paddyfool

Today's totals from China: 170 deaths (29% increase); 7,711 confirmed cases (27% increase). Medical supplies running short in Hubei province. More than 50 cases outside China, but no deaths outside China yet. Also, in the fake news department: a bit of fauxtography fun as a WHO advisory altered to warn against unprotected sex with animals does the rounds: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coronavirus-bulletin-farm-animals/

Probably not as deadly as Spanish flu, no. But we don't really know how deadly it'll be yet - currently we're seeing >1% case fatality, however, with many more requiring intensive care for ARDS. And it would only have to polish off 0.15% of the world's population to get over the 10 million mark, so the real question might be how widespread it becomes.

I feel deeply sceptical about such forecasts. Everything in the human body wears out over time, right down to the DNA. And pretty much the only cells that aren't programmed to die are cancer cells. Can we increase life expectancy, and more importantly healthy life expectancy? Certainly. But there is a limit. The oldest person in history (with a verified age) died 23 years ago at the age of 122; and the upper limit of how long we can live does not seem to be stretching any further than that at present. EDIT: For instance, the oldest person alive today is just 117, so we won't be seeing any new records for at least 5 years; and without wishing to cast any aspersions on the redoubtable Ms Tanaka, probably not then. And if she doesn't make it, it'll be at least another 2 years before anyone else gets a shot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people

I'd say "highly unlikely", rather than impossible. Two epidemics in the 20th century did top that figure, after all - Spanish flu and HIV. And today, although medicine is far more advanced, the population is also much larger, much older, more densely packed, and prone to rapidly travelling around the world than it was in the time of Spanish flu.

The official death toll just jumped by a quarter overnight, from 106 to 132. Confirmed case totals rose by the same proportion https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html I'm not surprised that there are rumours of a cover-up or of significantly higher true mortality, but I'd be sceptical of these for now. Many big questions remain unanswered: - Will sustained global transmission occur in spite of current control measures? It seems pretty likely at the moment imho, even though the antecedents, SARS and MERS, were contained. - Will any existing antiviral treatments prove effective? - Will someone succeed in finding a vaccine? - How will the virus evolve? - How much will the transmission and mortality figured change by location, and differing demographics / health systems / resources etc? - How will health systems cope with the strain imposed by quarantine etc, and how will this affect care for people with other conditions? One thing that I'm a little surprised about is that no public health bodies have used this to push the anti-smoking message yet. Surely now, if ever, is the time to look after respiratory health, especially given the link between smoking status and both susceptibility to and severity of respiratory tract infections.

Honestly, I personally think there are arguments for many different points on this scale, from the lowest to the highest. But I'm interested in what other people think.

Fair enough, but that's not really evidence for your prediction. The Wuhan novel coronavirus seems much less deadly than the Spanish flu so far, and mainly the deaths have been among elderly people or those with pre-existing respiratory problems, whereas Spanish flu caused significant numbers of deaths among young adults who were apparently healthy previously. I'm not saying it won't be bad, just not nearly as bad as Spanish flu was.

That's a bold statement. Spanish flu infected about 1/3 of the world's population, and killed something between 3 and 10% of those it infected. If this coronavirus strain did the same, in spite of a century of advances in medicine, it would kill about 1 to 3% of the world's population... i.e. 75 to 225 million people. To make such a toll "seem benign", it would have to kill over half a billion people. Personally, I expect, if this goes global, that there may well be millions of deaths. I would not expect hundreds of millions, however.

Agreed that most will survive this outbreak, even if it goes global. But of the <5% (likely <1%) who die, most will be the elderly, or those with pre-existing health conditions. All of the deathlist fall into one of those categories, and wealth is hardly complete protection.

If coronavirus really gets going worldwide, both the viral deaths themselves and the general overloading of and disruption to healthcare systems at what's already a very busy time of year may well lead to a big clear out in February, nevermind 2020 overall.

Cartoon tribute in the Herald: https://twitter.com/CamleyCartoons/status/1220110712581885954?s=20

Who says that all of that 80% are dying of pancreatic cancer? Those who had operable tumours etc might very well die of something else in the space of 15 years. For instance, age alone makes RBG unlikely to live that long, regardless of cancer status. No argument here that it's a killer, however.

Not a good start...

If Ozzy keeps falling over, he might not be a bad pick for a future year.

Generally speaking, a hit should mean a score increases by 2 points (the difference between -1 and +1). Before you adjust for other bonuses and penalties, that is. Also, did anyone else leave Terry Jones off partly because they didn't want him to die?

Sir Creep, The probability of surviving pancreatic cancer at one year from diagnosis is about 20%. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/pancreatic-cancer/survival Being young doesn't really help the chances, since younger people tend to have more aggressive cancers. Being physically fit does help the chances, but probably not enough. EDIT: In short, I accept your challenge. (I choose the foodbank option, btw).

1 Bill Turnbull 2 Queen Elizabeth II 3 Linda Nolan 4 Dick van Dyke 5 Billy Connolly 6 Paul Gascoigne 7 Angela Lansbury 8 Henry Kissinger 9 Rolf Harris 10 Olivia Newton-John 11 Jean Louis Trintignant 12 Betty White 13 Olivia de Havilland 13 points (what was I thinking) 14 Greg Gilbert 15 Barbara Windsor 11 points 16 Terry Jones 10 points 17 Prunella Scales 18 Stirling Moss 8 points 19 Little Richard 7 points 20 Jimmy Carter 21 Doddie Weir 22 June Brown 23 Bob Barker 24 Bob Dole 25 Mikhail Gorbachev Reserve: Sam Lloyd Got hard to pick anyone towards the bottom of the list. Last three picks were basically random. Thank you for running this again!

An interesting contrast of media coverage: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

At the age of 98, it's very easy for "bedrest" to become "bedridden". The body doesn't have much muscle to lose at that point, so if you lose the core muscle strength to hold yourself sitting up etc, it's very hard to get it back.

Still way too many. The sheer wasted effort that goes into these campaigns...

One thing I never made a ruling on would be what would happen if someone died before the end of the entry period... hope that headache doesn't happen this time either!

100% agreed.

I've gone for Tom Smith, but who knows?

Congrats theoldlady on that marathon effort! And thank you wormfarmer for running this - definitely a marathon effort from you too.

1) Tom Smith (joker) 2) Prince Philip 3) Daniel Arap Moi 4) Kirk Douglas 5) Bob Dole 6) Leon Spinks 7) Vera Lynn 8) Jean-Marie Le Pen 9) Olivia de Havilland 10) Nobby Stiles 11) Bob Barker 12) Joanne Woodward 13) Jimmy Carter Unlucky for some...