Over 70? Get out!

[FallowfieldBlade]

According to the latest scientific information around 60 percent of the population are going to get this infection and the current death rate is between 2 and 4%.
To my calculations this means 720,000 to 1.4 million will die. truly frightening!

You sure that’s not just the worst case scenario if the government don’t put any preventive measures in place ?

Madness if true

 

[davidblade]

You sure that’s not just the worst case scenario if the government don’t put any preventive measures in place ?

Madness if true

Don’t think it is the worst case scenario. There are a few of these type of viruses about , the common cold being one and they’ve being searching for a vaccine for that for over 50 years.
The best hope is that the virus mutates and loses its virulence which was the case in swine flu , sars and mears the latter two being both species of the coronavirus

 

[anty75]

According to the latest scientific information around 60 percent of the population are going to get this infection and the current death rate is between 2 and 4%.
To my calculations this means 720,000 to 1.4 million will die. truly frightening!

Death rate should be significantly lower cause we don't know about lots of cases with mild symptoms or even without any symptoms, such people usually don't seek medical attention. Overall death rate is for sure less than 1%, even for older guys without preexisted medical problems the risk is minimal. So don't panic!

 

[Bobby b]

Sky are reporting this with no comments from anyone at The Premier League. They're loving this whole thing and this is just another thing to jump on. They've been disgusting on the whole with what they are reporting. It's not news, it's mostly hypothetical situations that are no help to nobody. From saying 80% of people "could" be asked to self isolate to saying funerals "could" be streamed online. Just report the facts.


I imagine the Premier League may warn older fans that they are in the age range of being seriously effected with the virus but I'll be amazed if over 70s are "banned". I'm not even sure how you would enforce it without huge delays to games

Have you thought that sky are leading with this story because they want to get rid of Martin Tyler(74 ) without being sued for agism

 

[anty75]

Current death rate is 2.3% but I stress its death rate of known cases. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

Don’t think it is the worst case scenario. There are a few of these type of viruses about , the common cold being one and they’ve being searching for a vaccine for that for over 50 years.
The best hope is that the virus mutates and loses its virulence which was the case in swine flu , sars and mears the latter two being both species of the coronavirus

Agreed pretty scary , hopefully it fizzles out after a month of distruption

 

[davidblade]

Death rate should be significantly lower cause we don't know about lots of cases with mild symptoms or even without any symptoms, such people usually don't seek medical attention. Overall death rate is for sure less than 1%, even for older guys without preexisted medical problems the risk is minimal. So don't panic!

Possibly true the amount of true infection is unknown but the amount of deaths in China appear very worrying and now in Italy 100s are dying every day

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

Possibly true the amount of true infection is unknown but the amount of deaths in China appear very worrying and now in Italy 100s are dying every day

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The problem with this is the authoritarian, "nanny state" attitude. Advise people of the risks, fine, keep people informed, but the decision to take the risk should lie with the person, not the state.

Not in all situations. If you want to use governments’ approach to smoking as an example, the lesson from that is that the state will take firmer action to restrict what you can legally do where that doesn’t impact on the health of others around you, which is why the smoke free laws in enclosed public places was brought in. If you apply the same principle to infection control, the issue is again about protecting people from having their health negatively impacted through the behaviour of others.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Not in all situations. If you want to use governments’ approach to smoking as an example, the lesson from that is that the state will take firmer action to restrict what you can legally do where that doesn’t impact on the health of others around you, which is why the smoke free laws in enclosed public places was brought in. If you apply the same principle to infection control, the issue is again about protecting people from having their health negatively impacted through the behaviour of others.

Ah, no, don't agree there. (Am I right in thinking you've mistakingly added a negative in there (highlighted)? )
The other bit of my post (that you chopped off ) was:

Of course, the other side of the coin is that it is the state's responsibility. It is the same argument with smoking, where the state gets involved with trying to disuade people from smoking. People say it's not for the state to decide, but it has to be pointed out that we have handed the state a mandate to look after our health (and to fund it); we can't have it both ways.

You are suggesting they are mostly concerned with how smoking affects others around you, but they have been using a tax to increase prices to put people off, restricting how and where you can by them and putting frightening pictures on the packaging - that's all aimed at the smoker, not bystanders.
My point really was the two opposite sides to it - it's a balancing act. I always tend towards the freedom of the individual, but there's no denying a responsibility of government to deal with this situation (not least because, as I say, we've placed our healthcare in their hands).

 

[davidblade]

He’s a happy fellow isn’t he

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Ah, no, don't agree there. (Am I right in thinking you've mistakingly added a negative in there (highlighted)? )
The other bit of my post (that you chopped off ) was:

You are suggesting they are mostly concerned with how smoking affects others around you, but they have been using a tax to increase prices to put people off, restricting how and where you can by them and putting frightening pictures on the packaging - that's all aimed at the smoker, not bystanders.
My point really was the two opposite sides to it - it's a balancing act. I always tend towards the freedom of the individual, but there's no denying a responsibility of government to deal with this situation (not least because, as I say, we've placed our healthcare in their hands).

Accidental negative there indeed, I think rereading it that I might have also misread what you were saying. I chopped off the other bit because I didn’t disagree with the responsibility of action to discourage harmful activity – quite the opposite in fact. I was more trying to point out that the example of smoking is an area where you have not just the advertising or point-of-sale limitations or public health advice (which falls more in the encouraging healthier behaviour space) but also into the harder legislative tools side of it (eg limiting what an individual can legally do).

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

He’s a happy fellow isn’t he

Knows his onions tho

 

[XM657]

We could just have a 'bring out your dead' break at half time.

At full time any corpses left over in the stands can be gathered up and both lots piled up in a corner somewhere for the council to take away

Only if there in the right coloured bin and the lids shut.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Accidental negative there indeed, I think rereading it that I might have also misread what you were saying. I chopped off the other bit because I didn’t disagree with the responsibility of action to discourage harmful activity – quite the opposite in fact. I was more trying to point out that the example of smoking is an area where you have not just the advertising or point-of-sale limitations or public health advice (which falls more in the encouraging healthier behaviour space) but also into the harder legislative tools side of it (eg limiting what an individual can legally do).

Obviously smoking has its limits as an analogy, but I find it shows how people want to be able to do what they want, despite it having (possible) negative health consequences, yet complain when the state doesn't do enough to look after them when they're ill. There's no right or wrong answer to it, I find it interesting. The similarity with Coronavirus is people saying they don't want to be told what they can and can't do, yet expect the government to act in preventing the spread of the virus. Again, I don't expect there will be any clearly defined right answer.