Coronavirus - a real season spoiling threat?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Postpone, play behind closed doors or carry on?

  • Total voters
    554

Working Class Hero said:
From football, large events and workplaces - they are.
Click to expand...
In the role of peacemaker, may I suggest that the differences of view here are partly because 2 different things are being put together. There are 2 separate aims involved. One is to slow down the spread of the virus, so that the NHS and business can cope better (delay allows better preparation, and fewer cases at any one time). The other is to reduce the number of deaths by offering greater protection to vulnerable groups (who will in part be better protected if the NHS is not overwhelmed). There is still much planning being done as the situation evolves in order to achieve both aims, and the plans will have to be constantly modified in the light of experience.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting discussion:

We refer to how widespread something is as the "prevalence". This represents the number of people who have the disease, it can be a one off snapshot, taken on a certain date, (which is what we are currently seeing reported now when they say things like "100 people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus"), or it can be taken over a longer period of time. One off snapshots are not particularly informative because it only counts those alive on that date, whereas, looking at the prevalence over a longer period of time gives a more accurate picture, as it includes mortality rates as well. Prevalence may be reported as a fraction/percentage of the total population, although that's not terribly helpful either. What is most relevant is to express the prevalence as a fraction/percentage of the total population "at risk".

"Incidence" is the number of new cases reported within a set period of time. Similar to prevalence, it is far more meaningful if it's expressed as a fraction/percentage of the population "at risk" rather than the total population. The thing about "incidence" is it depends on being able to accurately diagnose and report the disease - and that's not always possible. Quite often we have no idea what the real numbers are because many may be undiagnosed and untreated. That's why I'm sceptical about comparing "incidence" rates between different outbreaks. Another option would be to look at number of new cases treated because that provides a more robust figure.

There is an intrinsic relationship between prevalence, incidence and mortality rates, which tell us how the disease is progressing. Put simply, the disease will continue to spread, i.e. prevalence increases, until such a time as the mortality rate = the incidence.

I refer to the mortality rate of the swine flu pandemic, purely because you (or someone) was using the current incidence rate of coronavirus to make the argument that coronavirus was more dangerous. So we are agreeing then, that this comparison cannot be made at this stage. And therefore it is wrong to be making statements that this is a more dangerous disease than pandemic flu. As I've said all along...we just don't know yet. I totally agree that it needs to be taken seriously, but it's the interpretation of what that means that I have a problem with. All the things in your last paragraph are examples of paranoia and ignorance. I totally agree with you on that as well.

I've just come off the telephone to my colleague this afternoon. He's a Professor of Microbiology. We have several educational programmes planned this year in Europe, Latin America, India and particularly South East Asia. He asked me if I thought some of the conferences/training events would still be going ahead, because of concerns over coronavirus. I told him that I expected that we would be impacted and some would have to be postponed. I'm supposed to be at an international congress in Switzerland next week on antimicrobial resistance, but that was cancelled last week due to coronavirus concerns. I expressed the same concerns to him as I have done on here, that this doesn't appear anything like the threat from previous pandemics, based on what we know so far. His response was, (and he referred also to the flu pandemic), "it's being hyped up out of all proportion".

And to repeat, that's not to say it isn't serious, it's not to say it couldn't have the potential to be worse than what we've known before, but it is to say that we are in danger of alarming the general public and creating panic and significant harm to our economy if we keep extrapolating out from the knowledge base and statistics that we have on it now.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Interesting discussion:

We refer to how widespread something is as the "prevalence". This represents the number of people who have the disease, it can be a one off snapshot, taken on a certain date, (which is what we are currently seeing reported now when they say things like "100 people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus"), or it can be taken over a longer period of time. One off snapshots are not particularly informative because it only counts those alive on that date, whereas, looking at the prevalence over a longer period of time gives a more accurate picture, as it includes mortality rates as well. Prevalence may be reported as a fraction/percentage of the total population, although that's not terribly helpful either. What is most relevant is to express the prevalence as a fraction/percentage of the total population "at risk".

"Incidence" is the number of new cases reported within a set period of time. Similar to prevalence, it is far more meaningful if it's expressed as a fraction/percentage of the population "at risk" rather than the total population. The thing about "incidence" is it depends on being able to accurately diagnose and report the disease - and that's not always possible. Quite often we have no idea what the real numbers are because many may be undiagnosed and untreated. That's why I'm sceptical about comparing "incidence" rates between different outbreaks. Another option would be to look at number of new cases treated because that provides a more robust figure.

There is an intrinsic relationship between prevalence, incidence and mortality rates, which tell us how the disease is progressing. Put simply, the disease will continue to spread, i.e. prevalence increases, until such a time as the mortality rate = the incidence.

I refer to the mortality rate of the swine flu pandemic, purely because you (or someone) was using the current incidence rate of coronavirus to make the argument that coronavirus was more dangerous. So we are agreeing then, that this comparison cannot be made at this stage. And therefore it is wrong to be making statements that this is a more dangerous disease than pandemic flu. As I've said all along...we just don't know yet. I totally agree that it needs to be taken seriously, but it's the interpretation of what that means that I have a problem with. All the things in your last paragraph are examples of paranoia and ignorance. I totally agree with you on that as well.

I've just come off the telephone to my colleague this afternoon. He's a Professor of Microbiology. We have several educational programmes planned this year in Europe, Latin America, India and particularly South East Asia. He asked me if I thought some of the conferences/training events would still be going ahead, because of concerns over coronavirus. I told him that I expected that we would be impacted and some would have to be postponed. I'm supposed to be at an international congress in Switzerland next week on antimicrobial resistance, but that was cancelled last week due to coronavirus concerns. I expressed the same concerns to him as I have done on here, that this doesn't appear anything like the threat from previous pandemics, based on what we know so far. His response was, (and he referred also to the flu pandemic), "it's being hyped up out of all proportion".

And to repeat, that's not to say it isn't serious, it's not to say it couldn't have the potential to be worse than what we've known before, but it is to say that we are in danger of alarming the general public and creating panic and significant harm to our economy if we keep extrapolating out from the knowledge base and statistics that we have on it now.
Click to expand...

I think that’s all fair, and I don’t disagree with your general point on comparisons between different types of data, or on the degree of which a lot of this is still unknown. What I’m sure your colleague would advise though is that we should all consider our responses (be it public, media, government) based on the academic research expertise on this within this area (and ideally involving cross-disciplinary expertise). I can’t comment on whether one Professor of Microbiology is necessarily well-placed to offer considered comments on this, but I wouldn’t consider those that are professors of infectious disease epidemiology or virology, or experts on infectious disease modelling, to be “hyping it up”. Much as I don’t think concerns on AMR are over-hyped for what it’s worth...
 
So you are saying it's cleaner not to wash your hands after going to the toilet.

You are a fool
 
blade67 said:
So you are saying it's cleaner not to wash your hands after going to the toilet.

You are a fool
Click to expand...
If you think your hands are clean after holding the taps you’re deluded
 
blade67 said:
So you are saying it's cleaner not to wash your hands after going to the toilet.

You are a fool
Click to expand...
Facts for Mr Clean,
On average there are over 6000 bacteria per square in on the average tap.
Over 40 times more than a toilet seat.
I would multiply this 10 fold by half time at a football ground.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
I think that’s all fair, and I don’t disagree with your general point on comparisons between different types of data, or on the degree of which a lot of this is still unknown. What I’m sure your colleague would advise though is that we should all consider our responses (be it public, media, government) based on the academic research expertise on this within this area (and ideally involving cross-disciplinary expertise). I can’t comment on whether one Professor of Microbiology is necessarily well-placed to offer considered comments on this, but I wouldn’t consider those that are professors of infectious disease epidemiology or virology, or experts on infectious disease modelling, to be “hyping it up”. Much as I don’t think concerns on AMR are over-hyped for what it’s worth...
Click to expand...

Definitely agree on your last point re AMR. The World Health Organisation have described this as the biggest health threat to mankind. But it’s escaped the public attention (largely).

I didn’t say that experts in microbiology (includes virology) are hyping it up btw. They aren’t. But the way this is being communicated in the media is.

We could all be terribly wrong about this. It could be the new plague, but based on what we know so far the media response (not the WHO or other medical societies) seems premature and out of context.
 
Apparently 50% of all the cases will occur within 3 weeks of the peak of the outbreak.
And 95% of the cases will occur within a 6-week time frame of the peak.

Gonna be a rough 6 weeks
 

Cerberus Blade said:
Definitely agree on your last point re AMR. The World Health Organisation have described this as the biggest health threat to mankind. But it’s escaped the public attention (largely).

I didn’t say that experts in microbiology (includes virology) are hyping it up btw. They aren’t. But the way this is being communicated in the media is.

We could all be terribly wrong about this. It could be the new plague, but based on what we know so far the media response (not the WHO or other medical societies) seems premature and out of context.
Click to expand...
Thanks for these highly intelligent points of view. I suspect and hope that in an age where the consequence of accessible mass media communication is the ability to amplify ignorant ill founded nonsense to the point at which it becomes received wisdom, objective facts will prevail. For now, there are differing views, even within the expert community, so I just want to take sensible, proportionate precautions until the knowns are known. I very much hope that this will be nothing more than a nasty flu outbreak - we’ll see.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Interesting discussion:

We refer to how widespread something is as the "prevalence". This represents the number of people who have the disease, it can be a one off snapshot, taken on a certain date, (which is what we are currently seeing reported now when they say things like "100 people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus"), or it can be taken over a longer period of time. One off snapshots are not particularly informative because it only counts those alive on that date, whereas, looking at the prevalence over a longer period of time gives a more accurate picture, as it includes mortality rates as well. Prevalence may be reported as a fraction/percentage of the total population, although that's not terribly helpful either. What is most relevant is to express the prevalence as a fraction/percentage of the total population "at risk".

