 Poster: A snowHead
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@Whitegold 'EU disaster, as always.'
London: 143 deaths
New York: 210 deaths |
Deaths as % of population:
London = 0.002%
NY = 0.001%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Don't get complacent and think that if we get through the current crisis and things start to settle down in the summer...
Historically pandemics run in waves so autumn/winter could get worse, although we should hopefully be more prepared by then (and hopefully the virus won't mutate  )
In the Spanish flu outbreak
| Quote: |
| There were 3 different waves of illness during the pandemic, starting in March 1918 and subsiding by summer of 1919. The pandemic peaked in the U.S. during the second wave, in the fall of 1918. This highly fatal second wave was responsible for most of the U.S. deaths attributed to the pandemic. |
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/three-waves.htm
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/pandemic-waves/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@geoffers,
| Quote: |
(and hopefully the virus won't mutate )
|
It will....but actually it's far more likely to mutate (eventually) into a less virulent strain. That’s why the 1918 pandemic didn’t wipe out humans.
Agreed, further waves of infection are to be expected. But the evolutionary pressures on the coronavirus will be to become just another cause of the common cold. Easily spreadable but rarely fatal. Death of your host is not a good outcome for a virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| LaForet wrote: |
@Whitegold 'EU disaster, as always.'
London: 143 deaths
New York: 210 deaths |
Deaths as % of population:
London = 0.002%
NY = 0.001% |
Is Whitegold Donald Trump?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Changing the subject slightly, bookings.com informed me my hotel was closing and instructed me to cancel my booking for a full refund. I have an email confirming this but two weeks on I have not received any refund. I have sent them messages but have not received a reply nor does there seem to be a phone number to call them on.
Same for opodo cars as the cancellation of my car hire which was refundable as per their T&C's.
As of 10pm the night before a 7am flight swissair had not cancelled the flight so I was forced to cancel it myself for an insurance claim. They cancelled it a few hours later and gave a full refund to other passengers but told me tough luck | cancelled. I need a letter from them confirming this for insurance but all I got after chasing several times was confirmation of cancellation and a note saying I may be due some form or partial refund. I can not use that to claim.
Anybody else had anything similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@geoffers, I don't think there's an accepted mechanism for epidemics coming in waves, so I don't see why there needs to be a second "wave" from this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
under a new name
FreeRider
Posts: 21483
Location: Chamonix
@geoffers, I don't think there's an accepted mechanism for epidemics coming in waves, so I don't see why there needs to be a second "wave" from this one
|
But the difference being countries haven't gone into lock down before, the second wave may occur when people come out into the open again and haven't built up an immunity, you only need one person to catch it and it sets off again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@mheadbee, that doesn't need to happen however. And there weren't generalised lockdowns in 1918. There's no inherent reason for a 2nd wave to happen, absent human action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| mheadbee wrote: |
| ..., you only need one person to catch it and it sets off again. |
+1.
Which may mean that significant restrictions on international travel remain in place for a long time, until it is largely eradicated worldwide. Europe might get to a point where internal borders can reopen, but travel to/from other continents may remain locked down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
under a new name
FreeRider
Posts: 21485
Location: Chamonix
@mheadbee, that doesn't need to happen however. And there weren't generalised lockdowns in 1918. There's no inherent reason for a 2nd wave to happen, absent human action
|
In 1918 500 million were infected (one third of the world population) and 50M died. That was because there weren't any lockdowns so you either died or got immunity. This time we are in lock down, it stands to rerason when people emerge in 6 weeks time or so they will not be immune and the virus is still out there, unless we have an antidote by then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
There is a report from Oxford university that says using a model they developed 40% of people may have already had it, completely unsubstantiated at the moment by their own admission but a possibility.
Nobody knows where we are and there are thousands of experts making thousands of assumptions and predictions and they all have merit but you can not write of a second wave in China, only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Whitegold As ever, you missed the point in your apparent distain for all things European. You criticise Europe, like Trump tries to blame China for his own incompetence, but it's clear that your President's strategy is business before people - that's what he's said. Europe's is people before business. And I am with Europe on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| There's no inherent reason for a 2nd wave to happen, absent human action. |
If there are examples of the virus in the wild and sufficient numbers of people with no immunity, as sure as night follows day, more infections will occur. This will become a second wave if there are enough people ready to catch the infection, so that it continues unchecked from person to person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
'There's no inherent reason for a 2nd wave to happen'
I thought it was inevitable, if we don't have an immunisation capability? With no vaccine and no 96%+ immunisation levels, it'll just break out again. And at the moment, we don't really have a lot of data about UK levels of incidence, survival, transmission and infection patterns.
