Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Not a doctor so the only advice I would give is if someone answered your question would you change your lifestyle in the next couple of months or not - If not , then why worry about it!
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
. At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
Tarot readings should be booming right now I think. Could be like that James Bond scene
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Yes well he usually talks utter rubbish so no surprise there. PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Yes well he usually talks utter rubbish so no surprise there. PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Indicative anecdata: As of 3 days ago, with the death toll standing at 79, not a single person younger than you had died in Italy. I dont know whether that still holds true - there is a chance of does.
One can never guarantee these things, but hope that helps.
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
And who are all the Hillary backers? You'd have to be beyond crazy to think she stands any chance of being the VP-pick.
Same people who backed David Miliband as Corbyn's successor?
You can back Obama to be veep at 200.
Is that even constitutionally possible?
Yes it is.
However, in the event that the President were to die, the role would skip the VP and go (I believe) straight to the Speaker of the House. Who could be from a different Party.
Not correct. The VP has to be eligible to be President under the 12th Amendment.
‘But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.’
So Obama, Clinton and Bush are all ineligible.
There is some theoretical pedantic debate about whether they are ineligible to be President, or merely to be elected President. Note that it is theoretically possible for a Vice President to inherit the Presidency in the second half of a Presidential term and serve two further full terms.
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
One side-effect of this crisis, certainly in America but perhaps also here, may be that governments look anew at how much has been outsourced and is therefore vulnerable to supply fluctuations, not just because the supplier might become hostile but, as here, because of spikes in global demand.
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
One side-effect of this crisis, certainly in America but perhaps also here, may be that governments look anew at how much has been outsourced and is therefore vulnerable to supply fluctuations, not just because the supplier might become hostile but, as here, because of spikes in global demand.
It does dovetail nicely with thinking that the British Government and British companies will probably have to do in readiness for post transition Brexit...
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
And who are all the Hillary backers? You'd have to be beyond crazy to think she stands any chance of being the VP-pick.
Same people who backed David Miliband as Corbyn's successor?
You can back Obama to be veep at 200.
Is that even constitutionally possible?
Yes it is.
However, in the event that the President were to die, the role would skip the VP and go (I believe) straight to the Speaker of the House. Who could be from a different Party.
Not correct. The VP has to be eligible to be President under the 12th Amendment.
‘But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.’
So Obama, Clinton and Bush are all ineligible.
There is some theoretical pedantic debate about whether they are ineligible to be President, or merely to be elected President. Note that it is theoretically possible for a Vice President to inherit the Presidency in the second half of a Presidential term and serve two further full terms.
As there is nobody who has ever met that definition, the point is moot. However, anyone who argues the point is wrong. If they are ineligible to be elected POTUS, they are clearly ineligible to be Veep on that wording.
At the Texas Democrat primary the total number of votes increased by 44.6% from 1.4m to 2.1m. If you apply that to California the number of votes would increase from 5.2m to 7.5m which would mean only about half the votes have been counted so far.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
No, I did not say nobody under 80 was at risk, I said those over 80 were most at risk, which is true (though even most over 80s should survive it).
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
No, I did not say nobody under 80 was at risk, I said those over 80 were most at risk, which is true (though even most over 80s should survive it).
Pre existing conditions in the 70 plus are key not so much 80 plus
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
A random sample of 1,200 British adults was polled between March 3-5 and 47% said that the age group at risk is people aged 80 and above. So it must be true.
If what is said is true, and it is a highly credible source, people like this Richard Seddon are interfering in the democratic elections of a close British ally through nefarious, possibly illegal, means. Surely, they should be sanctioned by the British government for doing this?
If they're private citizens then what business is it of the government?
If any laws are broken that's a matter for the US government surely? And if not then it's nobodies business.
Well, if the wrong side wins, it will not help our reputation with the new regime; iirc Bill Clinton was seriously unimpressed by HMG's assistance to the Bush campaign. Likewise the (ex-MI6) Steele dossier on Donald Trump's Moscow ties.
That said, the main British parties routinely pay for American and Australian assistance so I doubt Westminster will leap into action to ban something they benefit from.
As to where the "dirty tricks" line is crossed, perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder, or the loser. When will the report on Russian interference be released from the Number 10 safe?
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
It can weaken the immune system defences
Associated cardiovascular risk and renal impairment too, particularly type 2, I would have thought, but we haven't enough breakdown analysis yet.
