Coronavirus
Moderator: Long slender neck
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:44 am They're not opposite views or 'spun'. Thought you legal types had to be clever?
They are not opposite?
One person saying Corona is more dangerous, one saying no, its flu that is more dangerous. Sounds like opposite views to me.
Each person selectively chooses a set of figure that supports their viewpoint. That's called spin
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
Re: Coronavirus
My figures show that COVID-19 is the more dangerous virus. Flu is just more widespread.
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 pm
- Has thanked: 326 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Re: Coronavirus
I do wonder that if a few weeks back when the threat was known, all international passenger flights were closed down for a couple of weeks initially, then the spread would have been severely limited. If we end up in a situation with towns and cities in lockdown on a wide-scale, as is happening in Northern Italy now, one can only conclude that the authorities didn’t act appropriately earlier, and lives were lost as a result. Time will tell I guess.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
No, your figures show one statistic only.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am My figures show that COVID-19 is the more dangerous virus. Flu is just more widespread.
What is more dangerous is a matter of opinion. Something that kills 20 times the % of people affected is not necessarily more dangerous than something that is 2-300 times more likely to be contracted.
Like I say the figures may well be correct. Its a matter of how you interpret those figures.
You are 2-300 times more likely to die from flu. You are 20 times more likely to die from corona IF YOU HAVE CONTRACTED IT ALREADY. There we have the spin on figurres
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
Re: Coronavirus
Stopped reading your post here.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:56 amNo, your figures show one statistic only.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am My figures show that COVID-19 is the more dangerous virus. Flu is just more widespread.
What is more dangerous is a matter of opinion. Something that kills 20 times the % of people affected is not necessarily more dangerous than something that is 2-300 times more likely to be contracted.
Like I say the figures may well be correct. Its a matter of how you interpret those figures.
You are 2-300 times more likely to die from flu. You are 20 times more likely to die from corona IF YOU HAVE CONTRACTED IT ALREADY. There we have the spin on figurres
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:01 amStopped reading your post here.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:56 amNo, your figures show one statistic only.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am My figures show that COVID-19 is the more dangerous virus. Flu is just more widespread.
What is more dangerous is a matter of opinion. Something that kills 20 times the % of people affected is not necessarily more dangerous than something that is 2-300 times more likely to be contracted.
Like I say the figures may well be correct. Its a matter of how you interpret those figures.
You are 2-300 times more likely to die from flu. You are 20 times more likely to die from corona IF YOU HAVE CONTRACTED IT ALREADY. There we have the spin on figurres
Your choice. You are clearly blinkered and not able to see the spin you are putting on figures.
Something that kills upto 650k people per year compared to something that kills 2700 .
I am not saying either is more dangerous merely pointing out that with use of selective figures ( and failing to state the limitation on those figures) you can argue it either way. What most people would know as spin
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am
- Has thanked: 311 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: Coronavirus
Actually, the death rate is somewhere between 1-2%; but let's not worry about glossing the facts, eh.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:32 amThere are vaccines available for flu, at the moment there isnt one for coronovirus.NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:13 am According to figures maintained by the World Health Organisation, around 2,700 people have died due to Coronavirus.
Meanwhile, it also reports that anually, there's anything between 290,000 - 650,000 deaths from respiratory diseases - linked to seasonal flu.
I guess the media just can't generate such mass hysteria from a simple flu headline these days?
Flu death rate 0.1%
Coronovirus death rate 2%
There are indeed vaccines for flu; but these clearly aren't stopping hundreds of thousands of ongoing deaths anually, are they?
Taking the current Tenerife Hotel example, staff (not medical professionals) are continuing to work with just basic face masks. Meanwhile, despite the mass hysteria from media reports that people are confined to their rooms, it's become apparent from the Social Media of guests staying there, that people are actually walking around the hotel freely; using the pool and sun loungers, etc.
However, let's not stop good old-fashioned media sensationalism getting in the way of reality.
