Coronavirus Part IV - 19 cases in ROI, 7 in NI (as of 7 March) *Read warnings in OP*

Phoebas

JDD wrote: »

UK have said 20%- 30% of population likely to get infected. I’ve seen other random reports of 40-70%.

JDD wrote: »

It’s part of their “action plan” released four days ago. 20% off work at its peak - that’s what they’re planning for. Which actually means over a 4-5 month period more than 20% will actually catch it.

The 20% figure is a 'stretching scenario' / 'reasonable worst case' - explicitly not a 'likely' scenario.

UK Gov wrote:

Given that the data are still emerging, we are uncertain of the impact of an outbreak on business. In a stretching scenario, it is possible that up to one-fifth of employees may be absent from work during peak weeks. This may vary for individual businesses.

...

Planning draws on the idea of a ‘reasonable worst case’ (RWC) scenario. This is not a forecast of what is most likely to happen, but will ensure we are ready to respond to a range of scenarios.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

Away With The Fairies

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because they had land borders, were an island......

How will being an island help us?

Atlantic Dawn

There's still inconsiderate fookwits on public transport who won't cover their mouth while coughing.

JDD

Mic 1972 wrote: »

do you mean the 15% currently in critical condition? that's not small

You’re right. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that we’re going to need 7,000 extra beds in two months time. And we simply do not have the wherewithal to get them. And that’s before you calculate respirators and masks and doctors and nurses and remdesivir.

Screw washing my hands. I’m licking the Luas poles on Monday morning.

jojofizzio

Ninthlife wrote: »

There are 5 million bicycles in Beijing

So Katie Melua was doing an ani-HSE on it and vastly over-reporting the incidence of them...

drkpower

Bob24 wrote: »

I was pretty clear: either you test and isolate while waiting for the result or you quarantine. No need for both. Basic health screening is looking for known symptoms: dry caught, fever, inflamed lung and being more cautious with anyone who has them.

All pretty straight forward stuff. And again the goal is not to have 100% efficiency (impossible) but to reduce the flow of people from those areas as much as possible and to try and catch cases as best as possible.

Actually I think even without penalty this would have worked for most of the flow. But yes it is important. As I said I am not the police or a lawyer and it I am happy to follow suggestions from professionals on what is considered very deterrent, but probably either a very heavy fine or even possible a threat of some jail time (before you ask as I see you like asking questions: jail time to be completed after a quarantine ;-)).

So you advocate jailing people for not quarantining in order to merely slow down the progression. Gotcha thanks.

Out of interest, how would you enforce the quarantine in order to catch offenders?

I do,like question yes; because the people who actually have to make the hard choices have to answer these questions and map,forward the consequences in terms or resources and effect on civil society. Those advocating simple solutions on social media rarely have to answer to much at all.

RandomName2

Phoebas wrote: »

The 20% figure is a 'stretching scenario' / 'reasonable worst case' - explicitly not a 'likely' scenario.

If containment fails, and the infection is allowed run its course, 20% is a likely scenario. For instance, 20% of the world's population was infected with swine flu apparently.

Given how infectious covid-19 clearly is, I would find it ludicrous for anyone to suggest anything lower as being 'likely'. Hopefully with good mitigation I could be made considerably lower, but that's a 'best case' scenario, not 'likely'. The UK is now on a mitigation footing, so this is pretty relevant.

Lord Trollington

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, so only 125,000 deaths if 20% of the population are infected, with current fatality rates.

Not exactly what I would describe as hilarious or hysterical tbh.

Your maths is hurting my head

Blueshoe

ixoy wrote: »

That's assuming enough people don't take the proverbial and doss, therfore confirming manager's fears.
Hope it takes off as, long term, it's a positive effect. Right now on transmission potential but further along for the climate and people's mental well-being.

I think it would be great. I can't work from home but if other people could I wouldn't begrudge them. Some people have mentioned it would be better for people's mental health. I disagree with that point. Going out into the world every day and interacting with people face to face is good for the mind. Working at home all day and then at home for the evening without seeing another soul (apart from family or housemates) might not be ideal for everyone.