Is at least some of the 'increased risk' due to people dying with the virus, rather than due to the virus? Eg. if a cancer patient dies with COVID-19, of cancer, then they will still count in the stats.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Not a doctor so the only advice I would give is if someone answered your question would you change your lifestyle in the next couple of months or not - If not , then why worry about it!
Quite possibly, yes.
Say there was advice that people in high risk categories should avoid social contact. The difference between being in high risk and "other" is substantial. Some high risk categories have ~10% risk of death. I'd quite like to avoid that. Whereas if I fall into the "young, healthy" category the risk is much lower, almost comparable with seasonal flu. I might think I ought to avoid parkrun, going to the pub, ask my employer if I can work from a back office rather than a public area etc. It would be a boring couple of months but if I need to do it to avoid a 10% danger of death, I'd do it.
I am assuming I'm unlikely to be running Manchester Marathon in April, given that Paris, Rome and Barcelona have all been cancelled. But it probably depends on how our numbers go.
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’ - he likes to Paint It Black?
Time is on his side.
"Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies." "China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain"
At the Texas Democrat primary the total number of votes increased by 44.6% from 1.4m to 2.1m. If you apply that to California the number of votes would increase from 5.2m to 7.5m which would mean only about half the votes have been counted so far.
Are there any plausible explanations as to why electronic votes take weeks to get counted, when pencil and paper votes can be done and dusted in six hours?
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
A random sample of 1,200 British adults was polled between March 3-5 and 47% said that the age group at risk is people aged 80 and above. So it must be true.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Yes well he usually talks utter rubbish so no surprise there. PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Median age of diabetics in Leics is 65 years, and prevalence rises with age . Many older diabetics are fairly mild diet controlled, with excellent control.
It really is quite hard to stratify risk more, but age and long term conditions are strongly correlated, so difficult to separate epidemiologically.
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
Globalisation.
Who needs X, Y and Z if you have A, B and C.
Then you discover having some X, Y and Z might have been a good idea after all.
Short sightedness, just like Tories thinking we don't need farmers, what a bunch of thick tossers.
Not sure it's Tories that think that. It's various Cummings disciples that think that. Doubtful that Cummings is a Tory.
Cummings is more of an anarchist than a Tory as far as I can see
My name on here gives it away that I am a bit anarchist in thinking as well . I see it it Cummings although he would advance the cause by being slightly less rude to people and dress a little more like everyone else in 10 Downing Street. You generally don't take people with you if you try and deliberately stand out from them
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Not a doctor so the only advice I would give is if someone answered your question would you change your lifestyle in the next couple of months or not - If not , then why worry about it!
Quite possibly, yes.
Say there was advice that people in high risk categories should avoid social contact. The difference between being in high risk and "other" is substantial. Some high risk categories have ~10% risk of death. I'd quite like to avoid that. Whereas if I fall into the "young, healthy" category the risk is much lower, almost comparable with seasonal flu. I might think I ought to avoid parkrun, going to the pub, ask my employer if I can work from a back office rather than a public area etc. It would be a boring couple of months but if I need to do it to avoid a 10% danger of death, I'd do it.
I am assuming I'm unlikely to be running Manchester Marathon in April, given that Paris, Rome and Barcelona have all been cancelled. But it probably depends on how our numbers go.
It cannot be that much of a murmer with that history, so I would guess not far off background risk for a fifty something male.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Not a doctor so the only advice I would give is if someone answered your question would you change your lifestyle in the next couple of months or not - If not , then why worry about it!
Quite possibly, yes.
Say there was advice that people in high risk categories should avoid social contact. The difference between being in high risk and "other" is substantial. Some high risk categories have ~10% risk of death. I'd quite like to avoid that. Whereas if I fall into the "young, healthy" category the risk is much lower, almost comparable with seasonal flu. I might think I ought to avoid parkrun, going to the pub, ask my employer if I can work from a back office rather than a public area etc. It would be a boring couple of months but if I need to do it to avoid a 10% danger of death, I'd do it.
I am assuming I'm unlikely to be running Manchester Marathon in April, given that Paris, Rome and Barcelona have all been cancelled. But it probably depends on how our numbers go.
Good luck with catching other runners in Manchester and not catching viruses!
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Your age (like mine) is just about on the right side of the line, and I am not qualified to pass any comment on what additional risk you might have from flu-related pneumonia.
But it does seem to me that you have the advantage that if you see anyone sneezing or mopping their brow, you should be able to outrun them. If you keep going, at least.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
At the Texas Democrat primary the total number of votes increased by 44.6% from 1.4m to 2.1m. If you apply that to California the number of votes would increase from 5.2m to 7.5m which would mean only about half the votes have been counted so far.
Are there any plausible explanations as to why electronic votes take weeks to get counted, when pencil and paper votes can be done and dusted in six hours?
Not sure, although in California the delay is caused by the fact that people can mail their ballots in as long as they're posted on polling day. They can arrive later.
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
Globalisation.
Who needs X, Y and Z if you have A, B and C.
Then you discover having some X, Y and Z might have been a good idea after all.
Short sightedness, just like Tories thinking we don't need farmers, what a bunch of thick tossers.
Not sure it's Tories that think that. It's various Cummings disciples that think that. Doubtful that Cummings is a Tory.
Cummings is more of an anarchist than a Tory as far as I can see
My name on here gives it away that I am a bit anarchist in thinking as well . I see it it Cummings although he would advance the cause by being slightly less rude to people and dress a little more like everyone else in 10 Downing Street. You generally don't take people with you if you try and deliberately stand out from them
Get yourself over to America, my son! They are conducting an experiment on the implications of the state going away, right now. Look and learn.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Yes well he usually talks utter rubbish so no surprise there. PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Median age of diabetics in Leics is 65 years, and prevalence rises with age . Many older diabetics are fairly mild diet controlled, with excellent control.
It really is quite hard to stratify risk more, but age and long term conditions are strongly correlated, so difficult to separate epidemiologically.
Anecdotal, but as my wife spent a month in HDU recently , all the diabetic patients admitted ( quite a few) to the ward during that time were under 60 and most significantly under.
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
Globalisation.
Who needs X, Y and Z if you have A, B and C.
Then you discover having some X, Y and Z might have been a good idea after all.
Short sightedness, just like Tories thinking we don't need farmers, what a bunch of thick tossers.
Not sure it's Tories that think that. It's various Cummings disciples that think that. Doubtful that Cummings is a Tory.
Cummings is more of an anarchist than a Tory as far as I can see
My name on here gives it away that I am a bit anarchist in thinking as well . I see it it Cummings although he would advance the cause by being slightly less rude to people and dress a little more like everyone else in 10 Downing Street. You generally don't take people with you if you try and deliberately stand out from them
Dominic Cummings is exactly of the age to have been influenced by some of the grassroots youth culture of the early 1990's, which had a generally peaceful anarchist streak, before electronic dance music became mainstream - thanks to the Conservatives essentially criminalising raves, ironically.
There's an interesting picture of Cummings wearing a what likes a fluorescent "broadcasting tower" t-shirt, which is very reminiscent of the rave culture of that era. His general self-conscious public image and dress sense conforms to this - a partial anarchist of the '90s era who went libertarian right, like Guido Fawkes, another veteran of the 1990's who went right, and used to organise raves.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
Or because of the density of cases in Hubei the health system couldn't cope, and consequently many more people died?
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
Yes well he usually talks utter rubbish so no surprise there. PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Median age of diabetics in Leics is 65 years, and prevalence rises with age . Many older diabetics are fairly mild diet controlled, with excellent control.
It really is quite hard to stratify risk more, but age and long term conditions are strongly correlated, so difficult to separate epidemiologically.
Anecdotal, but as my wife spent a month in HDU recently , all the diabetic patients admitted ( quite a few) to the ward during that time were under 60 and most significantly under.
Yes, While diabetes is more frequent with age, there is a significant group of younger diabetes patients.
Indeed the classification of five types of diabetes is increasingly appealing.
Pivav is utterly out of his depth. That said the despicable red card able play that England got away with was disgusting.
England never convinced me. Their defence was solid but their discipline appalling.
Wales were nervous but never lost spirit or cohesion.
There were still 3-4 minutes on that sinbin at the end. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes - with England down to 13 men and desperate - Wales would have won and I'd have banked almost £500.
At the Texas Democrat primary the total number of votes increased by 44.6% from 1.4m to 2.1m. If you apply that to California the number of votes would increase from 5.2m to 7.5m which would mean only about half the votes have been counted so far.
Are there any plausible explanations as to why electronic votes take weeks to get counted, when pencil and paper votes can be done and dusted in six hours?
Not sure, although in California the delay is caused by the fact that people can mail their ballots in as long as they're posted on polling day. They can arrive later.
Betting on racing used to work the same way. Bookmakers would look at the time the envelope was franked.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
Pivav is utterly out of his depth. That said the despicable red card able play that England got away with was disgusting.
England never convinced me. Their defence was solid but their discipline appalling.
Wales were nervous but never lost spirit or cohesion.
There were still 3-4 minutes on that sinbin at the end. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes - with England down to 13 men and desperate - Wales would have won and I'd have banked almost £500.
If England were at 15 men Wales could have tried to score for the next 3 months and probably wouldn't have done it.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy.
If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
I've been trying to work out if I'm in a high risk group. I'm a 55 year old male and have a heart murmur. The NHS calls me "cardiac risk" and gives me a free flu jab, and bans me from giving blood. However I'm fit and healthy, have a BMI of 21 and a runner - not fast, but I can run a marathon.
Not a doctor so the only advice I would give is if someone answered your question would you change your lifestyle in the next couple of months or not - If not , then why worry about it!
Quite possibly, yes.
Say there was advice that people in high risk categories should avoid social contact. The difference between being in high risk and "other" is substantial. Some high risk categories have ~10% risk of death. I'd quite like to avoid that. Whereas if I fall into the "young, healthy" category the risk is much lower, almost comparable with seasonal flu. I might think I ought to avoid parkrun, going to the pub, ask my employer if I can work from a back office rather than a public area etc. It would be a boring couple of months but if I need to do it to avoid a 10% danger of death, I'd do it.
I am assuming I'm unlikely to be running Manchester Marathon in April, given that Paris, Rome and Barcelona have all been cancelled. But it probably depends on how our numbers go.
It cannot be that much of a murmer with that history, so I would guess not far off background risk for a fifty something male.
Tx. It's a loud but ineffective ventricular septal defect - apparently the smaller ones are louder - and I haven't been under medical supervision since I was about 11. In normal life, it doesn't cause a problem. Of course coronavirus isn't "normal" but then I have put it under abnormal stress many times running races and it hasn't caused a problem. I think if the virus caused heart inflammation etc it might be a different matter but I have seen no suggestion of that - the cause of death seems to be pneumonia. Of course, if such advice is ever given out I would hope the NHS 111 service will be advising people about their risk levels, although that might just be cardiac risk = covid risk.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
Capability to manufacture our own vaccine is crucial, I'm shocked that we don't already have it.
Globalisation.
Who needs X, Y and Z if you have A, B and C.
Then you discover having some X, Y and Z might have been a good idea after all.
Short sightedness, just like Tories thinking we don't need farmers, what a bunch of thick tossers.
Not sure it's Tories that think that. It's various Cummings disciples that think that. Doubtful that Cummings is a Tory.
Cummings is more of an anarchist than a Tory as far as I can see
My name on here gives it away that I am a bit anarchist in thinking as well . I see it it Cummings although he would advance the cause by being slightly less rude to people and dress a little more like everyone else in 10 Downing Street. You generally don't take people with you if you try and deliberately stand out from them
Dominic Cummings is exactly of the age to have been influenced by some of the grassroots youth culture of the early 1990's, which had a generally peaceful anarchist streak, before electronic dance music became mainstream - thanks to the Conservatives essentially criminalising raves, ironically.
There's an interesting picture of Cummings wearing a what likes a fluorescent "broadcasting tower" t-shirt, which is very reminiscent of the rave culture of that era. His general self-conscious public image and dress sense conforms to this - a partial anarchist of the '90s era who went libertarian right, like Guido Fawkes, another veteran of the 1990's who went right, and used to organise raves.
I think Boris Johnson is an anarchist in instinct (and style of management as well) although he is pragmatic and ambitious enough to go the other way when needed . Brexit probably a good example as ,although its debatable , the natural position for an anarchist would be to not support it on the grounds of making individual choice on where to live and trade harder within Europe. It depends if you see the EU as being an opportunity for individuals to move around (as I do) or another layer of government which it is but the advantages it brings in being able to move freely outweighs this for me
And who are all the Hillary backers? You'd have to be beyond crazy to think she stands any chance of being the VP-pick.
