dim wrote: I've seen figures saying that the UK will have 6 million deaths ... I've also been told that this outbreak will only peak in 2 months time and may last longer than 12 months
The best estimates, from the research uk government has used to base current restrictions on are: 500,000 deaths with no restrictions 20,000 deaths with current restrictions, if observed.
I've not seen anything estimating numbers anywhere near 6 million, so that seems very far fetched. A reference would be good if you have it.
...........................................
OK here:
this is from another forum : and it's even more now:...
13 days ago the the UK had just over 400 infections.
Today, the UK has just over 400 deaths, 8000 infections.
In 13 days, it will be roughly 8000 dead and 160,000 infections.
13 days after that, the week after Easter, 160,000 dead and 3,200,000 infected.
13 days after that, the beginning of May, 3,200,000 deaths as infections peak (most of the population is infected except for those isolating or living remotely).
13 days after that entering the third week of May, deaths are peaking per day as the count edges towards 7 million and finally confirms that the death rate was masked by the amount of time to get better (or die) and that those that died quickly at the beginning of the outbreak also masked the ages across those who get infected The final number of deaths attributed to COVID19 will be approximately 15% of the population or 9 million dead.
We find out that the dead in China number in the high tens of millions and that outbreaks like those in Europe took place all around China at the approximately the same time and distribution as Europe and the rest of the world had there's.
We find out that China lied about their numbers because they were buying time to contain their other outbreaks and stop the breakdown of society.
Due to over-representation of co-factors approx 25% of famous people and 35% of well known politicians die of coronavirus.
That's the view I'm seeing with everything aggregated..
Last edited by Vorpal on 25 Mar 2020, 7:33am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:fix quotes
"Lockdown" is no more defining than the words used. Meaning is entirely clear. To argue about interpretation is simply a deliberate or simple-minded pretence. What part of "must stay" is difficult? The caveats are also in the main clear to those who can read and comprehend. Those that are not are difficult to formulate, but will become more precisely defined in coming days. Glad my policy drafting days are long over!
"The final number of deaths attributed to COVID19 will be approximately 15% of the population or 9 million dead."
I have neither the heart nor the intellect to comment on the "accuracy" of that but am sure that IF that is accepted by the government then they certainly would not reveal it. The Army is too few to contain the unrest and mass law breaking!
roubaixtuesday wrote: The best estimates, from the research uk government has used to base current restrictions on are: 500,000 deaths with no restrictions 20,000 deaths with current restrictions, if observed.
I've not seen anything estimating numbers anywhere near 6 million, so that seems very far fetched. A reference would be good if you have it.
...........................................
OK here:
this is from another forum : and it's even more now:...
13 days ago the the UK had just over 400 infections.
Today, the UK has just over 400 deaths, 8000 infections.
In 13 days, it will be roughly 8000 dead and 160,000 infections.
13 days after that, the week after Easter, 160,000 dead and 3,200,000 infected.
13 days after that, the beginning of May, 3,200,000 deaths as infections peak (most of the population is infected except for those isolating or living remotely).
13 days after that entering the third week of May, deaths are peaking per day as the count edges towards 7 million and finally confirms that the death rate was masked by the amount of time to get better (or die) and that those that died quickly at the beginning of the outbreak also masked the ages across those who get infected The final number of deaths attributed to COVID19 will be approximately 15% of the population or 9 million dead.
We find out that the dead in China number in the high tens of millions and that outbreaks like those in Europe took place all around China at the approximately the same time and distribution as Europe and the rest of the world had there's.
We find out that China lied about their numbers because they were buying time to contain their other outbreaks and stop the breakdown of society.
Due to over-representation of co-factors approx 25% of famous people and 35% of well known politicians die of coronavirus.
That's the view I'm seeing with everything aggregated..
A view from a random person on the internet is not a reference.
Whichever forum that's from it's patent nonsense and not supported by any research whatever.
Read the Imperial paper, that's probably the most definitive view on numbers, comes from a reputable institution and is where I got my numbers from.
Rate wise, we in Spain have gone from the first confirmed infections in late February to 2694 deaths (taken from a newspaper update 3 hours ago) and 39,673 cases. That's roughly a month.
Some of the earliest confirmed infections were in Valencia due to football fans returning infected from an away game in Milan. Initially Valencia had the most cases.
Madrid quickly outstripped everywhere else though, and now has recorded over 1000 deaths. Superficially I guess that one could draw a parallel with London due to them both being Capital Cities with all that implies for the mobility and density of the populations.
