Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    837
    Likes (Given)
    308
    Likes (Received)
    175
    Or maybe it is somebodies way of saving the planet ? Kill half the human population ? Or the government way of balancing their bank account , kill the sick & elderly to save pension & disability payments ?

    Nope i’m Not cynical at all !!!!
    I trust my rebreather implicitly I just don't trust the owner

    Onwards & downwards.

  2. #12
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    791
    Likes (Given)
    374
    Likes (Received)
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by graham_hk View Post
    We live in a world where everything has to be bubble wrapped (I said it on another thread) - knee jerk reactions to social media pressure and pure stupidity. Are you scared of flu? I think people should start showing some common sense
    you think the chinese authorities are concerned about social media pressure ?

    I'm not scared of getting flu - I am however concerned about killing my neighbours by infecting them with something virulent which I am not even showing symptoms of and don't know I have

    still, I'm sure you're right and following WHO advice is "pure stupidity" and instead we should all just use our own version of common sense

  3. #13
    Established TDF Member witchieblackcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Penwortham
    Posts
    1,755
    Likes (Given)
    1708
    Likes (Received)
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Carr View Post
    I've got an OS3 lesson to teach this week which involves AS use and I've been thinking that we need to be very careful as to how to minimise the chances for passing on the virus. It will mean making sure that only one person uses a particular AS during the lesson and that during buddy checks, the AS is demonstrated as working using the purge button rather than breathing from it. We always sterilise the the mouthpieces in Milton after every use anyway.

    A bit more organisation but better to be safe than sorry.
    I assume that you're doing OS3 in a pool and the pool is full of chlorinated water.
    That chlorine kills stuff dead...

  4. #14
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,537
    Likes (Given)
    154
    Likes (Received)
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by UnCheeky Monkey View Post
    you think the chinese authorities are concerned about social media pressure ?

    I'm not scared of getting flu - I am however concerned about killing my neighbours by infecting them with something virulent which I am not even showing symptoms of and don't know I have

    still, I'm sure you're right and following WHO advice is "pure stupidity" and instead we should all just use our own version of common sense
    I wouldn't go to hospital or other frail/vulnerable people if I wasn't well. The data is not fully out but it isn't too dissimilar to flu - its not particularly infectious or dangerous. Check the numbers and science for yourself and make your own mind up

  5. #15
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    791
    Likes (Given)
    374
    Likes (Received)
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by graham_hk View Post
    I wouldn't go to hospital or other frail/vulnerable people if I wasn't well. The data is not fully out but it isn't too dissimilar to flu - its not particularly infectious or dangerous. Check the numbers and science for yourself and make your own mind up
    The latest from the WHO is that -

    "Every effort to contain the virus and slow the spread saves lives. These efforts give health systems and all of society much needed time to prepare, and researchers more time to identify effective treatments and develop vaccines.

    Allowing uncontrolled spread should not be a choice of any government, as it will harm not only the citizens of that country but affect other countries as well.

    We must stop, contain, control, delay and reduce the impact of this virus at every opportunity. Every person has the capacity to contribute, to protect themselves, to protect others, whether in the home, the community, the healthcare system, the workplace or the transport system"

    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...assing-100-000

    Why would I check numbers that are not yet complete, or science that is not fully available to us and we are not all qualified to understand, when we have the WHO in place and can listen to the advice of experts instead of forming our own ill informed (and often selfish) views ?

    The info on the WHO site is very useful, very measured and rational

    But it is not "meh, don't worry about it"

    This is quite a good example of the measured and rational approach, whilst still urging care and action I thought

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1236326714638307330

    (the comments are of course the usual Twitter mixture of arrogance, bile, political and racial agenda etc etc - but the video seemed worth a watch )

  6. #16
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,537
    Likes (Given)
    154
    Likes (Received)
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by UnCheeky Monkey View Post
    The latest from the WHO is that -

    "Every effort to contain the virus and slow the spread saves lives. These efforts give health systems and all of society much needed time to prepare, and researchers more time to identify effective treatments and develop vaccines.

    Allowing uncontrolled spread should not be a choice of any government, as it will harm not only the citizens of that country but affect other countries as well.

