went onto say that "lifting the lockdown was a political decision" and that the best case scenario is "incidence is kept to it's current level" , Meaning a steady 8k infections/day , in turn meaning our death rate would plateau out at between 80-120 deaths/day and never dropping below that, quite high compared with other badly effected countries, incredibly high compared with the ones who handled it well. And that number of estimated infections excludes hospitals and care homes, meaning the daily death toll we'd stabilise at would likely be closer to 200. Or to put in football terms, 2 Hillsborough Disasters every single day, and calling that under control and an acceptable level of deaths. I'm personally very much not ok with that. Link to the John Edmunds quotes here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52849691

Your last two sentences are incorrect on both the facts underpinning it as the ONS stats lay out, and on the conclusion you've drawn from them.


Disagree with your figures

Death rate for those with CV19 infection is 1.4
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/low ... estimates/

Daily Mirror & others claim around 19 million UK citizen have had CV19
https://fullfact.org/health/19m-coronavirus-manchester/


OTC, you’ve literally included a link to the fact checker that’s pointing out the 19m figure is wrong
User avatar
dursleydog
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby The Old TomCat » Fri May 29, 2020 8:51 pm

dursleydog wrote:Disagree with your figures

Death rate for those with CV19 infection is 1.4
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/low ... estimates/

Daily Mirror & others claim around 19 million UK citizen have had CV19
https://fullfact.org/health/19m-coronavirus-manchester/


OTC, you’ve literally included a link to the fact checker that’s pointing out the 19m figure is wrong[/quote]
That is why I said around 19 million.
Whatever the figure turns out to be it will be close to 19 million.
User avatar
The Old TomCat
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Location: Stroud

Re: CoronaVirus

Postby dursleydog » Fri May 29, 2020 9:08 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:
dursleydog wrote:Disagree with your figures

Death rate for those with CV19 infection is 1.4
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/low ... estimates/

Daily Mirror & others claim around 19 million UK citizen have had CV19
https://fullfact.org/health/19m-coronavirus-manchester/


OTC, you’ve literally included a link to the fact checker that’s pointing out the 19m figure is wrong
That is why I said around 19 million.
Whatever the figure turns out to be it will be close to 19 million.


Given you clearly can’t be bothered to read the articles you’re posting, allow me to read it for you.

“The most definitive results will eventually come by directly testing large numbers of people for antibodies, which would show who had been infected with the virus, whether they had symptoms or not.

When he was asked about the UK’s level of past infection by the Health and Social Care Committee on 5 May, the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said, “The latest [antibody test results] I have seen is probably from just over two weeks ago, and reflects three weeks before that, because that is roughly how long it takes you to get your antibodies. It suggests something like 10% antibody positivity in London and something much closer to 3% or 4% in other places. It may be lower still in other places. I would expect to see variation in that across the country. We will get more information as those studies go on, but I would not expect to see antibody levels much above the mid-teens; but we will see.”

The study this figure was drawn from used some very odd forward statistical modelling to project the number of figures. It did no antibody testing. The figures it projected have already been proven wrong by the real data coming in since this was published, and as a result it has been rubbished by the community, helping trigger the fact check page you’ve helpfully supplied. Like the fact check page states, and Sir Patrick Vallance stated, I’ve included the paragraph, mass antibody testing is the way to answer this question. We now have mass antibody testing in the form of the ONS study I linked. It showed an infection rate of 6-7% for the population as a whole, in line with what Vallance estimated, and a long long way short of 33%. There’s no “see what it turns out to be”, we’ve got the best possible estimation for this point in the pandemic now, and it’s 6-7%.

EDIT: Also just do the simple maths. You said the mortality rate was about 1.4% which is correct. Then you said we had 19m infections. Well we’ve had about 60,000 deaths. By your numbers of 19m infections at a 1.4% mortality rate, we should’ve had 266,000 deaths
User avatar
dursleydog
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

PreviousNext

Return to Coronavirus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

About FGR

We’re a club that looks to the future, but our identity is forged from a rich 128-year history. Founded in 1889, we’re one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

In 2017, we were promoted to the Football League for the first time in our history – which means we can spread our sustainability message to an even bigger audience. FIFA recently described us as the greenest football club in the world. That’s quite an accolade, and it shows how we’ve been able to bring together football and environmental consciousness at the highest levels of the game.