SurreyMackem
Striker
So taking an average of 0.002+0.006+0.03+0.08=0.0295 IFR that would be 11,800 deaths among the 40m under 40 year olds
Herd immunity, letting infection spread while deaths still happening
- Status
So taking an average of 0.002+0.006+0.03+0.08=0.0295 IFR that would be 11,800 deaths among the 40m under 40 year olds
Beery
Striker
Which figures? I was just trying to do the high level calculations:
"Uk Pop per 5 year age bracket x 60% will get COVID 19 x 1.n% of whom will require hospitalization" = c.30,000 per 5 year age bracket
If you go down the herd immunity strategy that 60% will happen over a shorter period of time than via lockdown - so I see the flaw in argument is the capacity of the hospitals v acceptable mortality
I honestly hope I am way out and being too pessimistic
What do your calculations look like?
assuming they could all get hospital treatment.....all 3m of them
Last edited:
SteveB
Striker
Thought the spreadsheet I looked at was based on current cases ... But it's an estimate / guestimate.
We are definitely headed down the herd immunity route . Need to get over this first wave, learn how this bastard thing works, and then get all those who can and are willing to get back out there as best they can . It will be mayhem if we lockdown the country for too long. Fallout from a fucked economy will outweigh impact of the virus if we are not careful
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
For those who want ideas of actual people this affects I hoyed the populations in for each age group and this is what it looks like. Is this right @Frijj as I just got the data from the mind 2018 population numbers and hoyed them in.
Logon or register to see this image
It's 10,290 from 33.12 million under 40 in the table above but as I said I'm not sure if this is right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beery
Striker
things to consider:
- Its a global economy these days so would need other countries to align with our approach and not restrict trade. eg no point Nissan going back to work if no-one buying cars in Europe
- Herd immunity will mean that we quickly run out of Medical capacity so mortality rates will be higher than the ICL report - we will need to accept that and I think would need someone kind of a "national contract" a bit like going to war and accepting there will be casualties
those columns dont look right - what are your calcs?
Last edited:
SurreyMackem
Striker
I make it average of 0.1+0.3+1.2+3.2=1.2% of 40,000,000 is 480,000 needing hospitalisation and 5% 24,000 requiring ICU.
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Here's the populations added that I used from here (LINK). I simply multiplied the millions by the percentage for that age group in each of the 3 columns. Apologies if I'm doing this shit wrong.
:edit: Shit I just realised I have anarl!
Is each column going right a percentage of the previous column and not just the overall population of the millions in that age group?:edit again: It is as the clue is in the f***ing column headers so lemme fix it
Logon or register to see this image
Last edited by a moderator:
Beery
Striker
I dont quite get the calcs for columns c and d.
I was working on basis that 60% would catch the virus and then 1.2% would need hospitalisation - the Fatality Rate is misleading as we are not running out of capacity at moment
so 33m x 60% x 1.2% = 237,000 - requiring hospitalization ( I got it wrong earlier as said 2.4m so out by factor of 10 - so thats good news)
but your columns C+D show more than 1.2% requiring hospitalisation
Beery
Striker
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
No I hadn't but was on it and fixing it and grabbing a screenshot of why I did it. This shit is new to me bit I find it interesting. Is this looking better? I've included a 100m line at the bottom so you can see the working out with a 10% symptomatic and 1% hospitalisation and 1% IFR.
Logon or register to see this image
Logon or register to see this image
This is what is says for 60% as I can just change the % now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beery
Striker
looks better - how did you get to 10% in column C? and 1% in column D
Overall though the point I'm making (badly
) is that with Herd immunity column D ad E are going to go up as more people will move from columns C to D to E as the hospitals wont have capacity to deal with them allIts a shit place to be right now, for the decision makers, but if Herd immunity is our exit strategy then we need to accept this will have significant impacts especially physiologically - its not like losing people in a war where you can justify the sacrifice
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Bollocks, noticed a mistake in the 10% at bottom but it's just that cell that was wrong, not the table above.