"Incidence" is the number of new cases reported within a set period of time. Similar to prevalence, it is far more meaningful if it's expressed as a fraction/percentage of the population "at risk" rather than the total population. The thing about "incidence" is it depends on being able to accurately diagnose and report the disease - and that's not always possible. Quite often we have no idea what the real numbers are because many may be undiagnosed and untreated. That's why I'm sceptical about comparing "incidence" rates between different outbreaks. Another option would be to look at number of new cases treated because that provides a more robust figure.

There is an intrinsic relationship between prevalence, incidence and mortality rates, which tell us how the disease is progressing. Put simply, the disease will continue to spread, i.e. prevalence increases, until such a time as the mortality rate = the incidence.

I refer to the mortality rate of the swine flu pandemic, purely because you (or someone) was using the current incidence rate of coronavirus to make the argument that coronavirus was more dangerous. So we are agreeing then, that this comparison cannot be made at this stage. And therefore it is wrong to be making statements that this is a more dangerous disease than pandemic flu. As I've said all along...we just don't know yet. I totally agree that it needs to be taken seriously, but it's the interpretation of what that means that I have a problem with. All the things in your last paragraph are examples of paranoia and ignorance. I totally agree with you on that as well.

I've just come off the telephone to my colleague this afternoon. He's a Professor of Microbiology. We have several educational programmes planned this year in Europe, Latin America, India and particularly South East Asia. He asked me if I thought some of the conferences/training events would still be going ahead, because of concerns over coronavirus. I told him that I expected that we would be impacted and some would have to be postponed. I'm supposed to be at an international congress in Switzerland next week on antimicrobial resistance, but that was cancelled last week due to coronavirus concerns. I expressed the same concerns to him as I have done on here, that this doesn't appear anything like the threat from previous pandemics, based on what we know so far. His response was, (and he referred also to the flu pandemic), "it's being hyped up out of all proportion".

And to repeat, that's not to say it isn't serious, it's not to say it couldn't have the potential to be worse than what we've known before, but it is to say that we are in danger of alarming the general public and creating panic and significant harm to our economy if we keep extrapolating out from the knowledge base and statistics that we have on it now.
Click to expand...


Have a day off will ya ..🎧
 
I think it's only fair that all over 60s donate their loyalty points for the final.

You know it makes sense mi dears 😜😜😜
 
My main concern here from a football perspective is if a player gets it. Let's say Fleck contracts it, not only will be isolated but the rest of the team will be quarantined for at least 2 weeks too and the games will be postponed. Then say this happens at other clubs and their games are postponed, how do you finish the season?
 
Questions that need answering.
1. Is this a bio terrorist attack? Or a bio weapons attack by another country.

Prob not.
2. Has this Corona virus that the human body might have forgotten about over 100's of thousands of years, that has laid dormant in the artic and Antarctic been released due to ice melt.

Real possibility.

3.Has it come to us on a meteorite that has survived the firery plunge through the earth's atmosphere, or from a piece of a passing deep space asteroid, that again was hidden inside the piece that survived entry through the atmosphere.

Again a real possibility.

4. With the world's population now at approx 7.7 billion and growing each year but is expected to peak in the year 2100, is the virus a secret UN black ops release to control the world's population.
Because we know mother Earth is struggling to support life as we know it now.

Crazier things have happened

5. Is it Mother Earth deciding it has had enough of us humans.
 
Gary Sinclair doing his bit at about 2:05 with a public health announcement on the coronavirus delivered to the 50 people in their seats and Verrips who had started his warm-up.
 
Repeated just now. “Call 111 if you have any symptoms”

If we’re going to go to the effort of telling people anything, might it not be worth the extra 10 seconds to remind people what the most common symptoms are? That’s probably not G-Sinc’s fault, and he’s probably just following a script sent to all clubs, but it’s basically about as useful to people as just saying “Remember – coronavirus!”
 
Now come on own up.
Who didn't wash their hands after a pee at the Lane yesterday ??
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Poll Poll
Would you rather?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Overthehills
Overthehills
Cappy
Match going fans - Anyone now feeling excited?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
LS16Blade
L
Nick Jansky
  • Poll Poll
Would you prefer a trophy or a European campaign?
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Gimli
Gimli
Bladepicker
  • Poll Poll
If offered now would you take....
2 3
Replies
81
Views
5K
PeterNdlovu081
PeterNdlovu081
FMBlade1
Blackwell 2009- Could we get relegated next season?
Replies
12
Views
639
EddieColquhoun
EddieColquhoun

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom