Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    How do you even know thats from coronavirus.

    You shouldn't just drop that into the thread when it could be completely unrelated.

    People here are worried enough as it is.

    With good cause. Pretending this isn't a massive worry is just bizarre but hey maybe the world health organization are just big drama queens.


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


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Your post is all over the shop, annual death rate for the flu is .01%.

    I’d advise you to do your research before you come in here f-ing and blinding out of yourself.

    I'd advise you to read my post again. Where did I f-ing anything? I was talking about hospitalised cases only vs hospitalised corona virus cases. We don't have any idea of how many recovered at home from it.

    People are saying 20% death rate on corona virus and 200 times higher death rate than the flu but you have no issue with those completely baseless figures.


  • #4924
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Oh right. I missed that. Regardless the % shouldn't change much when brought worldwide.

    I don't see how people are getting 20% figure from coronvirus though.



    In what ways? I'd imagine quarantines are mainly precautionary and they do have a large population so even with low deaths rates it could kill millions if no efforts were made to control it.

    0.01% for the flu, 2.5% for the Coronavirus.


  • #4925
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,654 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    Is it safe to go to Chinese restaurants? I know one, they shut down for 3 weeks for Chinese New Year, they all went back to China, will be back next week. They'll walk straight back into Ireland and open shop, surely that's dangerous?


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


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Some real head in the sand stuff here tonight.

    Which is better, that or the guys that have a direct line to CIA Intel?
    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    The CIA say it's China's most advanced bio weapons facility of a far different scale to what you are referencing.

    If you want balance you are in the wrong place.


  • Advertisement
  • #4927
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Because they know they dropped the ball big time at the start of this and are pulling out all the stops to get it under control to save face and because their economy depends on it. It's not like they're averse to using such extreme methods against their citizens in normal circumstances, this is just an extension of that

    But what are they afraid of if more people have the flu, the death rate is low hence they are being dramatic like us here?

    They've never quarantined their whole country in their home, no. Even for them that is unprecedented and risky across almost every dimension.


  • #4928
    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?


  • #4929
    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.


  • #4930
    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?


  • #4931
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #4932
    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.


  • #4933
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭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


  • #4934
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭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]


  • #4935
    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.


  • #4936
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭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.


  • #4937
    Panrich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,069 ✭✭✭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


  • #4938
    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


  • #4939
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭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


  • #4940
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,067 ✭✭✭✭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)



  • #4941
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,544 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #4942
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,067 ✭✭✭✭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)



  • #4943
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,544 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #4944
    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.


  • #4945
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,544 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #4946
    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?


  • #4947
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,544 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #4948
    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.


  • #4949
    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.


  • #4950
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭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' ?


  • Advertisement
  • #4951
    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement