| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category 11:42 - Mar 17 with 4138 views | homer_123 |
Figures published yesterday by Imperial College....this is the reality, fecking hell!!!! Now you can see why Health Services have been and are going to be utterly overwhelmed. This is surreal and scary as sh*t.
In short:
Over 60's 16% require hospitilisation, 27% critical care and 2.2% fatality
Over 70's 24% require hospitilisation, 43% critical care and 5.1% fatality
Over 80's 27% require hospitilisation, 70% critical care and 9.3% fatality
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowsh |  |
| |  |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:43 - Mar 17 with 3066 views | clive_baker |
How can more people require critical care than hospitalisation? |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:46 - Mar 17 with 3053 views | homer_123 |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:43 - Mar 17 by clive_baker |
How can more people require critical care than hospitalisation? |
Of those that are hospitalised then require critical care - so of the 27% of over 80, 70% of those will require critical care. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:52 - Mar 17 with 3024 views | NthQldITFC |
I know it's obvious, but probably worth pointing out that the critical care column is percentage of those hospitalised requiring critical care (rather than percentage of population in that age range requiring critical care).
Adjusted for that:
Over 60's 16% require hospitalisation, 5% critical care and 2.2% fatality
Over 70's 24% require hospitalisation, 11% critical care and 5.1% fatality
Over 80's 27% require hospitalisation, 19% critical care and 9.3% fatality
EDIT: for clarification (thanks to HighgateBlue)
---
The figures on each line represent SYMPTOMATIC CASES, not the entire age group.
In the adjusted figures above, the figures for critical care represent the percentage of each age group predicted to require critical care IF THEY DEVELOP THE SYMPTOMS.
The original figures from the ICL report show what percentage of those who have ALREADY BEEN HOSPITALISED go on to require critical care.
Just a different (and possibly slightly less scary) way of looking at it. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 14:15]
|  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:54 - Mar 17 with 2998 views | clive_baker |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:46 - Mar 17 by homer_123 |
Of those that are hospitalised then require critical care - so of the 27% of over 80, 70% of those will require critical care. |
So is it then 2.2% of those that die, or 2.2% of the total?
EDIT: just seen adjusted figures. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 11:54]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:56 - Mar 17 with 2976 views | homer_123 |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:52 - Mar 17 by NthQldITFC |
I know it's obvious, but probably worth pointing out that the critical care column is percentage of those hospitalised requiring critical care (rather than percentage of population in that age range requiring critical care).
Adjusted for that:
Over 60's 16% require hospitalisation, 5% critical care and 2.2% fatality
Over 70's 24% require hospitalisation, 11% critical care and 5.1% fatality
Over 80's 27% require hospitalisation, 19% critical care and 9.3% fatality
EDIT: for clarification (thanks to HighgateBlue)
---
The figures on each line represent SYMPTOMATIC CASES, not the entire age group.
In the adjusted figures above, the figures for critical care represent the percentage of each age group predicted to require critical care IF THEY DEVELOP THE SYMPTOMS.
The original figures from the ICL report show what percentage of those who have ALREADY BEEN HOSPITALISED go on to require critical care.
Just a different (and possibly slightly less scary) way of looking at it. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 14:15]
|
Figures have already been adjusted.
Age-group (years)
% symptomatic cases requiring hospitalisation
% hospitalised cases requiring critical care
Infection Fatality Ratio
The figures are right - 70% of over 80s that are hospitalised will require critical care and 9% will pass away. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 11:58]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:57 - Mar 17 with 2964 views | monytowbray |
This is what’s been at the forefront of my mind in all of this. It’s even scarier when you remove the fact you’re looking at numbers and remember these are people, maybe even people we know. Or us. |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:02 - Mar 17 with 2939 views | clive_baker |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:52 - Mar 17 by NthQldITFC |
I know it's obvious, but probably worth pointing out that the critical care column is percentage of those hospitalised requiring critical care (rather than percentage of population in that age range requiring critical care).
Adjusted for that:
Over 60's 16% require hospitalisation, 5% critical care and 2.2% fatality
Over 70's 24% require hospitalisation, 11% critical care and 5.1% fatality
Over 80's 27% require hospitalisation, 19% critical care and 9.3% fatality
EDIT: for clarification (thanks to HighgateBlue)
---
The figures on each line represent SYMPTOMATIC CASES, not the entire age group.
