I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
Italy’s government is considering the extraordinary step of locking down entire sections of the country’s north, restricting movement for a quarter of the population in a sweeping effort to fight the coronavirus not seen outside of China.
The Italian outbreak, already the worst in Europe and the worst outside of Asia, has already inflicted serious damage on one of the Continent’s most fragile economies and triggered the closing of Italy’s schools.
A Lombardy official confirmed that the measures being discussed would essentially close down the northern region of Lombardy, Italy’s largest and most productive, accounting for a fifth of Italy’s GDP, and would come into force on Sunday and last until April 3.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
That's some good news, although median hides a few devils. About 19% of our population is 65+, Hubei is 10%.
The pollution point is a good one, but I don't think that we can say which way the balance their much higher levels of pollution vs our health demons will fall just yet.
Every day our cases continue to grow relatively slower vs France, Germany, Italy, and the USA etc my optimism increases a bit.
I really think the markets are overstating Trump's chances. I guess they were stung by what happened with Hillary, but if Biden wins PA, he almost definitely wins the presidency. Pretty much all the polling is showing solid leads, and that's before the primary is over, so some of the Bernie Bros still consider him the enemy.
This is *before* the coming events which are likely to be bad for Trump: There's a very frightening virus, which Trump has clearly massively screwed up and will probably continue to do so, and likely a huge economic shock. I feel like Trump's chances are more like 30% at this point.
I really think the markets are overstating Trump's chances. I guess they were stung by what happened with Hillary, but if Biden wins PA, he almost definitely wins the presidency. Pretty much all the polling is showing solid leads, and that's before the primary is over, so some of the Bernie Bros still consider him the enemy.
This is *before* the coming events which are likely to be bad for Trump: There's a very frightening virus, which Trump has clearly massively screwed up and will probably continue to do so, and likely a huge economic shock. I feel like Trump's chances are more like 30% at this point.
Trump still leads in Wisconsin and is tied with Biden in Michigan, if he wins those 2 and holds Florida he will be re elected even if he loses North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The issue being our 65+ population is twice as a percentage of population as theirs.
Our obesity rate is 6 times worse.
11% of the UK have CVDs, double that of China.
The only one that works in our favour is that diabetes prevalence in the UK is about 67% of what it is in China.
Plus, their healthcare system wasn't fully overwhelmed, they imported 40,000 medical professionals for 70,000 cases. Hence why I don't believe that 5% is the ceiling.
The young and healthy have very little to fear. The young or healthy have very little to fear providing that the healthcare system remains somewhat functional. The other 30-40%?
By the way, as bad as those figures look for the UK, they look vastly worse for the US.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
Listen Sean. You have lost your head over every fucking thing that has happened in the news over the past 5 years at least. You are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf. This is why no one takes you seriously any more, no matter how many times you change your name.
We stopped laughing with him about half way through the Byronic project.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
Somebody speculated earlier that there might be more than one strain of this, which might explain the wildly different mortality rates. Any potential truth in this theory?
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
Somebody speculated earlier that there might be more than one strain of this, which might explain the wildly different mortality rates. Any potential truth in this theory?
There are definitely two different strains that have been identified. Although one is defined as more "aggressive", that doesn't seem to have meant one is definitely more lethal than the other. 70% of the people in Wuhan had the more aggressive version.
Listen Sean. You have lost your head over every fucking thing that has happened in the news over the past 5 years at least. You are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf. This is why no one takes you seriously any more, no matter how many times you change your name.
We stopped laughing with him about half way through the Byronic project.
Has he only got two personalities running at the moment (eadric and mysticrose) or are there others?
I really think the markets are overstating Trump's chances. I guess they were stung by what happened with Hillary, but if Biden wins PA, he almost definitely wins the presidency. Pretty much all the polling is showing solid leads, and that's before the primary is over, so some of the Bernie Bros still consider him the enemy.
This is *before* the coming events which are likely to be bad for Trump: There's a very frightening virus, which Trump has clearly massively screwed up and will probably continue to do so, and likely a huge economic shock. I feel like Trump's chances are more like 30% at this point.
Trump still leads in Wisconsin and is tied with Biden in Michigan, if he wins those 2 and holds Florida he will be re elected even if he loses North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
If the US goes into full quarantine Trump will say his control the borders policies are more needed than ever too
It's true that the recent Wisconsin polling is looking tight - Biden was racking up decent leads last year but they've disappeared in the last 3 polls. I'd guess this is Bernie Bros not prepared to say they'd vote for their enemy in the primary, since Wisconsin is strong for Bernie. That should mostly dissipate by the general election, although it depends a bit how the rest of the primaries pan out. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_biden-6849.html#polls
However, if he missed Wisconsin and also NC then Iowa would also work, I'm not sure if there's any recent head-to-head polling but Trump isn't very popular there right now.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
What's the CFR: Cases died/cases recovered? I bet that you won't come out with the answer because it portrays your cherry picking to be as utterly misleading and irresponsible as it actually is.
