English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Off Topic > OT - General

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 22 March 2020, 15:56   #141
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master484 View Post
The finnish authorities have released an estimate that at least 20 % of finnish population will be infected at some point. Of those infected, 1 % will develop serious symptoms and will need emergency room treatment at a hospital. And of these 1 % , it's estimated that 10 % will die. So according to this estimate, in Finland about one million citizens will be infected, about ten thousand end up in hospital, and of those about one thousand will die.
With all due respect to the Finnish authorities, I seriously doubt the 1% serious symptoms number as it's completely different and much, much lower than what I've heard from every single other country I've heard reports from (plus the WHO) so far. I also seriously doubt the 20% and 10% as they too are very different numbers from basically all other reports.

Don't underestimate this, please. Do yourself and your loved ones a favour. It's not like the flu and telling people it is, is frankly dangerous.

Edit: please understand I'm saying this to help, not to attack you or anyone personally.
roondar is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 16:02   #142
nobody
Registered User

nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: GR
Age: 43
Posts: 1,338
it is impossible to stop the virus with 1.2 billion people in China, they just don't care any more and go for herd immunity. Who cares if they lose 100k or 200k people, they have a billion. They consider the economy more important than the lives of a few. Probably made some hospitals specifically for corona cases and just let them die there, corona who? No you don't hqve corona you have a normal virus (while all doctors wear spaceman suits)
nobody is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 16:13   #143
nobody
Registered User

nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: GR
Age: 43
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post

Don't underestimate this, please. Do yourself and your loved ones a favour. It's not like the flu and telling people it is, is frankly dangerous.

.
No it's not like the flu. Info from a friend that works in a leading European country public health system

Stage 1, sits in your lungs and if your immune system fails to fight back you get a severe pneumonia
Stage 2, leaves lungs and sits in various organs lever etc creates multi-organ insufficiency.
Stage 3, if you are still alive it completely destroys your neural systems and bye-bye.
nobody is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 21:06   #144
SquawkBox
Speedbump gimme goosebump
SquawkBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: France
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Send a message via ICQ to SquawkBox
Rome huge mishap was to give confusing orders to people visiting relatives in Wuhan last January, "Don't come back, go be sick some place else!", barely a caricature. Of course, to complete their trip back home, these people simply used connecting flights. Ultimately, they arrived in Italy without even the slightest nod to the medical authorities, and brought in the virus in heaps nevertheless. Fear is a poor counsellor, as goes the old saying. In France, at least that specific issue with the returnees was carried out properly :
https://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/vi...nement-6716487

Quote:
After their landing on Friday at the military base of Istres (Bouches-du-Rhône), the returnees who fled Wuhan, epicenter of the new coronavirus epidemic, returned by bus to the small town of Carry-le-Rouet. They undertook in writing to respect the 14-days quarantine. They are, however, free to move around the grounds of the holiday center where medical staff support them 24 hours a day.
As a side note, I would like to thank the OT moderation team to let this thread run its course, despite its potentially (...) controversial content. Stay safe guys, and keep up the good work!

Last edited by SquawkBox; 22 March 2020 at 21:18.
SquawkBox is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 21:07   #145
sparhawk
Registered User

sparhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Essen/Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
True, but do remember that unlike the seasonal flu the percentage of serious cases is much higher, with 20% of infected people developing severe illness. That's a lot.

Where do you get the 20% from? Maybe it differs from country to country, but this seems mugh higher than what I read. Can't find the source though.



Quote:
True, but it will probably take a while for a large enough group to be immune for that to really start having an effect. Note that this is not my theory, this is what I keep hearing from all those experts that are dragged into the media at the moment.

Well, it will take a few months.



Quote:
Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by "some other viruses". It's true that humanity has faced epidemics that were of a similar magnitude, but those were pretty rare. The last one was all the way back in 1918 and was less lethal than what's being projected here.

