coronavirus

[ckn]

17 hours ago, ckn said:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that we had a holiday in Italy planned for late April. I asked our insurers today the flat question on whether I should pay the final payment on Friday given we'd only paid £300 deposit and then rely on British Airways to refund it if the flights get cancelled.

Their flat answer was "Please do not pay the balance of the holiday as the FCO is advising against travel to Italy, you would be able to submit a claim for the deposit". Apparently as the FCO advice is not time bound, it counts for all holidays there and most insurers will follow that same basis.

I'm going to ask BA to swap the deposit to another holiday and we'll go with them, otherwise we'll just hunt around for an alternative including other providers. I'm fairly sure that BA will be desperate for the business.

I asked my insurer another a quick question to clarify things and they responded quickly and precisely with clear rulings I can follow. Thoroughly impressed by Free Spirit Insurance, a specialist in dealing with people with complex health issues like my wife.

I also cancelled a couple of things we'd booked for our trip with Italian companies, both refunded quickly and with nice notes of "we understand, refund processed, thank you for your business and we hope you come back later".

No stress. No hassle.

I do feel very sorry for the Italian companies out there who rely on tourist income, I hope they all manage to survive this.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

I think there is a collective responsibility that we should all be doing the most we can anyway.

We interact with people all the time. Who knows what conditions they have, or their families have. There is a risk of people just thinking they will be ok causing problems for the wider population.

[Cheshire Setter]

37 minutes ago, ckn said:

also cancelled a couple of things we'd booked for our trip with Italian companies, both refunded quickly and with nice notes of "we understand, refund processed, thank you for your business and we hope you come back later".

That’s so encouraging in this super-capitalist dog-eat-dog society.   Obviously taking the sensible option of hoping for repeat custom when things get better.

We don’t see that much these days.

[Cheshire Setter]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure of the benefit of people talking this down. There is the balance so as not to create huge widespread panic, but playing it down too much is dangerous as it can lead to people not isolating themselves, not cleaning their hands, taking risks that are unnecessary.

This is the tricky bit isn’t it? Getting the balance right.   On one hand the government needs people to be cautious enough to strictly follow the hygiene guidelines, and to get them to do that you need to highlight the virus as a threat.   On the other hand, create too much panic and the economic fallout could actually do more damage to health in the long-term (more austerity, job losses etc).

I wait in anticipation of the UK peak.   Once Europe and the US is on the other side of the bell-curve, combined with today’s financial measures announced, I’m hoping for a good bounce-back.   Especially since I work in aviation, one the most vulnerable industries.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The death rates by age (which is a couple of weeks out of date):

80+ = 14.8% (3.2m UK pop)

70+ = 8.0% (5.5m UK pop)

Total of these = 10.5% (8.7m UK pop)

If we wanted to go down as low as 60+ we add in a further 7m people with a death rate of 3.6%

Now of course there are all sorts of caveats around these numbers, the data is varied by nation etc. but it is not scare-mongering to be looking at the high risk populations of many millions here. 

And your last line is interesting, as you don't seem keen on people using the data that is knocking around, yet that is exactly what you did, but tried to put all sorts of exclusions on the list to bring the number down!

I'm not sure of the benefit of people talking this down. There is the balance so as not to create huge widespread panic, but playing it down too much is dangerous as it can lead to people not isolating themselves, not cleaning their hands, taking risks that are unnecessary.

Carrying out arithmetic gymnastics to artificially lower the numbers is a bizarre approach to take, particularly when we can see other countries implementing all sorts of plans, and our CMO is actually telling us that things will get worse and that we will soon be asked to change our behaviours.

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."

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

So your approach is to project the statistics to predict the worst of all possible outcomes.

 

If you could show me where I did that, it would be appreciated, as it would be unfair to label you a hypocrite without giving you a chance to support your claim. You get pretty frustrated when people apparently keep mis-reading your posts, please try not to do it to mine.

I merely highlighted population sizes. I haven't projected anything. You will note that I haven't projected any number on deaths, because that would be too difficult at this stage, but the numbers I refer to are the % in these age groups who are likely to be feeling nervous around this.

[Martyn Sadler]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If you could show me where I did that, it would be appreciated, as it would be unfair to label you a hypocrite without giving you a chance to support your claim. You get pretty frustrated when people apparently keep mis-reading your posts, please try not to do it to mine.

I merely highlighted population sizes. I haven't projected anything. You will note that I haven't projected any number on deaths, because that would be too difficult at this stage, but the numbers I refer to are the % in these age groups who are likely to be feeling nervous around this.

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").

[JohnM]

We are not going to France etc as planned. Instead we were going to go to Scotland in our caravan.... until my wife pointed out that our 'van is a Compass Corona model!

[Shadow]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

We are not going to France etc as planned. Instead we were going to go to Scotland in our caravan.... until my wife pointed out that our 'van is a Compass Corona model!

A caravan holiday, in scotland? 

Dear god the sweet release of death couldn't come soon enough 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

14 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

As she has had contact with the PM, does this mean he now has to self isolate?

 

How would we know ?

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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").

Well no, because in no instance has 100% of any population group become infected, so those numbers were clearly in there to give the context and sense of scale. Obviously we do not know what % will end up infected in each category as this thing is still in its infancy.

But there is an important point in looking at the sizes of these populations (and I don't sit in a 60+ population, but I do have an existing condition) - and that is that ultimately whether people get infected, or whether they get ill or handle it perfectly fine, this will affect people's lives, if it isn't already. Older people in particular are going to have to really think about their actions and what they can do to reduce their risk. So even if only a small % get the virus, and even if the death rate reduces,  the fact that people are having to change their lives, and they are seeing governments (the experts you refer to) doing things that you would expect in disaster movies is scary for them/us.

