Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

561 - 580 of 931 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #561
I am saying we should WANT to accelerate the progression in those who will not be hospitalised because of it. Then, whatever happened to them when they had it, has been done, out of the way, move on with life.
That’s interesting that you have a foolproof what to work out who will be hospitalised or not before they get the virus.

Do tell me more.

(This is why I don’t read your ‘Facist’ thread because I’d just spend too much time ripping you apart). :)
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,185 Posts
OK, let me give you a simple example.

Imagine a care home full of elderly. Almost all of the carers are young and under 40, fit and healthy.

Now imagine what happens when one of them catches the virus and doesn’t show any symptoms?

This is exactly what is driving the deaths in places like Spain where they have almost 100 deaths in one facility.

It’s heartbreaking.
You scenario is fair to ask. And the answer is that for those under 50's who are in routine intimate contact with over 50's (or anyone also in isolation) they have to isolate too. They are not in the 'general population', they are specifically located 'within' the isolation group.

People who are connecting with others in isolation need to be in isolation themselves.

There should be a 'non-isolating' population and those who are isolating somewhere else.

Picture the outside world as one very large happy family all self-isolating. Those who are more vulnerable than that need to keep their distance, just like the advice today. If you are in a family with a vulnerable person in the house, still try to keep away from them.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,185 Posts
That’s interesting that you have a foolproof what to work out who will be hospitalised or not before they get the virus.

Do tell me more.
Statistics.

From those other countries and from our country to date, to determine how many under 50's will be hospitalised you take the number that have already been hospitalised here and elsewhere and work with that.

Hey, maybe it is a high number? I think it is closer to zero. Why are we being treated like mushrooms and this information is not being made available to figure this sort of stuff out for ourselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #564
Statistics.

From those other countries and from our country to date, to determine how many under 50's will be hospitalised you take the number that have already been hospitalised here and elsewhere and work with that.

Hey, maybe it is a high number? I think it is closer to zero. Why are we being treated like mushrooms and this information is not being made available to figure this sort of stuff out for ourselves?
Please show your working. It’s not Zero.

Also, you can’t identify an individual, only a population. Which doesn’t help you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Whaaaaaam saying that healthy under 50s are to all intent and purpose immune. They don't need to isolate because they won't bung up the hospitals if they get ill with it. They'll be tucked up in bed with a lemsip. And if they do turn up to hospital then send them home.
Where’s the evidence of that? Under 50’s are getting sick enough to need a ventilator and a smaller proportion is dying even then, some without underlying illness as reports are coming out. Those who are sick enough to need a ventilaror will die without a ventilator which is the risk is the virus isn’t slowed by lockdown.

pretending no one under 50 is getting dangerously sick or dying is a strange and dangerous position to take
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
It would be nice though to have an idea of the statistical breakdown of ages / deaths / recovery etc - you can't help feeling that that info is being held back (or not being generated which seems absurd) to nudge us in whichever direction the gov feels fit. Probably for good reason, but still, it may stop some of the arguments on here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #567
It would be nice though to have an idea of the statistical breakdown of ages / deaths / recovery etc - you can't help feeling that that info is being held back (or not being generated which seems absurd) to nudge us in whichever direction the gov feels fit. Probably for good reason, but still, it may stop some of the arguments on here.
It’s out there if you care to use your Google Machine:


Albeit we don’t have the full picture yet as testing has been limited, even for deaths.

However, if we take these figures we can see that the death rate for under 50s totals 1%. So that’s around 600,000 people in the UK.

Of course this is before the hospitals and ICUs are overwhelmed and people are left to die on a trolley or the car park of the hospital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
I of course forgot to remember to be totally explicit in my comment - I meant data from the UK only, since I'm not 100% certain that chinese figures, nor iranian for that matter, can be trustfully used as a basis for the UK situation.