Same people who backed David Miliband as Corbyn's successor?
You can back Obama to be veep at 200.
Is that even constitutionally possible?
Yes it is.
However, in the event that the President were to die, the role would skip the VP and go (I believe) straight to the Speaker of the House. Who could be from a different Party.
Not correct. The VP has to be eligible to be President under the 12th Amendment.
‘But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.’
So Obama, Clinton and Bush are all ineligible.
Jimmy Carter would be eligible?
He was a one term President, so he'd be fine.
And he'd make Biden look youthful, which would be a positive.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
In alarming news today Italy had their first purely Covid death, an ICU doctor with (as far as they know) no major underlying issues. 11 Italian provinces to go into complete lockdown.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
No problem, Aylward's spoken quite a lot about his experience as head of the WHO mission in Wuhan, and none of it is very positive. It was notable that in the week after he got there the WHO and a bunch of other organisations (including CDC while Trump was away) changed their tone very significantly and went from calm to alarm.
‘Coronavirus will peak at Easter — but it could be back in November’
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
In alarming news today Italy had their first purely Covid death, an ICU doctor with (as far as they know) no major underlying issues. 11 Italian provinces to go into complete lockdown.
Yes, there have been a fair number of healthy medical staff die in China, but I think very likely to have very high viral loads at the beginning, particularly when seeing patients before diagnosis is suspected.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
Of course it doesn't follow that will be the case fatality rate elsewhere, but he seems to be acknowledging that 1% - not 3.8% - is a proper reflection of the case fatality rate with good treatment.
As to whether the difference between the fatality rate in Hubei and the rest of China is because of a difference in detection rate, obviously evidence of a high detection rate in Guangdong (outside Hubei) has absolutely nothing to say about that. And his argument is not accepted by other virologists who have commented about this.
And I do find it difficult to make sense of his comments in view of the fact that throughout China, since early February, asymptomatic cases testing positive have been officially excluded from the count. Does he give a figure for how much larger the official count would have been if asymptomatic cases had been included? I haven't seen that information made public.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
Yes, I think the Iceberg postulate is wishful thinking. The best approach is public health measures, extreme as those in Italy, though perhaps a bit sooner.
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques is King Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud. He can unilaterally cut off access to them.
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Given the Saudi authorities have already restricted umrah, the answer appears to be that political power is sufficient to restrict access
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
The Saudi King as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques can do whatever he likes.
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Given the Saudi authorities have already restricted umrah, the answer appears to be that political power is sufficient to restrict access
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Given the Saudi authorities have already restricted umrah, the answer appears to be that political power is sufficient to restrict access
Restricting the Umrah and restricting the Hajj is two different kettles of monkeys.
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I think in looking at the mortality statistics that are being discussed, it's important to be aware that they are usually for Mainland China as a whole, and therefore dominated by the numbers from Hubei province.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
As far as I am aware most fatalities are in the older population, nearly all with pre existing conditions
Yes, there's no dispute about that. But if people are quoting actual mortality rates (i.e. percentages) they should be aware that there's a possibility they are significantly overestimated because only a fraction of cases have been detected.
The WHO's own mission said that they didn't believe that there was an iceberg effect.
Aylward In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
Yes, I think the Iceberg postulate is wishful thinking. The best approach is public health measures, extreme as those in Italy, though perhaps a bit sooner.
I agree the best approach is extreme measures to prevent the spread of the virus.
But I also think we have to be hard-headed in interpreting the evidence from China, and not just take the words of authority figures as gospel. Independent studies have estimated that the total number of cases in China had been underestimated by a factor of 5 at January 31, by a factor of 10 (two studies) at January 24-25 and by more than a factor of 30 at January 18: https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov-model/ https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov-model-2/
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Given the Saudi authorities have already restricted umrah, the answer appears to be that political power is sufficient to restrict access
Nah, The Times this morning helpfully had a graphic showing 10% of diabetics that caught it have died.
What makes people with diabetes more susceptible?
As per The Times.
From the beginning it has been a curious fact of this outbreak that the very young have not been affected in the way that might have been expected.
Disease modellers generally anticipate that epidemics produce a “U-shaped curve”. This means that it is that old and the young — those whose immune systems are weakest — who suffer the most. There are good reasons why parents of newborns are advised to keep relatives with sniffles away.
