Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (118 Viewers)

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
Pedantic point of order......No such thing as the UK variant. Its simply the B.1.1.7.

Happy for it to be known as the UK variant provided Sars-cov-2 is re-named as the Wuhan virus.

As you were.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Saw reports of people in the U.K. asking questions of nurses about blood clots and the like, slowing down the throughput having to be reassured if nothing else.

Bloody statistically illiterate idiots are going to cost lives.


the odds on getting a clot are something ridiculous like 1 in 420,000.

The odds of dying in a car crash in the UK are something like 1 in 20,000

Bit of common sense needed
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
This doesn't look good. Study showing the UK variant to be around 55% more lethal. As we already know its also more transmissible.

QUOTE from that article

This corresponds to the absolute risk of death for a 55–69-year-old male increasing from 0.6% to 0.9%
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
the odds on getting a clot are something ridiculous like 1 in 420,000.

The odds of dying in a car crash in the UK are something like 1 in 20,000

Bit of common sense needed

And that 1 in 420,000 multiplied up to 17 million makes for about 40 cases which is what was reported. It’s a total non story
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
QUOTE from that article

This corresponds to the absolute risk of death for a 55–69-year-old male increasing from 0.6% to 0.9%

Another 3k deaths per million is nothing to be sniffed at TBF.

Does it matter though? I thought all vaccines were effective against that strain? Obviously sucks if you’re in the third world (or Europe as it’s known :p ), but shouldn’t change much for us.
 

It’sabatch87

Well-Known Member
Surprise surprise up yours EU!!

Shameless Italy and France admit ban on safe AstraZeneca vaccine is political as EU ‘sulks’ over Brexit

 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Surprise surprise up yours EU!!

Shameless Italy and France admit ban on safe AstraZeneca vaccine is political as EU ‘sulks’ over Brexit

Funniest thing about that is neither of the people who are referenced in the article has said it was about Brexit. The Italian guy said it was political as they were pressured by France and Germany and the French guy said it was specifically about putting pressure on AstraZenica over supply. It also doesn’t explain why Sweden has also halted its use and AstraZenica is a U.K./Swedish company. It’s also not a ban, it’s a suspension.

But hey, when did the Sun ever allow facts to get in the way of their reporting.
 

AOM

Well-Known Member
Surprise surprise up yours EU!!

Shameless Italy and France admit ban on safe AstraZeneca vaccine is political as EU ‘sulks’ over Brexit


An anti-EU article from the Sun complaining of something being 'political'

Christ... why do people still read this shite?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
What are the odds of dying from COVID?
About one in 450... so far.

Well, arguably lower (higher?0 than that, as that's a rough and ready out of the population. If you did the number of people who've died after having caught it, we're looking at about every one in 34.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jordan210

Well-Known Member
About one in 450... so far.

Well, arguably lower (higher?0 than that, as that's a rough and ready out of the population. If you did the number of people who've died after having caught it, we're looking at about every one in 34.

Also is very heavily depended on age group.


Also taking about age groups anyone 50+ can now book


 

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
It can, but there’s no getting away from the fact that it’s mutating in the wrong direction.
I thought it was supposed to lose severity with mutations before eventually petering out.
I don't know about that (mutations) . I wasn't trying to downplay the increase either. Merely that 55% increase in mortality sounds scarier than saying it's gone from 0.6 to 0.9.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
About one in 450... so far.

Well, arguably lower (higher?0 than that, as that's a rough and ready out of the population. If you did the number of people who've died after having caught it, we're looking at about every one in 34.

Think those numbers are way too high NW (as in the risk is far less for a majority of people)

Bit morbid but if anyone’s interested in an approx calculation of their own risk this is quite interesting. If you’re not too old and relatively healthy then risks are very small (based on current variants)...if you’re the opposite then you might not want to use the below 😊

 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Think those numbers are way too high NW (as in the risk is far less for a majority of people)

Bit morbid but if anyone’s interested in an approx calculation of their own risk this is quite interesting. If you’re not too old and relatively healthy then risks are very small (based on current variants)...if you’re the opposite then you might not want to use the below 😊

That is the risk in the population though, simple division of deaths by population.

Now, if you wanted to skew it you could do all kinds of things, including acknowledging that the risk is as good as it is because we've all been indoors. But basically, the same as road accidents don't account for slow moving pensioners / blind people / people off their heads on drugs etc. so a general risk in population doesn't go for subtlety or nuance.

I'm assuming Nick's point was that given the choice between risk of blood clot or risk of Covid, you'd head for blood clot every time, which seems reasonable.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
That is the risk in the population though, simple division of deaths by population.

Now, if you wanted to skew it you could do all kinds of things, including acknowledging that the risk is as good as it is because we've all been indoors. But basically, the same as road accidents don't account for slow moving pensioners / blind people / people off their heads on drugs etc. so a general risk in population doesn't go for subtlety or nuance.

I'm assuming Nick's point was that given the choice between risk of blood clot or risk of Covid, you'd head for blood clot every time, which seems reasonable.

Yeah, understand, Covid has a hugely disproportionate effect on certain groups though (unless very unlucky) so the general population calcs are far more scary than the actual risk for most

ps agree 100%, the risk of a clot from the vaccine appears in line with standard unvaccinated figures. Based on current data I’d take the vaccine every time !
 

It’sabatch87

Well-Known Member
They just had a British lady on radio 2 and she lives in a town of 18,000 in France and her local GP gets 6 doses of the vaccine a week to share around,Also only 1.5% of adults in Luxembourg have taken up the vaccine.
How sad,Glad were out of the club!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top