Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

1…162163165167168…331

Comments

  • #4922
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    tuxy wrote: »
    Which is better, that or the guys that have a direct line to CIA Intel?



    If you want balance you are in the wrong place.

    Absolutely haven't a breeze what you are talking about. What have the CIA got to do with this?


  • #4923
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,283 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    0.01% for the flu, 2.5% for the Coronavirus.

    Wrong!

    0.01% of all flu cases result in death. It's a far higher number for hospitalised cases. The 2.5% corona virus figure is only hospitalised cases. I outlined this in my first post which you attacked.

    Maybe you should learn some comprehension skills.


  • #4924
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Absolutely haven't a breeze what you are talking about. What have the CIA got to do with this?

    Nothing official released to the public but there is a poster on here that has access to information and they have confirmed there is a biosweapons lab in Wuhan. They don't have authorisation to post the source which is understandable.
    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    The CIA say it's the most advanced bio weapons facility in China.

    Why do you think China put such extreme measures in place so quick?


  • #4925
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    tuxy wrote: »
    Nothing official released to the public but there is a poster on here that has access to information and they have confirmed there is a biosweapons lab in Wuhan. They don't have authorisation to post the source which is understandable.

    Have the tin foil hats sold out as well as the masks?


  • #4926
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Have the tin foil hats sold out as well as the masks?

    They actually converted the hats into tinfoil masks and shipped them to family in China, global shortage so it means the lizard people will be unstoppable.


  • Advertisement
  • #4927
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,298 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Wrong!

    0.01% of all flu cases result in death. It's a far higher number for hospitalised cases. The 2.5% corona virus figure is only hospitalised cases. I outlined this in my first post which you attacked.

    Maybe you should learn some comprehension skills.

    That's actually not the case. Around 2.5 to 3% of lab-confirmed cases appear to be fatal.
    In Wuhan it was 4.3% of hospitalised lab-confirmed cases.

    You are probably right to say there are many times more unconfirmed cases but there is no science to back that up. With flu, there are centuries of epidemiology.

    Coronavirus:
    Approx. 17% of confirmed cases hospitalised.
    Approx. 1/3 of those ICU (5.5% of confirmed)
    Approx. 6/36 of those died, but more than half of the total are still in hospital, so that part is a large variable.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761044


  • #4928
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Wrong!

    0.01% of all flu cases result in death. It's a far higher number for hospitalised cases. The 2.5% corona virus figure is only hospitalised cases. I outlined this in my first post which you attacked.

    Maybe you should learn some comprehension skills.

    No, you’re wrong.

    The 2.5% is not of hospitalised cases, it’s of confirmed cases.
    Death rate among patients admitted to hospital
    A study on 138 hospitalized patients with 2019-nCoV infection, published on February 7 on JAMA, found that 26% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 4.3% died, but a number of patients were still hospitalized at the time. [9]

    A previous study had found that, out of 41 admitted hospital patients, 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died.[5]

    Days from first symptom to death
    The Wang et al. February 7 study published on JAMA found that the median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days.[9]

    Previously. the China National Health Commission reported the details of the first 17 deaths up to 24 pm 22 Jan 2020. A study of these cases found that the median days from first symptom to death were 14 (range 6-41) days, and tended to be shorter among people of 70 year old or above (11.5 [range 6-19] days) than those with ages below 70 year old (20 [range 10-41] days.[6]

    Median Hospital Stay

    The JANA study found that, among those discharged alive, the median hospital stay was 10 days.[9]


  • #4929
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,283 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    No, you’re wrong.

    The 2.5% is not of hospitalised cases, it’s of confirmed cases.

    They still aren't accurate figures for comparison against flu. You have no idea of the actual number of unconfirmed cases.

    The numbers to reach these % figures are also extremely low. Taking total % figures based on 138 and 41 cases is not going to give an accurate result.


  • #4930
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    BloodBath wrote: »
    They still aren't accurate figures for comparison against flu. You have no idea of the actual number of unconfirmed cases.