Impact is far more than just dying, and I think we should be taking it seriously and doing whatever we can. People quoting artificially low statistics can only lead to one thing - complacency. And that is never a good thing.

[johnmatrix]

This virus shows us that we need to start producing more of our medicines here in the UK and to stop being so reliant in china and India. Hopefully we get some jobs back.  All products from reckitt benckiser on restricted supply so expect shelves to start running very low/empty it is a bit disaster movie ish but still dont see any reason to panic.  

Yes it might affect alot of people in this country but so does normal flu,  sensible precautions which are in place is about all we can do until we get a vaccine. This virus is gonna be around months so best get used to living with it

[Martyn Sadler]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well no, because in no instance has 100% of any population group become infected, so those numbers were clearly in there to give the context and sense of scale. Obviously we do not know what % will end up infected in each category as this thing is still in its infancy.

But there is an important point in looking at the sizes of these populations (and I don't sit in a 60+ population, but I do have an existing condition) - and that is that ultimately whether people get infected, or whether they get ill or handle it perfectly fine, this will affect people's lives, if it isn't already. Older people in particular are going to have to really think about their actions and what they can do to reduce their risk. So even if only a small % get the virus, and even if the death rate reduces,  the fact that people are having to change their lives, and they are seeing governments (the experts you refer to) doing things that you would expect in disaster movies is scary for them/us.

Impact is far more than just dying, and I think we should be taking it seriously and doing whatever we can. People quoting artificially low statistics can only lead to one thing - complacency. And that is never a good thing.

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?

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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?

The challenge over those you used though were around the fact that you were trying to strip people out of your stats to spin them into a lower number.

The 99% of people getting better point is perfectly fine, but there is a big issue of the fact that we don't have the starting number. 

The reason I don't think the DMOH could be accused of encouraging complacency is because her and her colleagues are spending all day telling us that we need to change our behaviour to help with this. 

[Martyn Sadler]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The challenge over those you used though were around the fact that you were trying to strip people out of your stats to spin them into a lower number.

The 99% of people getting better point is perfectly fine, but there is a big issue of the fact that we don't have the starting number. 

The reason I don't think the DMOH could be accused of encouraging complacency is because her and her colleagues are spending all day telling us that we need to change our behaviour to help with this. 

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.

[The One]

One thing that doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the media here, but has been reported on quite a bit in China, is that some of the people who catch and survive this virus have been left with long lasting lung damage.

That seems to be ignored when just talking about death rates.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data here:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

PRE-EXISTING CONDITION	DEATH RATE confirmed cases	DEATH RATE all cases
Cardiovascular disease	13.2%	10.5%
Diabetes	9.2%	7.3%
Chronic respiratory disease	8.0%	6.3%
Hypertension	8.4%	6.0%
Cancer	7.6%	5.6%
no pre-existing conditions		0.9%

[YCKonstantine]

Nearly 500 cases now, expect that number will be broken tomorrow.

When do we move to delay?

When it's already too late probably.

[SSoutherner]

The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK has now reached 456, after the biggest rise in a single day.

The Department of Health confirmed there had been 83 more cases since Tuesday. Six patients with coronavirus have died in hospitals in the UK.

It comes as NHS England plans to expand the number of people it can test in a day to 10,000, up from 1,500.

[ckn]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data here:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

PRE-EXISTING CONDITION	DEATH RATE confirmed cases	DEATH RATE all cases
Cardiovascular disease	13.2%	10.5%
Diabetes	9.2%	7.3%
Chronic respiratory disease	8.0%	6.3%
Hypertension	8.4%	6.0%
Cancer	7.6%	5.6%
no pre-existing conditions		0.9%

That one came up in a clinical meeting I was in earlier today. It's Chinese data from last month and should be treated with the suspicion it deserves from a country that tried its damnedest to control the media damage of it. That's not to say it's not correct, but should be treated as at least suspect and based on a strongly different patient demographic and healthcare system to ours.

As with all things like this, it will harm those with weakened lungs first, then put pressure on the rest of the cardiovascular system.

And to answer another point I saw but can't see now, survivors will have some lung damage from it, most will just have the usual post-flu fatigue caused by lightly damaged lungs that goes away relatively quickly, but the more severe the illness the longer it may last and the more permanent it becomes.

[graveyard johnny]

lets hope some world body will be allowed to run the rule over chinas vile animal welfare policies or lack of, so this can never happen again, if china refuse to change their ways I think  world sanctions are in order. 

[graveyard johnny]

2 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I was at a gig last night. I’ve never had to queue to wash my hands or use the dryer before!!

I went to an arena gig last weekend standing with a few thousand sweaty bodies, spent fri sat and sun in busy pubs, travelled 3 packed buses on Monday, am I worried? am I chuff!

[ckn]

The government's current plan is based on a long-standing well-developed plan for pandemic flu

That's actually very reassuring. It's a bit too passive for my non-specialist, non-clinical, front-lines perspective, but then they are the experts on this.

[Bedford Roughyed]

35 minutes ago, ckn said:

The government's current plan is based on a long-standing well-developed plan for pandemic flu

That's actually very reassuring. It's a bit too passive for my non-specialist, non-clinical, front-lines perspective, but then they are the experts on this.

I think there is a growing unease from some that following procedures for a flu pandemic doesn't seem to be as effective as it should.  

[ckn]

2 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

I think there is a growing unease from some that following procedures for a flu pandemic doesn't seem to be as effective as it should.  

There is that... a flu pandemic has a lower mortality rate, faster spreading and faster burnout. Also, the virus seems to be a lot more resilient with a two week survivability in the “wild”.