Also, reading the referenced report above, I for some reason can't get my head around their disclaimers regarding not adding up to 100% in the tables - could you explain that to me simply please ?

edit - read it again, and all it gives is the "likelyhood of dying" - if the data in the chinese data actually gives (not checked by me) the numbers, why not just show the actual percentages which do add up to 100%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
I of course forgot to remember to be totally explicit in my comment - I meant data from the UK only, since I'm not 100% certain that chinese figures, nor iranian for that matter, can be trustfully used as a basis for the UK situation.

Also, reading the referenced report above, I for some reason can't get my head around their disclaimers regarding not adding up to 100% in the tables - could you explain that to me simply please ?
If people all wore ~10p masks outside the home it would represent far better value in reducing R0 than shutting down economic activity.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,185 Posts
If people all wore ~10p masks outside the home it would represent far better value in reducing R0 than shutting down economic activity.
I'm 'liking' that not because I think masks are 'the answer' but simply that it is another answer and people seemed to have dumbed down to a one-size-fits-all answer.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,185 Posts
Where’s the evidence of that? Under 50’s are getting sick enough to need a ventilator and a smaller proportion is dying even then, some without underlying illness as reports are coming out. Those who are sick enough to need a ventilaror will die without a ventilator which is the risk is the virus isn’t slowed by lockdown.

pretending no one under 50 is getting dangerously sick or dying is a strange and dangerous position to take
Just give me the numbers!!

<50 People with underlying conditions may be going in to hospital but they should be in isolation. If being in isolation doesn't work then, ... WTF?

My logic for believing there are no under 50s without health concerns going into hospital for precisely the reason that when one such person fits that category it gets reported as a stand-alone story!!

There aren't any stories about specific 60 year olds in hospital. Why not? .. because that is the norm. News reports the outliers.

Just tell me ... today, right now, how many people are in hospital with Covid and of those how many are under 50 with no known health issues? I am not claiming any numbers for this, what I am saying is that it is impossible to judge whether letting <50s 'run wild' is a good idea or not without it. What is it? Tell me!

If you don't know you can't say it is not a good idea.

If I don't know I can't say it is a good idea either!

Doesn't anyone actually want to know any FACTS and base a reaction on FACTS!?!?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
Actually, for anyone that hasn't, reading that report that @cah197 referenced above is extremely interesting - I'll refrain from making any public comments on my understanding of it, but I'm sure others here should do so.

To clarify, I don't mean the report referenced, I mean the reports referenced by the referenced report
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
Well, yeah, duh!

A lock down isn't going to get rid of the virus. Hence I really don't understand why it is locking down everyone, rather than locking down the vulnerable.

If we lock down the vulnerable first, then the NHS can deal with the small number of hospitalised cases from the statistical outliers of the main, robust population, and then slowly re-introduce the vulnerable groups in a series of controlled 'releases', probably best by age groups and/or specific conditions. Oldest and those with respiratory disease are 'unlocked' last.

I mean, really, FFS, is it that hard to figure out?
Alright knickers

I raise it to push back against those above who were saying we should have locked down weeks ago.

I fully agree with you

others think we should hide forever

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
Correct, except that’s not what the strategy was until last Monday, it was extremely poorly communicated by talking about he’d immunity
pretty sure it was

every step was articulated in govt announcements and papers

my issue was that social media turned that into confusing opinions (as this thread shows - why think the CSA is an expert)

are saying you didn’t know weeks ago that you had to self isolate if you had symptoms?

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
reports of a 21 with no health issues dying from the virus - hopefully that puts to an end any speculation that this isn’t a serious issue we are currently facing Coronavirus victim, 21, 'had no health issues'
Am I the only one who thought this point in that report was a bit strange:
"Speaking from a personal experience, this so-called virus has taken the life of my 21-year-old daughter."
Were those her actual words or did the reporter misquote? Either way it seems a bit odd - is this a widely held view? (That it's something other than a virus.)
 
561 - 580 of 931 Posts
Top