China Coronavirus

[five points]

Schools didn't know they were closing until the gov closed them. Obviously they weren't doing anything different.
Your original point suggested that the schools may not have been closed (by the gov) only for St Patrick's & Easter being so close.
I'm asking you what makes you think that? Is there anything to suggest that is the case, outside of your head?

Schools not knowing they were closing is not the answer to that btw.

Because there would have been stronger objections from State exam students and teachers had they shut for example a fortnight after Easter, with exam preparation in full swing.

What on earth are you talking about now?

I don't know, I thought that spoke for itself?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

[armaghniac]

It's a relatively weak pandemic

-It doesn't strike uniformly across the population
-It is expected to be less lethal than the flu of winter 2017/18 which killed 50,000 people in the UK. And that was just the flu.

The real thing would kill more than 10,000 people in the Republic and hospitalise 120,000.

So there is a a lot of unnecessary panic.

Who expects it to kill less than 50,000 in the UK? Boris Johnson?
It is more infectious than flu typically is, and it will kill 0.5% of people even if they receive treatment. Assume half the people get it, that's 180,000. Since that number haven't a hope of  receiving treatment the death rate would  be like half a million.

[larryin89]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

[ned]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Your maths is wrong. Should be 100% and 500% but your point is still valid. Some just won't be told.

[ned]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

1% is 100 times 0.1%

[armaghniac]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Your maths is wrong. Should be 100% and 500% but your point is still valid. Some just won't be told.

The point is  that this is not  just predicting the score in a  GAA game, it is serious and people should not be putting forward claims that is is just flu, without any basis.

This guy does not think it is only flu,, hence the sarcastic "una semplice influenza" at the end
https://twitter.com/acirne/status/1238794673906421761?s=19

[larryin89]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

1% is 100 times 0.1%

Honestly have to admit I thought it was only ten times as much , shows you how daft I am in reality

[larryin89]

What is 0.01 then ? Genuinely confused here .

[Maiden1]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

1% is 100 times 0.1%

Honestly have to admit I thought it was only ten times as much , shows you how daft I am in reality

It is

100% of 20 is 20, (20x1).
50% of 20 is 10  (20x0.5).
1000% of 20 is 200 i.e.  (20x10).

[gallsman]

I don't know which hurts more. The wilful ignorance of so many here or the terrible mathematical abilities.

If flu kills 50,000, 150% of that is 75,000.

To turn out 1000% of a value, multiply it by 10.

[OgraAnDun]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

1% is 100 times 0.1%

Honestly have to admit I thought it was only ten times as much , shows you how daft I am in reality

You're right

[Milltown Row2]

Relative to.the commonly accepted definition of a pandemic.
Mortality 150% of the usual.

It looks like being nowhere near that..

Obviously we need to reduce infection rates but I honestly think the level of panic is overdone.

150% of the usual what?

If mortality rate of "usual" flu is 0.1%, and COVID-19 is 1%, then that is 1000% of "the usual". Current estimates are COVID-19 has mortality rate nearer 5%, so just the 5000% of "the usual" - assuming you are using flu as your yardstick for "the usual".

Sorry perhaps I'm just not getting your figures but 0.1 % to 1% is 0.9 difference , where does the 1000% come in ?

1% is 100 times 0.1%

So if I multiply 0.1 by 100 I'll get 1? Cause I just did it on the aul calculator and it came up as ten

[Milltown Row2]

It's a relatively weak pandemic

-It doesn't strike uniformly across the population
-It is expected to be less lethal than the flu of winter 2017/18 which killed 50,000 people in the UK. And that was just the flu.

The real thing would kill more than 10,000 people in the Republic and hospitalise 120,000.

So there is a a lot of unnecessary panic.

Who expects it to kill less than 50,000 in the UK? Boris Johnson?
It is more infectious than flu typically is, and it will kill 0.5% of people even if they receive treatment. Assume half the people get it, that's 180,000. Since that number haven't a hope of  receiving treatment the death rate would  be like half a million.

Will it not kill at least a million? The expert on earlier did a spread sheet excel thingy showing a million deaths relating to the virus in Britain alone!

[Jim Bob]

What is 0.01 then ? Genuinely confused here .

0.01 is one hundredth