Jump to content

Martyn Sadler

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,860 Excellent

About Martyn Sadler

  • Rank
    League Publications Ltd

Member Profile

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7,568 profile views
  1. I like the joke but it is a bit harsh. Wait for the dry grounds.
  2. The NBA has suspended its season after a Utah Jazz player tested positive for the coronavirus. And in Australia Tom Hanks is a victim. It only seems a matter of time to me before a Rugby League player goes down with the virus. And from that point onwards we can say goodbye to the 2020 season, at least for the time being.
  3. Amateur players expect to play in front of very small crowds, so the atmosphere of a small crowd for them is normal. Super League players expect to play in front of sizeable, noisy crowds. So the contrast is almost certain to feel eerie to them.
  4. I give some advice to the Rugby League bodies on the contingency plans they should have in place to respond to the coronavirus. https://www.totalrl.com/closing-the-doors-but-playing-the-game/
  5. I wasn't "trying" to do anything. What I said was that the statistics showed deaths from the coronavirus that included cases where the deceased had another medical condition that contributed to their death, which seems to be the case for virtually all the deaths announced so far in the United Kingdom. What I would like to see is some statistics for people who have died from the coronavirus and nothing else. That would give us more insight into whether the virus is a genuine danger to life in itself, or only when it is contracted by someone with an existing condition.
  6. I agree with all but your last paragraph. Statistics are statistics, and (assuming they are compiled accurately), are neither "artificially" high or low, but they are open to interpretation. Earlier I quoted the Deputy Medical Officer of Health saying that 99 per cent of people who get the virus "will almost certainly get better". Would you accuse her of encouraging complacency?
  7. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it appeared to me that you were suggesting that 10.5% of the UK population of 8.7 million people aged 70 or over would potentially die from the virus if we followed the trend you identified in the rest of the world. If you had said in your earlier post that these were the numbers that should feel nervous, then I would have agreed with you. I'm perfectly happy to concede that we all feel nervous (and I'm assuming I'm not misunderstanding you by including you within the "we").
  8. So your approach is to project the statistics to predict the worst of all possible outcomes. You're right that the CMO is saying it will get worse, which is indisputable. But the question is how much worse. To quote Dr Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, speaking to Sky News: "We will have significant numbers in a way which I think the country is not used to. So, large numbers of the population will become infected [with coronavirus] but because it's a naive population, nobody has got antibodies to this virus currently. "Having said that, 99% of those will almost certainly get better and most people will have a really quite mild disease and will not need to be in hospital. [They] can be managed very safely and appropriately at home. "The important thing for us is to make sure that we manage those infections and make sure that those individuals who are most affected - our elderly people, particularly those with chronic underlying conditions - get in touch and get treatment, and that we support other people in the home environment."
  9. And you specifically said, in response, "No. EVERYONE needs to take care", implying that I had suggested that not everyone does. I agree with you that we all need to treat this as a potentially deadly disease. But when you know that you have a condition that could be fatal if you contract the disease, then you will inevitably take the maximum possible care as you see it, going well beyond what the Chief Medical Officer recommends for the rest of us.
  10. It gets slightly annoying to have my posts continually misinterpreted. I obviously haven't said that we don't all need to take care, nor that we shouldn't give a damn if we catch it. Clearly we do and we should, and I'm far more conscious of that than most people, because we have a family friend who is particularly vulnerable with a specific medical condition that lowers her resistance to this and other viruses. In any emergency I would hope that she would be ahead of the queue for treatment as opposed to someone who is otherwise young, fit and healthy.
  11. The numbers will be significant but, in this country at least, I'm not sure the number of people whose lives are in danger extends to "millions and millions". As I've said, I'm more inclined to listen to what the Chief Medical Officer has to say about the virus than speculate about how many people could get the virus, as opposed to seeking out factual evidence about how many people are known to have caught it and how many have actually died from it.
  12. The point I was trying to illustrate quite clearly was that the vast majority of people who contract the virus are likely to survive it. That doesn't mean that we should be complacent about it - far from it. We should all take the precautions suggested by the Chief Medical Officer. But the people who need to take the greatest care are the elderly and those with other conditions that might have reduced their capacity to recover from the virus.
  13. You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say anything should be "glibly ignored". Italy's death rate may or may not be lower than 5.4%, depending on the proportion of the population that has been tested for the virus. But you are right to point out that Italy has a higher proportion of older people, who are naturally in more danger from this virus, which we all accept.
  14. I'm not sure why you want to write such an insulting comment. You mean that stating scientifically gathered facts will get people killed? That is clearly ridiculous. How on earth can one piece of factual information be tripe, as you put it, when you then purport to present another piece of factual information as the real thing? The information I presented came from South Korea, while yours comes from the CDC and it attempts, as far as I can gather, to cover the world as a whole. I would guess that the chances of information from South Korea being more accurate than information aggregated from China and the rest of the world would be quite considerable. In any case, the graph you presented doesn't necessarily contradict the information I presented. Whereas the stats I presented were not age-differentiated, your information broke down the deaths into age-groups, not surprisingly showing that for young people the risk is negligible, while for people over 80 it is much more significant. Of course we already knew that. But the average for all age-groups will still be very small.
  15. South Korea probably has the highest rate of testing for the coronavirus of any country in the world. Until today they have reported 7,382 confirmed cases out of more than 189,000 tests and reported 51 deaths, which is a death rate of about 0.69% of those infected. So far, 166 people who contracted the virus have fully recovered from it. What they don't report, however, is how many of those who died also had other medical conditions that contributed to their death. I suspect that information, if revealed, would push the death rate down to something less than 0.5%, or one in every two hundred, who have died from the coronavirus with no other contributory factors. That figure suggests we shouldn't be panicking about this virus. Here are the figures.
  • Create New...