So the large majority of people are going to have a minor cold for a week and then that’s it?
This has been known and accepted, by all, from the start. 80% of cases are mild or even asymptomatic. This itself causes problems because you can be carrying the disease, and handing it on, without even being aware you're infected
15-20% of people will get more seriously ill. Around 10% will require acute care in a hospital. The German doctor believes around 2-3% will die.
He is saying absolutely nothing new.
So basically if you are under 75 and reasonably healthy, you really haven’t got much to worry about.
I wouldn’t wish ill on anyone in their 80s. But this doesn’t look like an existential threat to the global economy. Except possibly for the cruise industry.
Isn't the economic concern less to do with mortality rates and more to do with the impact of measures designed to limit spread of the infection? Many economic activities may well be closed down or significantly reduced for a period.
Yes, it’s the severe disruption that’s the economic threat, rather than a large population ‘adjustment’ among mostly economically inactive groups.
Sporting, cultural events and exhibitions are also getting cancelled everywhere, authorities in many countries don’t want large crowds of people gathering. It sounds as if the French football league will be being played entirely behind closed doors this weekend.
It was OPEC who called it first, that China’s demand for oil and gas was 25-30% off during January. That’s still a pretty good estimate for how much Chinese economic output has been down - which is why the authorities are now desperate to get the factories open again.
If China's demand for oil was down 25%, then oil would be sub $30, not at $45. Simply you can't take 2.5-3.0m barrels out of world oil demand without dropping the price at least 50-60%.
That's because China is doing the right thing. They're recognising that while containment has economic consequencess, it avoids complete disaster. Simply, a few months of minimal economic activity can be bounced back from pretty quickly. While a pandemic is going to be much more difficult.
The US is going for the opposite approach, wanting to keep the economy growing irrespective of the possible risk of mass infections.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
So the large majority of people are going to have a minor cold for a week and then that’s it?
This has been known and accepted, by all, from the start. 80% of cases are mild or even asymptomatic. This itself causes problems because you can be carrying the disease, and handing it on, without even being aware you're infected
15-20% of people will get more seriously ill. Around 10% will require acute care in a hospital. The German doctor believes around 2-3% will die.
He is saying absolutely nothing new.
And of those 2-3% how many would have died in the following year in any case ?
A large chunk, I think
It's not so much the dead who are the problem, if I may be brutal (though 250,000 dead in Britain, if it happens, is grim) - it is the numbers of critically ill.
The figure for deaths in Britain is likely to be much higher than 250,000. Deaths/cases is at 3.4% globally. In Italy it is at 2.4%, but so far only 5% there have recovered, whereas worldwide 46% have. So deaths/cases is more likely to be 3-4% than 2-3%. If so and 70% in Britain get infected - the figure I heard on Radio 4 this morning - then deaths will number 65M x 0.7 x (0.03-0.04) = 1.4-1.8 million. The usual death rate is about 0.6 million per year, so the majority of these victims would not have died within a year.
If 1.4-1.8 million die within say a period of 2-3 months, the death rate will be 9-18 times higher than usual. That's 9-18 times as many corpses as usual, every day for 60 or 90 days.
Let's not even think about the second wave.
QOTD is from Prince Philip: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation".
I was trying to be conservative, so as not to scare the Don't Panickers, again
Yes there are plenty of even worse scenarios than mine (though they are unlikely)
If we get 1.4-1.8 million dead, society would edge near to breakdown. It is hard to believe and hard to accept these are now plausible outcomes, but they are.
Can I ask what is your background? Scientific, mathematical, medical, or just good at numbers?
Remember that - unlike your headless chicken stunt after the Brexit vote - both the medical progress of this virus and the impact on the economy/markets will eventually become fact, and then history, against which our judgement may be tested.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
Bingo. In a pandemic you will get excess deaths of people who aren't even infected because they aren't able to get normal healthcare.
