Novel Coronavirus – China

[Gael_Force]

I've just realised you are talking about mortality rather than infection rates ... last I saw was that mortality at 3% but that was based on early figures.

[Gray-Wolf]

2 minutes ago, Gael_Force said:

I've just realised you are talking about mortality rather than infection rates ... last I saw was that mortality at 3% but that was based on early figures.

This was always my concern whilst Luke was alive.

It was not the virus, per se, but the fear/reactions it drives in the developed world?

If you accept there is no escaping it ,and that a percentage of folk will die from such, then you can get on with life and minimise the risks it may bring us?

Daft to die of the 'results' of the virus and not the virus itself eh?

If you have a crash whilst hospitals are crippled then things we can cure (in 'normal' times') WILL kill us ( same for any illness demanding 'modern medicines' and hospitalisation?) Life and illness does not stop because we have an epidemic!!!

Then how well will folk 'behave' if we hit food/fuel/power shortages?

This is not just about getting a 'sniffle' but how your community reacts when scared for its very life.....

Just sayin'........

[Beverley Lass]

Survivors (2008 TV series) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Did we all watch this scary drama series !?

[Spikecollie]

I work that out as about 3% mortality. In 2012, according to the British Lung Foundation, there were over 35,000 deaths from lung cancer in the UK, over 42,000 deaths from heart and circulatory disease. 14% of people who have a myocardial infarction in the US will die from it, nearly 367,000 people a year. These are epidemics, not including diabetes, obesity - the list goes on.

I feel that what we are all doing here is focusing on novelty and negativity bias - this has "an end of the world scenario" feel to it and people are getting too caught up. This psychological impact is added to by the fact that the "news" is coming from a country which is very less than open with its information. My pet hate "social media" is not going to be helping - even the fact that there is a discussion happening here among people with varying levels of expertise but also importantly varying levels of vulnerability in all its senses is not necessarily wholly good. Yes people need to talk and vent their worries but we have to be careful about causing uneccessary anguish.

Maybe this is a very bad situation, maybe not - you have no cases of the virus there in the UK, we have 3 here in France. What we don't need to do is raise people's anxiety levels needlessly or without the requisite information, the latter which seems very lacking.

Let's keep talking but let's keep mindful. Our beautiful world goes on out there and we should keep loving and enjoying it despite its and our woes...

[Snipper]

5 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

 

Then how well will folk 'behave' if we hit food/fuel/power shortages?

The older generation a lot better than the younger I expect. 

[lottiekent]

28 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I still think some folk are not 'getting' this whole scene?

If the death rate is one percent (and ALL the global population WILL  eventually get it?) then over 'peak infection' that is a lot of bodies/losses/human tragedies?

1% of 7.5 billion? .....anyone???

Hi Gray-Wolf

There are now around 7.7 billion people in the world, as of September 2019.

1% of that is 77 million people! 

[Spikecollie]

3 minutes ago, Beverley Lass said:

Survivors (2008 TV series) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Did we all watch this scary drama series !?

Yes! We were hooked. A great series but our absorption in it shows our obsession with "end the the world scenarios". We love this stuff because humans are inextricably addicted to thoughts about their individual and collective mortality and how it will come about! Real events, like our current one, plug into that really well too. Add in a good dose of limited information and subjective interpretation and we're away...

[CharmlessMan]

4 minutes ago, lottiekent said:

Hi Gray-Wolf

There are now around 7.7 billion people in the world, as of September 2019.

1% of that is 77 million people! 

Which is equivalent to one year's population growth.  

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

 

[Gray-Wolf]

1 minute ago, Spikecollie said:

Yes! We were hooked. A great series but our absorption in it shows our obsession with "end the the world scenarios". We love this stuff because humans are inextricably addicted to thoughts about their individual and collective mortality and how it will come about! Real events, like our current one, plug into that really well too. Add in a good dose of limited information and subjective interpretation and we're away...

Whilst I engaged in trying to give folk open access to the climate woes we are seeing I was often called a 'Doomsayer'......now what am I to be called now that 'Doom' is common knowledge & impacting?

The reason science studies potential impacts of 'Global Pandemics' is because the odds are that we WILL encounter one again.....

I suppose our task is always figuring if 'THIS' is the one?

For me, after the first 14 years of this century 'needing' to find it not so, I am now my own worst enemy

Luke is no longer here and so his survival is no longer my concern but 'old habits' die hard eh?

I'm glad He is no longer here and facing this

Easier for me to accept my own chances/odds of surviving (and ALL of my family) than having His 'fragile' continuance on my mind 24/7......

All of that said I currently believe this to be 'The One' that will run through the Global population and we ALL have roughly the same chances of either falling foul of it or surviving it?

No point worrying about 'IT' , better figuring how to survive the impacts 'IT' will drive in our modern world?

[Gray-Wolf]

8 minutes ago, CharmlessMan said:

Which is equivalent to one year's population growth.  

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

 

But then you need plug in the normal global mortality rates on top of that surely?

[swebby]

20 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

This was always my concern whilst Luke was alive.

It was not the virus, per se, but the fear/reactions it drives in the developed world?

If you accept there is no escaping it ,and that a percentage of folk will die from such, then you can get on with life and minimise the risks it may bring us?  ..............

In the absence of a vaccine and no innate immunity* then "no escaping it" is a possibility.

Raises an interesting question as to when is it best to get it? Right at the start when the NHS is still functioning or at a much later stage when it's virulence could have dropped and improved treatments available.

*This is an assumption on my part and what would be expected for a truly novel human pathogen but there is always the possibility that a close relative has already done the rounds back in the day.

[Gray-Wolf]

4 minutes ago, swebby said:

In the absence of a vaccine and no innate immunity* then "no escaping it" is a possibility.

