Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
R K

Newnight Now - Derispaska Iview And

Recommended Posts

as title........on now

Is there a deliberate link between Deripaska and Swine?

Or is it just that he 'caught a cold' recently with some of his investments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a deliberate link between Deripaska and Swine?

Or is it just that he 'caught a cold' recently with some of his investments?

I used 'and' with a comma too. Shame on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a very good interview on BBC2 - and I got the impression the guy was telling it how it is for him.

What that now means for us in the UK - too is interesting and the fall-out will no doubt be coming to our screens soon.

Can't see any link between him and swine flu - don't think the Russians have put-out this virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a very good interview on BBC2 - and I got the impression the guy was telling it how it is for him.

What that now means for us in the UK - too is interesting and the fall-out will no doubt be coming to our screens soon.

Can't see any link between him and swine flu - don't think the Russians have put-out this virus.

I was just giving a heads up to the topics covered :rolleyes:

I shall consider myself admonished.

Edit: Liam Donaldson being a tad cagey.

Edited by Red Kharma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government considering a "fast track system for death certificates".

smiley_char123.gif

post-16847-1247609233.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't think the Russians have put-out this virus

You get a barking cough and a sore throat drinking industrial alcohol and brake fluid, so it's kinda hard to diagnose the 'flu in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used 'and' with a comma too. Shame on me.

Not at all. Better than starting a new sentence with 'And' so pedants always tell me. But I don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Government considering a "fast track system for death certificates".

smiley_char123.gif

He forgot to mention that will be after putting the new fast track death certificate system out to tender with a number of US computer firms and it could be 2016 before the first beta version is ready to for operational testing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8150609.stm

Sir Liam, who is chief medical officer for England, said it was "too early to say" whether a mortality rate of one in 200 - as suggested by some experts - was accurate.

The virus will not just be here for one winter - previous pandemics have been around three, four, five years

Sir Liam Donaldson

"We just haven't seen enough cases in this country to give an accurate figure.

"We're tracking the pandemic very closely and scientists are looking at the virus to see is there are any signs of mutation - we haven't seen anything of that.

"It's still an emerging profile so putting a figure on the death rate is premature.

"But the longer it goes on - as the virus passes through more and more people - you do have to be alert to it changing. But provided it stays within the present strain then it will probably produce a similar profile of illness."

Between 30 to 35% of people could come down with the virus this winter, he said. The disease was also likely to strike again in the years that followed.

"The virus will not just be here for one winter - previous pandemics have been around three, four, five years," Sir Liam said.

This 500 a day seems to be predicated on a mortality rate of 1 in 200 and 1/3 population catching it. Not sure where that number comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He forgot to mention that will be after putting the new fast track death certificate system out to tender with a number of US computer firms and it could be 2016 before the first beta version is ready to for operational testing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8150609.stm

This 500 a day seems to be predicated on a mortality rate of 1 in 200 and 1/3 population catching it. Not sure where that number comes from.

I think I know what it is now. The current mortality rate is 0.5%, so if we hit 100,000 cases a day, thats 500 a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
500 deaths a day? Where did they pull that number from?

Say there are 61 million people in the country and the live expectancy is 79, then there must be 772,000 deaths per year or around 2,115 deaths per day. If swine flu ends up killing 500 per day - it'll have a major impact.

Say swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5% (I think it's currently quite a lot lower than that), then to get 500 deaths per day you need 100,000 cases per day, say a case lasts one week that's 700,000 people infected at anyone time. It would take 100 weeks or around two years to work through the whole population - after which 0.5% or 300,000 people will have died (of course that rate would not be constant so it would likely pass quicker with a higher peak).

What I expect however is that the mortality rate is way lower - we've had some 17 deaths from maybe over 100,000 cases which is a 0.017% mortality rate - NOTHING to worry about. Even if everyone got it, only 10,370 would die - spread over two years that's just 14 deaths a day against a background rate of over 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I know what it is now. The current mortality rate is 0.5%, so if we hit 100,000 cases a day, thats 500 a day.

Yes, that must be it.

Btw, tin foil hate mode on /

This fast track death certificatation combined with cremation sounds like an excellent way to conceal non-flu related deaths / TFH mode off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say there are 61 million people in the country and the live expectancy is 79, then there must be 772,000 deaths per year or around 2,115 deaths per day. If swine flu ends up killing 500 per day - it'll have a major impact.

Say swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5% (I think it's currently quite a lot lower than that), then to get 500 deaths per day you need 100,000 cases per day, say a case lasts one week that's 700,000 people infected at anyone time. It would take 100 weeks or around two years to work through the whole population - after which 0.5% or 300,000 people will have died (of course that rate would not be constant so it would likely pass quicker with a higher peak).

What I expect however is that the mortality rate is way lower - we've had some 17 deaths from maybe over 100,000 cases which is a 0.017% mortality rate - NOTHING to worry about. Even if everyone got it, only 10,370 would die - spread over two years that's just 14 deaths a day against a background rate of over 2000.

That's fine assuming the virus stays exactly as it is for 2 years without any evolution. Any change at all means a new virus which can work through the whole population more than once. In 1918 some people caught it more than once because the virus changed between waves and the previous wave immunity was useless.

It's all guesswork as to how it can play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it was concocted at Porton Down to get rid of people of pensionable age.

But like all Gov IT projects, they got it a** about face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say there are 61 million people in the country and the live expectancy is 79, then there must be 772,000 deaths per year or around 2,115 deaths per day. If swine flu ends up killing 500 per day - it'll have a major impact.

Say swine flu has a mortality rate of 0.5% (I think it's currently quite a lot lower than that), then to get 500 deaths per day you need 100,000 cases per day, say a case lasts one week that's 700,000 people infected at anyone time. It would take 100 weeks or around two years to work through the whole population - after which 0.5% or 300,000 people will have died (of course that rate would not be constant so it would likely pass quicker with a higher peak).

What I expect however is that the mortality rate is way lower - we've had some 17 deaths from maybe over 100,000 cases which is a 0.017% mortality rate - NOTHING to worry about. Even if everyone got it, only 10,370 would die - spread over two years that's just 14 deaths a day against a background rate of over 2000.

Congratulations on looking through at wonky sensationalist stats.

The mortality rate of 0.5% has been reached by some moron taking the number of LAB CONFIRMED cases and dividing it by the number of deaths.

Given that very, very few doctors are drawing blood and sending it off to the lab for confirmation, the true mortality rate is far, far lower...

numpty newsnight researchers. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mortality rate of 0.5% has been reached by some moron taking the number of LAB CONFIRMED cases and dividing it by the number of deaths.

Given that very, very few doctors are drawing blood and sending it off to the lab for confirmation, the true mortality rate is far, far lower...

And how exactly do you think the seasonal flu mortality rate is worked out? :rolleyes:

Seasonal flu global mortality rate = 0.06%

Swine flu global mortality rate = 0.5%

Edited by MOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how exactly do you think the seasonal flu mortality rate is worked out? :rolleyes:

Seasonal flu global mortality rate = 0.018%

Swine flu global mortality rate = 0.5%

Educated guesswork.

You count up (or estimate) all the people displaying/reporting 'flu like' symptons at that time period and then divide by the number of deaths.

No lab work required, doctors use cunning medical ninja skills to diagnose via symptons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Educated guesswork.

You count up (or estimate) all the people displaying/reporting 'flu like' symptons at that time period and then divide by the number of deaths.

No lab work required, doctors use cunning medical ninja skills to diagnose via symptons.

That's not a very clever way to work it out though is it? Think about how many illnesses display flu-like symptoms, particularly in old people. It's all ******** without the testing to back it up.

The CDC don't even collate the true data for seasonal flu. The mortality rate is based on vague computer models ie guesswork.

They reckon between 17,000 and 36,000 people die of flu and pneumonia related illness every year in the states based on these computer models. 90-95% of deaths are in the over 65s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not a very clever way to work it out though is it? Think about how many illnesses display flu-like symptoms, particularly in old people. It's all ******** without the testing to back it up.

The CDC don't even collate the true data for seasonal flu. The mortality rate is based on vague computer models ie guesswork.

They reckon between 17,000 and 36,000 people die of flu and pneumonia related illness every year in the states based on these computer models. 90-95% of deaths are in the over 65s.

Not very accurate no, but then it doesn't really matter not like you are trying to do rocket science. As long as you can be vaguely in right ball park it is accurate enough to inform policy & planning.

As backed up by a virologist on virology.ws explaining how it is calculated.

And a few weeks ago John Oxford a virology prof estimated the number of cases at 300 times more than the lab confirmed numbers also backed up by 2 other virologist's comments in the same article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not very accurate no, but then it doesn't really matter not like you are trying to do rocket science. As long as you can be vaguely in right ball park it is accurate enough to inform policy & planning.

As backed up by a virologist on virology.ws explaining how it is calculated.

And a few weeks ago John Oxford a virology prof estimated the number of cases at 300 times more than the lab confirmed numbers also backed up by 2 other virologist's comments in the same article.

Pure guesswork. Could be way above or way below that. Who knows.

The only way to compare this really is by using the total number of deaths this time next year for seasonal flu and swine flu, but even this is misleading IMO.

The vast majority of seasonal flu deaths are in the elderly. I have looked at the age range for swine deaths in the United States and the results are very odd at the moment:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confirmed U.S. Fatalities - AH1N1 - 7/14/09

Arizona - 11

California - 39

Connecticut - 6

Florida - 13

Georgia - 1

Hawaii - 2

Illinois - 14

Indiana - 1

Maryland - 2

Massachusetts - 6

Michigan - 8

Minnesota - 3

Missouri - 1

Nevada - 3

New Jersey - 10

New York - 64

North Carolina - 2

Ohio - 1

Oklahoma - 1

Oregon - 4

Pennsylvania - 7

Puerto Rico - 1

Rhode Island - 2

Texas - 22

Utah - 14

Virginia - 2

Washington - 5

Wisconsin - 5

TOTAL - 250 deaths

I had a quick look at the ages of the victims as shown here near the bottom of the page:

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115485

Around 10% of victims are under 16

Around 5% of victims are over 65

Around 85% of victims are 16-65

These are not the characteristics of a normal flu IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pure guesswork. Could be way above or way below that. Who knows.

...

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115485

Around 10% of victims are under 16

Around 5% of victims are over 65

Around 85% of victims are 16-65

These are not the characteristics of a normal flu IMO.

Not normal flu but it does match reports about the last H1N1 taking out working age adults instead of the elderly or young.

Compared to normal flu however swine flu seems quite mild with people making a quick recovery so there are probably a fairly large number of people who felt a bit rough for a few days thinking they would go to the doctors if it got any worse then felt better and didn't bother going.

The bit about pure guesswork was my initial point though. It is irresponsible for the media to report figures '500 dead per day' when it clearly isn't true and is just pure sensationalism.

Sorry, but I get really miffed about media frenzies around public health scares after the MMR fiasco. They killed kids to sell more papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.