In the adjusted figures above, the figures for critical care represent the percentage of each age group predicted to require critical care IF THEY DEVELOP THE SYMPTOMS.
The original figures from the ICL report show what percentage of those who have ALREADY BEEN HOSPITALISED go on to require critical care.
Just a different (and possibly slightly less scary) way of looking at it. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 14:15]
|
Scary times.
Baring in mind the UK population is split as follows (2018):
60 - 70: 7m
70 - 80: 5.5m
80+: 3m
In a world where everyone caught this thing, on those above statistics, we could be talking 700,000 deaths in the UK alone. 1% of the population. I'm sure it won't get to that, and as has been the case from day 1, the job is to mitigate the risk of these vulnerable categories catching the thing at all while a vaccine is developed. Crucially, in the meantime, if these people do catch it, we need the resources available to help improve the fatalities stat. That's where everyone need to do their bit. Wash your hands, limit movement, and if you feel remotely poorly STAY AT HOME. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:09 - Mar 17 with 2908 views | clive_baker |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 11:56 - Mar 17 by homer_123 |
Figures have already been adjusted.
Age-group (years)
% symptomatic cases requiring hospitalisation
% hospitalised cases requiring critical care
Infection Fatality Ratio
The figures are right - 70% of over 80s that are hospitalised will require critical care and 9% will pass away. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 11:58]
|
They make sense with the relevant headings. Otherwise they're not consistent. You have a % of the total demographic, followed by a % of those hospitalised, then another % of the total demographic. Doesn't make sense to present them like that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:10 - Mar 17 with 2908 views | jeera |
Twice again the past few days, including only a few moments ago, I've been told it's just [like] flu.
"It's just like flu, they are trying to scare us".
Yes, entire economies could be in danger, because 'they' fancy giving us a little fright. |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:15 - Mar 17 with 2874 views | clive_baker |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:10 - Mar 17 by jeera |
Twice again the past few days, including only a few moments ago, I've been told it's just [like] flu.
"It's just like flu, they are trying to scare us".
Yes, entire economies could be in danger, because 'they' fancy giving us a little fright. |
It might prove to be like flu over time, to be fair, or it might not. Nobody really knows. The issue is this is a new strand and therefore there's no immunity been built up to it over many years, which dramatically slows the spread. 20,000 people die from Flu every year in the UK. If 80% of the population caught Flu in a short period of time we would be in a whole world of trouble from that too.
The whole 'they're trying to scare us' thing is nonsense. 1 thing I think we don't lack is transparency around this thing. There's no hiding from it, it's a damage limitation piece. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:16 - Mar 17 with 2855 views | homer_123 |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:09 - Mar 17 by clive_baker |
They make sense with the relevant headings. Otherwise they're not consistent. You have a % of the total demographic, followed by a % of those hospitalised, then another % of the total demographic. Doesn't make sense to present them like that. |
Sorry - used to dealing with data in this way. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:52 - Mar 17 with 2738 views | jeera |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:15 - Mar 17 by clive_baker |
It might prove to be like flu over time, to be fair, or it might not. Nobody really knows. The issue is this is a new strand and therefore there's no immunity been built up to it over many years, which dramatically slows the spread. 20,000 people die from Flu every year in the UK. If 80% of the population caught Flu in a short period of time we would be in a whole world of trouble from that too.
The whole 'they're trying to scare us' thing is nonsense. 1 thing I think we don't lack is transparency around this thing. There's no hiding from it, it's a damage limitation piece. |
I have given up trying to hold a conversation on the subject in real life.
If the flu as we know it was new now, then maybe, but that's not the comparison that's being made there is it.
Anyone who is still thinking the same way now isn't going to change their minds. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:06 - Mar 17 with 2683 views | BloomBlue |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:52 - Mar 17 by jeera |
I have given up trying to hold a conversation on the subject in real life.
If the flu as we know it was new now, then maybe, but that's not the comparison that's being made there is it.
