I’m being made to feel stupid for sticking to the rules, anyone else?

Casdon

If the rate is 2.78%, then per million people that’s 27, 800. There are 12 million over 65s in the UK, so it is 333,600. That is a lot of lives, and the rate increases over the age of 50 so it’s actually more than that.

Casdon This is all doing my head in and I've forgotten what the original link said, but I think the 2.78 deaths was the number of people per hundred of those who have tested positive. Obviously, the whole population hasn't tested positive and not everybody who has had Covid has been tested, so the case/ fatality rates aren't entirely accurate.

I think the scariest statistic is that it's estimated that 1 in 50 people is currently infected (higher in London and parts of the South East).

How many people do you think are in a supermarket at any one time? I don't know, but it's probably more than 50 at busy times. That means that, on average, one person is infected. Hopefully, that person is wearing a mask and not touching all the tins on the shelves.

With exponential growth, it wouldn't take long for that single supermarket shopper to have seeded 36 more cases.

That's why infections in schools have been rife.

GrannyRose15

I think some people need to go back to school and learn some basic maths.

I know I certainly do. It really frustrates me that it takes me so long to work out what formula to use, when I used to be able to do this stuff in seconds.

Casdon

If the rate is 2.78%, then per million people that’s 27, 800. There are 12 million over 65s in the UK, so it is 333,600. That is a lot of lives, and the rate increases over the age of 50 so it’s actually more than that.

Hi! Back again! I wasn't sure if my maths was right and I was in a hurry. Yes, it's a heck of a lot of people. When Prof Ferguson was talking about those sort of numbers, people thought he was exaggerating. They're why I won't be following Loobylue's link. Covid deniers depress me.

Maybe her friends have sensed that most things just don't add up. Boris looks dead and deflated when he is made to read out those words live on TV. Look up his speeches and you'll notice the difference straight away. He has had to make some pretty awful announcements in his career.
Ask yourselves, why wasn't the country locked down because of the flu in 2014/15 & 2017/18?
Why is nobody dying of cancer, heart attacks and pneumonia anymore?
Why according to the governments ONS figures have the total deaths from all causes not been elevated this year?
Then the biggest question is: Why is just about everyone connected to this whole thing from start to finish ('it' will never be finished by the way) got one or both feet in EUGENICS?
I have spent hundreds of hours trying to prove myself wrong. I'm sorry but its impossible.
For a really good easy start, sign into the 'WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM' website get yourselves a dive into their information wheel. Enlightening.
Why do 'they' call us useless eaters?
The government have had pensioners choosing between eating and heating for the last 25 years. Why are they suddenly so concerned about us now?

If the rate is 2.78%, then per million people that’s 27, 800. There are 12 million over 65s in the UK, so it is 333,600. That is a lot of lives, and the rate increases over the age of 50 so it’s actually more than that.

Some other people need to go back and learn some basic tolerance.

School was a long time ago, GrannyRose15 I memorised a formula into which to put the figures so as to get out percentages (and in reverse to turn percentages into a one-in-XX statement where XX is not 100) but I am afraid the results sometimes don't appear totally convincing, and I am humble enough to ask for confirmation from those who deal daily with juggling figures.

I think some people need to go back to school and learn some basic maths.

Too bloomin' many to be comfortable, anyway.

There are lies, damned lies and difficult sums.
My post at 13:22:12 (.15% death rate) is a load of cobblers. The one at 13:32:09 (2,78%) is more like it

I tried to get my calculator to express 2.78% as one in ?what? as it seemed to me to round about I in 34 . It came up with one in just under 36 (35.97 if we are splitting hairs) , which sounds to be in the right ball-park.

1 in 36 deaths would be a survival rate of 97.23 (I think).

0.15 in a 100 isn't 1 in 36 (I don't think).

Elegran

Growstuff If the survival rate is 99.85 in a hundred, then the death rate is the remaining 0.15 in a hundred, which is about one in thirtysix. If the figures were publicised that way round, as death rate instead of survival rate, perhaps fewer people would be conviced that it is just a mild illness.

But that isn't the survival rate. It's more like 97 point something.

I agree that the figures could be better presented, so that people had a better understanding.

Even if most people survive, it's still like Russian roulette and that's not a game I'd be keen to play.

