spiriticon
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 7,674
Germany is doing such a good job at keeping the number of deaths down. How?
Iran unfortunately is a real world experiment as they are on the road to apparent herd immunity and nothing can be done there. Why not wait and see how it develops there first before making such decisions without a good amount research first? It’s crazy imo.
Don’t know about walking the dog but it’s definitely dangerous arguing with someone on FacebookWhat are the dangers of walking the dog in these conditions? I am now arguing with someone on Facebook about it. I say slim to none as long as you are not walking in crowded areas.
Germany is doing such a good job at keep the number of deaths down. How?
According to a paper published in the Intensive Care Medicine journal utilizing 2012 data, Italy had 12.5 ICU beds per 100,000 of its population that year while Germany had 29.2 ICU beds per 100,000 inhabitants.
That's not true. In China they estimate that 75% of infections occurred in the home, that is where you are most likely to get it from. There is little evidence that mass gatherings transmit the disease in a significant way, as far as I've read anyway. At a football match for one you are outside but if you do get infected by someone sneezing on you, you cannot pass that on to other people for another few days. There is no chain infection effect that I think people imagine there is. Whilst the virus is still relatively low in the population a mass gathering shouldn't pose much threat. The main issue is that mass gatherings require lots of police, medics etc so those valuable resources could be wasted. As it is at the moment the UK services are not overwhelmed yet so there was little evidence that mass gatherings should be have been stopped. The UK decision to ban them was political due to public perception and nothing else as far as I can see.
I'm not advocating for any position. I hold my hands up and say that I'm clueless. I'm just expressing a huge amount of scepticism that the WHO approach is going to work and everything is going to be OK if we follow it.
Don’t know about walking the dog but it’s definitely dangerous arguing with someone on Facebook
Germany is doing such a good job at keeping the number of deaths down. How?
The beer, sausage and cigarettes usually get them before their 80s.
If the economy doesn't matter at all and health is all important, why don't the same people advocate for a lockdown every flu season? Lockdown technques for too long would likely kill more people than they would save due to the massive spike in unemployment and hit to the economy.
Where do people think the money to fund the NHS comes from?
What are the dangers of walking the dog in these conditions? I am now arguing with someone on Facebook about it. I say slim to none as long as you are not walking in crowded areas.
Germany is doing such a good job at keeping the number of deaths down. How?
Germany is doing such a good job at keeping the number of deaths down. How?
The beer, sausage and cigarettes usually get them before their 80s.
Well HIV is the same from everything I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). The challenge with viruses is that they invade your cells, and if it's not active in your cell it can just stay there dormant. But luckily, the cell itself will detect that and commit cell suicide (apoptosis)
Nick. I'm not necessarily for or against what the government proposes (I have nowhere near enough knowledge to know what's best) but the first expert in your link seems to assert that "the delay techniques promoted by the government are likely to achieve this aim [of flattening] the peak so that those people who suffer the more severe forms of the disease are able to be cared for properly." He also asserts that "by winter" uninfected people will be in a minority.
As I understand it that means he (and Vallance?) thinks the NHS will be able to cope with around 60% of the population being infected in the next 9 months. That equates to just under 40m people. According to the data 5% of those need access to an ICU. The NHS currently has 6.6 ICU beds per 100,000 people. That equates to just under 4500 beds.
Assuming an ideal distribution and an ICU stay limited to just one day per person that many people would require around 7,400 beds with associated staffing in order for the NHS to cope. This itself assumes that literally none of the ICU's are or will be in use for other things. Currently 80% of them are.
As far as I can see there is no world in which the ambition of infecting 60% of the UK population by Christmas can be realised without completely overwhelming current NHS capacity. The only way, offered by expert 2 in your link, would be to lower interactions such that the rate of infection trends substantially lower, but this would seem to involve indefinitely maintaining social distancing models that the government seems to believe are impossible.
You can’t hope to win with some. It’s more others that are on the fence or are willing to have a sensible discussion with a different perspective, that you hope to engage with. He just went way too far.
I'm still amazed how something that probably started out in a Chinese food market has expanded to such an international scale. I struggle to comprehend that.
I'm still amazed how something that probably started out in a Chinese food market has expanded to such an international scale. I struggle to comprehend that.
If the economy doesn't matter at all and health is all important, why don't the same people advocate for a lockdown every flu season? Lockdown technques for too long would likely kill more people than they would save due to the massive spike in unemployment and hit to the economy.
Where do people think the money to fund the NHS comes from?
Do you think you would have single case if someone didn't brought it from Italy/China, etc? Stopping it when you already have it is difficult, but if anyone reacted on time we would have far less cases.
The failure of the WHO and the governments of the world to take this seriously until its too late.
Our government is a shining example of this.
Not sure if already posted earlier in the thread but Arlene Foster talking about school closures for 16 weeks. That is a serious length of time....totally hammer working parents
That is a childish way of characterising the UK strategy and suggests you have read nothing that explains it.That's exactly the point. WHO doesn't care about economics or social impact, they suggest actions purely based on their expertise and knowledge how to at least control the virus spread, not necessarily stop it completely so I would trust them rather than governments whose primary goal is to keep the tax money coming in. Every country will take different action. Majority countries have chosen to take a hit on economy in order to stop it from becoming completely out of control, while UK chosen to just let the fire burn and hope for the best, decision based very much on financial aspects. Right now it looks to be an absolutely crazy and selfish approach and reminds me of movies where there is always 1 guy making a stupid decision after a stupid decision. Time will tell.
Variance will play massive role in day-to-day numbers. Some days luckier, other days tragic. It will be the patterns that emerge over weeks that will be key.Germany is doing such a good job at keeping the number of deaths down. How?
Sure, with hindsight that would happen. This is a highly contagious infection and China suppressed the details of it initially so I don't think it was ever realistic to completely shut it down without the benefit of hindsight. It just isn't realistic to shutdown economies every time a contagion like this threatens. We've been waiting 100 years for something as problematic as the Spanish Flu, there have been numerous less problematic viruses in the years since that didn't require the nuclear option for containment.
It’s on the guardian’s live streamPost it please. I certainly haven't seen and I I literally sleep in this thread.