Landlord in Distress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    In a couple of weeks I doubt anyone will refer to a low number of deaths. I have the opposite viewpoint, I don't think the government acting quickly enough. Whether or not you understand science we could all see what happened in China and then in Italy, it was only a matter of time before it happened in UK. The countries that have got on top it are the ones that have imposed restrictions which would normally be unacceptable. You may think old/sick people are acceptable collateral damage but I don't. An 18 year old with no underlying health conditions has died so no one can be complacent.

    Comment


      #32
      The government has concerns about how long the lockdown will continue and what will happen if things start to fall apart.
      We're only a few days in and a lot of people are very bored and stressed.

      Next week is less sunny and motivation will dip.

      There's a limit to how long people will remain law abiding and it's better to have had people not locked in in the early stages of the epidemic when infection is less likely than giving up later when it is much more likely.
      If everyone is still in lockdown in a month and there's no obvious impact on the numbers, people will start to become less obedient.

      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #33
        So let it spread first and impose the lock down when it's too late? Or have the lock down first (theoretical now as it's already too late) so have a small problem instead of a huge one. Would you think differently if it was your 18 year old daughter?

        Comment


          #34
          I'm very happy it isn't and wasn't my decision.

          The underlying point is that this disease is now here and it's not going to go away, so we're all either going to get it or be immunised (hopefully) against it.

          An early lockdown only works if there's no second wave when you release it. So far that seems to have worked, but it could be shown to fail in the next few months.

          It's too early to tell.

          So far, fewer people have died in 2020 than died in the same period last year.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #35
            Let's hope that's still true in 3 weeks time. Looks a bit unlikely though, 181 deaths today.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
              - and have revised the estimate down to 20,000 (far less than annual usual flu deaths). Largely on the basis of Imperial College reports, many Western economies have already been tanked, and many jobs, careers and businesses destroyed.
              07389 882412[/URL]

              /[/url]
              Source please for your annual UK flu deaths ?
              Best information I can find is that in the UK it is estimated that an average of 600 people a year die from complications of flu. Somewhat shy of your far more than 20,000.

              Comment


                #37
                Section20z,

                Thanks for asking.

                Well it is a complicated topic - to some extent the same problem with the current C-Virus -- it is hard to distinguish deaths due to the virus from other causes of death -- but normal Flu is a very very common final straw in the elderly. As with C-Virus, many would have died over the next year or months anyway, but this influences the timing hugely.

                See https://assets.publishing.service.go...2019-FINAL.pdf

                See Table 7 (page 51) for example -- it varies wildly by year but 25,000 would not be atypical numbers of deaths attributed to Flu statistically (the same sort of government hype that tries to drive the Flu vaccine). I'm not saying I agree with either (but the same problem applies to both).

                Internationally, the WHO attribute around three quarters of a million deaths annually to the common garden variety of influenza. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...-flu-each-year

                So there are some references. The 200 you mention is a different thing.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by royw View Post
                  Let's hope that's still true in 3 weeks time. Looks a bit unlikely though, 181 deaths today.
                  Counting these things is a major issue for logicians -- see my post above on the official UK and international statistics for normal Flu.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    AndrewDod,

                    You seem to use the Daily Mail statistical procedures.
                    Picking one particularly bad year does not give your average.
                    The WHO suggest UP TO 650,000 annual flu deaths worldwide
                    I did not mention 200.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      As a rule of thumb they say 2/3 coronavirus deaths are those who might have died anyway, 1/3 who wouldn't. Probably more of an educated guess than accurate reporting though.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Section20z View Post
                        AndrewDod,

                        You seem to use the Daily Mail statistical procedures.
                        Picking one particularly bad year does not give your average.
                        The WHO suggest UP TO 650,000 annual flu deaths worldwide
                        I did not mention 200.
                        Um... I did this for my day job. And I am fairly mathematically astute to say the least. There are many particularly bad years that take it way above the 20K figure - in fact this is routine, and many say under-counted. So no, maybe you should actually read the reports before throwing out trite blather.