Declaring a mortality rate and presenting it as 'the' expected mortality rate when 95%+ of cases are still unresolved is ridiculous and stupid.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
What's the CFR: Cases died/cases recovered? I bet that you won't come out with the answer because it portrays your cherry picking to be as utterly misleading and irresponsible as it actually is.
Declaring a mortality rate and presenting it as 'the' expected mortality rate when 95%+ of cases are still unresolved is ridiculous and stupid.
Even despite that, Germany’s figures are astonishing.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
What's the CFR: Cases died/cases recovered? I bet that you won't come out with the answer because it portrays your cherry picking to be as utterly misleading and irresponsible as it actually is.
Declaring a mortality rate and presenting it as 'the' expected mortality rate when 95%+ of cases are still unresolved is ridiculous and stupid.
Even despite that, Germany’s figures are astonishing.
I just don't believe nobody has died in Germany from it, even with early detection and great care, it just too statistically unlikely.
It seems Italians lock down, isn't really a full Chinese style lock-down i.e. people can still go to bars and restaurants if they still apart from one another.
I have to say, the quarantine of 15.5 million people reinforces just how serious this could get.
That being said the Govt's central estimate is apparently 100,000 deaths. I think that's low, possibly by a lot, but even so should jolt people awake a bit.
In the UK ?
100,000 deaths when we have had 2 so far
That's what the Times is saying as their central estimate. That's the misery of exponential growth. Italy's deaths have increased tenfold over the past week for example.
It doesn't take long for the slow ramp to turn into a rocket.
Although 100,000 isn't actually *that* bad. It's about 1/5th of the average year's deaths, and will largely be concentrated in the summer months were many fewer deaths occur. That being said I think that as a central estimate it's about 1/5th of what it should be - but they're the experts.
If there were 100,000 deaths, mostly among the elderly, it would be terrible. But it also wouldn't be a disaster.
It would mean about four times as many people died of the Coronavirus than a particularly bad flu season. And, of course, many of those people would have had serious underlying medical conditions, so the "excess" deaths might be an even smaller number.
The risk to society is if (say) 40 million people get it, and four million end up seriously sick, and there simply aren't the hospital beds to treat them, then the death rate for those could be 40%, not 10%. In which case we're looking at 2.5 million deaths.
Yeah, overall 100,000 would be bad, but far from catastrophic, and substantially lower than most other western countries.
Totally agreed, that's more or less my upper bound reasonable worst case based on us not taking social distancing seriously, other countries continuing to screw about and the spreading while showing no symptoms period being quite long. 5% of the UK population dying would be a major before/after moment, and while unlikely, I don't think that it's as unlikely as we like to think.
5% of the UK population is 3 million. You think that is not unlikely?
It's unlikely, but far from impossible (which it is being portrayed as). The virus gives such a massive proportion of patients critical symptoms that they'd be unlikely to survive without ICU care. Our population is old, fat, and unhealthy. I also fear for law and order in London, 2011 didn't exactly reinforce my faith in that regard.
It is very much my worst case, and relies on most things going wrong, but there's a credible case to be made that Wuhan's 5% mortality isn't a ceiling given the massive amounts of resources they drafted in, which other countries won't be able to do, and the ridiculously young demographics Wuhan enjoys compared to the UK.
Wuhan isn't *that* young compared to the UK. The median age (for Hubei) is 37, against 40 in the UK.
And air quality is massively worse in Wuhan, and rates of smoking much higher.
And 49% of the deaths in Wuhan were from the critically ill. If you factor that in, even not taking into account age, for everyone else the mortality rate in Wuhan was probably 1.2%.
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The mortality rate in Europe excluding Italy is currently 0.68.
What's the CFR: Cases died/cases recovered? I bet that you won't come out with the answer because it portrays your cherry picking to be as utterly misleading and irresponsible as it actually is.
Declaring a mortality rate and presenting it as 'the' expected mortality rate when 95%+ of cases are still unresolved is ridiculous and stupid.
Even despite that, Germany’s figures are astonishing.
They certainly are, but it is early on in the German outbreak. It could be that they caught cases early, the patients skew v young, or there is an issue with the death recording system. As more and more time passes I'm shifting to the latter as the most likely reason.
Either way what is *very* clear is that at the moment Germany is very much the exception, not the rule.
It's unlikely that every country will have the same approach to recording deaths of people with underlying/existing illnesses. That could affect the statistics we're looking at.
Trump says that if you test for a hoax then science (which is a load of crap obviously) will find the hoax is true and therefore Pence has told him not to do it or Fox news will implode. Or something.
