Recent Posts

21

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by loki679 on Today at 11:07:12 AM »

I am really surprised that you ask for data on this. Or may be you didn’t go through what happened in 2003, or may be what you know in 2003 is wrong. Anyway, data? We have history. 299 lives gone. Lesson learnt.

It's a different virus.  The mortality rate for SARS was around 15% which is huge.  And yes, i'll ask for data because that's how you analyse and prepare an appropriate response.  Chicken little nonsense serves no purpose.

80% of cases recover after mild symptoms, 15% of cases recover after severe symptoms, 5% of cases require critical care, that's the data we have.  Please explain to me how the death rate will rise exponentially when the worst case for this virus is 5%

22

Football / Re: (Still) Third division sunderland

« Last post by gdm on Today at 11:03:04 AM »

Season two of the Netflix program out on Friday apparently

Where was it announced?

Just seen it announced a load on Twitter, that’s why I said apparently

23

Football / Re: Still not worthy of a thread

« Last post by joeyt on Today at 11:00:03 AM »

We seem to have a whole clutch of youngsters who got games for the first team but then plummeted down the league's. Kerr, Matty Pattisson, Adam Campbell, Ryan Donaldson, Martin Brittain. Probably loads others.

And then some players like Bradley Orr, Marcus Maddison, James Coppinger who barely got near the first team but have had solid careers

24

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by Zero on Today at 10:58:15 AM »

We're lucky, in some respect that this virus seems mild in comparison to others. While highly contageous, it does look like the death rate is relatively low. It doesnt bare thinking about if the virus had a fatality rate similar to MERS or even SARS. It would be absolutely catastrophic.

They say we're due a global pandemic, while this is looking nasty, I wouldnt say its going to be horrendously bad. Hopefully this will shock the world into putting serious measures in place for something even more deadly.

Not really. Even if it’s SARS again, our local study suggests that the fatality rate would be a lot lower. The reason is because during SARS we don’t have experience in dealing with these kinds virus that don’t have quick solution. Not enough medical resources were in place to support and over usage of steroid took a lot of lives.

As long as the number is low in your place, it would be fine. Ban travelers and make a complete quarantine plan are key preventive measures that all governments should do.

25

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by The Ideal Crash on Today at 10:55:29 AM »

We're lucky, in some respect that this virus seems mild in comparison to others. While highly contageous, it does look like the death rate is relatively low. It doesnt bare thinking about if the virus had a fatality rate similar to MERS or even SARS. It would be absolutely catastrophic.

They say we're due a global pandemic, while this is looking nasty, I wouldnt say its going to be horrendously bad. Hopefully this will shock the world into putting serious measures in place for something even more deadly.

The mortality rate as it stands of 2% does look low. But when you see experts saying that if this isn’t contained that up to 70% of the global population will get this within 12 months, the numbers start to look more worrying.

Just shy of 8 billion people on the planet. Take a worst case scenario of 70% of that. With a 2% mortality rate, that will see around 120 million people die from this.

Even if the number of people infected is lower than predicted, it’s still a colossal amount of people who might be in trouble with it.

26

Football / Re: Still not worthy of a thread

« Last post by TBG on Today at 10:53:43 AM »

Thankfully the club put an end to such wonderful nights.

Just wasn't worth it at the expanse of possibly doing a Leeds.

Much safer to do the bare minimum and have just the two relegations in 10 years.   

27

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by Zero on Today at 10:50:29 AM »

For your info, the most critical resource for dealing with SARS / Coronavirus is the protection gears for the medical staff. They must not be infected, or else the hospital would become a place of breakout. Look at what happened in Wuhan, look at the gears they have had back in January. We weren’t surprised. We knew it. You sounds like it’s something brand new. No for us.

28

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by Zero on Today at 10:45:30 AM »

I am really surprised that you ask for data on this. Or may be you didn’t go through what happened in 2003, or may be what you know in 2003 is wrong. Anyway, data? We have history. 299 lives gone. Lesson learnt.

29

Football / Re: Still not worthy of a thread

« Last post by neesy111 on Today at 10:45:11 AM »

I quite liked Kerr, rarely let us down.

Yeap, remember him having a very good game vs Arsenal in the cup.

Was that not McClen?

I seem to remember Kerr and Acuna playing in CM vs Arsenal in the cup when we drew 1-1.

30

Chat / Re: Coronavirus

« Last post by Zero on Today at 10:42:31 AM »

Not to sound overly "optimistic" (if that's the right word), but surely it's very very possible that the number of cases of this is exponentially greater than is being reported? The amount of people in the world who've had a cold / flu like symptoms in the last month, but mildly and haven't bothered even getting checked and just carried on as normal.

So if that's the case, the death toll (that we know of so far) would actually be a much smaller percentage of the people infected?

Partly correct. The problem is once the amount of patients exceeded the maximum capacity of that particular country / city, the number of deaths would increase exponentially as well. The key is that current there is no quick solution to this virus (and we still don’t know the long term consequence). What patient need is a month(s) in hospital with all kinds of life supporting resources, and then wait for the symptoms to wear down.

If your city / country has no significant break out, you would be fine even if you get one (unless you have other problems). However if there’s break out and hospitals become very crowded, you need to be extremely careful.

And yes, that means, Iran is done.

Could you tell us exactly what data you're basing this on?  There's so far been one place on the entire planet where medical facilities were completely overwhelmed and their mortality rate reached around 4% from a nominal 2%.  In addition they were dealing with a brand new, unknown pathogen.  That's far from being 'exponential'.

Data? You need data to understand this? We all learnt this from 2003 SARS. That’s why we all prepared the stuff (masks, steriliser etc)  back at December already when people in China laughing at us like we are mad.  We all know once we have massive outbreak that our facilities cannot absorb we are done. We have had a lot of doctors and nurses got infected and died in 2003. And now we are lucky that none of them got infected as of today, unlike what happened in China.

Data? We have experience. Experience based on correct info.