The figure for deaths in Britain is likely to be much higher than 250,000. Deaths/cases is at 3.4% globally. In Italy it is at 2.4%, but so far only 5% there have recovered, whereas worldwide 46% have. So deaths/cases is more likely to be 3-4% than 2-3%. If so and 70% in Britain get infected - the figure I heard on Radio 4 this morning - then deaths will number 65M x 0.7 x (0.03-0.04) = 1.4-1.8 million. The usual death rate is about 0.6 million per year, so the majority of these victims would not have died within a year.
If 1.4-1.8 million die within say a period of 2-3 months, the death rate will be 9-18 times higher than usual. That's 9-18 times as many corpses as usual, every day for 60 or 90 days.
Let's not even think about the second wave.
QOTD is from Prince Philip: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation".
I was trying to be conservative, so as not to scare the Don't Panickers, again
Yes there are plenty of even worse scenarios than mine (though they are unlikely)
If we get 1.4-1.8 million dead, society would edge near to breakdown. It is hard to believe and hard to accept these are now plausible outcomes, but they are.
Can I ask what is your background? Scientific, mathematical, medical, or just good at numbers?
If we get above 1% of the UK in concurrent cases then the seriously ill rate is what becomes important. At that point we have 650k cases, 130k of which need urgent medical care, 40-65k of which will need ICU provision to remain alive. Beyond the first few tens of thousands the mortality rate will increase markedly, up to 5+% as seen in China.
That's because China is doing the right thing. They're recognising that while containment has economic consequencess, it avoids complete disaster. Simply, a few months of minimal economic activity can be bounced back from pretty quickly. While a pandemic is going to be much more difficult.
The US is going for the opposite approach, wanting to keep the economy growing irrespective of the possible risk of mass infections.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
Er, that is precisely what I said below. The 10% critically ill are in some ways more important than the 2% dead.
The 10% could crash the health system, the 2% can be safely buried.
I sincerely hope you don't expect me to read your posts.
It shouldn't really matter that she is female or Asian, we tire of the woke/left when they hide behind minority-isms to deflect criticism. But, (having looked up what a succubi is!) it seems an overly personal term and inappropriate (in that it doesn't fit Priti Patel rather than the modern use of inappropriate as a passive aggressive way of saying "wrong")
There doesn't appear to be anything racial about that insult but it is clearly extremist misogynistic. Grayling has completely destroyed his reputation over this topic.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
Bingo. In a pandemic you will get excess deaths of people who aren't even infected because they aren't able to get normal healthcare.
We can only hope the 20% serious cases are spread over months and months.
The French are notorious hypochondriacs so it might be too early to say that it's out of control just on the basis that they can't keep up with testing.
It’s to be expected, the same as it isn’t possible to screen everyone for flu.
As ever, you miss the point.
The significance of this is that the French are admitting they cannot trace every suspicious case, and they are probably missing most.
That means the first battle of containment is lost. Their only choice now will be to go to full on mass quarantine, close schools, etc
You consistently miss the point that the measures being put in place aren’t expected to contain the disease, but to buy time and spread the load on health services, as best we can. Everyone expects it to spread into the wider population, and has done so for some weeks now.
That's because China is doing the right thing. They're recognising that while containment has economic consequencess, it avoids complete disaster. Simply, a few months of minimal economic activity can be bounced back from pretty quickly. While a pandemic is going to be much more difficult.
The US is going for the opposite approach, wanting to keep the economy growing irrespective of the possible risk of mass infections.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
Er, that is precisely what I said below. The 10% critically ill are in some ways more important than the 2% dead.
The 10% could crash the health system, the 2% can be safely buried.
Johnson fancies himself as Churchill. Well, potentially he's about to be tested as PM in a way no other leader has been since Churchill.
It shouldn't really matter that she is female or Asian, we tire of the woke/left when they hide behind minority-isms to deflect criticism. But, (having looked up what a succubi is!) it seems an overly personal term and inappropriate (in that it doesn't fit Priti Patel rather than the modern use of inappropriate as a passive aggressive way of saying "wrong")
There doesn't appear to be anything racial about that insult but it is clearly extremist misogynistic. Grayling has completely destroyed his reputation over this topic.
