Main Menu

Day of Chaos 2: a.Covid-19 thread.

Started by TordelBack, 05 March, 2020, 08:57:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

paddykafka


Dandontdare


judgeurko

Quote from: TordelBack on 05 March, 2020, 08:57:13 PM


Starting this in the full knowledge that this isn't going to be funny, and people you love are probably going to die before this is over. So I apologise for offence in advance.


WTF? You know this for a fact. What a morbid little soul you are.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

Quote from: judgeurko on 06 March, 2020, 09:34:33 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 March, 2020, 08:57:13 PM


Starting this in the full knowledge that this isn't going to be funny, and people you love are probably going to die before this is over. So I apologise for offence in advance.


WTF? You know this for a fact. What a morbid little soul you are.

Yeah Tordels, stop being so morbid. This time next year we'll all be laughing about this...







...well most of us will...
You may quote me on that.

Professor Bear

Predicted global infection rate of 60-70% because of the lengthy incubation period in which the disease is transmissible but presents no symptoms, a 3% death rate that climbs higher with each new fatality (currently at 3.4% but I rounded down) - statistically, if you know 12 people who fit the mortality profile of being old, young, or having a medical condition, then you'll be going to a funeral in the next 12 months.
I tried to do the sums on this - 3% of 60% of 7.7 billion for the low-end number of eventual fatalities - but I don't know how to do percentages on a calculator so I will just assume the end number is not great.

Of course, maybe the government will contain this and we're worrying about nothing.  As long as someone competent is in charge and people's well-being is put before other considerations, this is still containable.


Funt Solo

Quote from: Professor Bear on 06 March, 2020, 10:49:57 PM
Predicted global infection rate of 60-70% because of the lengthy incubation period in which the disease is transmissible but presents no symptoms, a 3% death rate that climbs higher with each new fatality (currently at 3.4% but I rounded down) - statistically, if you know 12 people who fit the mortality profile of being old, young, or having a medical condition, then you'll be going to a funeral in the next 12 months.
I tried to do the sums on this - 3% of 60% of 7.7 billion for the low-end number of eventual fatalities - but I don't know how to do percentages on a calculator so I will just assume the end number is not great.

Of course, maybe the government will contain this and we're worrying about nothing.  As long as someone competent is in charge and people's well-being is put before other considerations, this is still containable.

136.8 million.

Percentage on a calc is you divide by 100, so the sum was 0.03 * 0.6 * 7.7.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

TordelBack

#22
Quote from: judgeurko on 06 March, 2020, 09:34:33 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 March, 2020, 08:57:13 PM


Starting this in the full knowledge that this isn't going to be funny, and people you love are probably going to die before this is over. So I apologise for offence in advance.


WTF? You know this for a fact. What a morbid little soul you are.

I'll rephrase this: in my extremely amateur opinion, if we dont keep infection rates improbably low, and unless you dont love many elderly/vulnerable people, someone you love is probanly going to die of this shit in the next year or so. Better?

For myself, I love at least five people who absolutely must not catch this virus. I may be spoiled with living relatives, friends and in-laws of my and my parent's generation and/or with contraindicated health conditions whose loss in this disaster would break my heart, so I acknowledge that bias.

The rest is primary school maths. I hope I'm still as shit at it as my teachers said I was.

Tjm86

Quote from: Professor Bear on 06 March, 2020, 10:49:57 PM
.... a 3% death rate that climbs higher with each new fatality (currently at 3.4% but I rounded down) -

It is worth exercising caution on the mortality rate.  As a range of folks have observed, this is based on reported cases with more severe symptoms. The present infection rate is possibly higher which would affect these figures.  Ultimately what we are dealing with right now is a moving average with insufficient data points to be able to arrive at a  definitive figure.

Whilst Trump might not have been the most eloquent in his phraseology, his contention that the actual figure is closer to 1% is actually supported by experts (sorry Michael ...).

What is potentially more pertinent, and especially for those of us with older / infirm relatives, is the variability with age and comorbidity.  The figures are skewed heavily towards those in later years and with cardio-pulmonary conditions.  I guess the old 'an ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure' is highly relevant here.

TordelBack

The logic there is that actual infection numbers (X) are higher than detected/recorded, therefore mortality rates (Y) are lower. But (very crudely) No. of Deaths = X*Y, so I'm not sure that an increase in one term and reduction in the other is automatically as good as it sounds when it comes to numbers instead of rates.

Also, 1% is still terrible. The 2018 Irish flu season killed 250 directly plus 600 indirectly through pneumonia etc, at 0.1% mortality. At an equivalent infection rate, the low-end 1% rate for C-19 would 8,500.

And most significantly, that number is with flu vaccination uptake of over 70% of elderly and those with health-conditions, and over 50% of frontline health staff (although why that isn't 100% I don't understand).

It really is all about keeping the numbers of infections down.

IAMTHESYSTEM

You could be cynical and argue a pandemic would be in a lot of people interests. It mainly affects the elderly and infirm, so why not let it circulate a little, relieving your society of financial burdens care wise? A cure or a vaccine might be six months away at the earliest, and there are already indications that it will be expensive. Opportunity for money-making abound in such a scenario, and I have no doubt Pharmacists will be posting excellent profits next year.
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."

http://artriad.deviantart.com/
― Nikola Tesla

Tjm86

Quote from: TordelBack on 07 March, 2020, 08:40:24 AM
It really is all about keeping the numbers of infections down.

Aye.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that variance in the mortality rates is giving a rosier picture, just that there is a need to approach the data sensibly.  The simple fact of the matter is that it is a dynamic situation.

Someone from the WHO that has been out to China recently to examine their approach to the situation was talking on the radio this morning about their successes.  A lot has been made about the more 'draconian' measures that have been put in place but he offered up a different explanation.  More about the other areas of China rather than the epicentre.

As he noted, community response contributed significantly to lower rates of transmission as individuals took responsibility for their own health.  Individuals were taking effective steps to avoid transmission and there was a sense of collective responsibility.  Communities are, as he argued, the most effective early warning system.  Locating and isolating quickly is key.

Perhaps part of the problem we may face is a more individualistic / entitled culture?  The tendency to blame rather than own, to want to claim rather than act more responsibly?  People have been taking the p*** out of Johnson for his comments about washing hands but simple personal responsibility such as effective hygiene is what the medics recommend.

Much as it pains me, Thatcher had a bit of a point with the old "there is no such thing as society, only the individual."  Society only works when individuals recognise their rights and their responsibilities.  It got totally bastardised along the way but there is something valid at its core.

shaolin_monkey

QuoteSociety only works when individuals recognise their rights and their responsibilities. 

Uncanny - was only talking about this last night, about how infantilised people's reactions have become about accepting blame. Very few people accept responsibility for their actions - it always seems to be the fault of something else. As a result, there's no ownership, no learning, no growing, and no positive collective improvement for society. Society starts with personal responsibility.

I think the discussion arose due to behaviour on the roads. For example, around our way folk seem to be treating red lights as advisory. Then when accidents inevitably happen the response is "well, that's a stupid place to put the lights" or "they never stay green long enough so I'm forced to race the red" etc etc etc.

So if that failure of personal responsibility is happening when folk are in charge of a tonne of fast moving dangerous machinery, which then is collectively becoming a societal issue, I dread to thing how this sense of individual entitlement will affect the spread of this virus.


The Legendary Shark


Fascinating conversation, chaps - seriously.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

#29
An interesting theme came up at a work drinks last night, from a few independent sources. The type of responses to this crisis that we are prepared to entertain are very telling. We had found ourselves saying things like "they can't cancel Cheltenham!", "they can't lay us off and trap us on our homes for a month!" or (for one developed example) "they can't close the schools, think what it'll do to exam results, and the knock-on on for college places!".

And then there's this moment of realisation that we made all this shit up - we decided (for example) how education works, when terms are, how university admission works. These aren't properties of the universe, they aren't real - and we don't need to be bound by them, we can change them any way we see fit in the service of things that are real: life, health, a future.

As a group of archaeologists, we above all people should already have been conscious of just how momentary, how contingent, how atypical our way of life is. But faced with an immediate unavoidable global crisis, for the first time in our pampered peacetime lives, it actually broke through. We can change everything if we need to, just as people always have. Parades, holidays, sporting events - all this stuff seems like it has to be, but it wasn't and it doesn't.

Sophmoric drink-fuelled pablum, I grant you- but the interesting bit was the realisation that maybe the instant scalding effect of a probable pandemic can help with the boiling-a-frog problem of climate change. Maybe learning suddenly and collectively as a society that we can contemplate radically adapting our ways of life in order to sustain our one-and-only lives will grant us the courage to do the same for climate.