Dionisi got a red early in the second, too. So he won't be around for the next game. PS: With this loss, Frosinone drops to third, only the first two are auto-promo.
Just because of Coronavirus? That disease will either burn itself out by the autumn or mutate into something more serious. If it does mutate that way, nowhere will be safe.
Serie A and Serie B have been suspended until 3 April. How and if they will be able to make up the rest of the season will be figured out in the coming weeks.
Per the Guardian, they're considering playoffs decide titles and promotion & relegation places: i.e. they'll freeze the table as it is and if the Italian epidemic doesn't peak by mid-April, organize the teams that have at least mathematical chances of winning or going down into playoffs, either round robin groups with the winners playing off for the relevant awards, or else a series of cup ties find the last men standing. Otherwise, they could be looking at restarting this season in July. Make no mistake, the situation in Italy is really, really bad. Two weeks ago, Italy had 322 confirmed cases and 2,500 cases one week ago. Right now, it's over 10,000. On top of which, for some unknown reason the Italian death rate among the infected is way higher than China's. The country's medical ethics committee is recommending extreme versions of triage - sort patients into the ones who'll probably die even if you do everything, the ones who'll probably live even if you do nothing and "others", and only treat the "others". Then sort the "others" by age and then by general health before they contracted Covid-19 and care for the younger and fitter people with longer expectable lifespans. Oh, and they also have to apply these criteria to everyone who needs ICU care, including people who don't have of Covid-19 at all, because they'll still be using scarce ICU reources. The details are here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/
I'd be willing to bet the main reason Italy's death rate is higher is two fold. First Italy's average age is way higher than China's. Italy is old and old people die more from this than younger people. Second Italy's numbers are accurate and China's aren't. Italy is in a really bad place and this is going to do a number on an already tepid economy. Can only hope Nova is sequestered away in his apartment self quarantining till he can make his escape in the future.
With loads of other countries right behind them... Here's the coronavirus data, overlayed with the dates offset by the amounts shown. One of these countries is not like the rest. Everyone else will be Italy in 9-14 days time. pic.twitter.com/VESY54X1gP— Mark Handley (@MarkJHandley) March 9, 2020
This is what everybody in the scientific community is suspecting, and it makes this pandemic all the more terrifying. China has been reporting cases as "natural causes" when the person was very old or had pre-existing conditions.
Not that I am discounting any of your reasons.... Additionally, I've seen a possibility for the number disparity based on hospital load. China built two massive hospitals and because they are an authoritarian government that produces a good deal of the medical supplies needed was able to divert the needed supplies quickly (the Chinese government did not do a good job at containing this, but once they tried to contain it they did). Italy's hospital system is too overloaded, they don't have the respirators and so medical are having to pick which patients get them. So it's possible it's just the nature of supplies+red tape western countries have that is causing the higher death rate as well.
Italy's more socialist than most people imagine. They've had a stagnate, if not outright under water economy for over a decade. New hospitals aren't being built there. More doctors aren't going into business there. New medical equipment, especially respirators and life saving machines aren't in huge supply. Add it all together and Italy is going to be a bloodbath. The upside is if you want a 500+ year old Italian vacation villa in some of the most picturesque places in the world you're going to have plenty of options to choose from at dirt cheap prices come next year.
Every non 3rd world nation but the US has socialistic healthcare, which is the pertinent aspect here. That would only reduce the risk due to lack of apprehension to get tested/treated. South Korea has contained it the best of all nations, Italy the worst. South Korea took it very seriously; had the most labs set up per capita, gave away tests free, had an aggressive testing policy, and developed a treatment regimen that included an antimalaria med as well as zinc. Have reduced death rate to 0.6%. Conversely, Italy were reportedly very laid back about it from the beginning, going on w/ their business, and then it escalated very quickly as it can with its lengthy latency period. Their death rate is 6.3%. The US made a good decision w/ the travel bans. Could slow it. But the US' capitalistic healthcare system has test-kit shortage, and only recent discussion is that they would be made available for free. In the interim the US has had an absurdly low test rate - 738 times less than SK. So has the potential to escalate like Italy. Have advantage of learning about treatments and methods from other countries before it crosses Atlantic/Pacific too much, but the US is often stubborn about living in their bubble, and prioritize profit over average outcomes.
Good post. Yeah, my mom is sick with something (in Louisville, KY) but she can't even get tested for covid-19 because she doesn't meet the requirements set by the Health Department (the only place in the city that does them). Further, I got an email last week from my health insurance company saying "Great news! Your plan covers the cost of covid-19 testing with no co-pays!" But I can't even get tested if I wanted to, so what's the point? It'd be like me putting a sign in my front yard saying "Just knock on the door and get a million dollars! Everyone is eligible for this free prize, while supplies last!" Of course, I haven't got any money for anyone, so no one gets anything.
Everything I've read says 5%, and the biggest reason for that comes down to age; this is the oldest country in Europe.
Well, that's surely a factor. But they self admittedly didn't have an urgent enough response testing-wise. "The mortality rate might be higher than average because Italy is testing only the critical cases. We are not doing enough", Lorenzo Casani, health director of a clinic in Lombardy said. https://time.com/5799586/italy-coronavirus-outbreak/ Also worth noting they did have travel bans as well, and still experienced the escalation. Highest death rate and cases per capita. So we are at serious risk if we're casual about this, as a sizable % of the population in the States is being right now, for political biases, ignorance, short-term economic interests, or desire to not see their day-to-days impacted.
This is the wrong way to calculate mortality. The correct way is considering only cases that have had an outcome. No point counting people who are still sick and we don't know whether they'll survive or not. Italy has 2,274 resolved cases. Of those, 1,016 died. That's an effective mortality rate of 44.7%. The 3.4% rate given by the WHO is optimistic ("most of those sick will recover") and accounting for cases not reported ("only 20% of people develop symptoms to go to see a doctor/go to a hospital"). IMO, and considering how little SARS-CoV-2 differs genetically from the first SARS-CoV, I wouldn't be surprised if the mortality rate in the end is similar: about 10%.
That is not correct either. What the WHO is doing, by estimating the number of cases not reported and combining that with known figures to extrapolate a result, is the right way. I was just refuting the 5% number anyway. Apologies.
No, that's the correct way to calculate mortality rate among those infected. You only take the cases that have had a proper outcome. But there are many other "mortality rates": crude mortality rate (usually by 100,000 people): divide the dead by the total population, multiply by 100k; cause-specific mortality rate, when you only count the deaths by a single cause (i.e. coronavirus infection), divide by the entire population, multiply by 100k; etc. What the WHO used is called death-to-case ratio: they take ALL the cases as their population, and just use it as the denominator. The number of dead people is the numerator. It's the way to do things not to cause a panic, but it's not the most useful indicator. The most useful one is actual infection mortality rate, the one I used: numerator is the dead people from a given infection, denominator is all the cases that had a resolution (whether death or recovery). They're not giving you that one because they don't want to cause panic. But people who study diseases actually care the most about that one, because it tells you how likely a patient with a confirmed case is to die, when nothing is known about the patient.
Serie B attendance numbers from last season down at the bottom. Frosinone not included since they were in Serie A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_Serie_B
Frosinone back in action this Saturday, June 20. https://us.soccerway.com/teams/italy/frosinone-calcio/2981/
Bump from page three OUR STARTING XI 🦁 #TRAFRO pic.twitter.com/Go9Ku7n61f— Frosinone Calcio 🇬🇧 (@Frosinone1928en) June 20, 2020