With the new coronavirus, that has not been the case. The left hand side of the “U”, that should represent elevated risk among the young, is flat - and stays flat until late middle age. One of the most reasonable hypotheses to explain this is that it is not the strength of the immune system but the strength of the body that matters.
Now scientists have collected enough data to not only partially confirm this but also put numbers on it. Among people of all ages the apparent “case fatality rate”, deaths divided by total recorded infections, is just 1.4 per cent — provided, that is, you’re healthy. are over 80, it is not rocket science. If you have another condition though - referred to in medical terms as a “comorbidity” — then those odds worsen markedly. For those with heart disease, the case fatality rate calculated by Chinese authorities is 13.2 per cent. For those with diabetes it is 9.2 per cent. For those with chronic respiratory disease or cancer it is around 8 per cent.
Among retirees, and those looking to protect older family members, it seems likely it is not age that should be a concern, so much as illness.
The death rate is 15% for over 80s with coronavirus though, so age is still the key concern once you get past a certain point rather than pre existing conditions
That is because most of the people with the majority of the conditions are over 80, it is not rocket science.
Age is not as important as a collection of pre existing conditions including diabetes, copd, astma and hypertension all of which I have in varying degrees
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
I know G but these are mostly illnesses of people in their 70's and 80's apart from diabetes. This is no different to flu which is very unpleasant but only serious for old people with underlying illnesses. You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
Yes but HYUFD seemed to imply it was only 80 plus at risk. That is not true
No, I did not say nobody under 80 was at risk, I said those over 80 were most at risk, which is true (though even most over 80s should survive it).
Pre existing conditions in the 70 plus are key not so much 80 plus
Many 80 plus are reasonably healthy
Those over 80 have a higher death rate at 15% than anyone with a specific pre existing condition, those over 80 with pre existing conditions may have the highest death rate of all but that does not change the fact that the over 80s have the highest death rate
Hypothetically, if coronavirus keeps spreading exponentially and we have tens of millions of infections over summer, do we know at what point Saudi Arabia would have to cancel the Hajj? Do we know who would realistically have to agree/bless their decision? How would this work?
Given the Saudi authorities have already restricted umrah, the answer appears to be that political power is sufficient to restrict access
I still don't really understand whether we're looking at a story of stereo-typical, exemplary German organisation, and its Italian opposite, to explain the shocking disparity in the worst cases, or a simpler story of the stages of the outbreak and a different strain of the disease.
Even with the fact it swept through a care home that seems implausible.
Washington may have more cases than France already in reality.
Of course not, it's clearly massively under.
France is pretty badly hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if Washington was ahead of us. Remember, it only got into two completely different carehomes because there was a lot of community transmission in the first case. NYC is up 50 today. The US is barely testing anyone, yet finding cases everywhere.
Comments
At 76 I am very high risk but strangely relaxed
Peter Piot, whose work combating ebola and Aids made him the ‘Mick Jagger of microbiologists’, tells Rhys Blakely why we are right to be worried...
.....He thinks it is likely that Covid-19 will now become part of our viral heritage. “If it goes down in April or May it could come back again in November.” This is why it makes sense to plough resources into making a vaccine. “I don’t think a vaccine will have any impact on the current outbreak — it will be too late. But it could become seasonal, we really don’t know.”
He gives the example of the Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed 50 million people a century ago. “Of course it was influenza, but it came in three waves over three years, and it was the second wave that was the most deadly one. Will the new virus be the same?China is over the peak — but now that factories and schools are being reopened, will this give rise to a second wave?”
I mention something that I’ve spoken to several scientists about in recent days: that even when a vaccine is developed, Britain will not have the ability to make its own supplies. In 2018 the government pledged £66 million for a new vaccine manufacturing facility near Oxford but it has not yet been built and in any case it will not be able to supply the whole country. “I think it’s a national security risk. We don’t have the capacity,” Professor Piot says.
China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain. “It will be your own people first — it’s something to consider, absolutely,” he says.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-will-peak-at-easter-but-it-could-be-back-in-november-qjqjmn307
You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that it will be worse if you have other conditions.
If the world cup final was between Wales & France I would be cheering for France.
PS: majority of diabetes sufferers will be under 80 for sure.
Don't feel so bad about laying them for £30 now.
