Fatality Chance At Most 0.37%

[DeppityDawg]

Even if that's true (there are quite a few different studies on this with various results, but the consensus at the moment seems to be that the true number is between 0.5% and 1%).



That is around 250,000 deaths in the UK, most of whom will have to spend a long time in hospital first, with most hospitals already at 95%+ capacity even without Covid 19.



If those deaths were all to happen in a short period, it would nearly double the death rate for the entire year compared to an average year.



Further, there are a lot more than 0.37% who need hospital treatment to recover, who will also die if they don't get the treatment.



The death rate in 3rd world countries will be a lot higher because they don't have the facilities to provide treatment to those requiring medical attention.  



It's worth mentioning that even now, we are way above the normal day to day capacity of ICU beds in the UK.  Last stat I saw about a week ago, we had 135% of the normal number of ICU beds occupied, so if the capacity had not been expanded we would have run out more than 2 weeks ago.



The bit that those who are saying we should just let it roll are missing, is that once we run out of hospital beds, the death rate will go up much higher probably more like 8-10% of those who cannot access hospital treatment, and that includes a lot of younger healthier folk who certainly wouldn't be expected to die this year.



Let's put it another way - would you get on a cruise ship (capacity 3000 for example) if you were told that 10 people on the ship would not survive to get home, and 300 people on the ship will require hospital treatment followed by months of convalescence at home?  I wouldn't.

Jesus wept, where are you getting this information from? So we are back to 250,000 dead now? At least it's better than 500,000 I suppose  :roll:  Where is a link or evidence that "135% of ICU beds are occupied"? How is it you are allowed to make statements like "people WILL die" if they don't get hospital treatment, yet other people are talking out if their arse if they don't agree? How do you fucking know they WILL die? Evidence? Where is it please. Here's a different view - no, it's not all critical care, but what has happened to the patients who might normally have been expected to be treated? Where have they gone?



https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article">https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-ho ... 92.article">https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article



Do you want links to articles that suggest  the Nightingale hospitals are virtually empty? What about the Private health care hospitals? Are they, along with all their equipment and expertise, being used to capacity? Or even at all? How much did it cost to requisition them in the first place? Is there any figure yet on what it's cost to "treat" a patient on a per person basis via those two avenues yet? Will we ever see that information? I very much fecking doubt it.



How do you know the death rate will go up to 8 to 10% if we run out of beds? Where did that come from? Where is the article or opinion piece that even suggests we might run out of beds? What about the thousands of empty beds the above article suggests are empty? What about the thousands of patients with other health issues who might now not be getting treatment or even not going to the doctor now because of Coronavirus? How many of them might die?



That post is nothing but a load of panic mongering shite, Javert. Opinion/commentary without anything to support it other than obsessive and irrational fear.

[Scott777]

Even if that's true (there are quite a few different studies on this with various results, but the consensus at the moment seems to be that the true number is between 0.5% and 1%).



That is around 250,000 deaths in the UK, most of whom will have to spend a long time in hospital first, with most hospitals already at 95%+ capacity even without Covid 19.

Again, 0.37% is the most.  I may be way less.  And I have no idea how you figured out your 'consensus'.

[Javert]

Even if that's true (there are quite a few different studies on this with various results, but the consensus at the moment seems to be that the true number is between 0.5% and 1%).



That is around 250,000 deaths in the UK, most of whom will have to spend a long time in hospital first, with most hospitals already at 95%+ capacity even without Covid 19.



If those deaths were all to happen in a short period, it would nearly double the death rate for the entire year compared to an average year.



Further, there are a lot more than 0.37% who need hospital treatment to recover, who will also die if they don't get the treatment.



The death rate in 3rd world countries will be a lot higher because they don't have the facilities to provide treatment to those requiring medical attention.  



It's worth mentioning that even now, we are way above the normal day to day capacity of ICU beds in the UK.  Last stat I saw about a week ago, we had 135% of the normal number of ICU beds occupied, so if the capacity had not been expanded we would have run out more than 2 weeks ago.