Raises an interesting question as to when is it best to get it? Right at the start when the NHS is still functioning or at a much later stage when it's virulence could have dropped and improved treatments available.

*This is an assumption on my part and what would be expected for a truly novel human pathogen but there is always the possibility that a close relative has already done the rounds back in the day.

In my 'troubled times' I always reckoned you survive the first pass of the virus (& societal collapse such drives) & then get it on the rebound when the worst of the societal impacts are past and healing?

Edited January 26, 2020 by Gray-Wolf

[swebby]

23 minutes ago, Spikecollie said:

I work that out as about 3% mortality. In 2012, according to the British Lung Foundation, there were over 35,000 deaths from lung cancer in the UK, over 42,000 deaths from heart and circulatory disease. 14% of people who have a myocardial infarction in the US will die from it, nearly 367,000 people a year. These are epidemics, not including diabetes, obesity - the list goes on.

I feel that what we are all doing here is focusing on novelty and negativity bias - this has "an end of the world scenario" feel to it and people are getting too caught up. This psychological impact is added to by the fact that the "news" is coming from a country which is very less than open with its information. My pet hate "social media" is not going to be helping - even the fact that there is a discussion happening here among people with varying levels of expertise but also importantly varying levels of vulnerability in all its senses is not necessarily wholly good. Yes people need to talk and vent their worries but we have to be careful about causing uneccessary anguish.

Maybe this is a very bad situation, maybe not - you have no cases of the virus there in the UK, we have 3 here in France. What we don't need to do is raise people's anxiety levels needlessly or without the requisite information, the latter which seems very lacking.

Let's keep talking but let's keep mindful. Our beautiful world goes on out there and we should keep loving and enjoying it despite its and our woes...

 

True.  Nothing thus far suggests that this is a threat to Human civilisation, let alone the Human race.  A wake up call for many maybe, but nothing more.

It does however have the potential to be incredibly disruptive. That 25% of cases ending up in ICUs is a truly alarming stat for the functioning of the health sector.  Our health service in the UK is on it's knees at the best of times during winter, this would bring it to a crashing halt. As i posted earlier, familiarity will hopefully start to bring the mortality and reproductive figures down, allowing authorities to control it's spread and limit the impact on the health providers.

[Gray-Wolf]

2 minutes ago, swebby said:

 

True.  Nothing thus far suggests that this is a threat to Human civilisation, let alone the Human race.  A wake up call for many maybe, but nothing more.

It does however have the potential to be incredibly disruptive. That 25% of cases ending up in ICUs is a truly alarming stat for the functioning of the health sector.  Our health service in the UK is on it's knees at the best of times during winter, this would bring it to a crashing halt. As i posted earlier, familiarity will hopefully start to bring the mortality and reproductive figures down, allowing authorities to control it's spread and limit the impact on the health providers.

I think he's got it! , By Jove he's got it........

This is why folk should carry a 2 week supply of dry foods/water!

It is not to 'hide ' from the illness but to survive peoples response to the threat of the illness!

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmmm......

 

[Gray-Wolf]

How many folk do you know?

Trim every 1 in 10 of the folk you know....no matter age/sex/health and you are 1 year ahead of today if we are seeing a CFR of over 12......

[Cheshire Freeze]

58 minutes ago, lottiekent said:

Hi Gray-Wolf

There are now around 7.7 billion people in the world, as of September 2019.

1% of that is 77 million people! 

Not quite, a billion is a 1000 million. So try 770 million.

Edit, you're right d'oh!

Edited January 26, 2020 by CreweCold

[Gray-Wolf]

11 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

Not quite, a billion is a 1000 million. So try 770 million.

Edit, you're right d'oh!

I have issues with 'a Billion' as, in the USA, it means 1,000 million but , here in the UK it means a million million?

I think , in global terms, folk use the USA version of a 'Billion'?

[lottiekent]

1 hour ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Hmmmm......

 

What is the CFR and TTD please?

Edit: I got the CFR = case fatality rate 

Edit again: TTD = time from diagnosis to death

Edited January 26, 2020 by lottiekent

[TPStones]

1 hour ago, Beverley Lass said:

Survivors (2008 TV series) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Did we all watch this scary drama series 

I preferred the original 70's version, some of which may possibly still be found on YouTube.

[Cheshire Freeze]

39 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I have issues with 'a Billion' as, in the USA, it means 1,000 million but , here in the UK it means a million million?

I think , in global terms, folk use the USA version of a 'Billion'?

Yes, it can be confusing.

Think the American version of a billion is the most commonly used.

[Mapantz]

46 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I have issues with 'a Billion' as, in the USA, it means 1,000 million but , here in the UK it means a million million?

Not in my lifetime it hasn't, so it's something going back pre 1975. A billion has always been 1000 millions, as was taught in my schools. A million millions being a trillion.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the TTR is a 'transferability rate'? i.e. the 'R' number?

The 'R' number is 'reinfection rate' so the number of folk an infected soul passes the infection to?

[DAVID SNOW]

9 oclock HEADLINE news for 30 minutes(bbc) a basketball player dies.

Tomorrows head line breaking news...............

Harry and megan go shopping lol.

[Gray-Wolf]

36 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

9 oclock HEADLINE news for 30 minutes(bbc) a basketball player dies.

Tomorrows head line breaking news...............

Harry and megan go shopping lol.

Yes David but this 'appears' to be real and impacting right now?

Feeding the masses drivel in the old 'Bread & Circuses' way collapses under the 'Niveau' world of Social Media where near every soul holds a camera and can access a VPN?

Unlike our trails in AGW this pans out over mere days & not years/decades......no time to hide if you're spouting teabag this time as ,by next week, your 'teabag' will be unravelled in front of you ( probably on the same thread?) eh?

Real world, real time....... bud!