Stay at home ... stay safe... Very clear instructions.
The “rules “ are causing issues with too many people- maybe your friends are showing signs of bravado? arrogant? or stupid? How can they think they know better than the Scientists or politicians? Doesn’t make sense to those of us that have followed the news and have watched the Pandemic sweeping the world.
Ignore negative comments from friends- do what you think is right and tell them why. We are allowed our own opinions.
I’ve posted about family issues on here- covid /rules related and have received mostly good support/positive comments but also a few rather harsh responses which could upset. I remind myself that harsh comments usually come from bitter people or those with their own agenda- they can still hurt at the time just like your friends comments.
Try not to let negativity shake your beliefs in what is the right thing to do!

Dinahmo I saw a theory somewhere or other that only about 20% of people are involved in the majority of transmission. The other 80% are being extremely cautious.

However, as you say, 1 person can very quickly become 2, then 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc etc. That's why the modellers talk about the doubling rate. At one stage, the doubling rate in the UK was 3 days, so in just less than four weeks, a single case becomes 512. If the case/fatality rate is really 1 in 36, that means that 14 people could die as the result of one person.

My town went from 5 cases on 22 December to 40 cases on 29 December and it's over 80 now.

I really get cross when people think they can take unacceptable risks. I know some people would rather not know, but the above really is how serious it is.

Elegran

Sorry, in my last post I picked up mistakenly on Cleopanda's figure of 99.85, instead of your 97.22, which would give a death rate of 2.78 in 100.

My calculator makes that one in 35.97 (but I am open to correction on the maths)

That's what I got too when I'd found the correct figures to work with.

I'm no expert, but it does seem about right.

There were 830 registered deaths and 60,916 new cases yesterday. Both are rising.

Deaths usually occur a couple of weeks after cases are first registered, so that means of 60,916 cases, there will be 1,692 daily deaths. Sadly, the way death rates are rising so fast, that's entirely feasible.

Sorry, in my last post I picked up mistakenly on Cleopanda's figure of 99.85, instead of your 97.22, which would give a death rate of 2.78 in 100.

My calculator makes that one in 35.97 (but I am open to correction on the maths)

I heard today that in India they have closely examined 80,000 covid cases to try to ascertain how these cases had spread. The answer was about 10 people originally. Do you remember those diagrams that were shown several times during the early stages of the pandemic last spring? They showed how one person could infect 2, those people could each infect 2 others and so on.

I'm in France and we aren't in a full lockdown at the moment. We've had lunch with a two couples who have the same degree of caution as us - pretty high. We know that they've seen very few other people.

Before Christmas I was chatting over the phone to a French friend and he told me what he was doing for Christmas and the New Year. This involved meeting two friends coming from another part of France, then his two sons, wives and children on Christmas Eve and his daughter and children on Christmas Day. New Year's Eve was to be spent with 3 other couples (which exceeds the 6 limit) and there will be children there too.

There's no way he could find out who all these people had mixed with over the 2 weeks or so before Christmas. I think that if you cannot be certain who the other people have seen you have to decide whether to take a chance or not.

I'm going to be 74 this year and I'm not ready to die yet and certainly not from covid which by taking care I hope to avoid.

Growstuff If the survival rate is 99.85 in a hundred, then the death rate is the remaining 0.15 in a hundred, which is about one in thirtysix. If the figures were publicised that way round, as death rate instead of survival rate, perhaps fewer people would be conviced that it is just a mild illness.

CleoPanda The survival rate isn't 99.85%.

Not only that, but it's estimated that about 1 in 7 people have long-term serious after effects.

Looking at the figures over the last week, that's probably not far wrong. I hope the people who though this was all just like flu will do their own sums.

Ah! I've just got it! 76,305/2,770,000.

Elegran

Varian If my sums are right, that is a death rate of one in thirtysix, instead of one in six hundred and sixtyseven. Quite a difference!. If the chances of winning the lottery were one in thirtysix, it would be a far more likely and attractive proposition than one in six hundred and sixtyseven.

(I await the mathemeticians and statisticians proving me wrong)

Which figures are you using? I can't get to a death rate of 1 in 36, which sounds astonishingly high.

AFAIK it's generally accepted that the death rate is about 1 in a 100, but it's difficult to know for sure. At the beginning of the pandemic, fewer people were tested so the number of cases was certainly higher. There's much less uncertainty about the number of deaths, so it could be that the deaths are actually a lower percentage of those infected.

Carry on doing the right thing, we are and so are our friends, not worth taking any risks, especially now that the rate is increasing so fast. Stay safe.