I don't know what you consider "lethal" but the global detah rate is around 4% where this number is not yet conclusive, as the cases are still going on. I looked several days now and every day the rate was about the same . So we have currently 14500 deaths worldwide. Not something that I would really consider a "lethal pandemic". Even more so, when I consider that most of the deaths are older people, which is sad, but not THAT suprising. In light of the media coverage and the panic reactions I consider this an total overreaction.


Quote:
Not only is it more deadly (with even the most conservative estimates at 5x)

Again, I would like to know where you got that number from, because it's way higher then WHO reports. And they themselve warn, that the current number (less than 3%) is an higher estimate than the final number, because at the current time it can not be calculated properly, as most of the cases are still ongoing.



Quote:
, but it also affects more people seriously

Which is only true for older people or people who already have health issues.


Quote:
With that in mind it might be useful to see the difference in projected lethality for this virus with all of the lockdown efforts vs the common flu without any of that stuff.

The lockdown helps to keep the deathrate lower. Though this is NOT because the virus is stopped from spreading (which it is not), but because the treatment centers are overrun to a lesser extent.


Quote:
The common flu kills about one million people every year.

Can't say if this is true. I heard high numbers for Germany as well, but when I started to take a closer look, the number suddenly dropped to a surprisingly low number ( less than 200 cases per year with around 1700 in 2017). So I really wonder where this numbers come from and how reliable they are.
sparhawk is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 21:59   #146
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,900
I do apologize, this has gotten much longer than I thought it would end up being. But I feel it's best to put the information I've used out here so people can judge for themselves. After all, I could be right. But I could also be wrong in my interpretation

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparhawk View Post
Where do you get the 20% from? Maybe it differs from country to country, but this seems mugh higher than what I read. Can't find the source though.
I got that information from the WHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHO Corona Q&A
Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults. However, it can cause serious illness: about 1 in every 5 people who catch it need hospital care. It is therefore quite normal for people to worry about how the COVID-19 outbreak will affect them and their loved ones.
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-de...-coronaviruses
This is in-line with what the government over here has been saying and what I've read elsewhere and because of how widespread this figure seems to be, I tend to trust it. Note that I'm always open to better and new information so, so if there is a good reason to doubt the above do let me know. I'd prefer this being less serious than it seems to be
Quote:
Well, it will take a few months.
What I take away from the news sources I've seen is that at this point we don't really know how long it'll last. It could be only a few months, if we're really lucky, or it could be a year or longer if we're not.
Quote:
I don't know what you consider "lethal" but the global detah rate is around 4% where this number is not yet conclusive, as the cases are still going on. I looked several days now and every day the rate was about the same . So we have currently 14500 deaths worldwide. Not something that I would really consider a "lethal pandemic". Even more so, when I consider that most of the deaths are older people, which is sad, but not THAT suprising. In light of the media coverage and the panic reactions I consider this an total overreaction.
See, to me this is a strange position to take. I've heard experts from several different countries all stating similar stories: that they expect Corona to infect anywhere between 20% and 70% of the entire global population. At that point, even if it would only have a mortality rate as low as the seasonal flu (0,1%) that's still millions of dead people. But every expert I've heard about it so far seems to think the disease is far more lethal, so the numbers could get very high. That said, we don't know the exact figure yet, which is why I didn't use 3-4% as that seems like a distorted figure to me caused by a lack of testing capacity.

Edit: just to be clear here, there's another reason I find the argument you make here strange - focussing on the current number of deaths is misleading because not that many people have gotten ill yet. The expectation of experts is that the number of people who will eventually catch Corona are going to be a sizeable portion of the world's population. If the death rate were to stay constant over all that time, you're looking at a catastrophe. Hence all the measures in place to try and not have the hospitals overcrowded and people needlessly dying. So to me, claiming it's not lethal because only 3% of current known cases have died and that is not that many people so far seems unwarranted.
Quote:
Again, I would like to know where you got that number from, because it's way higher then WHO reports. And they themselve warn, that the current number (less than 3%) is an higher estimate than the final number, because at the current time it can not be calculated properly, as most of the cases are still ongoing.
No, my figure is not way higher than what the WHO reports. It is in fact way lower, as they currently say it's about 2-3%. I read a bunch of different stories, articles, etc about Corona and the lowest mortality rate I saw claimed in those articles was 0,5%. That is 5x as high as the common flu, which has a 0,1% mortality rate.