The bit that those who are saying we should just let it roll are missing, is that once we run out of hospital beds, the death rate will go up much higher probably more like 8-10% of those who cannot access hospital treatment, and that includes a lot of younger healthier folk who certainly wouldn't be expected to die this year.



Let's put it another way - would you get on a cruise ship (capacity 3000 for example) if you were told that 10 people on the ship would not survive to get home, and 300 people on the ship will require hospital treatment followed by months of convalescence at home?  I wouldn't.

[Scott777]

No I mean the probably of the distribution of the virus.

By its very nature a viral contagion will not distribute over a given population evenly, especially when one factors in isolation, and other lockdown/ social distancing practices.

Therefore I would not feel comfortable in making assumptions about a total populations infection percentages.

Then you can't estimate the overall figures at all.  The point of random testing is you can estimate it.

[Scott777]

I think you're wasting your time. I already made the point that "science" and "experts" don't all agree numerous times. Ironically, when an expert or university study doesn't paint CV19 as like the bubonic plague, our posters go out of their way to challenge it, but they happily accept "experts" who paint it as the end of the world as we know it without a word.

 :hattip

[Barry]

This is the situation in a real hospital environment:



-A total of 755 people have tested positive for COVID-19.

-Of these 199 patients died.

-Confirmed inpatients 88

-Inpatient discharges 271

-Community cases 197



Mathematicians, what is the death rate?

You can't tell because you don't have enough information.



Everyone I spoke to at the hospital today thinks they have had it. Everyone.

[Nalaar]

You mean that it was random?

No I mean the probably of the distribution of the virus.

By its very nature a viral contagion will not distribute over a given population evenly, especially when one factors in isolation, and other lockdown/ social distancing practices.

Therefore I would not feel comfortable in making assumptions about a total populations infection percentages.

[DeppityDawg]

Make light?  When?  I would like the truth.



Spreading the 'disease', as you call it, is fine, if it's no worse than the flu.  Again, as if people have been brainwashed, you seem to assume it is the bubonic plague or something, and then try to fit your opinion around that.

 I think you're wasting your time. I already made the point that "science" and "experts" don't all agree numerous times. Ironically, when an expert or university study doesn't paint CV19 as like the bubonic plague, our posters go out of their way to challenge it, but they happily accept "experts" who paint it as the end of the world as we know it without a word.

[Scott777]

That's a very large assumption that I don't think we can make.

You mean that it was random?

[Scott777]

The idea that the whole world is in a panic over nothing worse than an average flu is absurd.

 :thdwn:  :fcplm:

It does sound absurd, but I think people underestimate the power of media and the corporations pushing their agenda.  I have to remind you how many were convinced (and still are) about climate catastrophe, and Brexit catastrophe.  The corporations have merely stepped up their game.

[Nalaar]

Ok.  And if the tests were random, then you extrapolate it to 4% of the population have it.

That's a very large assumption that I don't think we can make.

[cromwell]

Make light?  When?  I would like the truth.



Spreading the 'disease', as you call it, is fine, if it's no worse than the flu.  Again, as if people have been brainwashed, you seem to assume it is the bubonic plague or something, and then try to fit your opinion around that.

It is worse than the flu,but I guess convincing you of that is impossible.



The idea that the whole world is in a panic over nothing worse than an average flu is absurd.



 :thdwn:  :fcplm:

[Scott777]

4% of those tested have Corvid19, of those that are known to have it 10 have died.

Ok.  And if the tests were random, then you extrapolate it to 4% of the population have it.

[Nalaar]

I can't see how you came to 0.56%.



If 4% of the population have it, that's 14,500.  If 10 have died out of 14,500, that 0.07%.

4% of those tested have Corvid19, of those that are known to have it 10 have died.

[Scott777]

The Stats are all there for you do apply Maths to -



They've conducted 44,468 tests, accounting for approximately 12% of their population, and of those have confirmed 1785 cases of Corvid19, so approximately 4% of people tested have the disease, of those 10 have died (0.56%) and 5 others are critically ill (given the sample sizes any one of those dying would have a significant impact on the %s).

I can't see how you came to 0.56%.



If 4% of the population have it, that's 14,500.  If 10 have died out of 14,500, that 0.07%.