If CV turns out to be less deadly than flu...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

do you think you will still feel the restrictions were worth it?

Just asking out of curiosity really.

I'm really struggling to make sense of the statistics and reality. The death rates in Italy and their struggling healthcare system show that clearly this is far more serious than flu. On the other hand, have a look at at the date of CV closed cases. To work out the death rate , I've divided the number of deaths by the number of closed cases. It came up as approx. 0.18. (I known it's simplistic but just a rough estimate) it's obviously lower because of various measures but at the same time the actual death rate must be even lower because there are loads of people who have never been tested, yet they may have it.

The problem isn't actually the mortality rate, whatever it may turn out to be, although so many people dying is serious. The problem is so many people getting really ill, ill enough to require hospitalisation, all at once. That is why it's so serious.

Excellent summary Plague

How does anyone know the death rate of not everyone has been tested and many people get no symptoms?

It is calculated by the number of known cases and the number of those who die from it. A reasonably accurate death rate will not be available till way after all this is over.

if there is no immunity the measures are literally pointless

OP - are you the only person on the planet who has failed to understand that these measures are about flattening the number of infections to a rate that health services can deal with?

There is no immunity against this virus but we can ensure that all those who get it and need hospital care can access it - and that all those with other serious illnesses who require hospital care can also find a bed if needed.

@starlightgazers its funny but I see the exact opposite happening I dont think it is way more deadly at all - its way more infectious with no pre exisiting immunity. If it were more deadly a whole lot more people would have died already

If you look at Iceland/Germany/Diamond Princess the places that are really really testing the fatality rate there is low

It is nothing like the flu because of our lack of immunity and its ability to spread and that is why we are doing this. In terms of its deadliness I suspect it wont be that dissimilar

Don't forget the effect that this will have on the NHS's ability to treat other acute illnesses. My DD had bacterial pneumonia last summer. She spent 4 hours in A&E being stabilised before going to the respiratory ward for 5 days. In those 4 hours she had the constant attention of a nurse plus frequent attention from the consultant. Probably about an hour of either consultant or senior doctor one-to-one attention. That type of illness will still be happening (although transmission of other infections will also, presumably, be reduced) so it is important that the NHS has capacity to treat them as well. Reducing unnecessary travel will reduce the number of car accidents, freeing up those doctors and nurses, the x-ray machines and other equipment in A&E and in the wards.

At the same time drug trials have started using existing drugs, vaccines are being developed in multiple research groups and pharma companies and presumably new drugs are being developed and tested. Buying time for these is vital.

Sorry, it's 0.19

To work out the death rate , I've divided the number of deaths by the number of closed cases. It came up as approx. 0.18

That's completely inaccurate though.

The death rate is based on number of people tested not number of people infected

Yeah, but that's the case with flu too, so flu death rates per cent will be lower too? So completely discounting your own argument.

Sorry you misunderstood me @tegucigalpa13 - if it is not possible to be immune to covid then everyone who already had it will be susceptible forever, meaning that keeping everyone indoors won't make any difference at all, the virus will just keep spreading and spreading around and around, infecting and re-infecting everyone.

I agree about the numbers being wrong but no i wont say why did we all isolate-if its helps nhs run smoothly

Be grateful OP you obviously have the luxury of being bored how about volunteering at a food bank or a charity to help the elderly. Hth

and there was no immunity because it was so new. That doesnt mean that immunity isnt being built up as people get it because it probably is. Just that you have to have it in order to gain immunity

Carbuncle. I think you have raised a valid point, which a few commentators are starting also to write on. For example Peter Hitchens, Dominic Lawson etc. Also the Cambridge eminent virologist who has pointed out that the maximum anyone is infectious is 5 days and those are usually children, adults less so and therefore the isolation times are ridiculously long.

Flu. A good year there is 2000 deaths, not very typical. Other years we have had 26000 deaths. Peter Hitchens said he was depressed when he found that the people doing the modelling are the same ones that modelled BSE and caused unnecessary slaughter of so many animals (in hindsight). The modellers like Neal Ferguson may be right, but we will never know as whatever the outcome is they will claim success as based upon the actions taken by the government

What I found interesting from,the article by the Cambs virologist was the Eaton school study in swine flu. Some time after the epidemic, the students were all tested. 80% tested positive for having been imfected and having anti bodies, but only 20% had ever had symptoms. There is no reason that Covid is any different but until they start testing in the next few weeks we won't know until after the event that we have basically bankrupt the economy for relatively small gain.

Trump....not my favourite person but what he said resonates. "We must make sure the medicine isn't worse than the disease" and that is what it feels like to me

Fatality rate is irrelevant at the moment. It’s the demand on our healthcare service that is a problem. It’s very infections which means that all the people needing critical care will need it in a short period of time which overwhelms the system.
If was half as infectious then the NHS would be able to cope with a steady trickle of critically ill.
It perfectly mirrors the demand on toilet roll !

No, @MissBax, death rates for flu are based on complex, large-scale studies involving testing of people who have it and who had it but didn't know. They're not total guesswork like the covid estimates.

I'm far from bored @thatwouldbeanecumenicalmatter thanks.

In Madrid, they turned an ice rink into a morgue. We are turning exhibition centres into makeshift hospitals. This doesn’t happen in flu season. It is quite obvious this isn’t comparable to flu. It also isn’t a flu or a cold. This is a new virus that they’re still learning about.

death rates for flu are based on complex, large-scale studies involving testing of people who have it and who had it but didn't know.

How exactly do they test people that don't know?

To work out the death rate , I've divided the number of deaths by the number of closed cases. It came up as approx. 0.18
That's completely inaccurate though.

But it's OK to be completely inaccurate by saying that the death rate is very high? Worst-case scenario scaremongering is fine and totally accurate?

FFS. Of course you don't make up figures so it all seems a lot better. But most of you on this forum are DESPERATE for things to be dreadful, and awful, and for people to be dropping dead left, right and centre. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why are so many of you getting off on the drama and salivating over every little detail? It's really unhealthy - pardon the pun.

Most of us will probably get this at some point before they find a vaccine and the overwhelming majority will be absolutely fine and won't ever see a ventilator, ICU ward or even their GP.

But don't let me stand in the way of your collective gloom-mongering.

starlight, I can see that seems sensible but even after this is all over, there may be problems about 'the number of those who die from it'. This would be subject to such variability within a health system and across countries. The UK is treating deaths in acute and the community differently now (people are dying in the community from COVID symptoms without being tested and the deaths won't be counted as COVID). Internationally, some countries seem to treat a death of someone tested positive for COVID as a COVID-related death even if the death doesn't relate to COVID (RTA injuries for example though I realise it's more complicated as COVID could have caused respiratory complications and been the 'true' cause of death). Other countries may put the cause of death as the first presenting condition (RTA injuries even if on the planned day of discharge, the patient caught COVID and died after being respirated from COVID).

Over time, with testing and some standardising, there may be some compatibility across conditions ('flu) and countries but I'm not sure after this is all over, we'll have great data about what will then be 'historical' deaths.

Bear in mind @MissBax that these studies have been going on for 50+ years and are very very accurate. They test clusters and samples from within outbreaks and the methodology is very rigorous and sound. Unlike CV testing which is entirely random.

Op what is the difference in numbers between highest projection and what we’ll end up with measures in place?

I'd prefer it if we looked back and realised we did a bit too much rather than the other way around.

I do think its likely mortality rate will go down hugely once we have wider population testingm, it might even turn out to be round about the same as the flu. With hindsight, maybe if its 'the same as flu' lockdown was OTT however, with what we currently know about this, its necessary. Not really on an individual level, most will be fine with it, but its necessary so our NHS does not collapse entirely. In South Korea and Germany, where testing is better..we are seeing much lower rates than here and Italy, where testing still seems to be limited to only those bad enough to need treatment. Seriously, imagine the mortality rate of flu...IF we only counted those bad enough to need hospitalisation in the figures. So yeah, I think its less dangerous than it currently looks..but harsh measures are still necessary for the good of the country. Middle ground really..