    I did caveat the death rate by saying we wouldn’t know the exact figures until it was over.
    Of course you won’t know the official death rate until it’s over.
    The numbers to reach these % figures are also extremely low. Taking total % figures based on 138 and 41 cases is not going to give an accurate result.

    The 2.5% is based on all confirmed cases, again not an exact science at the moment as it’s ongoing.


  • #4931
    Panrich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,234 ✭✭✭Panrich


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    No, you’re wrong.

    The 2.5% is not of hospitalised cases, it’s of confirmed cases.

    The oft quoted 138 cases were not just normal hospital corona virus patients. They all had pneumonia which is a severe complication.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761044


  • Advertisement
  • #4932
    laurah591
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭laurah591


    fritzelly wrote: »
    These are the latest figures from the offical Hubei government site



    Can anyone explain why they do not match what is being reported elsewhere like BNO?

    What is the link for this source information? Im just looking to track back... but since China changed reporting format - finding this difficult


  • #4933
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,298 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Panrich wrote: »
    The oft quoted 136 cases were not just normal hospital corona virus patients. They all had pneumonia which is a severe complication.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761044

    I had noticed that, and yesterday I quoted it with an explanation that Dr. Campbell seems to be very sure of the 17% admission figure. He seems to have made a very educated assumption that they only admit those with pneumonia, therefore the figures would be one and the same.

    I stand to be corrected


  • #4934
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,299 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    I did caveat the death rate by saying we wouldn’t know the exact figures until it was over.

    We know nothing really if you take in the Chinese figures, I mean is that the truth anyway that they are telling. Watching this thread with bemusement, mordid curiosity and at times, horror. Some posts can be uplifting with hopeful news only to be destroyed by the next post's facts and figures bringing you back to reality. :)

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • #4935
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    laurah591 wrote: »
    What is the link for this source information? Im just looking to track back... but since China changed reporting format - finding this difficult

    http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/dtyw/202002/t20200212_2024650.shtml


  • #4936
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,299 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    First American evacuees released from quarantine, isn't that a little too soon, I thought they would be detained longer and tested that they weren't contagious.

    https://www.ft.com/content/5b6b6130-e8d1-3601-8fd1-48b758635735

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • #4937
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    bodhrandude wrote: »
    First American evacuees released from quarantine, isn't that a little too soon, I thought they would be detained longer and tested that they weren't contagious.

    https://www.ft.com/content/5b6b6130-e8d1-3601-8fd1-48b758635735

    I guess if none are showing symptoms then fairly safe - even tho the incubation can be longer it's highly unlikely no one would come down with symptoms earlier if the infection existed

    Need better online sources - FT is behind a paywall


  • #4938
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    fritzelly wrote: »
    I guess if none are showing symptoms then fairly safe - even tho the incubation can be longer it's highly unlikely no one would come down with symptoms earlier if the infection existed

    Need better online sources - FT is behind a paywall

    Non paywall source

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/02/11/804915231/195-americans-are-released-from-coronavirus-quarantine-at-california-air-base

    Standard 14 days quarantine, unless something changes that's what it will be in most countries.


  • #4939
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    They're all screwed

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1227379549127761920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1227379549127761920&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Ff2hlpf%3Fresponsive%3Dtrue%26is_nightmode%3Dfalse


  • #4940
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    fritzelly wrote: »
    They're all screwed

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1227379549127761920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1227379549127761920&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Ff2hlpf%3Fresponsive%3Dtrue%26is_nightmode%3Dfalse

    10 days since the first case on that ship, what's the fatality rate on that ship so far?


  • #4941
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    tuxy wrote: »
    10 days since the first case on that ship, what's the fatality rate on that ship so far?

    Zero - but that doesn't make the news as terrifying
    One American woman saying she's recovered but still in hospital


  • Advertisement
  • #4942
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,283 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    sdanseo wrote: »
    That's actually not the case. Around 2.5 to 3% of lab-confirmed cases appear to be fatal.
    In Wuhan it was 4.3% of hospitalised lab-confirmed cases.

    You are probably right to say there are many times more unconfirmed cases but there is no science to back that up. With flu, there are centuries of epidemiology.

    Coronavirus:
    Approx. 17% of confirmed cases hospitalised.
    Approx. 1/3 of those ICU (5.5% of confirmed)
    Approx. 6/36 of those died, but more than half of the total are still in hospital, so that part is a large variable.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761044

    I'm still a lot more right than those throwing around a 20% death rate and 200 times deadlier than the flu comments.

    Those hospitalised figures are still lower than those that die from flu after being hospitalised. Yet nobody challenges outrageous false statements like 200 times deadlier than the flu.


  • #4943
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Based on what mathematics? Impossible to determine with very limited information.

    So much sensationalist fear mongering click bait stories been said and linked here as facts. Fear sells if you let it.

    Its not scare mongering, it is widely believed to have a mortality rate of around 2%, as stated by WHO, CDC, and multiple other experts in the field, I have not seen any high profile spokesperson in the field claim it to be only as dangerous as the flu.


  • #4944
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,939 ✭✭✭✭josip


    They've really f***ed up with their handling of the cruise ship.
    How long before the passengers revolt and try to escape the experiment.
    Are they locked in their cabins or simply 'confined' ?


  • #4945
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,283 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Its not scare mongering, it is widely believed to have a mortality rate of around 2%, as stated by WHO, CDC, and multiple other experts in the field, I have not seen any high profile spokesperson in the field claim it to be only as dangerous as the flu.

    Based on completely flawed mathmatics as I have already pointed out.

    They have no idea of the number of unconfirmed cases which is always going to be a lot higher than the confirmed ones.

    How about comparing 2 numbers we do have access to. Mortality rate for those hospitalised with flu vs corona virus.


  • #4946
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    josip wrote: »
    They've really f***ed up with their handling of the cruise ship.
    How long before the passengers revolt and try to escape the experiment.
    Are they locked in their cabins or simply 'confined' ?

    Last I heard they were allowed out in groups to try and minimize the spread - make sense of that how you like when they are going to the same places as other infected. They should have had separate areas for them to go to
    Obviously it's likely they will all end up contracting it at some point at this rate
    The cabins (from the guests reporting) have no windows but their own air supply - I'd have cabin fever by now if I was them


  • #4947
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Based on completely flawed mathmatics as I have already pointed out.

    They have no idea of the number of unconfirmed cases which is always going to be a lot higher than the confirmed ones.

    How about comparing 2 numbers we do have access to. Mortality rate for those hospitalised with flu vs corona virus.

    No one is going to know the real rate for months to come - they are just using modelling based on experience as to what it would likely be
    Even with the flu there is a massive number that are never part of the numbers - they just use projections. The death rate of flu could in actual fact be 0.001% - we don't all report in that we have flu for a 100% reporting


  • #4948
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,878 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Japan's Quarantine Officer (newly diagnosed) likely caught the virus from the same ship


  • #4949
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    So that increases the chance of it being airborne.
    I can't think of how it would still be spreading like that without going through the air vents.


  • #4950
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,283 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    fritzelly wrote: »
    No one is going to know the real rate for months to come - they are just using modelling based on experience as to what it would likely be
    Even with the flu there is a massive number that are never part of the numbers - they just use projections. The death rate of flu could in actual fact be 0.001% - we don't all report in that we have flu for a 100% reporting

    That's all fine and dandy but maybe people should stop saying blatantly false crap like anywhere near 20% death rate or 200 times deadlier than the flu then.

    Only adding to the scaremongering.


  • Advertisement
  • #4951
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Based on completely flawed mathmatics as I have already pointed out.

    They have no idea of the number of unconfirmed cases which is always going to be a lot higher than the confirmed ones.

    How about comparing 2 numbers we do have access to. Mortality rate for those hospitalised with flu vs corona virus.

    They are disease experts who know a lot more than you do, do you not think theyve foreseen this issue?Or used other historical precedent situations to help them estimate? I'm sure there are other means of prediction they have tapped into to come to this proposed figure, I think youll have to give them a bit more credit if you think they calculated based on simply dividing the total deaths by lab confirmed cases


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement