|
Post by thisisouryear on Oct 1, 2020 13:00:11 GMT
As ESOF explained for each age group you have to multiply figures by 100 because they are ratio's not percentages as you showed us with you picture from fox news.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 1, 2020 13:06:37 GMT
Of course the number of cases are relevant because if they were seeing around 120,000 cases in April and now they're only seeing around 15,000 cases a day that's the very reason deaths are currently lower. Because mass testing wasn't being done in April we don't know how many cases there were but a lot of scientists reckon that 100,000 + cases a day back then was very likely. I don't know if you've read all my other posts on this over the last 24 hours but I've already made that very point. But the number of 'cases' AREN'T relevant, we don't need to know what the percentage ratio is, it's not of any use to us at the moment. The only stat we need to know is how many SICK people there are, we didn't need to know how many people had it in April who weren't sick and we don't need to know now. We might do in the future if antibodies become relevant but it's not important now. When people were sick and dying the government and media were falling over themselves to tell us how many people were dying, in hospitals and on ventilators As soon as these numbers fell through the floor they concentrated on case numbers. That tells its own story
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Oct 1, 2020 13:19:07 GMT
Unlike the 1918 flu pandemic (which went after all ages), Covid 19 basically 'culls the herd'. A brutal way of viewing it but if you are a healthy individual of any age, you are unlikely to die from this disease (obviously there are exceptions as with any disease). 5.4% of the over 70s is alot but it would be heavily skewed in that most of those dying would already be very frail or have an under lying illness - basically the aging process which weakens all of us. Its really this age cohort that needs to be taking precautions over winter.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 1, 2020 13:38:17 GMT
I don't know if you've read all my other posts on this over the last 24 hours but I've already made that very point. But the number of 'cases' AREN'T relevant, we don't need to know what the percentage ratio is, it's not of any use to us at the moment. The only stat we need to know is how many SICK people there are, we didn't need to know how many people had it in April who weren't sick and we don't need to know now. We might do in the future if antibodies become relevant but it's not important now. When people were sick and dying the government and media were falling over themselves to tell us how many people were dying, in hospitals and on ventilators As soon as these numbers fell through the floor they concentrated on case numbers. That tells its own story What story is it telling?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 1, 2020 13:42:16 GMT
So it's because I don't give a shit, is it? Sorry if I don't rise to those high levels of debate. Some of you can't go a few words without insults. If you care about old people, have a look at the systematic placement of vulnerable in care homes to have medical treatment withdrawn and DNR forms applied. This is where the majority of what were labelled covid deaths came from last time. The same process is being done again. Back to the stats, flu has a similar, if not worse, survival rate than Covid 19. So based on your premise, I guess all these years you didn't call for measures, rules and lockdowns for flu was because you 'don't give a shit'? Manipulated figures as ESOF has explained before. People over 70 have a 5.4% of dying from Covid. Go back to page 1,198 and you will see. 5.4% isn't high enough for some of the selfish wankers on here.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 1, 2020 13:51:29 GMT
When people were sick and dying the government and media were falling over themselves to tell us how many people were dying, in hospitals and on ventilators As soon as these numbers fell through the floor they concentrated on case numbers. That tells its own story What story is it telling? It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 1, 2020 13:54:16 GMT
As ESOF explained for each age group you have to multiply figures by 100 because they are ratio's not percentages as you showed us with you picture from fox news. Those figures in the tweet have already been adjusted for percentages. The raw data ratio is in the screenshot. And also whatever you do for this data can also be done with the flu data. Flu is equally deadly , and moreso in some age groups.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 1, 2020 13:54:19 GMT
Unlike the 1918 flu pandemic (which went after all ages), Covid 19 basically 'culls the herd'. A brutal way of viewing it but if you are a healthy individual of any age, you are unlikely to die from this disease (obviously there are exceptions as with any disease). 5.4% of the over 70s is alot but it would be heavily skewed in that most of those dying would already be very frail or have an under lying illness - basically the aging process which weakens all of us. Its really this age cohort that needs to be taking precautions over winter. By that as long as people are careful of who their mix with there is no risk by carefully allowing football fans in. Every body has a responsibility to shield and look after the people at risk they know and come in contact with. If you are at risk take extra precautions No need for the draconian measures in place
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Oct 1, 2020 13:58:56 GMT
I was slightly concerned with BBC coverage yesterday when they were fully foaming at the mouth over the global total of deaths reaching 1,000,000. It is a somber number but in terms of a global pandemic out of 7.5 billion it seemed a bit weird. The other thing was that of those 1,000,000 half come from US, India, Brazil and UK which means half the cases from 20% of the population. I realise that recording will be different in many countries but at the moment Covid-19 has killed ten times fewer people than hunger yet we're looking to flood tests into Africa/ middle east rather than a bit of snappin. Giving away food doesn't make money though.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 1, 2020 14:04:22 GMT