Meanwhile, Australia stil exists. The entire Country wasn't burnt to a cinder......as some of the Media would have had you believe just a few weeks ago.
-
- Boardin' 24/7
- Posts: 9993
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:59 pm
- Has thanked: 244 times
- Been thanked: 895 times
Re: Coronavirus
This Coronavirus is frightening in my opinion , l was at Homerton Hospital yesterday visiting a very poorly relative and will be there again today , i saw quite a few visitors and staff wearing masks although there are no reports of cases there .
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
Re: Coronavirus
Its a shame you dont know what the word 'dangerous' means.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:07 amPrestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:01 amStopped reading your post here.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:56 am
No, your figures show one statistic only.
What is more dangerous is a matter of opinion. Something that kills 20 times the % of people affected is not necessarily more dangerous than something that is 2-300 times more likely to be contracted.
Like I say the figures may well be correct. Its a matter of how you interpret those figures.
You are 2-300 times more likely to die from flu. You are 20 times more likely to die from corona IF YOU HAVE CONTRACTED IT ALREADY. There we have the spin on figurres
Your choice. You are clearly blinkered and not able to see the spin you are putting on figures.
Something that kills upto 650k people per year compared to something that kills 2700 .
I am not saying either is more dangerous merely pointing out that with use of selective figures ( and failing to state the limitation on those figures) you can argue it either way. What most people would know as spin
-
- Bored office worker
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:30 pm
- Has thanked: 1827 times
- Been thanked: 412 times
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
Re: Coronavirus
1-2%? Prove it. That is still 10x higher than the death rate from seasonal flu.NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:23 amActually, the death rate is somewhere between 1-2%; but let's not worry about glossing the facts, eh.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:32 amThere are vaccines available for flu, at the moment there isnt one for coronovirus.NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:13 am According to figures maintained by the World Health Organisation, around 2,700 people have died due to Coronavirus.
Meanwhile, it also reports that anually, there's anything between 290,000 - 650,000 deaths from respiratory diseases - linked to seasonal flu.
I guess the media just can't generate such mass hysteria from a simple flu headline these days?
Flu death rate 0.1%
Coronovirus death rate 2%
There are indeed vaccines for flu; but these clearly aren't stopping hundreds of thousands of ongoing deaths anually, are they?
Taking the current Tenerife Hotel example, staff (not medical professionals) are continuing to work with just basic face masks. Meanwhile, despite the mass hysteria from media reports that people are confined to their rooms, it's become apparent from the Social Media of guests staying there, that people are actually walking around the hotel freely; using the pool and sun loungers, etc.
However, let's not stop good old-fashioned media sensationalism getting in the way of reality.
Meanwhile, Australia stil exists. The entire Country wasn't burnt to a cinder......as some of the Media would have had you believe just a few weeks ago.
Maybe not everyone gets the flu jab?
Dont know why you're bringing the Australian bushfires into this or why you are downplaying them.
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am
- Has thanked: 311 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: Coronavirus
An example of the utter BS and scaremongering from the UK Press:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/c ... t-21578658
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/c ... t-21578658
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
Re: Coronavirus
Coronavirus could kill half a million people and infect 80 per cent of Britons in a "worst case scenario", a Government document warns.
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am
- Has thanked: 311 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'm absolutely not downplaying the Australian bushfires whatsoever. I was simply using that as another example of media sensationalism; that did not mirror the full facts.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:44 am1-2%? Prove it. That is still 10x higher than the death rate from seasonal flu.NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:23 amActually, the death rate is somewhere between 1-2%; but let's not worry about glossing the facts, eh.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:32 am
There are vaccines available for flu, at the moment there isnt one for coronovirus.
Flu death rate 0.1%
Coronovirus death rate 2%
There are indeed vaccines for flu; but these clearly aren't stopping hundreds of thousands of ongoing deaths anually, are they?
Taking the current Tenerife Hotel example, staff (not medical professionals) are continuing to work with just basic face masks. Meanwhile, despite the mass hysteria from media reports that people are confined to their rooms, it's become apparent from the Social Media of guests staying there, that people are actually walking around the hotel freely; using the pool and sun loungers, etc.
However, let's not stop good old-fashioned media sensationalism getting in the way of reality.
Meanwhile, Australia stil exists. The entire Country wasn't burnt to a cinder......as some of the Media would have had you believe just a few weeks ago.
Maybe not everyone gets the flu jab?
Dont know why you're bringing the Australian bushfires into this or why you are downplaying them.
However, as someone who works within the Tourism sector; and was driving a motorhome throughout NSW, Vic. & the South Australia Territories during December/early January, I can categorically assure you that the hysteria, particularly across the European Media, was vastly exaggerated. One can only assume it was very quiet for other news.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3777
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 11:04 am
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Millennial Snowflake
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:50 pm
- Has thanked: 528 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Re: Coronavirus
2% is still a pretty low death rate to be fair, and that figure will be skewed upwards due to most cases being in countries with much poorer developed healthcare systems.
Most of the fatalities in Europe are elderly people and people with pre-existing health conditions, so I'm not panicking just yet
Most of the fatalities in Europe are elderly people and people with pre-existing health conditions, so I'm not panicking just yet
-
- Boardin' 24/7
- Posts: 5943
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:12 am
- Has thanked: 5551 times
- Been thanked: 1066 times
Re: Coronavirus
And so it begins.....Canary Wharf office of US oil company Chevron sends home 300 workers over coronavirus fears after employee reports flu-like symptoms https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... &si=744904
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:39 amIts a shame you dont know what the word 'dangerous' means.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:07 am
Your choice. You are clearly blinkered and not able to see the spin you are putting on figures.
Something that kills upto 650k people per year compared to something that kills 2700 .
I am not saying either is more dangerous merely pointing out that with use of selective figures ( and failing to state the limitation on those figures) you can argue it either way. What most people would know as spin
Its a shame you do not seem to understand the difference between facts and subjective decisions.
What you say is dangerous, someone else will say isn't. That is because it is a subjective term.
That the deaths are 2700 compared to 650K is a fact.
That the death rate AFTER CONTRACTING the virus is 2% compared to 0.1% is a fact ( assuming figures are correct. I have not checked them, but am quoting earlier figures in this thread)
Whether that makes Flu or Corona more dangerous is a matter of opinion, not fact.
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:32 am FACT- one is 20x more dangerous than the other.
No, that is not a fact at all. That is your opinion based on the fact that the fatality rate AFTER CATCHING THE VIRUS is 20 times the fataility rate of the other.
Another fact is Flu kills 2-300 times the number of people each year that have ever been killed by Corona.
Whether those facts make flu or corona more dangerous is a matter of opinion (not fact)
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am
- Has thanked: 311 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: Coronavirus
Meanwhile, death via walking, cycling or travelling by car are significantly riskier than taking a plane.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:32 am FACT- one is 20x more dangerous than the other.
Maybe we just need to fly everywhere then.
'Just to be on the safe side'.
- Long slender neck
- MB Legend
- Posts: 14264
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:13 am
- Has thanked: 2493 times
- Been thanked: 3282 times
-
- Regular
- Posts: 3357
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
- Has thanked: 1156 times
- Been thanked: 496 times
Re: Coronavirus
We are simply going round in circles.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:48 am Nope, flu is more widespread, probably because its not as dangerous.
You claim a virus that kills 2700 people is more dangerous than one that kills 650,000 people a year.
You fail to appreciate the term "more dangerous" is a subjective term. No matter how many times you claim it is factual does not change the term from being subjective to being objective
-
- Boardin' 24/7
- Posts: 5943
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:12 am
- Has thanked: 5551 times
- Been thanked: 1066 times
Re: Coronavirus
For myself, at 72 years old, I have had the flu many times and got over it ok, so given the choice, would far sooner catch the Flu again than this Coronavirus.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:48 am Nope, flu is more widespread, probably because its not as dangerous.