I really think the markets are overstating Trump's chances. I guess they were stung by what happened with Hillary, but if Biden wins PA, he almost definitely wins the presidency. Pretty much all the polling is showing solid leads, and that's before the primary is over, so some of the Bernie Bros still consider him the enemy.
This is *before* the coming events which are likely to be bad for Trump: There's a very frightening virus, which Trump has clearly massively screwed up and will probably continue to do so, and likely a huge economic shock. I feel like Trump's chances are more like 30% at this point.
Trump still leads in Wisconsin and is tied with Biden in Michigan, if he wins those 2 and holds Florida he will be re elected even if he loses North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
If the US goes into full quarantine Trump will say his control the borders policies are more needed than ever too
It's true that the recent Wisconsin polling is looking tight - Biden was racking up decent leads last year but they've disappeared in the last 3 polls. I'd guess this is Bernie Bros not prepared to say they'd vote for their enemy in the primary, since Wisconsin is strong for Bernie. That should mostly dissipate by the general election, although it depends a bit how the rest of the primaries pan out. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_biden-6849.html#polls
However, if he missed Wisconsin and also NC then Iowa would also work, I'm not sure if there's any recent head-to-head polling but Trump isn't very popular there right now.
I forecast that Trump net approval (on a state-by-state basis) will prove far more accurate than candidate head-to-heads.
"Panic-buyers like Sean steal from the rest of us."
Discuss...
Firstly please don't doxx.
Secondly people who were doing their hamster-buying weeks ago did the most helpful thing possible. They've got their stuff, and they've sent a signal to the manufacturers to produce more early, it's been replaced, and they won't need to buy it again.
Comments
I think once you factor for pre-existing diseases and for ages under 65, say, I think the mortality rate gets into very bad flu range. So perhaps this is not the instrument of economic armageddon some fear.
The Italian outbreak, already the worst in Europe and the worst outside of Asia, has already inflicted serious damage on one of the Continent’s most fragile economies and triggered the closing of Italy’s schools.
A Lombardy official confirmed that the measures being discussed would essentially close down the northern region of Lombardy, Italy’s largest and most productive, accounting for a fifth of Italy’s GDP, and would come into force on Sunday and last until April 3.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/world/coronavirus-news.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/07/supermarkets-begin-food-rationing-wave-coronavirus-fueled-panic/
The pollution point is a good one, but I don't think that we can say which way the balance their much higher levels of pollution vs our health demons will fall just yet.
Every day our cases continue to grow relatively slower vs France, Germany, Italy, and the USA etc my optimism increases a bit.
This is *before* the coming events which are likely to be bad for Trump: There's a very frightening virus, which Trump has clearly massively screwed up and will probably continue to do so, and likely a huge economic shock. I feel like Trump's chances are more like 30% at this point.
I am shocked I tell you, shocked.
If the US goes into full quarantine Trump will say his control the borders policies are more needed than ever too
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1236454454037225472?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1236452586716303363?s=20
Our obesity rate is 6 times worse.
11% of the UK have CVDs, double that of China.
The only one that works in our favour is that diabetes prevalence in the UK is about 67% of what it is in China.
Plus, their healthcare system wasn't fully overwhelmed, they imported 40,000 medical professionals for 70,000 cases. Hence why I don't believe that 5% is the ceiling.
The young and healthy have very little to fear. The young or healthy have very little to fear providing that the healthcare system remains somewhat functional. The other 30-40%?
By the way, as bad as those figures look for the UK, they look vastly worse for the US.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_biden-6761.html
It's true that the recent Wisconsin polling is looking tight - Biden was racking up decent leads last year but they've disappeared in the last 3 polls. I'd guess this is Bernie Bros not prepared to say they'd vote for their enemy in the primary, since Wisconsin is strong for Bernie. That should mostly dissipate by the general election, although it depends a bit how the rest of the primaries pan out.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_biden-6849.html#polls
However, if he missed Wisconsin and also NC then Iowa would also work, I'm not sure if there's any recent head-to-head polling but Trump isn't very popular there right now.
Declaring a mortality rate and presenting it as 'the' expected mortality rate when 95%+ of cases are still unresolved is ridiculous and stupid.
Either way what is *very* clear is that at the moment Germany is very much the exception, not the rule.
With regards to the two strain theory: https://nextstrain.org/ncov?c=gt-ORF8_84&r=country
100% of Germany cases sequenced so far are 'L'. So are 100% of France and Italy's sequenced cases. So it's not down to the L/S split.
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1236119019100311552
Here's what I get turning the Morning Consult Trump Approval map into an electoral map:
https://www.270towin.com/maps/zLkb4
https://www.270towin.com/maps/ErVLP
[Edit: Forgot Iowa]
(Hope that's right, I may have screwed it up)