What story is it telling? It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms The media have been doing the same for every story for as long as I remember. Fear gets figures, sells advertising. See also terrorism. See also refugees on boats. See also weapons of mass destruction. Etc etc etc. I dont think its s conspiracy, it's an industry based on disproportionate fear.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 1, 2020 14:18:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 1, 2020 14:19:41 GMT
Manipulated figures as ESOF has explained before. People over 70 have a 5.4% of dying from Covid. Go back to page 1,198 and you will see. 5.4% isn't high enough for some of the selfish wankers on here. Yes. The majority of these over 70 deaths, in fact the majority of the death toll, through systematic use of care homes. I've repeated this over and over again. The same folk telling you to wear a mask are the same folk running this infirmicide following WHO procedures. This includes withdrawing medical care, DNR notices, plus no visits, no autopsies, and covid19 written on death certificates based on 'probability'. You'd think someone other than me would actually care about this holocaust under our noses. But no-one seems to. It's a way of deliberately getting those death charts folk love so much. And the same process is being used across the developed world using WHO procedures. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53280011That's where your excess deaths are from, along with lockdown deaths. I've made this point repeatedly. But, instead, let's call Fred a selfish wanker because he likes breathing too much and doesn't want to wear a mask. Or students going for a piss up. Next time you study the death tables, realise most of those numbers are from care homes. And until people realise this numbers scam and state murder, they'll be playing the same trick again. The figure you quote is not from selfish wankers, it's from WHO procedures. Maybe, eventually you'll see this disturbing and evil plot for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 1, 2020 14:22:33 GMT
Manipulated figures as ESOF has explained before. People over 70 have a 5.4% of dying from Covid. Go back to page 1,198 and you will see. 5.4% isn't high enough for some of the selfish wankers on here. Why what they doing?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 1, 2020 14:24:35 GMT
What story is it telling? It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 1, 2020 14:37:01 GMT
It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. Really don't get how people fail to get this.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Oct 1, 2020 14:41:14 GMT
It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. All of that is true. Which is why the tweet from Hancock last night - effectively that the Coronavirus Act is here to stay until we have a vaccine - was so depressing. Essentially loads of restrictions to an indeterminite point in the future. Now - if we get a vaccine that is scaleable by the middle of next year most people (and I appreciate not everyone) will probably take that as a result. But what if the vaccine is not available next year, the year after and indeed if we are still waiting until 2030? Is life on this planet to continue like this indefinitely? So what is Hancock and his dim mates' Plan B? Expand the NHS so we have ample capacity for all comers - Covid or non-Covid? Re-boot a controlled move to herd immunity (assuming it exists and accepting the Long Covid consequences)? Increase the scale of the welfare state to support a move to Sweden style freedoms (which in truth isn't much more than the UK had in July and August but without the masks) with the necessary payments in place to encourage people to stay at home and away from work if they're ill, child support etc. I don't know the answer but there needs to be an alternative exit strategy beyond just 'vaccine' that sits somewhere between the social media extremes of 'Total Lockdown' and 'Fuck It'.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 1, 2020 14:52:30 GMT
More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. Really don't get how people fail to get this. What about those now months without medical care? I know more, and I'm guessing we all do, affected by this than covid19. It was supposed to be 'Protect the NHS', not Close Down The NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 1, 2020 15:25:58 GMT
It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. Exactly. People solely counting wooden boxes are either missing the point or fitting the story to fit their own world view.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 1, 2020 15:26:17 GMT
It’s a casedemic using high case numbers regardless of outcome to further the narrative. We already know that over 90%+ of those cases are not that serious with loads not even getting symptoms More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. You are assuming most people get ill which we all know they do t Most of these cases have no or very mild symptoms only 5% at best at best become ill with it less than 1% die
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 1, 2020 15:27:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 1, 2020 15:32:17 GMT
More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. All of that is true. Which is why the tweet from Hancock last night - effectively that the Coronavirus Act is here to stay until we have a vaccine - was so depressing. Essentially loads of restrictions to an indeterminite point in the future. Now - if we get a vaccine that is scaleable by the middle of next year most people (and I appreciate not everyone) will probably take that as a result. But what if the vaccine is not available next year, the year after and indeed if we are still waiting until 2030? Is life on this planet to continue like this indefinitely? So what is Hancock and his dim mates' Plan B? Expand the NHS so we have ample capacity for all comers - Covid or non-Covid? Re-boot a controlled move to herd immunity (assuming it exists and accepting the Long Covid consequences)? Increase the scale of the welfare state to support a move to Sweden style freedoms (which in truth isn't much more than the UK had in July and August but without the masks) with the necessary payments in place to encourage people to stay at home and away from work if they're ill, child support etc. I don't know the answer but there needs to be an alternative exit strategy beyond just 'vaccine' that sits somewhere between the social media extremes of 'Total Lockdown' and 'Fuck It'. Couldn't agree more. This polarisation of positions seems to be the default position now. An effective, working and safe vaccine is clearly the Utopia but we have to drastically improve the Test, Trace and Isolate system.