And all this assumes the virus won't mutate, as other 'flu viruses have, which then negates some of the value of even a full immunisation programme.
At least, this is perhaps a wake-up call for the other major concern from medics - resistance to antibiotics. The scenarios for that make Coronavirus look like a fairly straightforward challenge.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 26-03-20 12:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@mheadbee, discussed above I think? or on one of the other threads. The Oxford paper's main point is that ~40% exposure is mathematically consistent with observed disease evolution therefore more serological testing is required to establish actual exposure... not (my read of it, anyway) that they actually think their model truly indicates 40% exposure as the most likely scenario.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 26-03-20 12:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @mheadbee, discussed above I think? or on one of the other threads. The Oxford paper's main point is that ~40% exposure is mathematically consistent with observer disease evolution therefore more serological testing is required to establish actual exposure... not (my read of it, anyway) that they actually think their model truly indicates 40% exposure as the most likely scenario. |
40% have got/had it, or 40% will get it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| gvj wrote: |
@geoffers,
| Quote: |
(and hopefully the virus won't mutate )
|
It will....but actually it's far more likely to mutate (eventually) into a less virulent strain. That’s why the 1918 pandemic didn’t wipe out humans.
Agreed, further waves of infection are to be expected. But the evolutionary pressures on the coronavirus will be to become just another cause of the common cold. Easily spreadable but rarely fatal. Death of your host is not a good outcome for a virus. |
Surely, the 2nd Wave of Spanish Flu was much more virulent. It is thought that this variant died out, as it often killed the host. It is a worry, that a Corona Virus can mutate into something worse, in poorer countries that are in states of conflict - as highlighted by the UN very recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
My logic would say:
1. Any Country that had an early, very complete lockdown ie. China will see a second wave. In effect, you have reset the clock and when the population is released, it will start up again.
2. A country can have a deliberate policy of "controlled waves", by coming in and out of lockdown.
3. If a country is so poor that it lets the Virus run rampant - then Herd Immunity may be achieved, all be it at a terrible cost.
The elephant in the room is if/how/when the virus might mutate.
IMO. The more successfully you isolate the population, the more likely there is to be a second wave, as they come out of lockdown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I hear from a medic that the virus in Europe has muted and is less virulent no than the Chinese version bu this was a couple of weeks ago and it might have been wishful thinking at the time.
The key is reducing the risk of transmission to people likely to need hospital treatment. We hear this morning, London is struggling.
I offered my holiday home for a few weeks let in Norfolk and got lambasted on here but it's it's looking more and more like at good idea to get the vulnerable who can't self isolate very easily out of London to places where they can.
The herd immunity thing is scary. Half the population has to get it before before you reduce the transmission rate by a half. That's 30 million cases or a 1m death rate at current WHO death rate.
Allow the reasonably healthy to get it could well be a plan. Altough the safest option seems, by far to contian and contract until we can mass produce a vaccine.
Of the top scientists I've listened to - none are saying we won't able to produce a vaccine, but the time scale is looking at a year to 18 months. That's a lot more positive than they don't theink they will be able to produce a vaccine for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| The Oxford paper's main point is that ~40% exposure is mathematically consistent with observer disease evolution therefore more serological testing is required to establish actual exposure... not (my read of it, anyway) that they actually think their model truly indicates 40% exposure as the most likely scenario. |
40% have got/had it, or 40% will get it? |
iirc, their model - conditioned on consensus parameters - and with a range of susceptibilities - is consistent with observed mortalities - and if correct - would indicate 40% exposure as of (I think?) March 19. But the paper isn't (I don't think, from my reading) suggesting that this is actually the case, just that it's not outside of the bounds of the model (a generally accepted epidemiological framework) and therefore there is an immediate and demanding impulse to do broad serological testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| ... - and if correct - would indicate 40% exposure as of (I think?) March 19. |
If that is the case (noting your caveats) then the low number of deaths (each and every one a family tragedy) would be a bullet dodged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@rob@rar, absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
Deaths as % of population:
London = 0.002%
NY = 0.001% |
Where do you get your stats from? (maybe you really are Mr Trump?)
UK: Population 66million. Cases 10,000. Deaths 450. **
New York state has population 13 million, 9 million of which are in NY city. 30,000 cases. Deaths 300+ and counting! (no accurate up to date figures by city)
New York has more than 1/3 of all current USA cases. (70,000) Total USA deaths 1054, recovered 619.
Dr Steve Kasspidis, from Mount Sinai Hospital, Queens, describes it as a "Biblical Hell"
Queens is now the most infected district in the world's most infected city.
This doctor describes this as worse that 9/11
** sadly, this increased by 20 whilst I was writing this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing - covid 19 is caused by a coronavirus - that is, it is NOT an influenza virus.
This is important. This is also good news.
Why? Because that makes it slightly less transmissible. SARS was/is a similar virus and that’s been contained by public health measures.
It is not a coincidence that the countries which have been least impacted so far are the ones that already had strong public health measures in place having been already impacted by SARS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| gvj wrote: |
| It is not a coincidence that the countries which have been least impacted so far are the ones that already had strong public health measures in place having been already impacted by SARS. |
True, but also worth noting that these Countries have a population that accept the necessary measures to deal with the situation, based on experience. Most Western Countries do not.
Can you imagine the public outcry of "wasted resources" if, only 3 months ago, the Government had allocated a few hundred million to fund extra laboratories for testing, or ordered 50 million testing kits?
Let alone, the additional costs of PPi that is now in a global short supply?
As a population, we have the resources available that we are willing to pay tax to fund.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
3. If a country is so poor that it lets the Virus run rampant - then Herd Immunity may be achieved, all be it at a terrible cost.
|
Of course any death is a tragedy for the person and the family. However, we really don't know what the death rate for coronavirus is yet. Germany death rate appears to be around 0.05%, which is lower than some countries report for regular flu. Of course Germany has better healthcare than a lot of countries. However until we have antibody testing and work out what the actual death rate is it's hard to make any kind of conclusions. Coronavirus could still turn out to be similar to regular flu, and most deaths just being the straw that broke the camels back in otherwise elderly/sick people that would have probably not survived much longer anyway. In which case letting it run rampant may have been a feasible option, although lots of ethical questions of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
3. If a country is so poor that it lets the Virus run rampant - then Herd Immunity may be achieved, all be it at a terrible cost.
|
Of course any death is a tragedy for the person and the family. However, we really don't know what the death rate for coronavirus is yet. Germany death rate appears to be around 0.05%, which is lower than some countries report for regular flu. Of course Germany has better healthcare than a lot of countries. However until we have antibody testing and work out what the actual death rate is it's hard to make any kind of conclusions. Coronavirus could still turn out to be similar to regular flu, and most deaths just being the straw that broke the camels back in otherwise elderly/sick people that would have probably not survived much longer anyway. In which case letting it run rampant may have been a feasible option, although lots of ethical questions of course. |
Yup, there are a lot of unknowns. eg. Why is the death rate in Germany so low and will it increase? Why is the death rate in Italy so high? Will the UK be more like Italy, or Germany or Spain? Will there be a second wave in countries like China? Will it mutate and if so how?
There are a lot of reasonable theories emerging, but as yet, nothing concrete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@boarder2020, I think you're an order of magnitude out on the death rate in Germany, which is more like 0.5%. Still (relatively vs other countries) low I agree.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 26-03-20 15:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Whitegold {Deaths as % of population: London = 0.002% NY = 0.001% }
Nope - Gr. London = 0.0018%, NY = 0.0025%,
US Census 2018 NY Pop. 8,398,748 - 210 deaths = 0.0025%
UK Census ONS 2016 Greater London Pop. 8,137,941 - 143 deaths = 0.0018%
Standard Trumpian countermeasure. Just make it up. Then post on Twitter. Trouble is, viruses don't look at Twitter.
I understand the tactic. It's easier to justify your views by simply making up false data: by the time someone has fact-checked your inventions, you've moved on to the next false claim. But keep it up, I have plenty of spare time at the moment.
