Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The only group where everyone was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Cruise passengers are typically likely to be older and be therefore more likely to have underlying health problems that then general population. The Diamond Princess had about a 1% fatality rate. The UK rate is a massive underestimate of infected individuals as currently testing is only being done on hospital admissions. I know of 9 likely affected people, none of them have been tested.

Renata

It is easy to panic about contagion because we can't see it. It is even easier to gloss over mental health issues because we can't, for the most part, see them. However, one aspect of science has been uniformly clear: mental health is crucial for immunity. Calling for total isolation and draconian measures to keep healthy people indoors, and other such things, are understandable responses to fear, but we must counter these expressions of anxiety with rational behaviour.
I completely agree Alison and mental health is going to be a challenge over the coming months. This is why I think government should have a think about internet access for those who don't have it. There are now 4G and 5G modems that require no cables (plug and play). It won't be the answer for everyone, but getting as many people online as possible would be a huge help in sharing mental health treatment and solutions.

May I add something to this discussion.

Today I went for a solo walk to Peckham Rye park.

90% of walkers in the park were very respectful to the 2m distance-as was I ..we hung back if needs be to create the distance or stripped onto the grass to let the others pass.

However on the pavement outside the park (opposite Harris school) which was pretty narrow no less than 3 lots of joggers ran straight towards me on the pavement huffing and puffing and brushing right alongside me (the pavement being too narrow to keep enough of a gap unless I'd flattened myself to the railings).

In one case it was 2 joggers both running side by side straight at me causing me to have to step off of the pavement into the road to keep any more than a couple of feet between us.

Thankfully the road was pretty empty of traffic so I was able to do this but the same thing happened on another road jogger on pavement huffing and puffing right beside me. once more the road was clear of traffic so they could have stepped off of the pavement safely and gone well past me.

I would ask that Joggers remain mindful of social distancing and if needs be upon seeing a walker on a narrow stretch of pavement take a quick glance and if the road is clear of oncoming traffic just go round them.

23/03, Number of reported UK covid 19 infections, 6650

23/03, Number of UK covid 19 deaths, 335


23/03, % of UK covid 19 deaths, 5.04%, 5 in every 100 infected people have died.


It does not mean this, as only 10% of people with suspected Covid-19 are being hospitalised, and tests are only being conducted in hospitals on those 10% - so the likely actual number of infected in the UK is 67000 and the mortality rate is thus most likely around 0.5%. (The death figures are right, the 'infected' figures very wrong). The actual rubric, out of interest, is that xx people are dying 'with' Covid-19 - although we may assume that for most it is also 'of' it is worth remembering that most men over 80 who die, die 'with' prostate cancer - though most of these do not die 'of' it. We know that many deaths are of people with underlying medical problems - which are surely at least contributory.


What the figures do mean is that for those ill enough to be hospitalised, the death rate is about 5% - but 90% or so of those who catch the disease are not ill enough to go to hospital. [indeed, there are numbers, it would appear, who have the disease, and may spread it, but who are asymptomatic and have no idea they are actually ill - it is these people in particular that the latest move to lock down the population is meant to be protecting us against]

The infected figures come from the Government website, so they are officially correct.


At least we agree that the 5% who die in hospital who were infected is correct. If the stats are renamed as;


23/03, Number of hospitalised UK covid 19 infections, 6650

23/03, Number of hospitalised UK covid 19 deaths, 335


23/03, % of hospitalised UK covid 19 deaths, 5.04%, 5 in every 100 infected people have died.

Somebody on twitter did say (and I'm not sure if it's true) that the COVID-19 stats are collected in the same way annual flu figures are collected.


So there are a lot of flu victims who never end up in the stats also and therefore the real mortality rate of annual flu might be very low.

Somebody on twitter did say (and I'm not sure if it's true) that the COVID-19 stats are collected in the same way annual flu figures are collected.


I think, happy to stand corrected, that annual flu figures are also based on reports from GPs - but GPs are not involved in Covid-19 - which is handled through 111 and hospitals. GPs do treat flu, they don't treat Covid-19. I don't think there has been any attempt to collate self-reporting (or indeed just questions) posed to 111 - save where they have moved to testing in case of severe cases. There are a lot of 'worried well', I know, ringing or contacting 111.

Just released from the official data -


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases


24/03, Number of reported UK covid 19 infections, 8077, yesterdays figure was 6650

24/03, Number of reported UK covid 19 deaths, 442, yesterdays figure was 335


24/03, % of hospitalised UK covid 19 deaths, 5.47%.

The stats for any pandemic change all the time during the pandemic itself. Only at the end can any definitive figure be given on mortality. BUT is it enough to know that this is not flu, that this virus is twice as infectious and 30 times more deadly. That in itself should be enough to understand why this is not anything like a bout of seasonal flu.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There was another unprovoked attack on Monday this week on a young woman nearby (Anstey Road) at 6.45pm. Don't have any other details, it was posted on a Facebook group by her flatmate. Pretty worrying  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EGfDrCAST/
    • OMFG is it possible for the council to do anything without a bunch of armchair experts moaning about it? The library refurb is great news, as it's lovely but completely shagged out - the toilets don't even work reliably. Other libraries in the area will be open longer house during the closure. July is a rubbish time to begin a refurb because it's just before the entire construction sector goes on summer holiday, and it would mean delaying the work another 8 months.
    • Licensing application for 2026 has gone in and they want to extend the event from 4 to 7 days accross two weekends.  There are some proposed significant changes to be aware of:   Event proposal moves to two separate weekends Number of days of the festival moves from 4 to 7 meaning also a change in the original licence is required Expected footfall in the park over the two weekends around 60,000.    Dear Peckham Rye Park Stakeholder,   Re: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – event application: ‘GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’ – ref: SWKEVE000935   We are writing to you because you have previously identified yourself as someone who wishes to be informed about event applications for Peckham Rye Park, or we think that you might have an interest in knowing about this particular event application.   Please be aware that the council are in receipt of an event application for: GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’   In line with the council’s Outdoor Events Policy and events application process we are carrying out consultation regarding this application.   The following reference documents are attached to this email:   Consultation information APPENDIX A – site plan weekend 1 APPENDIX B – site plan weekend 2 APPENDIX C – Production Schedule APPENDIX D – 2025 Noise Management Plan   The consultation is open from Tuesday 4 November and will close at midnight on Tuesday 2 December 2025   Community engagement sessions will take place on Wednesday 19 November.   If you would like to comment on application: SWKEVE000935 and take part in the online consultation, please visit:   www.southwark.gov.uk/GALA2026   If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.     Kind Regards, Southwark Events Team Environment and Leisure PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 020 7525 3639 @SouthwarkEvents APPENDIX A - SITE PLAN weekend 1.pdf APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN weekend 2.pdf APPENDIX C - PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.pdf And just to add that councillor Renata Hamvas chairs the licensing committee. Worth contacting her with views on ammendments to the original license. I am fairly sure she won't grant any amendments, but just in case.....
    • Second time Aria has completed a plumbing job for me and both times he’s been polite. Communicative, kept to time and completed the job. He’s very helpful and tidy as well. First job was ball valve in water tank, not easy at all. He and his team were fantastic. This time kitchen tap cylinders replaced and tap tightened.  Much appreciated, Aria thank you.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...