Coronavirus outbreak

[Rezillo]

Going back to the Ghoulish Data issue:
I'm a bit uncomfortable about the reporting of record new youngest patients. Just my view, but I see a strong sensationalist motivation there

I kind of agree, but it is important to counter the narrative that all children are somehow immune or unaffected.

I agree as well but there seems to be a misplaced view that this is exclusively a disease of the old. It needs to be countered. There's a similarly erroneous belief (not this story) about nearly all deaths being amongst those with pre-existing conditions when in Wuhan a third of deaths had none.

Part of the problem is a lack of appreciation of what age group percentages mean when applied to a population. You can have a high death rate in, say, the over 79s category but a far greater number of deaths overall in the lower death rate '69-79s' simply because there are many more people in that category.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Surely more to this than meets the eye?


View: https://twitter.com/DrJamesKent3/status/1245249108148879362

 

[matticus]

I sort of agree with both of you!

But I think "death rates" are supposed to be quoted per 1000 people, technically? That's the important figure. And following on from that, ONE death in the under-15s is of absolutely no statistical significance, so reporting young deaths is mostly unhelpful.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

It’s not a yes/no answer. Who owns and controls the data and what will happen to it when this is over?

Probably 1) Facebook and 2) it will be monetised by Facebook

 

[tom73]

This ethics discussion on Radio 4 this morning was an interesting listen. I’m still not sure where I stand on how care will need to be rationed, and I’m glad I won’t have to make such judgements. First come, first served? Age? Chance of survival? Perceived societal value? Horrific choices, all.

Clinical decisions about who lives and dies are made every day the big difference. Now is it's become a mean stream topic.
Often taken totally out of context in order to sell a paper or for click bate.

The main problem with current situation is that some clinical decisions are going have to be made quickly and some Dr's will have to start making them more often than they are use to. Guidelines have been issued and will be followed. But no matter what the basic starting point is always chance of survival which always inc a range of clinical factors.
I know it must be a worry for many but try not to. No HCP will ever think even given current situation "they are past it so why bother" or "they are of little Social value"

Hopeful out of all this will came a willingness for more people to have "that what are your wishers conversation" within families.
The other thing which may also come out of it is for the Dr's who sometimes keep going with treatments. Even though it's gone past being of benefit. Will have a better understanding when they keep getting met. With Nurse's fighting to allow someone to be able to die with dignity.

 

[wafter]

I'm not sure that that sort of speculation is very helpful tbh.

Re mortality rates. I'm sticking with something between the WHO's 3.4% global projection and Chris Witty's 1% UK projection for now as I have to confess to being supremely unqualified to comment much on likely final death rates and volumes.

Speculation aside, without any futher explanation the numbers remain extremely concerning though, do they not?

Assuming a midpoint of 2.2% mortality between the two values you suggest and applied to the whole UK population tallys well with my speculative outcome based on the current numbers; which is not a pleasant thought.

 

[tom73]

Lot of talk about ventilators it's true without staff they are pointless.
But a less talked about issues is we are also going to need more blood gas machines.
Anyone know if we've even started to order any?
Or what current levels are?

 

[Racing roadkill]

The Government say they can’t get the chemical reagents, required to get the diagnostic tests done, which would almost certainly result in a decrease in the deaths / infections ratio, and allow front line medics to get back to doing their jobs, and making the situation look as it actually is ( not as desperate as the government is trying to make out ). The Chemical companies who make the reagents say that they have / can make the reagents and that the government is talking B.S. I’m shocked and amazed

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Speculation aside, without any futher explanation the numbers remain extremely concerning though, do they not?

Assuming a midpoint of 2.2% mortality between the two values you suggest and applied to the whole UK population tallys well with my speculative outcome based on the current numbers; which is not a pleasant thought.

I thought the predicted death rates were as applicable to confirmed cases rather than the total population. If they aren't then the WHO 3.4% applied to the global population would be roughly 240 million deaths which seems very high to me.

I might well be wrong though - perhaps someone can confirm either way?

 

[newfhouse]

Clinical decisions about who lives and dies are made every day

As you say, but perhaps not with the same immediacy or volume as we are about to witness. I do hope that we can ensure an appropriate level of psychological care for everyone involved.

 

[wafter]

I thought the predicted death rates were as applicable to confirmed cases rather than the total population. If they aren't then the WHO 3.4% applied to the global population would be roughly 240 million deaths which seems very high to me.

I might well be wrong though - perhaps someone can confirm either way?

I think in reality it's neither, since confirmed cases will always significantly under-represent the amount of actual cases; while the testing regime will obviously massively influence the number of cases that are detected. Likewise various other factors will affect the actual mortality rate (quality of healthcare, population age etc) relative to the number of actual cases.

Unfortunately due to these factors and others it seems very difficult to pin down any legitimate numbers..

 

[tom73]

As you say, but perhaps not with the same immediacy or volume as we are about to witness. I do hope that we can ensure an appropriate level of psychological care for everyone involved.

That's the other hidden part of this some experts believe we are going to see large numbers Medical staff suffering from PTSD over this.
Some parts of the NHS are not known for being great at caring for staff.

 

[PK99]

I don’t walk round with a smartphone all the time and I rarely have data turned on. I’d object if my freedom was restricted due to lack of carrying a smartphone with this app. I’d want an alternative.

Again, a good example of how the Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean "Test. Track. Trace. Test. Restrict" approach would be futile here.

Everybody is getting so her up about mass testing- it is not the testing that is important it is how you use the results to control spread that matter.

 

[mjr]

Finally got round to watching the BBC4 programme Contagion, linked further upthread: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p059y0p1/contagion-the-bbc-four-pandemic

Not for the nervous! Although if you want some optimism, the passage starting at 1:05:30 "We need ways to slow down a pandemic..." on hand-washing is worth viewing. That should have been broadcast much more widely.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Sadly, the UK deaths recorded for yesterday has breached the 500 barrier according to Sky News.

This is what the Government predicted ie a rapid ramping up for a relatively short period of time so let's hope that they are right.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...vid-19-in-uk-bringing-total-to-2-352-11966771