Does anyone know the SURVIVAL rate of CV-19?

[FluWorldOrder]

Or where I can find this information?

All I see and hear day in and day out are what feel like fear mongering stories in the press.

We are told asymptomatic transmission occurs and yet apparently we will be struck down in the prime of our lives by this virus. So if we can have the virus and have no symptoms of it how does this work? Presumably we will have some symptoms if we’re on deaths door.

Anyway, does anyone know where I can find the statistics on survival rather than focusing on death, death, death?

But one is manageable, the other collapses our ability to deal with everything else. The difference between a drip drip effect and a big instant hit is huge.

My mum's been in a ventilator for 7 weeks, now recovering on a ward.

She's "survived"

@ExcusesAndAccusations

Well a PP started it by “helpfully” correcting me

Ooh, charming!

I was trying to help clarify things for the OP, who is thinking in terms of rates/percentages and wouldn't get very far trying to subtract 99 (or whatever) from 1. But if you want to take this outside...

Sorry about your mum Shitfuckcommaetc.

I think the long term effects on the NHS and welfare system of those that have ‘survived’ is something that hasn’t been talked about much. Obviously we:be talked about ‘long covid’ in terms of the effect on the person but we forget that covid probably has both an instant big hit and a long term drip drip effect on healthcare services. It isn’t either or.

[quote hamstersarse]@RunnerDown

The only difference is a drip drip effect as opposed to a big hit instant effect.

Both put enormous demand on the NHS. The state of our NHS is not simply funding, it is also the awful state of our nation's health, mainly due to lifestyle. We have most certainly had to open many many many hospital beds for lifestyle illnesses, but again, the only difference is drip drip slow motion car crash as opposed to high impact explosion.[/quote]
Over the last few years the NHS has consistently closed beds not opened them .
The pandemic has cause acute staff shortages with staff ill and dying. Staff have worked in areas that are not their specialities with a consequent reduction in standard of care. Oxygen has been in danger of running out in older hospitals that couldn’t cope with the pressures of the amounts being passed through the pipes . Nursing levels have been dramatically reduced in icu with 1 nurse having to look after up to 4 patients. Care has been rationed when ventilators are in short supply. There is absolutely no way that the lifestyle problems you are talking about would ever cause these same kind of pressures

Don't forget that the rate of survival will include patients that have gone to ICU, been intubated and survived. Or those given oxygen. If these services didn't exist, the rate would be much higher

^This

In the OP you asked why asymptomatic (or probably more likely presymptomatic) people can transmit. It's because Covid normally initially colonises the nose and throat, multiplying rapidly and spreading through droplets. This doesn't make you feel too ill. But does spread a lot more.
Then you may feel better for a day or two before the virus moves around your body before your immune system catches up. It moves down to the lungs which is why it take about a week for the worst symptoms and breathing difficulties.
This fits with a) science and b) my own experience about a year ago.
So in viral evolutionary terms it doesn't really matter if you die in the second week of covid, it's already used your nose as a breeding ground for a week while you felt (asymptomatic) ok. Which is why it is a very difficult disease to control. Long incubation period of high transmissivity followed by attacking the lungs and other major organs.
If I'd moved here in Feb 20 I'd be fed up too btw!

[quote RunnerDown]@hamstersarse It’s not the lockdown that causes the problems it’s the virus. And it’s not just long COVID. If the virus is allowed to rage the health service is overwhelmed and ill people can’t be treated . So you have a much higher death count both because of lack of treatment and many more people affected.
Have you read about Brazil where they didn’t lock down . More than 287000 deaths . www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/19/brazil-coronavirus-intensive-care-unit-capacity[/quote]
Have you read about Peru? Strict lockdown and the virus has still raged out of control and is actually in a worse situation than Brazil.

apnews.com/article/pandemics-south-america-coronavirus-pandemic-peru-44ef62a03b5bc146e6401525789a672b

Also, the lockdown is worsening poverty, which is already a huge issue in South America.

But the things in Peru that make it’s lockdown ineffective don’t apply here.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

But the things in Peru that make it’s lockdown ineffective don’t apply here.

So why the eternal ‘look at Brazil, do you want to be like them?!!?’ comparisons then? It’s getting boring, frankly.

You can be out of lockdowns and still take sensible precautions around care homes or otherwise vulnerable people, you know.

We’ve tried that, it doesn’t get us very far. That’s how we ended up in this lockdown.

I live on the Isle of Man.

We have had around 900 "known" cases in the last few weeks. In reality far far more than that as obviously loads of people will have had it and either not known or not been tested as they didn't want to force their whole family into isolation for weeks.

From those cases there has been 1 death, and they haven't disclosed any information in relation to it. So, for all we know it cut have been an elderly cancer patient.

So 900 definite cases, more likely 3 times that and 1 death of someone who provided a positive PCR death within the previous 28 days

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

We’ve tried that, it doesn’t get us very far. That’s how we ended up in this lockdown.