Cilldara_2000

ChurchtownMan wrote: »

Its the same thing roughly. 60M population. 80% high end infected. 50M is. Of which optimistic rate mortality end of 1%. 500,000 fatalities.
Of course, could be on the lower end of 40% infected, and upper end of 3% fatalities. Still a similar number.
Which translates to the upper number of 3-4 Million infected in Ireland, and 80k fatalities, some people seem to have an issue with.

That's not what they said. See the post at the top of this page by Phoebas.

You're effectively just pulling figures out of the air/from the S*n.

Bob24

otnomart wrote: »

I was optimistic with 1 week.

Actually this chart suggests that France is only 5 days behind Italy

3 broadly similar countries in terms of size, population, and bee considered developed countries. Further versions of this chart will be interesting to see how similarly or not their situations evolves depending on how their governments react.

ChurchtownMan

RandomName2 wrote: »

If containment fails, and the infection is allowed run its course, 20% is a likely scenario. For instance, 20% of the world's population was infected with swine flu apparently.

Given how infectious covid-19 clearly is, I would find it ludicrous for anyone to suggest anything lower as being 'likely'. Hopefully with good mitigation I could be made considerably lower, but that's a 'best case' scenario, not 'likely'. The UK is now on a mitigation footing, so this is pretty relevant.

That 20% high end figure refers to people off work at the same time over a period of months. Which correspondes to the upper end of 80% of the population being infected overall. Not just 20% being infected.

RandomName2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The HSE will save us

.. money by reducing hospital waiting lists.

Bob24

drkpower wrote: »

So you advocate jailing people for not quarantining in order to merely slow down the progression. Gotcha thanks.

Out of interest, how would you enforce the quarantine in order to catch offenders?

I do,like question yes; because the people who actually have to make the hard choices have to answer these questions and map,forward the consequences in terms or resources and effect on civil society. Those advocating simple solutions on social media rarely have to answer to much at all.

I was answering your question on penalty for providing incorrect information. Not sure why you took it as an answer to another question you didn’t ask.

With this you will be please to see all your questions are addressed (I notice you didn’t answer mine though).

ITman88

ChurchtownMan wrote: »

A leaked government document has suggested up to 500,000 people could die in the UK from coronavirus if the disease is able to infect up to 80 per cent of the country.

While the Department of Health and Social Care said it did not expect the scenario to happen, the briefing to ministers, leaked to The Sun, said “the reasonable worst case” was for four fifths of the country to succumb to the virus.

The document by the National Security Communications Team warned: “The current planning assumption is that 2-3 per cent of symptomatic cases will result in a ­fatality.”


This could mean as many as 500,000 Britons could die.

A spokesperson for the DHSC said: “We have been clear from the outset that we expect coronavirus to have some impact on the UK, which is why we are planning for every eventuality – including the reasonable worst case scenario. Crucially this does not mean we expect it to happen.

Listen here 007, after you said leaked document, you really lost me at “leaked to the sun”.

ChurchtownMan

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

That's not what they said. See the post at the top of this page by Phoebas.

You're effectively just pulling figures out of the air/from the S*n.

I am not. Read them yourself. The 20% is a single high point for infection at a single time.

otnomart

Bob24 wrote: »

3 broadly similar countries in terms of size, population, and bee considered developed countries. Further versions of this chart will be interesting to see how similarly or not their situations evolves depending on how their governments react.

Absolutely.
France still has not decided on Stage 3.
There is an emergency Defence council meeting tomorrow.

drkpower

Bob24 wrote: »

I was answering your question on penalty for providing incorrect information. Not sure why you took it as an answer to another question you didn’t ask.

With this you will be please to see all your questions are addressed (I notice you didn’t answer mine though).

Didn’t see a question in your post; maybe you edited; I’ll answer whatever questions you have, no worries.

So, how would you enforce the quanrantine?
Nd how would you enforce the provision of incorrect info on an airport declaration?

JDD

Phoebas wrote: »

The 20% figure is a 'stretching scenario' / 'reasonable worst case' - explicitly not a 'likely' scenario.



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

20% infected “at any one time” is the stretching scenario. If this goes on for five months, that HAS to be a stretching scenario of 40% of the population overall being infected, probably more.