One can never guarantee these things, but hope that helps.
In any event neither China nor the US have exactly been shining examples of virus control this year.
Who needs X, Y and Z if you have A, B and C.
Then you discover having some X, Y and Z might have been a good idea after all.
Many 80 plus are reasonably healthy
That said, the main British parties routinely pay for American and Australian assistance so I doubt Westminster will leap into action to ban something they benefit from.
As to where the "dirty tricks" line is crossed, perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder, or the loser. When will the report on Russian interference be released from the Number 10 safe?
Say there was advice that people in high risk categories should avoid social contact. The difference between being in high risk and "other" is substantial. Some high risk categories have ~10% risk of death. I'd quite like to avoid that. Whereas if I fall into the "young, healthy" category the risk is much lower, almost comparable with seasonal flu. I might think I ought to avoid parkrun, going to the pub, ask my employer if I can work from a back office rather than a public area etc. It would be a boring couple of months but if I need to do it to avoid a 10% danger of death, I'd do it.
I am assuming I'm unlikely to be running Manchester Marathon in April, given that Paris, Rome and Barcelona have all been cancelled. But it probably depends on how our numbers go.
"China, America and the European Union can make vaccines but there is no guarantee that they would reserve supplies for Britain"
Quick let's rejoin.
It really is quite hard to stratify risk more, but age and long term conditions are strongly correlated, so difficult to separate epidemiologically.
The overall fatality rate from Hubei province looks like being a factor of 5 larger than that from the rest of China. Obviously we don't know exactly why that is, but one possibility is that the percentage of cases detected in Hubei is 5 times lower than elsewhere in China. In that case we'd need to divide the numbers by 4 or 5. That presumably includes the percentage of serious (14%) and critical (5%) cases.
But it does seem to me that you have the advantage that if you see anyone sneezing or mopping their brow, you should be able to outrun them. If you keep going, at least.
There's an interesting picture of Cummings wearing a what likes a fluorescent "broadcasting tower" t-shirt, which is very reminiscent of the rave culture of that era. His general self-conscious public image and dress sense conforms to this - a partial anarchist of the '90s era who went libertarian right, like Guido Fawkes, another veteran of the 1990's who went right, and used to organise raves.
Indeed the classification of five types of diabetes is increasingly appealing.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/are-there-actually-5-types-diabetes/
Nearly 40% are type 5, and at little risk.
Wales were nervous but never lost spirit or cohesion.
There were still 3-4 minutes on that sinbin at the end. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes - with England down to 13 men and desperate - Wales would have won and I'd have banked almost £500.
Aylward
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
Julia Belluz
If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
Bruce Aylward
It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
This suggests the Chinese are really good at keeping people alive with this disease, and just because it’s 1 percent in the general population outside of Wuhan doesn’t mean it [will be the same in other countries].
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
And he'd make Biden look youthful, which would be a positive.
Just that their production facilities aren’t in the UK.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1232573774903627777?s=19
I hope that lessons have been learnt. We had our first case in Leics declared today.
As to whether the difference between the fatality rate in Hubei and the rest of China is because of a difference in detection rate, obviously evidence of a high detection rate in Guangdong (outside Hubei) has absolutely nothing to say about that. And his argument is not accepted by other virologists who have commented about this.
And I do find it difficult to make sense of his comments in view of the fact that throughout China, since early February, asymptomatic cases testing positive have been officially excluded from the count. Does he give a figure for how much larger the official count would have been if asymptomatic cases had been included? I haven't seen that information made public.
Whether any of them are either safe or effective is quite a different, more expensive, and time consuming matter.
But I also think we have to be hard-headed in interpreting the evidence from China, and not just take the words of authority figures as gospel. Independent studies have estimated that the total number of cases in China had been underestimated by a factor of 5 at January 31, by a factor of 10 (two studies) at January 24-25 and by more than a factor of 30 at January 18:
https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov-model/
https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov-model-2/
France days behind Italy.
Washington probably just a couple days behind France.
https://twitter.com/bnodesk/status/1236368897860947979
Even with the fact it swept through a care home that seems implausible.
Washington may have more cases than France already in reality.
France is pretty badly hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if Washington was ahead of us. Remember, it only got into two completely different carehomes because there was a lot of community transmission in the first case. NYC is up 50 today. The US is barely testing anyone, yet finding cases everywhere.