Many articles claimed higher figures (as does the WHO), which I didn't use when I named the potential number of victims. I deliberately choose the lowest number I could find to prevent overstating things. That said, I can't find the source for the 0,5% now - only sources that claim higher numbers.
Quote:
Which is only true for older people or people who already have health issues.
Well, the WHO doesn't seem to agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Speaking at an online news conference from WHO headquarters in Geneva, Mr Tedros said: "Although older people are hardest hit, younger people are not spared."

He added: "I have a message for young people: You are not invincible, this virus could put you in hospital for weeks or even kill you. Even if you don't get sick the choices you make about where you go could be the difference between life and death for someone else."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51982495
Now it is certainly true your chances are probably much better if you are younger and healthy. But all you have to do to see that the above is true, is reading up on some of the stuff happening in Italy, where relatively young and otherwise healthy people have already died.
Quote:
The lockdown helps to keep the deathrate lower. Though this is NOT because the virus is stopped from spreading (which it is not), but because the treatment centers are overrun to a lesser extent.
That is indeed the whole point, yes. The mortality rate we now see in Italy was not necessary, had they only taken things more seriously. It's terribly sad it had to happen that way over there
Quote:
Can't say if this is true. I heard high numbers for Germany as well, but when I started to take a closer look, the number suddenly dropped to a surprisingly low number ( less than 200 cases per year with around 1700 in 2017). So I really wonder where this numbers come from and how reliable they are.
Well, I decided to check it out a bit further because I admit my 1 million figure was just a simple Google search result. So I went to the WHO and they say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHO on Influenza
Illnesses range from mild to severe and even death. Hospitalization and death occur mainly among high risk groups. Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 290 000 to 650 000 respiratory deaths.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...enza-(seasonal)
So less than 1 million, but clearly more than a couple of thousand.

Last edited by roondar; 22 March 2020 at 22:15.
roondar is offline  
Old 22 March 2020, 23:02   #147
Retro-Nerd
Missile Command Champion

Retro-Nerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 11,949
Quote:
Can't say if this is true. I heard high numbers for Germany as well, but when I started to take a closer look, the number suddenly dropped to a surprisingly low number ( less than 200 cases per year with around 1700 in 2017). So I really wonder where this numbers come from and how reliable they are.

The common flu killed app. 25000 people in Germany in 2017/2018.


https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/grippe-129.html


https://translate.google.com/transla...rippe-129.html
Retro-Nerd is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 07:38   #148
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,709
The thing that really pisses me off is that all this could have been prevented if the Chinese didn't feel the need to eat disgusting things.

Of course that's if you don't believe that the virus was man made in a Chinese lab, this theory does have some merit.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 08:42   #149
sparhawk
Registered User

sparhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Essen/Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd View Post
The common flu killed app. 25000 people in Germany in 2017/2018.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/grippe-129.html
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/17...er-Todesfaelle

Conclusion:
Quote:
„Laborbestätigte Todesfälle“ durch Influenza in den Jahren 2010 bis 2013: 26 bis 198 pro Saison . . .
Cases, confirmed by labratory examination, are around 26 to 198 per season between 2010 and 2013.
sparhawk is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 09:10   #150
sparhawk
Registered User

sparhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Essen/Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
See, to me this is a strange position to take. I've heard experts from several different countries all stating similar stories: that they expect Corona to infect anywhere between 20% and 70% of the entire global population.
So you are confusing "infection" with "death rate". Infection will be pretty high. For this I wouldn't be surprised by the 70% because this is basically what is needed for "herd immunization".

Quote:
That said, we don't know the exact figure yet, which is why I didn't use 3-4% as that seems like a distorted figure to me caused by a lack of testing capacity.
The 4% limit is based on what we already know (dead vs. infected), but that number is missleading, as it also includes ongoing cases. Since the recovery rate is rather high, this means that the final death rate will be lower. This is also mentioned on the WHO press conference.