Wasn't it already destroyed over the previous topic?
So the large majority of people are going to have a minor cold for a week and then that’s it?
This has been known and accepted, by all, from the start. 80% of cases are mild or even asymptomatic. This itself causes problems because you can be carrying the disease, and handing it on, without even being aware you're infected
15-20% of people will get more seriously ill. Around 10% will require acute care in a hospital. The German doctor believes around 2-3% will die.
He is saying absolutely nothing new.
So basically if you are under 75 and reasonably healthy, you really haven’t got much to worry about.
I wouldn’t wish ill on anyone in their 80s. But this doesn’t look like an existential threat to the global economy. Except possibly for the cruise industry.
Isn't the economic concern less to do with mortality rates and more to do with the impact of measures designed to limit spread of the infection? Many economic activities may well be closed down or significantly reduced for a period.
Yes, it’s the severe disruption that’s the economic threat, rather than a large population ‘adjustment’ among mostly economically inactive groups.
Sporting, cultural events and exhibitions are also getting cancelled everywhere, authorities in many countries don’t want large crowds of people gathering. It sounds as if the French football league will be being played entirely behind closed doors this weekend.
It was OPEC who called it first, that China’s demand for oil and gas was 25-30% off during January. That’s still a pretty good estimate for how much Chinese economic output has been down - which is why the authorities are now desperate to get the factories open again.
If China's demand for oil was down 25%, then oil would be sub $30, not at $45. Simply you can't take 2.5-3.0m barrels out of world oil demand without dropping the price at least 50-60%.
Only severe production cuts and an expectation that Chinese demand will get quickly back on track have stopped the oil price from falling even further.
It’s to be expected, the same as it isn’t possible to screen everyone for flu.
As ever, you miss the point.
The significance of this is that the French are admitting they cannot trace every suspicious case, and they are probably missing most.
That means the first battle of containment is lost. Their only choice now will be to go to full on mass quarantine, close schools, etc
Coronavirus : «On a tellement de cas suspects qu’on ne peut plus dépister tout le monde» Quentin Delannoy, urgentiste à l’hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière à Paris, explique que, désormais, certains patients sont renvoyés chez eux sans être testés malgré des symptômes faisant penser au coronavirus.
They are saying that even when they've got the buggers, and the buggers are clearly symptomatic, they haven't the capacity to test them. Not clear whether it's taking the swabs they don't have time for, or enough labs to analyse them.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not! In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel. You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job. Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
That’s the fundamental issue, Civil servants should not be briefing against their ministers
Of course they shouldn't, Charles. On the other hand, it comes to something when government ministers are so unbearable that civil servants feel that they have no alternative.
Comments
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1233727829038202882
With all the other news it seems to being forgotten about, but is still important.
The US is going for the opposite approach, wanting to keep the economy growing irrespective of the possible risk of mass infections.
Now sure, 80% of people will have only minor symptoms. But if one fifth of people infected are seriously ill, how will they be treated? Where are the hospitals and the beds and the drugs?
People overly fixate on the mortality rate, when the serious illness rate is at least as important.
Otherwise...
Ooh, the opposition leader in waiting says the govt is losing its grip, has questions to answer and there should be an investigation...
Where has this kind of radical thinking been all my life?!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/business/energy-environment/china-oil-opec.html
Only severe production cuts and an expectation that Chinese demand will get quickly back on track have stopped the oil price from falling even further.
The polling says women don't like him though!
Quentin Delannoy, urgentiste à l’hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière à Paris, explique que, désormais, certains patients sont renvoyés chez eux sans être testés malgré des symptômes faisant penser au coronavirus.
They are saying that even when they've got the buggers, and the buggers are clearly symptomatic, they haven't the capacity to test them. Not clear whether it's taking the swabs they don't have time for, or enough labs to analyse them.