The government here seems to believe that we will hit a peak of some sort in early April if isolation holds. It's a bit of a big if. So far, over 100,000 fines have been issued for non compliance. Locally, I'm not seeing that reflected in my town. People are staying in, only shopping when they have to, queueing 2 metres apart and not panic buying.
I suspect that large cities will be different as they will all have homeless people that will not be able to go to the usual areas where the public can give them money and/or food. Criminal gangs will have less opportunity to burgle unoccupied premises as the homeowners will, largely, now be present. The drug trade and prostitution also provided incomes which, if they don't disappear altogether, will certainly fall due to lack of clients on the street. There is also a sizeable amount of 'cash in hand' workers that will lose their jobs but receive no government help due to their unregistered status. I would expect that very few of the above will have much in the way of financial reserves. Eventually, through hunger, cold or inability to buy medicine I would expect that a few cracks will begin to show.
Today I heard the first reports of a breakout from hospital confinement by infected persons. There was no reason given as to why they would elect such a course of action.
Other, less than comforting news, was the report of bodies being left amongst the living in a residential home for the elderly for some time. The lack of protective equipment and the infection rate of the virus is obviously generating a lot of fear amongst carers as well.
llayercake wrote: The government here seems to believe that we will hit a peak of some sort in early April if isolation holds.
Whether or not it holds. The peak will be a normal flu peak over the next few weeks with isolation or without isolation. Containment will have no effect on the number of people infected, in the UK or Spain.
PS Although I believe the government's measures to be a complete waste of time, I still wash my hands and keep social distance out of respect for the law and other people's sensitivities. And of course because I could be wrong (though I don't think so ).
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
The above link leads to a video that tries to explain why social distancing might be a good idea in relation to C19. I think it's quite low key. It relates to the subject of this thread as it goes to potential seriousness of the Coronavirus outbreak.
Last edited by llayercake on 25 Mar 2020, 6:00am, edited 1 time in total.
llayercake wrote: The government here seems to believe that we will hit a peak of some sort in early April if isolation holds.
Whether or not it holds. The peak will be a normal flu peak over the next few weeks with isolation or without isolation. Containment will have no effect on the number of people infected, in the UK or Spain.
That's an opinion that isn't shared by the vast majority of expert advise out there, and there's a lot of it. We know the basics of how it spreads, so how does minimising that not have an effect? Do you really think you know better than the WHO?
llayercake wrote: The government here seems to believe that we will hit a peak of some sort in early April if isolation holds.
Whether or not it holds. The peak will be a normal flu peak over the next few weeks with isolation or without isolation. Containment will have no effect on the number of people infected, in the UK or Spain.
That's an opinion that isn't shared by the vast majority of expert advise out there, and there's a lot of it. We know the basics of how it spreads, so how does minimising that not have an effect? Do you really think you know better than the WHO?
I thought the basics wasn't to change the number of infected but simply to slow down the infection rate. Until "herd immunity" levels are reached (60% for this virus?) then the numbers who get it don't change as much as you might hope, the virus will still spread through the population because isolation isn't perfect. It'll just spread slower giving us more time with a functioning health service to help those in need.
That was my understanding. (Although I may be wrong).
Trump has declared Easter Sunday as the end of the pandemic. He says this in the face of exponentially increasing numbers going he other way.
As I understand it, S Korea, which had the potential to suffer very badly, practiced test and trace. Shut down was not required and they seem to be on top.
Oldjohnw wrote:Trump has declared Easter Sunday as the end of the pandemic. He says this in the face of exponentially increasing numbers going he other way.
As I understand it, S Korea, which had the potential to suffer very badly, practiced test and trace. Shut down was not required and they seem to be on top.
They also implemented voluntary social distancing / self isolation / quarantine.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
PH wrote: I thought the basics wasn't to change the number of infected but simply to slow down the infection rate. Until "herd immunity" levels are reached (60% for this virus?) then the numbers who get it don't change as much as you might hope, the virus will still spread through the population because isolation isn't perfect. It'll just spread slower giving us more time with a functioning health service to help those in need.
That was my understanding. (Although I may be wrong).
Mine also. I think HMG reluctant to make it clear that despite all the "hardships" the number of cases/deaths won't alter, but rather simply spread over a longer time period. This is of course an entirely worthwhile aim but not as good a motivator for the masses who need to believe that it can somehow be "defeated". Given the 1.5m in most at risk category and probably another 5m borederline (e.g. 1m have diagnosed copd and an estimated further 2m non-diagnosed), I suspect deaths will be at least 500,000 over next 12 months. And that assumes the "spreading" goes to plan.
).