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Oct 1, 2020 15:36:47 GMT
Of course the number of cases are relevant because if they were seeing around 120,000 cases in April and now they're only seeing around 15,000 cases a day that's the very reason deaths are currently lower. Because mass testing wasn't being done in April we don't know how many cases there were but a lot of scientists reckon that 100,000 + cases a day back then was very likely. I don't know if you've read all my other posts on this over the last 24 hours but I've already made that very point. But the number of 'cases' AREN'T relevant, we don't need to know what the percentage ratio is, it's not of any use to us at the moment. The only stat we need to know is how many SICK people there are, we didn't need to know how many people had it in April who weren't sick and we don't need to know now. We might do in the future if antibodies become relevant but it's not important now. I think it could be helpful when trying to estimate a herd immunity thing.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 1, 2020 15:39:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 1, 2020 15:39:36 GMT
Really don't get how people fail to get this. What about those now months without medical care? I know more, and I'm guessing we all do, affected by this than covid19. It was supposed to be 'Protect the NHS', not Close Down The NHS. You've just answered your own point. If you can take off your tin foil hat for a moment and brave the '5G death rays' you will understand that the reason excess deaths is the optimum measurement is because we care about everybody getting the right amount of care. The NHS only has so much capacity, especially moving into the winter. Therefore the less transmission of Coivd there is the more availability the NHS to care for Cancer, Heart Disease, Flu patients etc... The higher the transmission, the less availability there is and more loved ones will be lost as an indirect cause of Covid. So swap your Velcro for laces, keep your distance, wear your mask and wash your hands. And if you can, support local business as much as possible 🍻 🍺
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 1, 2020 15:40:45 GMT
More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. Really don't get how people fail to get this. I don't think it's a case of them not getting it, it's a case of them thinking they won't get ill so they just carry on doing what they want and not giving a shit.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Oct 1, 2020 15:46:21 GMT
Or a mayor who doesn’t give a toss about the health of his community
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 1, 2020 15:48:23 GMT
Or a mayor who doesn’t give a toss about the health of his community Try reading the article. He'd lobbied the Government for some restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Oct 1, 2020 15:59:00 GMT
More cases leads to more transmission, the higher the transmission the more people who contract covid. The more people contracting covid means more hospitalisations. More hospitalisation means more ICU beds taken up. To many ICU beds taken up due to Covid leads to a knock of effect of failure to treat non-Covid issues. This leads to more Covid deaths and more non-Covid deaths. It is no longer about the people solely dying from Covid it is the overall impact that high transmission is going to have especially over the winter. You are assuming most people get ill which we all know they do t Most of these cases have no or very mild symptoms only 5% at best at best become ill with it less than 1% die Exactly. So the bigger the total number infected is the bigger that 5% as an absolute number is. If you've got 200 people infected then coping with 10 sick people is not a problem for the NHS - however if you've got 2 million infected then coping with 100,000 sick people will cause the ICU capacity to crash and there will be people dying in corridors and waiting rooms while hospitals will become no-go zones for other conditions Surely you get that?
|
|
|
Post by chad on Oct 1, 2020 16:27:51 GMT
Or a mayor who doesn’t give a toss about the health of his community Try reading the article. He'd lobbied the Government for some restrictions. I did read the article Obviously the scientific advice said greater restrictions were required than he asked for. But eh I’m sure the mayor knows best
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Oct 1, 2020 17:07:59 GMT
You are assuming most people get ill which we all know they do t Most of these cases have no or very mild symptoms only 5% at best at best become ill with it less than 1% die Exactly. So the bigger the total number infected is the bigger that 5% as an absolute number is. If you've got 200 people infected then coping with 10 sick people is not a problem for the NHS - however if you've got 2 million infected then coping with 100,000 sick people will cause the ICU capacity to crash and there will be people dying in corridors and waiting rooms while hospitals will become no-go zones for other conditions Surely you get that? He's clinging on for dear life about it being "another scaremongering story" it seems.
|
|