____________________________________________
As of 1st thing Sat.28 March
Deaths as % of population - Gr. London = 0.003%, New York = 0.006%
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sat 28-03-20 12:52; edited 5 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
3. If a country is so poor that it lets the Virus run rampant - then Herd Immunity may be achieved, all be it at a terrible cost.
|
Of course any death is a tragedy for the person and the family. However, we really don't know what the death rate for coronavirus is yet. Germany death rate appears to be around 0.05%, which is lower than some countries report for regular flu. Of course Germany has better healthcare than a lot of countries. However until we have antibody testing and work out what the actuail death rate is it's hard to make any kind of conclusions. Coronavirus could still turn out to be similar to regular flu, and most deaths just being the straw that broke the camels back in otherwise elderly/sick people that would have probably not survived much longer anyway. In which case letting it run rampant may have been a feasible option, although lots of ethical questions of course. |
It’s odd the theories whether it’s better or worse to “let the virus run its course”
If we KNOW the cost in life (also the cost of permanent lung damage it results, which we the public need to pay for for years to come), we can then debate whether we should accept it.
But to even suggest to “accept the cost” without actually have a good guess of what that cost may be???
Next time you need to get your kitchen re-modeled, I want to be your contractor. No estimates, you’ll pay whatever the end cost, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Anybody know the situation with easyjet flights.
I have flights booked for 1/04 out and 12/04 back to Geneva
they are not cancelled but all bookings say 'sold out'
is it the case that easyjet are not cancelling as they would have to issue refunds and will fly those planes empty if need be??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@abc you might want to read my post again. I never said we should let it run its course. I said we might look back (i.e. once we have the full facts) on it as being a feasible option. Not even "best" option, just a feasible one.
I'll stand by that being a possibility. If the German death rate and the Oxford model turn out to be correct, which may be supported by the new finding 50-75% people are asymptomatic, it suggests this could be far less serious than first thought. Of course you still have a lot of ethical questions (what cost is life worth? Do we value a life of an elderly person with a terminal illness as much as a young healthy person?). I wouldn't envy the person deciding how we compare the social and economic costs of intervention with the loss of life and suffering of no intervention. But let's not pretend, these tough decisions made routinely when new medications become available to the NHS (cost vs potential health benefits).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@bobhitch, maybe post on the Easyjet thread where it is less likely to get lost and more likely to be answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bobhitch, EJ are encouraging re-booking. Sounds like the Swiss are close to closing all their borders, if they haven't already. So... you may just need to wait closer to the date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@boarder2020, my beef with your post isn’t about the merit of the various options.
It’s the “in retrospect” part.
Yes, one day we will look back and then theorize what might have been a better course of action. Just like your kitchen re-modeling project, you might realized you haven’t picked the best option, IN RETROSPECT.
But we’re not at that point. We don’t know how much it will cost in life and in medical bill of the permanently disabled. So it’s safer to assume the worst outcome and act to limit the damage. To do otherwise, sure, we may get lucky and be right. But if we were wrong on our random risk taking (as we had insufficient info to make a realistic calculation of risk vs reward), the down side risk could be way bigger than people can imagine.
You can’t do retrospective before it’s over. You’re bound to miss a bunch of things you haven’t seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a point. People keep comparing the death rate to flu. The figure used of .05% is only an estimate, and is seriously flawed.
No 2 countries use the same methods of recording the figures (as we have found with covid 19).
The figure used by WHO is based on an estimate of the number of cases worldwide. There are no accurate records kept!
Most cases where people claim they have had flu have only had a bad cold.
Flu symptoms are a factor in a great many deaths, but not necessarily recorded as such on the death certificate.
eg. a Patient admitted with flu symptoms, but with underlying health problems, who goes on to develop Pneumonia, will probably have the later recorded as the cause of death.
In many countries, the cause of death may never be properly investigated, let alone recorded accurately.
As many people keep having to be reminded, this is NOT FLU. It is not even related. It will be a long time before we will be able to estimate the total number of cases, and work out death rates. Not every affected Country will be able to do this.
What is seriously worrying is the low rate of recovery v high rate of death of those where Intensive care is required. This is much higher than the numbers usually attributed to Flu.
What is important, is that every death where this Virus has been identified, should be recorded as such so that better comparisons can be made to find the most effective methods of dealing with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