                        We could, if we wanted, report normal Flu in the way C-virus is being reported. Perhaps moire than 1000 deaths in a typical winter week, sometimes even more. The population would be frightened.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          If someone wanting to make a point throws figures at you and tells you what they mean you need to ask various questions:

                          · Who collected the figures?
                          · Are the figures accurate?
                          · What figures does the person have he has not given you?
                          · Are there additional figures you need to make proper sense of the figures you have been given?
                          · Is there an alternative interpretation of the figures?

                          If all you are told that 80% of those who have died are over 80 you may conclude that the disease mainly kills the over 80s. However, suppose the statistics are as follows:

                          · Number of cases 80 or over = 32,000
                          · Number of cases under 80 = 8,000
                          · Number of deaths 80 or over = 8,000
                          · Number of deaths under 80 = 2,000

                          We can immediately see that the fatality rate is the same across the board. The only reason more over 80s are dying is that more of them are contracting the virus. We can then ask if there is a reason why more over 80s are contracting the virus. A possble explanation is that a significant number of the over 80s who contracted the virus were in care homes where it could be expected that if one resident contracts the virus most will.

                          I am not saying the real figures are anything like the above, just offering an illustration of how statistics can be misleading if you do not have the full facts or fail to interpret them correctly.

                          As for the suggestion that the over 80s who have died of the virus would have died within two years, how do they know? The proposition is in any event dubious as it suggests that anyone over 80 is likely to die within two years.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                            As for the suggestion that the over 80s who have died of the virus would have died within two years, how do they know? The proposition is in any event dubious as it suggests that anyone over 80 is likely to die within two years.
                            From overall death rates. By way of an extreme (and factually incorrect) example if 5% of people age 80 die whilst also testing positive for a virus, but overall death rates for people of the same age are totally unchanged, one can reasonably conclude that the virus is not a contributor to the deaths.

                            In terms of the current virus there are many such natural experiments, the most clearcut of which was the Diamond Princess.
                            - about 4000 passengers and crew
                            - Median age about 75 years
                            - 700 contracted this particular strain of virus
                            - 7 of those 700 died over about 5 weeks
                            - The natural death rate of people in that social class and age over 5 weeks is about 5 persons.

                            Many such experiments and observations lead to conclusions.

                            Your last sentence above is in any case incorrect logic. It does not mean that anyone over 80 is likely to die over 2 years. It suggests (given the present argument) that a certain number N who actually does die of cause X (say a stroke) would have been likely to die over the next two years if that stroke had somehow been prevented. That is radically different.

                            Yes, good epidemiology is difficult. So is good law.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                              Um... I did this for my day job. And I am fairly mathematically astute to say the least. There are many particularly bad years that take it way above the 20K figure - in fact this is routine, and many say under-counted. So no, maybe you should actually read the reports before throwing out trite blather.

                              We could, if we wanted, report normal Flu in the way C-virus is being reported. Perhaps moire than 1000 deaths in a typical winter week, sometimes even more. The population would be frightened.
                              Then you ought to be able to calculate that 650,000 worldwide flu deaths would equate to 2000 pro rata for the UK, and that's ignoring the fact that we vaccinate most of our vulnerable people and have one of the best health services in the world.
                              you do the maths.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Section20z View Post

                                Then you ought to be able to calculate that 650,000 worldwide flu deaths would equate to 2000 pro rata for the UK, and that's ignoring the fact that we vaccinate most of our vulnerable people and have one of the best health services in the world.
                                you do the maths.
                                I don't disagree with that at all. All it says is that these things are extraordinarily difficult to count. The number of ordinary influenza deaths is extremely high -- exactly how high is hard to pin down.

                                If someone in Africa dies, it is pretty hard to say whether they died of TB, malnutrition, malaria, or the flu, or a combination of all those things.

                                Outside of the privileged world there are many many other things that would be put onto a death certificate, or factored into a calculation -- so it is entirely unsurprising that deaths due to isolated influenza in vulnerable people in Europe would be far greater proportionately (in the counting) - despite the things you mention.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X