Quote:
Edit: just to be clear here, there's another reason I find the argument you make here strange - focussing on the current number of deaths is misleading because not that many people have gotten ill yet.
How many people might get infected doesn't change the death RATE, it will only change the number of dead people, which will obviously rise.

The rate determines how many people of the infected are dying because of it. The lethatilty is not based on absolut numbes of dead people but on the rate.

Quote:
The expectation of experts is that the number of people who will eventually catch Corona are going to be a sizeable portion of the world's population.
No need to be an "expert" to come to this conclusion. But how many catch it is rather irrelevant for determining the lethality, it is only relevant for determinig how many people will die.

Quote:
So to me, claiming it's not lethal because only 3% of current known cases have died and that is not that many people so far seems unwarranted.
I never claimed that it's not lethal, I just say that it's not as apocalyptic as people (and especially the press which has their own agenda) make it. And if you consider the demographics of the dead, then it looks even less of a problem so there is no need for panicking. This overreaction just makes it harder for people who really need help.

Quote:
Now it is certainly true your chances are probably much better if you are younger and healthy. But all you have to do to see that the above is true, is reading up on some of the stuff happening in Italy, where relatively young and otherwise healthy people have already died.
Strange, because what I reada so far says, that one reason for the high mortality rate is because they have the highest number of older people, which is of course also reflected in the number of deaths.

Quote:
That is indeed the whole point, yes. The mortality rate we now see in Italy was not necessary, had they only taken things more seriously. It's terribly sad it had to happen that way over there
If they really have so many older poeple there, then it is to be expected as they are more at risk.

Quote:
Well, I decided to check it out a bit further because I admit my 1 million https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...enza-(seasonal)
So less than 1 million, but clearly more than a couple of thousand.
From your paper above:

Quote:
Hospitalization and death occur mainly among high risk groups.
...
In industrialized countries most deaths associated with influenza occur among people age 65 or older (1). Epidemics can result in high levels of worker/school absenteeism and productivity losses. Clinics and hospitals can be overwhelmed during peak illness periods.

High level of absenteesim is hardly something I would consider catastrophic, in terms of the the death rate.


We will see in a few months how much problem this overraction will have caused in economics.
sparhawk is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 09:10   #151
nobody
Registered User

nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: GR
Age: 43
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
The thing that really pisses me off is that all this could have been prevented if the Chinese didn't feel the need to eat disgusting things.

Of course that's if you don't believe that the virus was man made in a Chinese lab, this theory does have some merit.
Or if the Chinese government had warned the other nations in time. They just let it happen.
nobody is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 12:01   #152
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparhawk View Post
So you are confusing "infection" with "death rate". Infection will be pretty high. For this I wouldn't be surprised by the 70% because this is basically what is needed for "herd immunization".
No, I am not. I am merely doing something you seem to have very much tried to avoid doing: combine the expected death rate/mortality rate and the expected number of cases. If 70% of the world population catch this, even a tiny rate of people dying will lead to massive numbers of dead people. This is not complicated to understand.

And I honestly don't quite understand why this is seemingly so hard for you to accept.

If we look at the seasonal flu, we can see this 70% number is part of the issue that makes Corona dangerous, as the seasonal flu normally affects far fewer people. The CDC estimates (I could not find WHO numbers) the number of seasonal flu cases to be around only 3-11% of the population every year.
Quote:
The 4% limit is based on what we already know (dead vs. infected), but that number is missleading, as it also includes ongoing cases. Since the recovery rate is rather high, this means that the final death rate will be lower. This is also mentioned on the WHO press conference.
Which is why I didn't use it for any of the numbers I pointed out.
Quote:
How many people might get infected doesn't change the death RATE, it will only change the number of dead people, which will obviously rise.

The rate determines how many people of the infected are dying because of it. The lethatilty is not based on absolut numbes of dead people but on the rate.
Indeed, which is why a virus that has a tiny death rate, but is expected to infect a majority of all current living people is very dangerous as it can end up causing many deaths. You need to look at both the rate and the expected number of cases combined. Looking only at one and ignoring the other makes the problem seem much smaller than it really is.
Quote:
No need to be an "expert" to come to this conclusion. But how many catch it is rather irrelevant for determining the lethality, it is only relevant for determinig how many people will die.
The lethality has been claimed to be much higher than the flu by experts in the field. I see no reason to doubt these people at all. I certainly haven't seen any reasonable arguments to do so. Causing people to doubt this fact is dangerous as it can lead to people acting like there is no problem at all. Which is what got Italy to where it is now.
Quote:
I never claimed that it's not lethal, I just say that it's not as apocalyptic as people (and especially the press which has their own agenda) make it. And if you consider the demographics of the dead, then it looks even less of a problem so there is no need for panicking. This overreaction just makes it harder for people who really need help.
This article points towards the situation in the USA. I couldn't find a world-wide or Italian version of these numbers, so they are from the CDC and not the WHO: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/...ot-invincible/
Note that it points out that older people account for 80% of the deaths. Which means 20% are not old. That is pretty a sizable portion of those dying and much more than would happen for a standard flu. It also points out that about 20% of the people aged 20-44 who get it need to be hospitalized, though they indeed do die at a much lower rate.

Also, I'm deliberately not going to respond further about what the demographics mean for whether or not this is a problem.
Quote:
Strange, because what I reada so far says, that one reason for the high mortality rate is because they have the highest number of older people, which is of course also reflected in the number of deaths.
I never said that older people are not affected to a far greater extent. I said that younger people are also affected and have in fact died. This has been pointed out in a more than a few news articles. And the WHO, as I showed twice now, has warned young people to not underestimate this.

Just because the average age of the people dying is high does not mean there are no younger people dying. Just many more old ones.
Quote:
If they really have so many older poeple there, then it is to be expected as they are more at risk.
They could have avoided what is by now a national tragedy by taking it more seriously.
Quote:
From your paper above:

High level of absenteesim is hardly something I would consider catastrophic, in terms of the the death rate.
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You wondered about how many people actually die each year from the flu, I looked up a trustworthy source to get an accurate number. This number turned out to be a bit lower than the number I thought it was. However, it was also clearly much higher than the numbers you've been throwing out.
Quote:
We will see in a few months how much problem this overraction will have caused in economics.
This is not an over reaction.
roondar is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 14:59   #153
sparhawk
Registered User

sparhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Essen/Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 321
If you understand german, you can watch this video, which is has a very critical view on how the numbers are generated and how they are presented in news.
[ Show youtube player ]
sparhawk is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 15:17   #154
Master484
Registered User
Master484's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Vaasa, Finland
Posts: 429
I would like to clarify why the finnish government estimate of serious cases is only 1 %.

Many sources indeed say that 20 % of the diagnosed cases are serious, and this 20 % is what the WHO website too is referring to with that "1 out of 5 who get it" statement.

But these values are for those cases that were actually tested. A vast majority of the infections are never tested or diagnosed in any way, because they cause only mild symptoms, or no symptoms at all.

Here is a video that explains the "undiagnosed cases vs diagnosed cases" pretty well, starting at 1 minute mark:

[ Show youtube player ]

So an estimate of 85 % of all cases have only mild symptoms or no symptoms. Only 15 % of all cases are tested and verified. And many of this 15 % are people who belong to the risk groups, or people who got so sick that they sought out medical help. And this is why about 20 % of diagnosed cases are serious cases. But when we take into account the 85 % who have only mild symptoms or no symptoms, then only 3 % of all infections are serious.

---

And this is why I believe that the estimate released by the finnish authorites is more or less accurate. It takes all cases into account, both the diagnosed, and the undiagnosed cases.

Right now there are 626 confirmed, tested cases in Finland, with 43 serious cases in hospital. So 7 % of the diagnosed cases are serious, and at a quick glance it would seem that the previously released government estimate of only 1 % of cases being serious would be totally wrong.

But the health authorities have also said that the real number of infections in Finland could actually be as much as 20 or 30 times higher than the tested cases number. So in reality we have maybe around 12 500 infections right now, most of them mild cases that are never tested and confirmed.

So when we also take into account this huge number of undiagnosed cases, we get approximately 13 000 cases, with those same 43 serious cases in hospital. And that means right now only 0,3 % of all cases are serious. And this number matches better with the government estimate, which said 1 % cases would be serious.

---

And this finnish estimate can applied to other countries too.

For example right now the coronavirus Wikipedia page for Italy says that there are 46 650 active cases, with 3000 severe cases. So about 6,5 % of the diagnosed cases are severe. This is in line with the 7 % of the diagnosed cases being severe in Finland.

But if Italy also has as many undiagnosed cases as Finland has, so that the actual number of infections is at least 20 times higher, then it has something like 933 000 cases in total. And this means that 0,32 % of all cases are serious, almost the same number as in Finland.
Master484 is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 16:21   #155
sparhawk
Registered User

sparhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Essen/Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master484 View Post
And this means that 0,32 % of all cases are serious, almost the same number as in Finland.

Thanks for this nice explanation. Problem with statistics is, that it is not THAT easy to properly interpret the numbers, so I can see a lot of poeple picking at some numbers they found somewhere, but never put them into perspective or with regard to how those numbers were generated. And this usually leads to much higher "assesments" than what is really going on.
sparhawk is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 16:41   #156
Zak
Zap´em

Zak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 411
sparhawk, for your information, Harald Lesch explains the numbers in his recent video, but unfortunately it's german, so just for you

[ Show youtube player ]
Zak is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 18:55   #157
Retro-Nerd
Missile Command Champion

Retro-Nerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 11,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparhawk View Post
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/17...er-Todesfaelle

Conclusion:


Cases, confirmed by labratory examination, are around 26 to 198 per season between 2010 and 2013.

What conclusion? Normally only a few hundred dies in Germany (sometimes low thousands), but 2017/2018 there died over 25000. Confirmed by the Robert Koch Institut. This "can" happen every year due to the common flu. In 2003 app. 15000 died. Do a better research before you imply or speculate such things from shady sites.

Older news, from 2009.

https://translate.google.com/transla...en-371174.html

Last edited by Retro-Nerd; 23 March 2020 at 19:16.
Retro-Nerd is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 19:17   #158
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,900
Forget what I wrote. I should never have gotten mixed up into this discussion in the first place. Believe what you will.
And just to point this out: no matter my personal and more pessimistic views on this issue, I genuinely hope those pointing to lower numbers end up being correct.

Last edited by roondar; 23 March 2020 at 21:13. Reason: Better to turn around half way...
roondar is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 19:37   #159
Retro-Nerd
Missile Command Champion

Retro-Nerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 11,949
This is ridiculous. Most of the death caused due to the flu (or corona now) are bacterial pneumonia. This is what they put on the death cerfiticate. So, the virus infections ARE the cause of death. The numbers are mostly correct.

Last edited by Retro-Nerd; 23 March 2020 at 23:39.
Retro-Nerd is offline  
Old 23 March 2020, 22:53   #160
nobody
Registered User

nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: GR
Age: 43
Posts: 1,338
Just be careful out there. If the health system is overrun you can be in hell of a lot of trouble. Don't believe anything and consider the worst scenario to be safe.
nobody is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You died if you went to the loo without toilet roll ianos Looking for a game name ? 15 06 April 2020 02:08
Buying a CD32 compatible gamepad is cool but... Mounty Retrogaming General Discussion 15 12 March 2020 16:39
Game where toilet was flushed poop falls from the sky matthewproud Looking for a game name ? 4 04 January 2016 00:45
Jimmy's Lost His Toilet Paper, The Bowelmovement Game... and others Shoonay Retrogaming General Discussion 0 04 July 2008 20:40
'Cool Ska Cool' by Up Rough spoUP News 0 30 July 2007 20:54

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.11362 seconds with 15 queries