What targeted approach? Your NHS put people from hospital right into care homes without testing them during the early part of the pandemic. You did that to ‘save’ the NHS but it just made things worse

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

We’ve tried that, it doesn’t get us very far. That’s how we ended up in this lockdown.

Except now we have a lot more people in the community that are immune - either after infection or vaccination.

[quote RunnerDown]@hamstersarse It’s not the lockdown that causes the problems it’s the virus. And it’s not just long COVID. If the virus is allowed to rage the health service is overwhelmed and ill people can’t be treated . So you have a much higher death count both because of lack of treatment and many more people affected.
Have you read about Brazil where they didn’t lock down . More than 287000 deaths . www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/19/brazil-coronavirus-intensive-care-unit-capacity[/quote]
Just an observation, but you are aware that your example of Brazil and how they fared without a lockdown isn't really a fair comparison as they are generally poorer, have a lower life expectancy etc.

Oh, and of course they have actually had a lot less deaths than the UK had with a lockdown.

Obesity is also less of an issue out there but that seems to be the major factor that you can't talk about for fear of being labelled a fat shamer.

@notrub and @PuzzledObserver

Not making up the figures. First page of worldometer

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

@Shitfuckcommaetc

My mum's been in a ventilator for 7 weeks, now recovering on a ward.

She's "survived"

Yes, and while that's sad, she has actually survived hasn't she. I spoke to a woman at the playground today whose mother's cancer spread as she wasn't able to access treatment throughout the initial lockdown. And lets not get started on the suicides...

@starfish88

Oh, got you. A quick look suggests that they are counting as serious/critical only those who are on ventilation (by looking at the UK line).

In the UK there are currently 748 on ventilation but 5,641 in hospital, so personally I think those should be considered serious/critical too. Then there are loads of countries which do not have enough critical care beds for the people who need them, e.g. Brazil, but that doesn’t mean the people aren’t critically ill. They just die instead of going in an ITU bed and getting counted by Worldometer.

Frustratingly, I can’t find a cumulative figure for those who have needed ventilation in the UK. But the total number hospitalised is 454,474, against more than 4.3 million cases, so over 10%. Though we know cases are underestimated - so maybe 5% are bad enough to need hospital treatment.

I would be careful everyone, if what you say is anti lockdown and you provide links and statistics, posters like @notrub will report you for 'misinformation'.

I'm still eagerly awaiting my email of Mumsnet to ask for a valid reason why my post was taken down though no one including @notrub as actually provided anything to state otherwise.

There is no such thing as free speech.

Covid is the worst thing to man kind, lockdowns are a proportionate response to this and everything else is conspiracy theory, misinformation and will be silenced.

[quote starfish88]@notrub and @PuzzledObserver

Not making up the figures. First page of worldometer

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/[/quote]
@notrub will not be interested in any information which she does not agree with.
Even if you provide links off reputable sites which as I did, she reported me.

Sad thing is Mumsnet took notice and took the post down though I havent given me an actual reason or any evidence to support the claim of misinformation.

Yes, and while that's sad, she has actually survived hasn't she. I spoke to a woman at the playground today whose mother's cancer spread as she wasn't able to access treatment throughout the initial lockdown. And lets not get started on the suicides...

1. How exactly do you suppose she would have got treatment with exponential growth of a virus that requires hospitalisation for as higha proportion of patients as it does and when large number of staff are off sick.
2. Pumping people full of chemo when there’s a pandemic virus running wild isn’t the greatest idea. You might prevent the cancer from spreading while killing them now from Covid instead. Not that they count when they die of Covid because, underlying health condition.

Mind you it’s been a while since we’ve had the when are cancer patients deaths important and when are they not important conundrum.

Much better for cancer patients to keep numbers as low as possible tbh. It’s win-win in terms of treatment and not getting nfected with Covid.

Two words:
LONG COVID

I’ve been ill for months and I’m not working. So definitely worse than ‘being off sick for a few days’ . Try three months. There are thousands of us and some people have been ill for over a year. The symptoms just don’t go away.

@SomethingElse2

Two words: LONG COVID

I’ve been ill for months and I’m not working. So definitely worse than ‘being off sick for a few days’ . Try three months. There are thousands of us and some people have been ill for over a year. The symptoms just don’t go away.

True but thousand is an absolutely tiny percentage of the UK population.

There are thousands stuck off work with chronic fatigue years after getting other virus's like glandular fever. We don't shut the whole country down for them.

Much better for cancer patients to keep numbers as low as possible tbh. It’s win-win in terms of treatment and not getting nfected with Covid

This is really insulting. I had a family member die recently from cancer that was not detected in a timely fashion, he never went because he was afraid of getting COVID but in the end it didn’t matter.

Panic-mongers have a lot to answer for. Unlike the typical COVID victim, many of these people had many more years left. They should have not had treatments and screenings delayed.

@ButtonMoony - from what I’ve read there will be a million people with long Covid.

So 1 in 60 or so people in this country.

The numbers are increasing all the time... it’s just one of the reasons to get vaccinated. It’s not all about the initial infection.