Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

There's also the argument that an uncomfortable mask will make you frequently readjust and fiddle with it, thus touching your face more than you would have if you didn't wear one in the first place.

Chop your hands off seems a sensible self prevention.

Definitely Private Eye, the latest edition.

I wear glasses, I touch my face all the time to touch my glasses. I have worn them for 30 years. No way am I going to be able to learn to stop touching my face.

@Señor_Bear

You must be similar?

We all just need to take some small precautions when going about our day to day. Nothing too extreme.

I complained to Dov on whatsapp about this, I blame rapha.

🤣

This is a nice look.

Just seen that it's in Scotland now.

Was nice knowing y'all.

Believe it is from private eye, what do you think?

They are right that people shouldn't panic and that washing your hands is the best thing you can to to protect yourself. However, as is typical of the Eye, they're being disingenuous with the facts to get there.

In the U.S. 'boring old' flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%. So far this year it's 0.05%. The mortality rate of COVID-19 isn't really known yet, but the best guess is 1%. It's hard to say, but it certainly appears to be much higher than bog standard flu. Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill.

This is why it should be taken seriously. I don't know anyone who has died of the flu. But if COVID-19 does kill 1% of people, well, the average American knows 600 people. So it's reasonable to say that if COVID-19 has a mortality rate anywhere near that which it appears to have, it's likely we will all know someone who will be killed by it...

Sources, because unlike the Eye I think it's important to attribute my facts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51674743
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-myths.html

If it kills 10% of our old people that will fundamentally change society. Politics, housing, pensions, Wetherspoon's.

It will be absolutely insane.

Just to clarify. I really hope it doesn't.

This...

I thought the 1% was mortality of those with the virus, not the general population?

Might be wrong though.

I think people are starting to assume that everyone is going to get it at some point.

You're comparing two different rates at the moment you know that right?
Mortality is when it's all over.
You need to use the case fatality rate (CFR). While technically they might look the same, number of deaths divided by number of cases, they're not really. We don't know the number of cases, for many reasons. China. Asymptomatic. People not going to get tested. Misdiagnosis. Changing case definition(normal). Different populations.

So you'll need to do some rate ratio / rate / attack rate etc comparisons.
To call md disengenious is a bit, erm, misleading? Phil Hammond , for it is him, is a very engaged, fair, and evidence based person.

Yes. It is a worry. Yes. There is very little you can do, apart from wash your hands, don't go to mass gatherings, don't panic buy, don't travel unnecessarily.

The mortality rate is :
Number of deaths / number of cases

To get a better understanding of who is going to die, you probably want to know who has died.
Then you'll want to do some sort of comparison of age,gender, where people live (is how poor they are). Before comparing the rate of mortality for people like you who get infected.

Oops, yes you're right. But that's the thing we definitely don't know right now - what percentage of the population will get it. So I don't think we can make predictions there.

But if say 50% of the 600 people you know get something with a 1% mortality rate that's three people.

Personally I'm hoping the weather gets better. This is peak months for flu activity in the U.S. 1982-1983 through 2017-2018:

Well this is revealing.

As in. It's not really the same.

Here are some apples.
Would you like to comment on my oranges?

Sorry. I'm not a scientist and I'm no good at maths. Can you fix pls?

You have excellent oranges.

Phil Hammond , for it is him, is a very engaged, fair, and evidence based person.

That's good. I just had a look at his Twitter, he seems sensible. I had presumed it was yet another Eye column written by someone hiding behind a pen name. I have dealt with them professionally enough to know that they don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.