GRS wrote:I said that someone in their post is claiming that 80% of us are going to die. All I’ve asked is where they get that from!!! It’s the first I’ve heard of the figure being that high. Either they’ve heard something no-one else has or they scaring themselves and others.
Yeah the death rate is nowhere near 80%.GRS wrote:Read my post - I said that someone in their post is claiming that 80% of us are going to die. All I’ve asked is where they get that from!!! It’s the first I’ve heard of the figure being that high. Either they’ve heard something no-one else has or they scaring themselves and others.
Its 3 in 100 who are tested and your only tested if its serious enough to besindba wrote:Yeah the death rate is nowhere near 80%.GRS wrote:Read my post - I said that someone in their post is claiming that 80% of us are going to die. All I’ve asked is where they get that from!!! It’s the first I’ve heard of the figure being that high. Either they’ve heard something no-one else has or they scaring themselves and others.
Perhaps they were confused with the estimate for the proportion of people who will *get it* (up to 80%)
The death rate is 3% (according to the World Health Organisation.)
So if 100 people you know catch it, 3 will die. Especially if the health service is overwhelmed. It has been in Italy, where we are heading, and their death rate is much higher.
you do realise an underlying health problem can be a problem you dont know you have till its to late.norris9 wrote:If you have a health issue - stay at home, you should be safe there. Only problem will be getting food, so hopefully you can order online or rely on someone else.
If you are healthy you are highly likely to survive.
I am not worried about my health or my family, as no health conditions or old people in family. I am worried what happens to the economy though as well as being shut in for 1 year+
Health officials worldwide estimate between 1 and 10% of people with symptoms are being tested. The rest are told to stay indoors.Acca Dacca wrote:Its 3 in 100 who are tested and your only tested if its serious enough to besindba wrote:Yeah the death rate is nowhere near 80%.GRS wrote:Read my post - I said that someone in their post is claiming that 80% of us are going to die. All I’ve asked is where they get that from!!! It’s the first I’ve heard of the figure being that high. Either they’ve heard something no-one else has or they scaring themselves and others.
Perhaps they were confused with the estimate for the proportion of people who will *get it* (up to 80%)
The death rate is 3% (according to the World Health Organisation.)
So if 100 people you know catch it, 3 will die. Especially if the health service is overwhelmed. It has been in Italy, where we are heading, and their death rate is much higher.
Which means thousands more will have mild symptoms and not be tested therefore its not 3 in 100 its 3 in thousands
this is where stats can be a bit misleading, the rate of death is over a wider population which includes a good deal of frail, elderly people. That part of the population isnt working at RM.sindba wrote:
Around 60-80 % of the population will get it. Of those 10% ish will end up in hospital. 1-3% ish will die.
So in a largish office of around 120 people, about 80 or 90 will get it, 9 or 10 will end up in hospital, and 1-3 posties will die.
Fancy those odds?
This is right, these percentages are for people who were serious enough to be tested. The actual number who had the virus and had no symptoms are very mild symptoms could be in the millions. All in all the death rate of this virus will likely be under 1% and the majority of them will be over 70s with underlying health conditions. However, this will still be a significant number of people, which could be over a million people. If they all get ill around the same time it will swamp the world's health systems. This is why these measures are being taken, to try and spread out the time people get ill and are treated.postieblueshirt wrote:you do realise an underlying health problem can be a problem you dont know you have till its to late.norris9 wrote:If you have a health issue - stay at home, you should be safe there. Only problem will be getting food, so hopefully you can order online or rely on someone else.
If you are healthy you are highly likely to survive.
I am not worried about my health or my family, as no health conditions or old people in family. I am worried what happens to the economy though as well as being shut in for 1 year+
No, that is not right.twiddledumb wrote:This is right, these percentages are for people who were serious enough to be tested. The actual number who had the virus and had no symptoms are very mild symptoms could be in the millions. All in all the death rate of this virus will likely be under 1% and the majority of them will be over 70s with underlying health conditions. However, this will still be a significant number of people, which could be over a million people. If they all get ill around the same time it will swamp the world's health systems. This is why these measures are being taken, to try and spread out the time people get ill and are treated.postieblueshirt wrote:you do realise an underlying health problem can be a problem you dont know you have till its to late.norris9 wrote:If you have a health issue - stay at home, you should be safe there. Only problem will be getting food, so hopefully you can order online or rely on someone else.
If you are healthy you are highly likely to survive.
I am not worried about my health or my family, as no health conditions or old people in family. I am worried what happens to the economy though as well as being shut in for 1 year+
U.S. Department of Labor ReportMore than 6.6 million people filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week, the Labor Department said Thursday, setting a grim record for the second straight week. The latest claims brought the two-week total to nearly 10 million.The speed and scale of the job losses is without precedent. Until last month, the worst week for unemployment filings was 695,000 in 1982. By shuttering businesses and forcing vast layoffs, the coronavirus outbreak has in two weeks wiped out more jobs than the worst months of the last recession.
No it's not.This is right, these percentages are for people who were serious enough to be tested
How can all of those tested be hospitalised? If most of the tests are negative?Woody Guthrie wrote:No it's not.This is right, these percentages are for people who were serious enough to be tested
Hospitalisation rates are not based on testing numbers, almost all those tested have been hospitalised. That would give the virus a hospitalisation rate of about 95%.
When all asymptomatic cases are accounted for it will probably be under 1%sindba wrote:No, that is not right.twiddledumb wrote:This is right, these percentages are for people who were serious enough to be tested. The actual number who had the virus and had no symptoms are very mild symptoms could be in the millions. All in all the death rate of this virus will likely be under 1% and the majority of them will be over 70s with underlying health conditions. However, this will still be a significant number of people, which could be over a million people. If they all get ill around the same time it will swamp the world's health systems. This is why these measures are being taken, to try and spread out the time people get ill and are treated.postieblueshirt wrote:you do realise an underlying health problem can be a problem you dont know you have till its to late.norris9 wrote:If you have a health issue - stay at home, you should be safe there. Only problem will be getting food, so hopefully you can order online or rely on someone else.
If you are healthy you are highly likely to survive.
I am not worried about my health or my family, as no health conditions or old people in family. I am worried what happens to the economy though as well as being shut in for 1 year+
The WHO have done the maths and worked out how many *in total* probably had it based on the tests done.
3% is their estimate. It's not gonna be spot on, but it's the best we've got.
If you've been watching the figures from the start you'll realise that the ratio between overall number tested and the number of positive cases has increased.How can all of those tested be hospitalised? If most of the tests are negative?
I would not trust the UK's figures, they are only testing people that are bad enough to be admitted to hospital, because they have an immoral policy of herd immunity, get 80% + of the country infected with the deadly virus until only the fittest survive, though they won't admit that in public now. This is why the only tests they care about are the tests that tell you if you already had the virus. This is to get these people back to work. They do not care one bit about testing people who have the virus now and then isolate them and anyone they came into contact with, like all public health experts and the WHO are urging them to do. I suppose this is what happens why you elect complete psychopathic morons to be your leaders.Woody Guthrie wrote:If you've been watching the figures from the start you'll realise that the ratio between overall number tested and the number of positive cases has increased.How can all of those tested be hospitalised? If most of the tests are negative?
To start with they were contact tracing and testing which mostly resulted in negatives, now they are predominantly testing anyone admitted to hospital from pregnant women to dog bites.
Since the argument was that they were only testing serious covid-19 cases and the only place testing on any significant level is in hospital this would if true equate to a much higher hospitalisation rate than 10%.
The hospitalisation rate is based on projected community transmission rates, they may not be entirely accurate but data from China, Italy, Spain and France seems to back that up. These are overall infected/hospitalised rates not based purely on positive testing.
If you think about it logically 33,718 have tested positive, if only 10% of that number had been hospitalised that would be roughly 3,300 since the beginning of this outbreak in hospital, we've had 2,921 deaths so unless this virus killed almost everyone who ended up in hospital the percentage of those who test positive and end up in hospital must be much higher than 10%, the only way to get that is to only test those admitted to hospital unless it's much worse than we think.