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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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