Logon or register to see this image
Those are there just so I knew the formulas I had were finally correct. From 10,000,000 a 60% infection means 6,000,000 infected and 10% of those being hospitalised is 600,000. 1% of 10,000,000 dying is 600,000. The actual percentages for each age group I used from the table @Frijj posted earlier that's in the report.looks better - how did you get to 10% in column C? and 1% in column D
Overall though the point I'm making (badly
Its a shit place to be right now, for the decision makers, but if Herd immunity is our exit strategy then we need to accept this will have significant impacts especially physiologically - its not like losing people in a war where you can justify the sacrifice
Last edited by a moderator:
Slim999
Winger
Some interesting insights in this belowIf we don't go into further lockdown and the NHS recovers etc and has plenty capacity again, I can see them replacing the exercise rule. This would allow people to go out and travel to meet see family/friends etc but still no large gatherings in public that we had in place before lockdown.
The app proposed app would be really good for this. The sooner people realise that using that app could, in fact it's a certainty that it will save lives the better. It's a f***ing small price to pay to allow the government to track you so they can warn you and others of possible infection outbreaks and help stop the spread quickly! South Korea is testament to that aren't they @Slim999?
One thing I forgot to mention is that they may make it compulsory that if infected you have to self isolate and you will be monitored to ensure you do this. This happens in other countries and they will also track you and it's fines/jail for breaking it given how you could spread it and it's only right given it could cost lives in the future. Again it's not failsafe if other are in home but in Asia they take it seriously and lock themselves in a room and only come out when people aren't there to go to bathroom. Again they will clean it all down also when someone else comes. Visits are cut down by people pissing in containers, sounds minging but again it limit the potential spread.
I'm not so sure about cinema, pubs, restaurants etc opening straight away as they're enclosed and can spread easier. If I had the money I'd be renting some land down Seaburnm Vaux and anywhere else nowt is happening and hoying up one of there HERE and have a huge drive in cinema with deliveries to your car. It would make an absolute fortune
I can't see certain business like those all opening after the relaxing of lockdown. Maybe a few weeks down the line once as their r0 estimation changes they can predict what effect it would have by allowing them places to open again. Flu I think has a r0 of 1.3 and I'm sure I saw a current r0 for COVID-19 of 0.9 due to lockdown measures yet was over 2 at one point. A quick google found this 1st link and it's one study that says it's lower and I'd like to imagine the government also have an idea of the range is now as this isn't fact of course.
Preliminary study finds UK lockdown is slowing spread of COVID-19
Lockdown and social distancing measures introduced by the British government to slow the spread of COVID-19 may already be working, according to preliminary research findings, and could soon see Britain's epidemic of infections declining.www.reuters.com
The finding that the mean number of contacts per person measured is more than 70% lower now than before the lockdown suggests that the R0 reproduction value now would be between 0.37 and 0.89, they said, with the most likely value being 0.62.
This is an interesting read if anyone has the time
I know many people can't be socially distant at work and that will possibly end up being one of the places people end up being infected, along with seeing family, mates and people can still have house parties of course. If the app is in place and the 3 tests are here and can test 100,000's if not more a day if not more then come this magical time of lockdown being relaxed, they may just allow more freedom so the sensible masses can do what the selfish ignorant knackers are doing now
@DoctorMick @haway @mcq10 - This is a summary of my speculation bollocks above. Shit is still happening but slowing down and it's gonna get better in time. You will soon be able to go visit your bit on the side but nee wining or dining her but if all is well in a few months then aye, along with cinemas possibly but definitely cinema if I get my idea of drive in cinema up and running! There's some pretty graphs in the link if you like looking at pictures. Sadly nee going to see the lads at the SOL for a few months, if at all this year unless a vaccine is found this year before the next winter season!
I believe most likely scenario is now looking like a partial lock down post May ( assuming we get testing ramped and organised)
Economy can be put back to work , we can travel, use restaurants & pubs ( with stipulations )
I reckon we face a year or so of no more footy, festivals, cinema etc however
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
I've been pissing about hoying numbers in using that ICL table for my own shit and giggles (or tears in this case). The one thing that confuses me is that the overall IFR is 0.12%? Have I fucked up the calculations somewhere? I'm asking because at 100% infection rate, it reckons that 608,200 will need critical care and the recent info from ICNARC said it's around 50% survival rate once you go into critical care
In the first table in the image below only estimates 81,644 will die even if everyone catches it. What the fuck have I done wrong?
Look at the 50-59 age group for example, 8.96m and 10.2% require hospitalisation so that's 913,920 hospitalised. Then 12.2% of the hospitalised require critical care so that's 111,498 into critical care and from that you'd exepect 50% deaths so over 55,000 in that group alone. However the IFR for that group is 0.6% of the 8.96m so that 5,376 deaths yet the ICNARC would suggest a lot more and 800,000 deaths. Obviously 100% won't catch it and even at say 60% that would be just over 300,000 deaths. (in 2nd image below)The 2nd smaller table below the 1st one the estimates of the numbers/percentage of infected by using the current NHS England stats (multiplied to fit into UK deaths for now). The Estimated Infection Rate, it's the current estimated, was worked out by looking at the current deaths and working out what it was compared to the infection millions (it's 21.8 for 80+ not 28.1). Click image to zoom in further.
Logon or register to see this image
This is what it shows me if I hoy in 60% infection rate. The problem being is that infection rate will be variable all over the age ranges. I know the government have their own prediction which are far more complicated but this is just to get some basic estimations using simple calculations. So if 50% die after being in critical care that's 304,100 so using the infected number of 39.85m would mean the IFR is 0.763% which to be honest is within the range I expect it will eventually be. Any ideas what the fuck I've done wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
Beery
Striker
Think your hospitalisation rate calc is incorrect
also shouldnt the IFR% should be % of those infected gross?
I have added a calc if the 50% ,mortality rate is correct for those needing critical care
also shouldnt the IFR% should be % of those infected gross?
I have added a calc if the 50% ,mortality rate is correct for those needing critical care
| Infection Rate 60% | ||||||||||
| millions | Infected Millions | % needing hospital | Hospialised | %of hospital requiring critical care | Critical care | IFR | DEtahs based on ifr of critical care - think this isnt a proper calc | 50% critical care mortality | ||
| 0 | 9 | 8,050,000 | 4,830,000 | 0.10% | 4,830 | 5% | 242 | 0.002% | 0 | 121 |
| 10 | 19 | 7,530,000 | 4,518,000 | 0.30% | 13,554 | 5% | 678 | 0.006% | 0 | 339 |
| 20 | 29 | 8,710,000 | 5,226,000 | 1.20% | 62,712 | 5% | 3,136 | 0.030% | 1 | 1,568 |
| 30 | 39 | 8,830,000 | 5,298,000 | 3.20% | 169,536 | 5% | 8,477 | 0.008% | 1 | 4,238 |
| 40 | 49 | 8,500,000 | 5,100,000 | 4.90% | 249,900 | 6% | 15,744 | 0.150% | 24 | 7,872 |
| 50 | 59 | 8,960,000 | 5,376,000 | 10.20% | 548,352 | 12% | 66,899 | 0.600% | 401 | 33,449 |
| 60 | 69 | 7,070,000 | 4,242,000 | 16.60% | 704,172 | 27% | 192,943 | 2.200% | 4,245 | 96,472 |
| 70 | 79 | 5,490,000 | 3,294,000 | 24.30% | 800,442 | 43% | 345,791 | 5.100% | 17,635 | 172,895 |
| 80 | 120 | 3,270,000 | 1,962,000 | 27.30% | 535,626 | 71% | 379,759 | 9.300% | 35,318 | 189,879 |
| 66,410,000 | 39,846,000 | 3,089,124 | 1,013,667 | 57,624 | 506,834 |
Last edited:
SurreyMackem
Striker
From those figures, it looks like the over 70s, possibly over 60s, and vulnerable are going to have to isolate while the rest are allowed to catch it and provide some protection.
The alternative is to wait for a vaccine.
- Status