Anyone who is still thinking the same way now isn't going to change their minds. |
Although given I'm in that top age bracket I'm looking at it like this... every year I think for the last 10+ years ive been told flu could kill me and I should have the flu jab to help protect me. Although when I ask the question will the jab completely stop it I'm told no, so basically the answer is flu could kill me. Now im told CV could kill me. So I'm looking at it this way; either flu or CV will kill me this year.
Am I wrong to view it that way? |  | | |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:06 - Mar 17 with 2681 views | Ryorry |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 12:02 - Mar 17 by clive_baker |
Scary times.
Baring in mind the UK population is split as follows (2018):
60 - 70: 7m
70 - 80: 5.5m
80+: 3m
In a world where everyone caught this thing, on those above statistics, we could be talking 700,000 deaths in the UK alone. 1% of the population. I'm sure it won't get to that, and as has been the case from day 1, the job is to mitigate the risk of these vulnerable categories catching the thing at all while a vaccine is developed. Crucially, in the meantime, if these people do catch it, we need the resources available to help improve the fatalities stat. That's where everyone need to do their bit. Wash your hands, limit movement, and if you feel remotely poorly STAY AT HOME. |
I've said on another thread that a vaccine, even if one can be developed - and developed within 12-18 months - can only offer *some* degree of protection - look how 'flu & cold viruses mutate every year, and how having a flu jab hasn't been enough to stop many people dying from 'flu annually.
The best thing people can do to protect themselves, apart from isolation early doors, is to *boost their immune systems* - eat more fruit & veg, still plentiful in the shops, eggs, vits & mins - esp D, take a supplement, the majority of UK citizens are well below threshold when tested - sleep more, relax more, laugh & listen to music more, use other relaxation/meditation techniques if you don't already. |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:10 - Mar 17 with 2639 views | jeera |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:06 - Mar 17 by BloomBlue |
Although given I'm in that top age bracket I'm looking at it like this... every year I think for the last 10+ years ive been told flu could kill me and I should have the flu jab to help protect me. Although when I ask the question will the jab completely stop it I'm told no, so basically the answer is flu could kill me. Now im told CV could kill me. So I'm looking at it this way; either flu or CV will kill me this year.
Am I wrong to view it that way? |
What are you leaving me? [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:11]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:12 - Mar 17 with 2633 views | footers |
Given the number of over-60s I've just seen out and about, it looks like many aren't taking this too seriously, which is a shame. |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:15 - Mar 17 with 2613 views | clive_baker |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:06 - Mar 17 by Ryorry |
I've said on another thread that a vaccine, even if one can be developed - and developed within 12-18 months - can only offer *some* degree of protection - look how 'flu & cold viruses mutate every year, and how having a flu jab hasn't been enough to stop many people dying from 'flu annually.
The best thing people can do to protect themselves, apart from isolation early doors, is to *boost their immune systems* - eat more fruit & veg, still plentiful in the shops, eggs, vits & mins - esp D, take a supplement, the majority of UK citizens are well below threshold when tested - sleep more, relax more, laugh & listen to music more, use other relaxation/meditation techniques if you don't already. |
I couldn't agree more.
A vaccine will help, but yes such viruses will continue to kill people off year after year, especially elderly or more vulnerable people with underlying health problems. There's no getting away from that. The more we learn, the better we'll be able to keep it at bay. The slower it spreads, the better care people who catch it will receive. That's ultimately all it comes down to. It's better that 10,000 elderly people catch this thing per week over the next year or so that for a few hundred thousand to get it tomorrow. | |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:17 - Mar 17 with 2610 views | BlueBadger |
Probably worth mentioning that the figures discussing people that 'require' critical care probably don't factor in if it is APPROPRIATE to offer critical care to some of these individuals. Baseline pre-morbid condition plays a huge part in the decision to admit to critical care.
Yesterday, I went out to two 67 year old ladies - one got into critical care, the other didn't - they were both 'equally' sick but the first lady was still working a few hours a week, walked 20 miles a week with her dog and had experienced no serious illnesses in her life, the other had a multitude of chronic conditions and required assistance with most activities in her daily life.
