Coronavirus

[Spy Bee]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Do you believe those particular scientific papers are correct?

 

Have you seen other scientific papers saying anything different?

I haven't seen any suggesting an ultimate mortality rate of anything over 0.5% for some time. Have you?

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I haven't seen any suggesting an ultimate mortality rate of anything over 0.5% for some time. Have you?

I do not believe there is enough data to draw any conclusion. We do know the mortality rate as it stands.

You have been throwing around numbers, the one that caught my eye (and prompted my response) was:

 

The initial figures mentioned were a mortality rate of 5%. Now the latest studies are showing it being sub 0.5%... That's a significant improvement. 

 

That is quite a statement, less than one half of one percent - which, personally I think will be proved incorrect.

 

But I hope you are right.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

That’s fine. You didn’t like the first Panorama so you question the integrity of the programme, BBC etc.  That’s exactly what I thought. Ta. 

I didn't watch the first programme. 

Independent of that programme, I question the integrity and independence of some senior members of the BBC News team.

 

What you thought exactly is wrong.  Ta.

[Spy Bee]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I do not believe there is enough data to draw any conclusion. We do know the mortality rate as it stands.

You have been throwing around numbers, the one that caught my eye (and prompted my response) was:

 

The initial figures mentioned were a mortality rate of 5%. Now the latest studies are showing it being sub 0.5%... That's a significant improvement. 

 

That is quite a statement, less than one half of one percent - one which I think will be proved incorrect.

 

But I hope you are right.

Fucking hell, are you for real?

 

I'm not just "throwing numbers around". I've already justified the statement above, because I referenced 5 studies which show the mortality rate to be below 0.5%. You can't reference one recent study that suggest it will be higher. Instead you're just giving me "I think"

 

I'm not just making shit up to be controversial. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I didn't watch the first programme. 

Independent of that programme, I question the integrity and independence of some senior members of the BBC News team.

 

What you thought exactly is wrong.  Ta.

The editor? Same woman. 

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Fucking hell, are you for real?

 

I'm not just "throwing numbers around". I've already justified the statement above, because I referenced 5 studies which which show the mortality rate to be below 0.5%. You can't reference one recent study that suggest it will be higher. Instead you're just giving me "I think"

 

I'm not just making shit up to be controversial. 

With all due respect to your informed professional background - countless models and studies have already been proven wrong. Massively wrong.

All I have done here is use the actual data available - no interpretation, no "thinking". Just what it is. 

 

The only thinking part is my comment on the .005% - my opinion is it will be very surprising if that turns out to be true, and I believe your source is incorrect. 

If it does you win the internet.

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

With all due respect to your informed professional background - countless models and studies have already been proven wrong. Massively wrong.

All I have done here is use the actual data available - no interpretation, no "thinking". Just what it is. 

 

The only thinking part is my comment on the .005% - my opinion is it will be very surprising if that turns out to be true, and I believe your source is incorrect. 

If it does you win the internet.

No idea where you're getting that figure from. 

 

It's not an informed professional background, it's somebody who is willing to accept that maybe the experts are the best placed people to be making judgements, not the screaming 'please click me' media.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

No idea where you're getting that figure from. 

 

Mate - you said it - that is where the number came from.

When you said:

 

The initial figures mentioned were a mortality rate of 5%. Now the latest studies are showing it being sub 0.5%... That's a significant improvement. 

 

Is it possible you meant to say less then 5% not less then 1%?

[SasaS]

34 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I think the CFR is being conflated with the IFR here.   The IFR of flu is not 0.1%.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far

 

In a Twitter thread from February that a reader pointed out to me this week, University of Oxford infectious disease epidemiologist Christophe Fraser estimated that the actual infection fatality rate (which I will refer to from now on as IFR) of seasonal influenza is 0.04%.

 

Fraser also speculated that influenza expert Lone Simonsen “may have more accurate numbers.” So I emailed Simonsen, a professor of population health sciences at Roskilde University in Denmark who has worked at the CDC and National Institutes of Health in the U.S., to ask. Her answer: Fraser’s estimate is spot on. Simonsen believes that the IFR for the coronavirus will eventually turn out to be on the low end of current estimates, possibly as low as 0.2% or 0.3%, but emphasized that this is “still far greater than … for seasonal influenza.”

When I say that the death rate will be somewhere like 0.2% you usually neg me.

[SasaS]

0.5 rate of posting here.

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Mate - you said it - that is where the number came from.

When you said:

 

The initial figures mentioned were a mortality rate of 5%. Now the latest studies are showing it being sub 0.5%... That's a significant improvement. 

 

Is it possible you meant to say less then 5% not less then 1%?

No, I did say 0.5%

 

You said 0.005%

 

Do you realise how many people 5% of the world's population would be?

 

 

[Spy Bee]

I'm talking CFR

 

Flu at about 0.1%

[AngryOfTuebrook]

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The editor? Same woman. 

Rachel Jupp?  The series editor and film editor of the earlier show (according to IMDB)?

 

If you can find anyone on here saying she's shit 6 months ago, then saying she's great now, feel free to make snarky comments about their hypocrisy.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10616448/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12222906/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

 

If I remember rightly, the criticism of the anti-Corbyn programme was reserved for the reporter and some of the contributors - none of whom had anything to do with the NHS programme.

 

[Pureblood]

IFR vs CFR explained.  

 

https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infection-fatality-rate-a-critical-missing-piece-for-managing-covid-19/

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

No, I did say 0.5%

 

You said 0.005%

 

Do you realise how many people 5% of the world's population would be?

 

 

Yes I do -- for clarity usually when there is a decimal point used it makes it less than 1.

 

So right now the mortality rate is 7%. It is not 0.7% as that is less then 1%.  

 

If you are using a metric of 1.0 =100% then .7 would equal 70%.

 

Yes, imo - the total will be less than 5% - it will end up being around 3% imo.

[Pureblood]

6 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I'm talking CFR

 

Flu at about 0.1%

The CFR of coronavirus is much higher than 0.1%.

 

Either way you compare it, CFR vs CFR or IFR vs IFR, coronavirus is many times more lethal.  There is basically scientific consensus on this point now. 

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

No, I did say 0.5%

 

You said 0.005%

 

Do you realise how many people 5% of the world's population would be?

 

 

11? 

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Yes I do -- for clarity usually when there is a decimal point used it makes it less than 1.

 

So right now the mortality rate is 7%. It is not 0.7% as that is less then 1%.  

 

If you are using a metric of 1.0 =100% then .7 would equal 70%.

 

Yes, imo - the total will be less than 5% - it will end up being around 3% imo.

Strictly speaking, right now mortality rate is actually 24%, which is a number of deaths divided by number of recovered.

 

You have to assume no one among the confirmed cases will die, to get your 7%.

 

Which is all relatively pointless because confirmed cases depend on testing, recovered and deaths numbers on standard and accuracy of reporting.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Rachel Jupp?  The series editor and film editor of the earlier show (according to IMDB)?

 

If you can find anyone on here saying she's shit 6 months ago, then saying she's great now, feel free to make snarky comments about their hypocrisy.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10616448/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12222906/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

 

If I remember rightly, the criticism of the anti-Corbyn programme was reserved for the reporter and some of the contributors - none of whom had anything to do with the NHS programme.

 

It repeated the now disproven lies about Riverside CLP. The ones which Audrey White successfully sued the Jewish version of the S*n over. That alone brings that Panorama episodes credibility into question. 

[Rico1304]

13 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Rachel Jupp?  The series editor and film editor of the earlier show (according to IMDB)?

 

If you can find anyone on here saying she's shit 6 months ago, then saying she's great now, feel free to make snarky comments about their hypocrisy.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10616448/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12222906/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

 

If I remember rightly, the criticism of the anti-Corbyn programme was reserved for the reporter and some of the contributors - none of whom had anything to do with the NHS programme.

 

Hold on, she’s the editor on both programmes.  She’s part of the production. Come on man. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Bet you cant explain that in Welsh.

Just add boyo to the end of every sentence.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

Just add boyo to the end of every sentence.

HR? 

[TheHowieLama]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Strictly speaking, right now mortality rate is actually 24%, which is a number of deaths divided by number of recovered.

 

You have to assume no one among the confirmed cases will die, to get your 7%.

 

Which is all relatively pointless because confirmed cases depend on testing, recovered and deaths numbers on standard and accuracy of reporting.

Really good point on the confirmed cases assumption. Had not thought of that.

 

Given the stuff above - would that be written as .24%? Otherwise it would need to be 2.4%.

 

EDIT - hold up you sneaky bastard it is 18.4%

 

Deaths divided by Cases "Closed" (deaths + recovered)

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

HR? 

Pufnstuf?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

13 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Hold on, she’s the editor on both programmes.  She’s part of the production. Come on man. 

Series editor.

 

Like I say, if you find anyone 6 months ago saying "That series editor/film editor should never be trusted again" then you may have a point.  If not...