The 'Positive Mental Health' Corona virus thread

[RapidRainbow]

There are a lot of posts of people worrying. I thought it could be helpful to share positive and assuring information in one thread.

For me, the most reassuring thing so far is the fact that of approx. 1500 people in the UK suspected to have and tested for CV have come back as negative.

.

2500 people in UK have now been tested, only 9 cases within that figure.

If you are suspected of having CV, the chances of you ACTUALLY having it are 0.36% so based on that, in the UK:

Chances of it being severe are 0.072% and it being fatal is 0.00216%

That's without using the stats outside of China which would at the moment reduce those numbers further

Thank you so much for this thread OP and for the the helpful contributions so far - I've been feeling at the point of despair with stress and anxiety today from flicking between internet news and Mumsnet threads.

Great thread op. Media hysteria has got so many people terrified about this. Yes we need to be aware and practising good hand hygiene is sensible but let's try to keep things in perspective. At the moment the risk to any of us is very low.

Great thread.
I felt so much happier about things when I heard the ‘super-spreader’ was out of hospital, well again and had mild symptoms. Before then I was getting increasingly worried at the reports.
However something has struck me, why are the 2 from York are still in hospital? They were diagnosed first? One a student so young/ mother surely not too old.
The flight is already out of quarantine too.
Any ideas?

However something has struck me, why are the 2 from York are still in hospital

Have you seen anything that confirms they are still in hospital? Or are you assuming they are based on the fact that their 'release' hasn't made the news?

I reckon at least one of them has returned home based on this article:
www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-patients-being-treated-at-the-royal-free-hospital-rises-to-three-1-6505776

It's from 4 days ago and mentions 2 new cases being admitted to the hospital. That would bring the total to 4 (not 3) if both the York people were still there.

We wont necessarily hear about every single discharge / recovery in the news.

We don't know for sure if they are still in hospital.

"The Press asked the university how the student was doing and whether they were still being treated in Newcastle, but a spokesman said: "We do not comment on individual cases. The student diagnosed with coronavirus has the right to confidentiality.”

They may well have been advised, due to racism or by their own fears, to not do anything to reveal themselves. As the very first UK cases and coming directly from that area, it could make them vulnerable to abuse or worse.

@RapidRainbow I definitely appreciate the point of this thread, but neither of your calculations are correct. I'm all for talking about the positives, and not simply focusing on the risks, but it's important to remain factual.

If you are suspected of having CV, the chances of you ACTUALLY having it are 0.36%

The number you're quoting is the % of people who have tested positive and says nothing about the chances of you having it if tested. However... I 100% agree that the chance of you having it are really really really low unless you've been to one of the heavily affected areas. Then your chance is higher, but still low.

Chances of it being severe are 0.072% and it being fatal is 0.00216%

If you have it then the chance of if being severe or fatal is still whatever the actual % is. Which at the moment I think most reliable sources are stating roughly 20% chance of it being severe and ~1% of it being fatal.

Also, I'm glad this thread is helping people. I need to try and keep perspective myself and by having a thread like this it just goes to show how a headline could be completely flipped upside down depending on what stance the newspapers feel would sell the most. It's clear right now that the fear and uncertainty their headlines incite will create more clicks and purchases. I'm glad that the government's and WHO are taking this seriously because its a good idea to stop any new emerging viruses but we must keep everything in proportion. I don't doubt for one second that the media know how kuch they can fuel anxiety which in turn keeps us beholden to them.
Im not against the press or into conspiracies at all, just have to keep motivation in mind all of the time!

@Orangeblossom78

"If you are suspected of having CV, the chances of you ACTUALLY having it are 0.36%"

That was the percentage of people who have been diagnosed with the virus in the UK of those tested. Number of positives =9 out of 2500ish(I can't remember now but I googled rather than relying on my own maths!) total.

" Chances of it being severe are 0.072% and it being fatal is 0.00216%"

If you have it then the chance of if being severe or fatal is still whatever the actual % is. Which at the moment I think most reliable sources are stating roughly 20% chance of it being severe and ~1% of it being fatal."

Sorry to clarify, my figures were found by working out that of the 0.36% of people (who tested positive out of the 2500 tested) then 20% of those people would have it severe. So 20% of the 0.36%.

I'm not a stats person but there was method to my madness, I think

@RapidRainbow I totally get where the numbers came from. I'm just saying that what you described them as and what they actually are isn't the same.

0.36% = The % of people who have tested positive in the UK out of all those who have been tested.

It unfortunately isn't the same as the chance of you having the virus.

0.072% = The chance of one of the tested people testing positive and having severe symptoms

Which isn't the same as the chance of a person in the general population catching it and having severe symptoms. That would be 0.2 x chance of contracting it
Also if you were to contract it then at that point your chance of severe symptoms remains at 20%

Same rules go for fatalities.

My main point being that I totally get the point of this thread and it's a great idea. But unless you're quoting stats from a reputable source then I'd just steer clear cause it's a minefield.

I was basing my numbers purely on the UK tested cases and using those to find the stats on the chances of having it if you are tested.
So my point is, even if you were to present as having it and were tested, looking at averages even at that point its still relatively low chance of testing positive based on the current average. That's the bit I think I might not have made clear? It doesn't affect overall infection percentages etc. I'm just focusing on the probability based on the tested cases so far.

I will reiterate again I'm not a stats person, but thought this method works for basic averages and percentages

Maybe I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. It seems like we are both saying the same thing but in a different way. I can simplify (non mathematically!) further.

If a friend of mine was told she had to be tested, I would then say "don't worry, 2500 people have been tested and only 9 of them have it which is like 0.36%! And of those who do get it, only 20% of them will have it severely, which is like a 0.072% chance of you being tested positive and it making you really ill! And those averages are based on figures where most instances are in Wuhan and China who have a higher severity rate"

Thank you for this thread.
I'm flying tomorrow only Europe. But this helps as I have been worried.
Will wash hands a lot a airports.

I sounds like I'm being really picky... I honestly don't mean to be.

But...
You could describe the chance of you having it as being low, and one of the reasons for that would be because only 0.36% of those tested so far have tested positive. But that doesn't mean that if you're tested your chance of testing positive is 0.36%.

A similar (but not the same example).. if you rolled a dice 10 times and got 5 sixes, you wouldn't say that your chance of getting a 6 next time is 50%. Your chance of rolling a six is still 1/6 each time cause they're discreet events.

Again, I know it sounds super picky, and I do apologise.

You’d also need to take into account the sensitivity and specificity of the test to make that sort of calculation. It’s not quite as simple as just taking the number of people tested vs the number who tested positive.

I think you are probably just best sticking with a general there are very low levels of corona virus in the U.K. at the moment so your chances of catching it are very low.

What ever the official line of stats, their is still a promising ratio of possible cases to actual cases

Public Health England
"As of 14 February, a total of 2,964 people have been tested, of which 2,955 were confirmed negative and 9 positive"

I also heard today that the cases outside of China are not achieving the same high levels of spread which is very encouraging.

Fab thread

Joining thread for positivity

@twiglet1234
Are the country by country cases listed somewhere or did you make them yourself?

Country by country cases were copied and pasted straight from a news article, think it was BBC. Really I don’t have enough time on my hands to make up something like that, or the inclination! Just putting a positive on a “positive” thread