For some people, critical is not a 'life saving' thing, but a 'death prolonging' one. Its not a decision I envy the consultants having to make. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 14:51]
|  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:20 - Mar 17 with 2567 views | BloomBlue |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:10 - Mar 17 by jeera |
What are you leaving me? [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:11]
|
Probably the remaining games on my Town season ticket | | | |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:21 - Mar 17 with 2558 views | giant_stow |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:17 - Mar 17 by BlueBadger |
Probably worth mentioning that the figures discussing people that 'require' critical care probably don't factor in if it is APPROPRIATE to offer critical care to some of these individuals. Baseline pre-morbid condition plays a huge part in the decision to admit to critical care.
Yesterday, I went out to two 67 year old ladies - one got into critical care, the other didn't - they were both 'equally' sick but the first lady was still working a few hours a week, walked 20 miles a week with her dog and had experienced no serious illnesses in her life, the other had a multitude of chronic conditions and required assistance with most activities in her daily life.
For some people, critical is not a 'life saving' thing, but a 'death prolonging' one. Its not a decision I envy the consultants having to make. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 14:51]
|
what happens to the one who doesn;t get into critical care? |  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:26 - Mar 17 with 2523 views | BlueBadger |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:21 - Mar 17 by giant_stow |
what happens to the one who doesn;t get into critical care? |
What is known as 'ward-based ceiling of care' - so, certain oxygen therapies diagnostic and interventional procedures(dependent upon patient and condition), antibiotics, fluids and careful monitoring and a frank discussion with patient and family and 'comfort care' in the event of further deterioration. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:28]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:27 - Mar 17 with 2497 views | bournemouthblue |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:12 - Mar 17 by footers |
Given the number of over-60s I've just seen out and about, it looks like many aren't taking this too seriously, which is a shame. |
For me there's a danger here of us starting to turn on the elderly which isn't fair
We don't want a situation like that
I thought the guidance was the weekend onwards for this extended isolation period?
Any way I think it's very much a British thing to be bullish and frankly a bit reckless in our 'I didn't give a f@ck' attitude
It's actually this kind of attitude along with panic buying which will see more draconian measures implemented
They need a new product public information campaign like Keep Calm and Carry on [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:28]
|  |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:31 - Mar 17 with 2452 views | giant_stow |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:26 - Mar 17 by BlueBadger |
What is known as 'ward-based ceiling of care' - so, certain oxygen therapies diagnostic and interventional procedures(dependent upon patient and condition), antibiotics, fluids and careful monitoring and a frank discussion with patient and family and 'comfort care' in the event of further deterioration. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:28]
|
'comfort care'? Sh1tstreak. Do you think she'll make it or is that not an acceptable question? [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:35]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:35 - Mar 17 with 2438 views | BlueBadger |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:31 - Mar 17 by giant_stow |
'comfort care'? Sh1tstreak. Do you think she'll make it or is that not an acceptable question? [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:35]
|
Some fine-tuning at the end of yesterday had us in a better position at the end of the day than at the beginning, but it's difficult to say. I tend to get critical care involved with 'sickies' sooner rather than later(and ideally in the hours of daylight) as generally, it's better to nip incipient critical illness in the bud and have a clear plan of 'escalation' than it is to 'firefight' later(invariably at night).
It's better for all parties concerned. [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:43]
| |
| |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:35 - Mar 17 with 2425 views | Ryorry |
| Look at these figures for those in the 60 and above category on 13:27 - Mar 17 by bournemouthblue |
For me there's a danger here of us starting to turn on the elderly which isn't fair
We don't want a situation like that
I thought the guidance was the weekend onwards for this extended isolation period?
Any way I think it's very much a British thing to be bullish and frankly a bit reckless in our 'I didn't give a f@ck' attitude
It's actually this kind of attitude along with panic buying which will see more draconian measures implemented
They need a new product public information campaign like Keep Calm and Carry on [Post edited 17 Mar 2020 13:28]
|
"I thought the guidance was the weekend onwards for this extended isolation period?".
It was. Also for London residents to take more care early doors, as that's where CoroV is taking off fastest (inevitably).
Think it partly depends where you live - out here in the sticks, where the nearest *confirmed* case is 10 miles away (albeit who knows who else is walking around transmitting of course), I'll feel relatively safe driving to the village co-op & picking up medication towards the end of this week, taking due precautions obviously. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
