Coronavirus - a real season spoiling threat?

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

If you think you're off to Wembley to see the Blades for the first time in a Cup Final in our lifetimes, and leave me locked up for the day, have another think...
Signed:
HodgysBrokenThumb, age 72 and three-quarters
(On behalf of all old Blades)
PS And don't come asking for my loyalty points, either...

Well said, HodgysBrokenThumb

Signed BornOnShorehamStreet
69 and three quarters

 

[Harry's Game]

Expert on disease control on the Radio this morning said

“if sports events do have to take place behind closed doors it shouldn’t be seen as a major issue and it wouldn’t be for ever, just the next 6 or 9 months or so”

They just don’t get it, that would be catastrophic,

 

[jt64]

What is the major issue here that you're more likely to die from:

a) a stampede on the Moor when someone announces that Primark are selling face masks (country of origin: China) at only 2000% mark up
b) a terrorist attack that'd normally run as headline news but isn't noticed as all media are running cover to cover coronavirus hysteria

Than you are from the actual virus itself. For once Trump's right

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I’m not really sure what you mean. There is enough data to make a good estimate of the level of danger – frankly the approach to outbreak control isn’t to simply wait till the number of infected reaches flu levels so that you can make a nice direct comparison between the basic statistics to see how serious it is, but to make considered estimates of the danger based on the data available, the mechanisms of the virus, the means it’s spread, the likelihood of it being spread widely, the infrastructure for national response etc. The mortality rates are based on the data that we have. There had been an assumption from some that this would go down as more data (eg. those infected but with less serious symptoms) was confirmed – it might, but if anything the extra data that’s come in over the last month or so has reinforced that rate estimate.

What I mean is, you are taking a pandemic, let's use the swine flu of 2009 in the chart I posted, which had an incidence of less than 1% (I recall it was 0.026%) and saying that because the incidence rate of covid -19 is currently 1%, it is more dangerous. I disagree with this, because that incidence rate can change (up or down) depending on the size of the sample.

We have had just over 100 cases of covid - 19 to date - take a look at the chart below...



This chart shows the number of swine flu cases per week, in the UK in 2009. Not 100, but almost 120,000 at its peak. You cannot make comparisons between the two at this stage, given the vast difference in numbers. Remember, my position is this: I'm not saying covid-19 is less dangerous, or more dangerous, I'm just saying we don't know yet. I think that's a sensible approach, because what we don't need any more of, are alarmist statements coming from wherever.

I do understand about Outbreak Control btw. I've worked in this field for about 30 years now. If you go back to the other "coronavirus" thread, in the General Chat section, you'll see what was probably the first response I made on this topic, and all the things you mention above about rate of transmission, the national response, etc., are covered. I totally agree with that part of your argument. But we have to strike a balance here between making the general public aware and responsible, and scaring the life out of them for no good reason. There are massive consequences to how we communicate about this responsibly.

The most concerning thing for me about this covid-19 is that we don't understand how it is being transmitted currently. Now that IS different to the flu pandemic I refer to. If we don't know how it is being spread then we can't really do much to stop it. That's the main issue for me, not comparing relative incident rates of death from two totally different things.

 

[norfolkblade]

You ever been to Norwich?

We're so far behind we haven't even had Spanish Flu yet

 

[dazzlingblade]

Why?

Have they signed an improperly registered player, been caught, lied and then played him again?

ISC Tendering to the terminally stupid, since 2015....

Jesus pal, it was a joke, I was mccabe's biggest supporter on here

 

[I should coco]

Jesus pal, it was a joke, I was mccabe's biggest supporter on here

If that's the case, please accept my humble apologies.

I'm getting a bit knobbed off with the historical revisionism which has KM as some evil robber baron who lined his pockets and the Prince as the second coming.

 

[Bladesman]

If that's the case, please accept my humble apologies.

I'm getting a bit knobbed off with the historical revisionism which has KM as some evil robber baron who lined his pockets and the Prince as the second coming.

To be fair McCabe does like a bit of legal action.

 

[I should coco]

To be fair McCabe does like a bit of legal action.

We all know we were shafted by Scudamore, Sir Trev and the PL, so he had nowhere else to turn. I don't recall many saying it was a bad thing, or that the £24m from the CheatinAmmers should be given to charity.

Re the action against the Prince, it was the action of a desperate man. A stupidly drafted agreement left him nowhere to turn and although he looked onto a loser from the start, it was a £100m gamble he had to take.

I don't think he's taken legal action against anyone else, although if he had some lawyers keen on libel, they'd be kept busy on here.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

and saying that because the incidence rate of covid -19 is currently 1%, it is more dangerous

That's the main issue for me, not comparing relative incident rates of death from two totally different things.

You seem to be comparing/confusing incidence (actual occurrence) with incidence rates, and incidence rates (the likelihood of occurrence in a population) with mortality rates (likelihood of death in the population with the disease/infection). Incidence data is generally compiled over a much longer time period to give you a rate of incidence. Over a short-term period it‘s useful to have the incidence data to be aware of the scale of the problem, but this is a completely different piece of information.

Comparing the incidence of one infection like swine flu, an infection with a mortality rate of 0.026%, with this is at this stage a bit pointless. The increased mortality rate, combined with the unknowns (eg. as you mention on transmissibility), combined with the risk of wider infection as determined by those that work in this area, is why it’s rightly being treated as seriously it is by WHO, PHE etc.

One of the worst things in terms of scaremongering incidentally is for individual companies to implement policies to respond to this that aren‘t based on any national public health advice. Starbucks and train operators banning use of reusable cups is one example of that. The Premier League banning handshakes is another.

 

[Bladesman]

We all know we were shafted by Scudamore, Sir Trev and the PL, so he had nowhere else to turn. I don't recall many saying it was a bad thing, or that the £24m from the CheatinAmmers should be given to charity.

Re the action against the Prince, it was the action of a desperate man. A stupidly drafted agreement left him nowhere to turn and although he looked onto a loser from the start, it was a £100m gamble he had to take.

I don't think he's taken legal action against anyone else, although if he had some lawyers keen on libel, they'd be kept busy on here.

The joke still stands though. McCabe goes legal sometimes.

 

[burtonstreetblade]

Well said, HodgysBrokenThumb

Signed BornOnShorehamStreet
69 and three quarters

Only a whipper snapper but been hoping for nearly 60 years that this is our year.
Meet you in the Green Man.
Signed Burtonstreetblade
65 and a bit

 

[Brownieblade]

Chris Morgan is currently shedding a tear for the suspension of his favourite aspects of the game.

View attachment 73065

So when Suarez refused to shake Evra hand it was really because he thought Evra had the Flu??

Makes sense

 

[AWetFlannel]

Love the way people say, 'it's only the elderly, weak and those close to death anyway who are at risk' as if that's alright.

I'm 25, but have bad asthma and a weak immune system. I would like to report I feel it'd be a reyt tragedy if I died now after 6 years of LG1 - I've not found my peace, inevitably waiting for the end.

 

[davidblade]

A couple of finely thought out posts on the subject. I disagree with your predicted solution though.
At risk groups include, the very young, who will obviously enjoy the parental protection they deserve from caring parents. Those who are already suffering from some pulmonary calamity, and are therefore, hopefully under professional care of a GP or an NHS hospital.
The elderly with diminished immune systems are largely house bound and therefore unlikely to present a risk to the unaffected remainder.
These groups are the least likely to be attending sporting events and becoming infected, and if they have the virus already, are not in a position to transmit it to others.
Shopping, partying and attending concerts or sporting events are hardly likely to attract at risk groups, and the largely healthy people that do attend, will not increase the number of fatalities, because they have a robust immune system.
Talk of banning events and closing schools and universities is both premature and pointless. Please let the media know this.

The point about closing schools , universities,and banning events , is to stop the spread to the ageing or people with a weaker immune system or at least to spread the infection out over longer period , so that the NHS has the ability to treat as many people as possible to the highest standard

 

[Charlieblade]

The point about closing schools , universities,and banning events , is to stop the spread to the ageing or people with a weaker immune system or at least to spread the infection out over longer period , so that the NHS has the ability to treat as many people as possible to the highest standard

Shopping, partying and attending concerts or sporting events are hardly likely to attract at risk groups, and the largely healthy people that do attend, will not increase the number of fatalities, because they have a robust immune system.
I repeated this because someone seems to have missed the point regarding those at risk of fatality. They are not likely to be shopping, partying or attending major events, and therefore unlikely to catch, or spread the virus.

 

[davidblade]

Shopping, partying and attending concerts or sporting events are hardly likely to attract at risk groups, and the largely healthy people that do attend, will not increase the number of fatalities, because they have a robust immune system.
I repeated this because someone seems to have missed the point regarding those at risk of fatality. They are not likely to be shopping, partying or attending major events, and therefore unlikely to catch, or spread the virus.

I think you don’t understand infection control

 

[Charlieblade]

I think you don’t understand infection control

Fair enough. I’ve said my piece.

 

[AWetFlannel]

Fair enough. I’ve said my piece.

What davidblade is saying is that the more people that catch it who are not at risk of fatality, the further the infection will spread to people who are at risk.
Eg. A young women goes shopping, catches the virus, and drops off some eggs at her grandmother's house.

Or, the not at risk people that take the risk and catch the virus then increase the risk to those at risk, therefore increasing the risk amongst those at all risk levels of riskiness.

 

[TAMUS]

You have a piss or a shit then you get hold of a tap that’s covered in everyone else’s shit,you wash your hands then get hold of the same
shit infested tap to under the illusion that your hands are clean.

Lane Bogs have advanced and taps , are thump and squirt type and are spring return , wash your hads with confidence , its not the 1950`s sty .

 

[Charlieblade]

What davidblade is saying is that the more people that catch it who are not at risk of fatality, the further the infection will spread to people who are at risk.
Eg. A young women goes shopping, catches the virus, and drops off some eggs at her grandmother's house.

Or, the not at risk people that take the risk and catch the virus then increase the risk to those at risk, therefore increasing the risk amongst those at all risk levels of riskiness.

I do get the point. My issue is that generations are too risk averse these days. Instead of relying on common sense, people have become used to authorities thinking for them and telling them what they need to do.
If only people could be encouraged to think for themselves and deploy common sense, there would be no need for draconian measures to be deployed. Sadly younger generations rely on others to do their thinking for them. The current younger generations require opportunities to show their responsibility and critical thinking skills.
The media and governments are only too happy to do it for them.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Shopping, partying and attending concerts or sporting events are hardly likely to attract at risk groups

1. people that are infected at one of those events may then infect at-risk groups. If these are cancelled it’ll be because the authorities have determined it’s reached a point where the likelihood of this is raised.

2. At the moment the following groups have been determined to carry a higher risk of serious illness should they become infected with Covid-19:

• the elderly (>65 years)
• people with an underlying chronic condition (particularly respiratory or cardiovascular)

It’s either of the above, not both (though if you are in both categories, that’s very likely worse) – there seems to be a slight misconception that you have to be old and have an underlying condition. I’m 37, but I fall into the secondary category. It’s the same reason I’m in the at-risk category for seasonal flu and get a free flu vaccination every year.

 

[guancheblade]

I doubt playing football games behind closed doors will make any difference. Are they planning on closing Meadowhall, the London Underground, Glastonbury and Brighton beach?

I wouldn't rule it out! I singled out football because hey ho this is a football discussion forum. But the theory can be extended to all walks of life.

The outbreak is on a trajectory that should it continue at this pace, drastic measures will be inevitable, football related or otherwise.

 

[Charlieblade]

Thank you LB. I am aware of the at risk groups and the attached criteria.
I’m sure you apply common sense and take precautions due to your susceptibility. The only reason for deploying draconian measures, is because we are not trusted to be sensible about it.
In my view, there is a risk, but it can be managed sensibly. I’m not expecting medical advice or governments to allow such risks.

 

[AWetFlannel]

I do get the point. My issue is that generations are too risk averse these days. Instead of relying on common sense, people have become used to authorities thinking for them and telling them what they need to do.
If only people could be encouraged to think for themselves and deploy common sense, there would be no need for draconian measures to be deployed. Sadly younger generations rely on others to do their thinking for them. The current younger generations require opportunities to show their responsibility and critical thinking skills.
The media and governments are only too happy to do it for them.

As I work my way through my History degree, I can safely conclude that thinking for yourself and using common sense has never been a common attribute in any society to date.

 

[Oldun]

Asthma, diabetes, cancer. I bet most people on here know someone with one of these. That’s just three conditions that are likely to increase the risk and severity of symptoms. These are the people who we should be trying to protect by slowing down the spread. It’s not just the elderly that will be affected. It fine saying I’m alright I’m young and fit but think about your family and friends and I bet everyone knows someone who will be at higher risk. And it’s just ignorant to say that these people shouldn’t be attending football matches or other large gatherings. They still have lives to lead, and the more this spreads the harder it will be to avoid it.

 

[davidblade]

Thank you LB. I am aware of the at risk groups and the attached criteria.
I’m sure you apply common sense and take precautions due to your susceptibility. The only reason for deploying draconian measures, is because we are not trusted to be sensible about it.
In my view, there is a risk, but it can be managed sensibly. I’m not expecting medical advice or governments to allow such risks.

I honestly don’t think infection control is totally about common sense as rubbing of eyes and mouths are almost involuntary actions .
Despite government advise on washing hands etc surface to people transmission is going to happen despite common sense and the best available advice , it’s going to be a numbers game.
The prime purpose of government is to protect the people and if they are advised by the best scientific people on how to do this they should follow their advise what ever it may be

 

[Charlieblade]

As I work my way through my History degree, I can safely conclude that thinking for yourself and using common sense has never been a common attribute in any society to date.

Agreed, but I still believe the best response to this should be led by the public. The media have certainly over reacted to it, and I fear that the government will do the same, in the interests of the minority of those too dumb to do it for themselves, everyone must suffer.
We are no longer allowed to have the public coerce the wantonly stupid minority, mores the pity.
I am closing on 66 years of age, and have 3 teenage sons in UK, so my views are based on trust for them. There mother is an NHS radiographer who will have a far better grip on this than I do.
My wider family are mostly older than me, so also in at risk groups. I trust them more than the media or the government, who will no doubt want to throw a big wet blanket over everyone, just in case.

 

[guancheblade]

Good point. Not sure if cancelling football matches will make that much difference.

I heard an estimate that as many as 1 in 5 could catch it
and for those that have this flu.l...I’ve heard that as many as 1 in 200 could die......mainly the very weak/ elderly.
Could be many 10,000’s dying but it will only be people closish to death anyway.

Actually using some basic arithmetic.
If the population of the UK is 60 million, then a worse case scenario is as many as 12 million could have the flu.
So 12 million divide by 200 means 60,000 could die.

But I’ll repeat it again....these 60,000 people will be weak and elderly already being close the death.
Think the government are more concerned about the wheels of industry slowing right down because of so many people are off sick at the same time.

Yeah!! F*** old and weak people

 

[Charlieblade]

I honestly don’t think infection control is totally about common sense as rubbing of eyes and mouths are almost involuntary actions .
Despite government advise on washing hands etc surface to people transmission is going to happen despite common sense and the best available advice , it’s going to be a numbers game.
The prime purpose of government is to protect the people and if they are advised by the best scientific people on how to do this they should follow their advise what ever it may be

All valid points, but do you trust the government to act in good faith, purely on scientific, medical expertise. I don’t., because politicians are always agenda driven.