That’s why I vastly reduced my estimate, to 10% of the population for the whole 5 month period. Estimates also say that 15% of infected need hospitalisation, and I reduced my estimate down to 5%.

And we’re nowhere near being able to cope with the reasonable, conservative estimate.

tony1980

Blueshoe wrote: »

I think it would be great. I can't work from home but if other people could I wouldn't begrudge them. Some people have mentioned it would be better for people's mental health. I disagree with that point. Going out into the world every day and interacting with people face to face is good for the mind. Working at home all day and then at home for the evening without seeing another soul (apart from family or housemates) might not be ideal for everyone.

Would love if 2 days at home a week was standard and 3 in the office. I like going in myself, I would hate 5 days working from home a week. I done it for awhile in my last job and hated it after a few weeks.

Hamsterchops

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

How will being an island help us?

The island thing is a total red herring......

One island two jurisdictions, so we have UK figures for NI, and Ireland figures for the ROI.

Cilldara_2000

ChurchtownMan wrote: »

I am not. Read them yourself. The 20% is a single high point for infection at a single time.

You've "extrapolated" that figure yourself.

gabeeg

RandomName2 wrote: »

If containment fails, and the infection is allowed run its course, 20% is a likely scenario. For instance, 20% of the world's population was infected with swine flu apparently.

Given how infectious covid-19 clearly is, I would find it ludicrous for anyone to suggest anything lower as being 'likely'. Hopefully with good mitigation I could be made considerably lower, but that's a 'best case' scenario, not 'likely'. The UK is now on a mitigation footing, so this is pretty relevant.

It's going to become endemic. It's going to become another ****ty dose you'll want to avoid every year.

Everyone's going to get it. The luckiest ones will get it last, when there's
better treatments available for the symptoms. Perhaps there'll be a small cohort that don't get it at all due to a vaccine.

ChurchtownMan

ITman88 wrote: »

Listen here 007, after you said leaked document, you really lost me at “leaked to the sun”.

Is the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) briefing to the Scottish Parliament sufficiently un red top for you ?

https://www.gov.scot/publications/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-update/

babybuilder

faceman wrote: »

For those shouting for a travel ban to certain regions....

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/travel-ban-coronavirus-spread

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-travel-restrictions-effectiveness.html

TL;DR version - travel bans only delayed the spread of the virus in China by 3-5 days. It only delayed the spread by 3-5 weeks internationally.

So it was coming one way or another.

Two things. 1. Delay the virus so that the numbers attending hospitals are spread out over a longer period. Hence less pressure on the system. 2. Increase capacity in the system.

Delaying inward infection could have helped and could still help. The EU and Ireland needs to wake up.

ITman88

Blueshoe wrote: »

I think it would be great. I can't work from home but if other people could I wouldn't begrudge them. Some people have mentioned it would be better for people's mental health. I disagree with that point. Going out into the world every day and interacting with people face to face is good for the mind. Working at home all day and then at home for the evening without seeing another soul (apart from family or housemates) might not be ideal for everyone.

Very true, I have the option to work from home, f that, I’ll take the office and interact with people regardless. The countryside is bleak during Winter, I’d rather talk to folk!

Away With The Fairies

ixoy wrote: »

That's assuming enough people don't take the proverbial and doss, therfore confirming manager's fears.
Hope it takes off as, long term, it's a positive effect. Right now on transmission potential but further along for the climate and people's mental well-being.

It's a time like this, people shouldn't be taking the p!as if they get the chance to work from home.

faceman

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because they had land borders, were an island......

So is Australia

Blueshoe

ITman88 wrote: »

Very true, I have the option to work from home, f that, I’ll take the office and interact with people regardless. The countryside is bleak during Winter, I’d rather talk to folk!

Imagine being someone who lived alone and worked from home everyday. Couldn't be good in the long run. Maybe I'm wrong, Iv never worked from home so have no experience of the scenario.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I remember the Foot and Mouth outbreak back in 2001.

We were in Spain at the time and it was looking dodgy as to whether we could get back or not. Was a bit of a tough time for the humans. But no bother to curtail everything for the animals.

Priorities, priorities.

Mad thought.....If the slave trade was still going there probably would have been lock downs earlier