Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

London pop. Approx 8.9m. 10% is 890k

Rest of uk pop. Approx 56m. 5% is 2.8m

Total deaths = 34,466

(34,466 / 3,690,000) x 100 = 0.93

In England 21,864 of 24,527 deaths in hospitals have been in those aged 60+ which is 89%

Factor in care homes and it will be well over 90%

That’s the morbidity rate with 5%-10% of people having been tested positive.  How much more will it increase when others become infected?

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

That’s the morbidity rate with 5%-10% of people having been tested positive.  How much more will it increase when others become infected?

Why would it need to increase?

[Granny Danger]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

Why would it need to increase?

Wrong wording.  Not the rate, the overall number of deaths.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

This just means if it was left to tear through the population without a lockdown it would have killed about as many people as that Imperial model you said was bollocks predicted at its upper end.

Assuming it was able to infect 100% of the population then yes, that is true

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Wrong wording.  Not the rate, the overall number of deaths.

Do you understand how percentages work?

Show your working

[Granny Danger]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

Do you understand how percentages work?

Show your working

I understand how percentages work.  If approximately 6% of the population has had it and over 30,000 have died then proportionately more could die by the time the the other 94% have been infected.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I understand how percentages work.  If approximately 6% of the population has had it and over 30,000 have died then proportionately more could die by the time the the other 94% have been infected.

And at the same time proportionately less could die.

I don't know what your point is

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I understand how percentages work.  If approximately 6% of the population has had it and over 30,000 have died then proportionately more could die by the time the the other 94% have been infected.

Could be. Depends whether the 6% have the same demographic make up as the 94% and if we went above NHS capacity.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

And at the same time proportionately less could die.

I don't know what your point is

My point is if it is proportional the a further 470,000 could die.

[bendan]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Could be. Depends whether the 6% have the same demographic make up as the 94% and if we went above NHS capacity.

You would think that we might do slightly better at shielding the elderly than we've managed so far, though that's probably too much to expect. You'd also think some kind of treatments might emerge that can mitigate the effects to some degree.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

My point is if it is proportional the a further 470,000 could die.

Lifting lockdown for low-risk groups is still a sensible option. The figures suggest that the death rates are likely to be extremely low for under 75s without underlying health conditions.

I've no idea why this doesn't seem to be discussed as a serious option. Get the majority of the population back to normal and divert all efforts into protecting high risk groups instead of spreading all the resources too thinly and wrecking the economy.

[Forest_Fifer]

Thanks for your reply but that is why I cannae comprehend the argument that the earth is round in this particular instance.
If I take a globe and stick a guy at the north pole and stick another guy at the south pole then surely the guy at the south pole is 'upside down'
If you're not on Earth, you'd see those terms don't really have much meaning
Again I'm no following that.
Are you saying that there is a position in space where someone in a space ship could see the earth with the south pole at the top and the north pole at the bottom?
It disnae work.
 
BTW it's 4-0 Dortmund with 5 minutes to go.

Are you aware that the original blue marble image taken from Apollo 17 had the south at the "top" of the frame?

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

My point is if it is proportional the a further 470,000 could die.

Sorry I understand your point now.

As Bendan and Gordon have said I think its unlikely we can't protect the most vulnerable. If we can do that we'd reduce any additional deaths by around 90%

It's also unlikely we'd get anywhere near 100% of the population infected

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Lifting lockdown for low-risk groups is still a sensible option. The figures suggest that the death rates are likely to be extremely low for under 75s without underlying health conditions.

I've no idea why this doesn't seem to be discussed as a serious option. Get the majority of the population back to normal and divert all efforts into protecting high risk groups instead of spreading all the resources too thinly and wrecking the economy.

Because "We're all in it together" and doing so would be discrimination, apparantly

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

i've been learning about machine learning on images during lockdown and since it's based around trying to mimic the way the human eyes and brain work together, they did a quick intro on it and it was fascinating. We've got a very small area of incredibly high resolution about the size of your thumbnail and everything else is blurry. If you were to look at that raw output without the adjustments from your brain it would look absolutely horrendous and jittery. Your brain just fools you into thinking it's smoothed out.

If someone chucks a ball to you from ten yards away, there is no time for your hand to receive the messages from the light trapped by your eyes and processed by your brain and sent to your nerve endings and muscles, while the ball is in flight, it's all done by watching the movement of the thrower before he lets go. Doesn't seem like that though.

[Gordon EF]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you could switch off gravity on earth?

I reckon that in your spaceship you'd follow the convention of how the furniture was arranged.

With no gravity and a plain room, I reckon you'd have no idea whatsoever what way was up or down. You'd have no reference to work from.

Surely astronauts have been asked about this? I wonder if even they are experiencing trace amounts of gravitational pull from earth. They must do I would have thought.

Yeah, with no gravity and no points of reference, you'd never be able to tell what was up or down but they'd be no up or down, or at least no shared frame of reference for what up and down was.

I'd guess the earth's gravity would still act on you but probably not strongly enough for humans to notice but I've never heard someone talk about it.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Gordon EF

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If someone chucks a ball to you from ten yards away, there is no time for your hand to receive the messages from the light trapped by your eyes and processed by your brain and sent to your nerve endings and muscles, while the ball is in flight, it's all done by watching the movement of the thrower before he lets go. Doesn't seem like that though.

That is fucking cool. Makes sense. That's why you can make someone stick their hands up by pretending to throw something at them.

[Jacksgranda]

16 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Lifting lockdown for low-risk groups is still a sensible option. The figures suggest that the death rates are likely to be extremely low for under 75s without underlying health conditions.

I've no idea why this doesn't seem to be discussed as a serious option. Get the majority of the population back to normal and divert all efforts into protecting high risk groups instead of spreading all the resources too thinly and wrecking the economy.

I'm starting to come round to this way of thinking.

Maybe stay locked down for another 4 weeks or so, then start to get things going?

[welshbairn]

38 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

 

I'd guess the earth's gravity would still act on you but probably not strongly enough for human's to notice but I've never heard someone talk about it.

The gravity in orbit is neutralised by the centrifugal force of bombing around at 17,000 mph. I suppose if they speeded up or slowed down they would notice it a bit. The risk is disappearing into outer space or dropping into a fiery death, so they probably don't try it too often.

Edited May 16, 2020 by welshbairn

[David W]

7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Yeah, with no gravity and no points of reference, you'd never be able to tell what was up or down but they'd be no up or down, or at least no shared frame of reference for what up and down was.

I'd guess the earth's gravity would still act on you but probably not strongly enough for humans to notice but I've never heard someone talk about it.

On the ISS, the gravitational field is around 90% of Earth. So still very high. It's not zero gravity, or even microgravity; the "weightlessness" isn't weightlessness at all; it comes from being in constant freefall.