    We must stop, contain, control, delay and reduce the impact of this virus at every opportunity. Every person has the capacity to contribute, to protect themselves, to protect others, whether in the home, the community, the healthcare system, the workplace or the transport system"

    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...assing-100-000

    Why would I check numbers that are not yet complete, or science that is not fully available to us and we are not all qualified to understand, when we have the WHO in place and can listen to the advice of experts instead of forming our own ill informed (and often selfish) views ?

    The info on the WHO site is very useful, very measured and rational

    But it is not "meh, don't worry about it"

    This is quite a good example of the measured and rational approach, whilst still urging care and action I thought

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1236326714638307330

    (the comments are of course the usual Twitter mixture of arrogance, bile, political and racial agenda etc etc - but the video seemed worth a watch )

    Here is a much better video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2opBvlf7vrs

    Read some other WHO statements - a few minutes of your time and try to grasp the bigger picture.

    - https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...-of-poliovirus
    - https://www.who.int/en/news-room/det...her-nbsp-1-000
    Last edited by graham_hk; 08-03-2020 at 10:34 PM.

  7. #17
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    791
    Likes (Given)
    374
    Likes (Received)
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by graham_hk View Post
    funny

    but the science appears to show that it is much more harmful than flu, but difficult yet to get reliable comparisons

    flu seems to kill 0.1% in the US, this seems to kill somewhere between 1 and 2% according to best guesses (the 3.4% known figure is too high and unreliable since that does not adjust for either mild cases never officially confirmed, or current cases which may yet result in death)

    so it seems to be roughly 10x as dangerous as flu, once caught

    that's surely enough to take it seriously for now ?


    this is from the Washington Post (paywall, so pasting it in) - measured, rational, interesting, not all that reassuring .....

    By Marc Lipsitch
    March 6, 2020 at 6:52 p.m. GMT
    Marc Lipsitch is a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    This week, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated an undisputed fact: 3.4 percent of people with reported covid-19 infections worldwide have died. Or the fact was undisputed until misinterpretations set in, almost immediately. Some in the news media mistook the statement as meaning an alarming 3.4 percent mortality risk for coronavirus infections overall. President Trump weighed in on Wednesday, saying of the WHO statistic, “I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number.”

    The latest updates on the coronavirus

    Yet the WHO director general was simply describing the percentage of those with reported infections who had died. The risk of dying if you become infected is another matter.

    For a variety of reasons that are common to epidemics, the covid-19 mortality rate remains elusive. My colleagues in infectious-disease epidemiology and I know the challenges of estimating fatality rates in the middle of outbreaks from almost two decades of experience, including with SARS in 2003 and H1N1 flu in 2009. To estimate risk, we need to know the infection-fatality rate, or IFR — the chances that a person who contracts the infection will die. Also useful is the so-called symptomatic case-fatality rate, or sCFR, the risk that a person who contracts the infection and becomes symptomatic will die.

    Contracting an infection is one thing; showing symptoms is another. An unknown number of people — unknown, but maybe considerable — might be infected with covid-19 without becoming symptomatic.

    There are two main sources of bias that make estimates of the IFR or sCFR so challenging early in an epidemic — and we are, alas, still early in the spread of covid-19.

    One source of bias arises because, initially, we tend to see the most severe cases. In Wuhan, China, where the epidemic began, care and testing were prioritized for the sickest patients. In other places, such as Iran, the first covid-19 tests were administered because individuals were unexpectedly dying of pneumonia. Either way, the cases we know about are not a random sample of all cases, but a sample of the sickest — so the risk of dying is higher in the people we know about than in typical cases.

    By contrast, the other source of bias can make us underestimate the risk of dying. At any moment in a growing epidemic, most cases are people who were infected recently — that’s what it means for an epidemic to grow: There are more new infections this week than there were last week. Many of the people with these new infections will recover, and some will die. We don’t yet know the fates of those who were infected, say, just yesterday or the day before. To count appropriately, we need to know how many of the current cases will die, not just how many have died.

    Epidemiologists have devised statistical ways to estimate that number, to correct the simple calculation to reflect current and expected future deaths among the known cases. Another approach to avoid this problem is to use data from a population where the epidemic has subsided, and fatal case counts have had time to catch up with total case counts.

    The coronavirus infection-fatality rate — the number everybody wants to know — is still undetermined. First, we need to figure out the proportion of infected people who show symptoms. That will ultimately require performing serologic testing (blood tests measuring antibodies) in a large cohort of an exposed population. Once we do that, the infection-fatality rate can be estimated from the symptomatic case-fatality rate times the proportion of infections that are symptomatic. This is the most useful number, because mathematical models and prior experience with flu can give us estimates of how many people might be infected — and with this number, how many are likely to die.

    Serologic testing — to detect an antibody indicating whether a person is now or has been infected — is underway in some populations in China. That will help to give us a picture of the whole spectrum of covid-19 infection, from completely unrecognized, to symptomatic, to severe, to fatal.

    Several estimates have suggested that the risk of dying, for those infected with covid-19 and showing its flu-like symptoms, is around 1 or 2 percent. Elderly adults have a considerably higher risk of both becoming infected and dying, as do people with compromised immune systems. The estimates might change as new data arrive, but the range of 1 to 2 percent for fatalities among the symptomatic seems to be the consensus for now. The overall fatality rate for people infected with covid-19 will be lower — possibly much lower — when we know how many people are infected but asymptomatic.

    We’ve learned a lot about how to make these estimates from past outbreaks. The first lesson is that the estimates will change and be refined as scientists do their best to make sense of imperfect data.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham_hk View Post
    Read some other WHO statements - a few minutes of your time and try to grasp the bigger picture.

    - https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...-of-poliovirus
    - https://www.who.int/en/news-room/det...her-nbsp-1-000
    wow - you're really quite rude and demeaning aren't you

    please don't lecture me about Yemen, where I have a friend out of contact and fate unknown - I'm well aware of the problems there (please take a few minutes of your time to check my avatar and previous posts)

    This isn't catastrophe top trumps, or some sort of pissing contest

    One PHEIC does not have to trump another

  8. #18
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,537
    Likes (Given)
    154
    Likes (Received)
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by UnCheeky Monkey View Post
    funny

    but the science appears to show that it is much more harmful than flu, but difficult yet to get reliable comparisons

    flu seems to kill 0.1% in the US, this seems to kill somewhere between 1 and 2% according to best guesses (the 3.4% known figure is too high and unreliable since that does not adjust for either mild cases never officially confirmed, or current cases which may yet result in death)

    so it seems to be roughly 10x as dangerous as flu, once caught

    that's surely enough to take it seriously for now ?


    this is from the Washington Post (paywall, so pasting it in) - measured, rational, interesting, not all that reassuring .....

    By Marc Lipsitch
    March 6, 2020 at 6:52 p.m. GMT
    Marc Lipsitch is a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    This week, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated an undisputed fact: 3.4 percent of people with reported covid-19 infections worldwide have died. Or the fact was undisputed until misinterpretations set in, almost immediately. Some in the news media mistook the statement as meaning an alarming 3.4 percent mortality risk for coronavirus infections overall. President Trump weighed in on Wednesday, saying of the WHO statistic, “I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number.”

    The latest updates on the coronavirus

    Yet the WHO director general was simply describing the percentage of those with reported infections who had died. The risk of dying if you become infected is another matter.

    For a variety of reasons that are common to epidemics, the covid-19 mortality rate remains elusive. My colleagues in infectious-disease epidemiology and I know the challenges of estimating fatality rates in the middle of outbreaks from almost two decades of experience, including with SARS in 2003 and H1N1 flu in 2009. To estimate risk, we need to know the infection-fatality rate, or IFR — the chances that a person who contracts the infection will die. Also useful is the so-called symptomatic case-fatality rate, or sCFR, the risk that a person who contracts the infection and becomes symptomatic will die.

    Contracting an infection is one thing; showing symptoms is another. An unknown number of people — unknown, but maybe considerable — might be infected with covid-19 without becoming symptomatic.

    There are two main sources of bias that make estimates of the IFR or sCFR so challenging early in an epidemic — and we are, alas, still early in the spread of covid-19.

    One source of bias arises because, initially, we tend to see the most severe cases. In Wuhan, China, where the epidemic began, care and testing were prioritized for the sickest patients. In other places, such as Iran, the first covid-19 tests were administered because individuals were unexpectedly dying of pneumonia. Either way, the cases we know about are not a random sample of all cases, but a sample of the sickest — so the risk of dying is higher in the people we know about than in typical cases.

    By contrast, the other source of bias can make us underestimate the risk of dying. At any moment in a growing epidemic, most cases are people who were infected recently — that’s what it means for an epidemic to grow: There are more new infections this week than there were last week. Many of the people with these new infections will recover, and some will die. We don’t yet know the fates of those who were infected, say, just yesterday or the day before. To count appropriately, we need to know how many of the current cases will die, not just how many have died.

    Epidemiologists have devised statistical ways to estimate that number, to correct the simple calculation to reflect current and expected future deaths among the known cases. Another approach to avoid this problem is to use data from a population where the epidemic has subsided, and fatal case counts have had time to catch up with total case counts.

    The coronavirus infection-fatality rate — the number everybody wants to know — is still undetermined. First, we need to figure out the proportion of infected people who show symptoms. That will ultimately require performing serologic testing (blood tests measuring antibodies) in a large cohort of an exposed population. Once we do that, the infection-fatality rate can be estimated from the symptomatic case-fatality rate times the proportion of infections that are symptomatic. This is the most useful number, because mathematical models and prior experience with flu can give us estimates of how many people might be infected — and with this number, how many are likely to die.

    Serologic testing — to detect an antibody indicating whether a person is now or has been infected — is underway in some populations in China. That will help to give us a picture of the whole spectrum of covid-19 infection, from completely unrecognized, to symptomatic, to severe, to fatal.

    Several estimates have suggested that the risk of dying, for those infected with covid-19 and showing its flu-like symptoms, is around 1 or 2 percent. Elderly adults have a considerably higher risk of both becoming infected and dying, as do people with compromised immune systems. The estimates might change as new data arrive, but the range of 1 to 2 percent for fatalities among the symptomatic seems to be the consensus for now. The overall fatality rate for people infected with covid-19 will be lower — possibly much lower — when we know how many people are infected but asymptomatic.

    We’ve learned a lot about how to make these estimates from past outbreaks. The first lesson is that the estimates will change and be refined as scientists do their best to make sense of imperfect data.
    Quote: So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 32 million illnesses, 310,000 hospitalizations and 18,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    source: https://www.livescience.com/new-coro...-with-flu.html

    I do think it's serious but Covid-19 is orders of magnitude less of a problem than flu, you are extremely unlikely to be exposed or indeed infected and unless you are vulnerable or frail will probably be OK.
    Last edited by graham_hk; 08-03-2020 at 10:47 PM.

  9. #19
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    791
    Likes (Given)
    374
    Likes (Received)
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by graham_hk View Post
    Quote: So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 32 million illnesses, 310,000 hospitalizations and 18,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    source: https://www.livescience.com/new-coro...-with-flu.html

    I do think it's serious but Covid-19 is orders of magnitude less of a problem than flu, you are extremely unlikely to be exposed or indeed infected and unless you are vulnerable or frail will probably be OK.
    It spreads in much the same way as flu, perhaps slightly less aggressively (though no-one is sure), but the impact seems to be about 10x as severe (though that figure is under review). It is far too early to make sweeping statements such as "orders of magnitude less of a problem than flu". We simply don't know yet.

    The WHO call it a PHEIC - I'll stick with taking my cue from the WHO

  10. #20
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    791
    Likes (Given)
    374
    Likes (Received)
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by witchieblackcat View Post
    I assume that you're doing OS3 in a pool and the pool is full of chlorinated water.
    That chlorine kills stuff dead...
    I did a case once about a spa, and we had to get an expert witness in swimming pools and public health

    He wouldn't - ever - swim in a public pool ........


 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •