Coronavirus outbreak

[kingrollo]

26000 flu associated deaths in the UK in 2017/18 and they didn't cause a problem to the UK's citizens normal day to day activities. It's now a hysteria virus.

Surely the concern is that corona virus could top those numbers ?

Its has higher mortality rate

It has a higher transmission rate

Its been stated over and over that this isn't a variant of seasonal flu. Its a totally different virus - it seems to behave in a totally different way - and the UK isn't the only country planning or even implementing large scale lock downs.

 

[stowie]

It's clear the hysterical reaction is disproportionate to the risk of getting it, never mind dying. The world economy didn't suffer under Ebola, Swine, Sars, Mers etc and all were contained after low level media panic. Health technology has moved on but so has social media.

There is a degree of media focus on these new strains of disease which may become disproportionate to the risk posed.

But I can see why Coronavirus is of deep concern to health authorities.

There is no vaccine which is a highly effective way to restrict the spread of infectious diseases via herd immunity.
Reports appear to vary widely but it Coronavirus could be significantly more contagious than flu.
Coronavirus can be transmitted by people showing no symptoms and incubation period is quite long.

So, although the Coronavirus appears less deadly than many others, the population that could be exposed to it could rise very quickly indeed.

 

[MarkF]

Looking at the figures in Wuhan, if you are aged, in general poor health and maybe suffering from an existing ailment and then contract Coronovirus then your chances of surviving are 96-98%, outside Wuhan 99%+. For just about everybody else, poorly for a few days.

 

[RoadRider400]

26000 flu associated deaths in the UK in 2017/18 and they didn't cause a problem to the UK's citizens normal day to day activities. It's now a hysteria virus.

I will come back to this post in a month or so.

 

[Rocky]

Looking at the figures in Wuhan, if you are aged, in general poor health and maybe suffering from an existing ailment and then contract Coronovirus then your chances of surviving are 96-98%, outside Wuhan 99%+. For just about everybody else, poorly for a few days.

So using your figures and the fact that there's about 12,000,000 over 65s in the UK at the mo, how many would have to die before the response to Covid19 should no longer be considered hysterical?

I'm trying to gain an idea what is an acceptable number of deaths? You mention 26,000 deaths from 'flu as not really affecting the day to day life of UK citizens.

 

[kingrollo]

Looking at the figures in Wuhan, if you are aged, in general poor health and maybe suffering from an existing ailment and then contract Coronovirus then your chances of surviving are 96-98%, outside Wuhan 99%+. For just about everybody else, poorly for a few days.

What no one ever defines is existing ailment - I have asthma \ heart murmur - neither of which bothers me day to day (but are good excuses for being slow !!!)

My son has Asthma - and a problem with his oesophagus - He got flu just before his 21ST birthday - He was so poorly with it - he lost 2 stone in weight, was coughing up blood, and couldn't even swallow water at one stage - He was off work for nearly a month

 

[kingrollo]

So using your figures and the fact that there's about 12,000,000 over 65s in the UK at the mo, how many would have to die before the response to Covid19 should no longer be considered hysterical?

I'm trying to gain an idea what is an acceptable number of deaths? You mention 26,000 deaths from 'flu as not really affecting the day to day life of UK citizens.

And we know that flu goes away as we get into spring.

 

[MarkF]

Off to work, will be handling multiple infectious patients, same as ever, hospital well prepared for anything.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Looking at the figures in Wuhan, if you are aged, in general poor health and maybe suffering from an existing ailment and then contract Coronovirus then your chances of surviving are 96-98%, outside Wuhan 99%+. For just about everybody else, poorly for a few days.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Estimated 10x higher mortality rate than seasonal flu.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-truth-myths-flu-covid-19-face-masks

Do you have a source for your claims?

 

[MichaelO]

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Estimated 10x higher mortality rate than seasonal flu.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-truth-myths-flu-covid-19-face-masks

Do you have a source for your claims?

It is 10 times higher, overall. But much higher in elderly/those with pre-existing. For healthy non-elderly, you'll be ill for a week or so, but not die from it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51540981

 

[marinyork]

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Estimated 10x higher mortality rate than seasonal flu.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-truth-myths-flu-covid-19-face-masks

Do you have a source for your claims?

A virologist was on BBC news earlier, and a shame these comments don't get published more widely.

They said that most of the information they were using to make judgements was from the gigantic cruise ship where loads of people got infected. Unfortunately he wasn't given enough time to say what the pluses and minuses of basing on this data was. He said based on the cruise ship and reasonably advanced health systems it was 5x more fatal than seasonal flu, which meant COVID-19 might kill about 0.5% of patients, but that it was ball park figure seemed to be about twice as likely to be caught/spread than many other flus. He also had commentary about the speed and health consequences of managing it. That a slowdown outside of winter was more manageable. Be interesting to see print versions.

 

[kingrollo]

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Estimated 10x higher mortality rate than seasonal flu.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-truth-myths-flu-covid-19-face-masks

Do you have a source for your claims?

I think he means it probably won't kill him.

 

[nickyboy]

So using your figures and the fact that there's about 12,000,000 over 65s in the UK at the mo, how many would have to die before the response to Covid19 should no longer be considered hysterical?

I'm trying to gain an idea what is an acceptable number of deaths? You mention 26,000 deaths from 'flu as not really affecting the day to day life of UK citizens.

And these are deaths of loved ones..friends, family. Maybe oneself. The biggest issue is complacency; people saying it's just like the flu (clue: it isn't)

Don't forget that this time last week Italy had 2 cases. Now, a week later it has 650+. UK has three more today. Maybe this time next week there will be hundreds. Maybe there won't. But complacency is our biggest enemy. Everybody should be taking sensible precautions and we shouldn't be criticising bodies (like schools) that take seemingly excessive actions

 

[Milkfloat]

26000 flu associated deaths in the UK in 2017/18 and they didn't cause a problem to the UK's citizens normal day to day activities. It's now a hysteria virus.

Wheer are you getting your 26,000 number from?

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2795/rr-6

 

[roubaixtuesday]

For healthy non-elderly, you'll be ill for a week or so, but not die from it.

But the link you provide does not support this, indeed it directly contradicts it, reporting the death of a healthy 51 yo hospital director.

If it's even 1 in 1000 of healthy people that's a catastrophe in public health terms.