SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Arruda said:
Thanks @Di Maria's angel

I find so stupid that most of our media focus so little in China and Korea. It's like looking into the future, so much to learn there. I hope governments are actually looking into it and learning from it.
Click to expand...

Yup. OK, you don't want to shut down businesses at the moment. But this is 2020, education could easily continue online or not at all for two weeks. Cancel the upcoming easter holidays for feck sakes and just give people time off now.
 
King Eric 7 said:
People are probably profiteering and it's the Amazon sellers who are setting a high price. I would suspect that some have bought from supermarkets to list on ebay at inflated prices, too.
Click to expand...

Supermarkets should have limited the number of sanitisers per person.
 
11101 said:
Those numbers make a few assumptions:

1. It's allowed to circulate freely without any containment measures.
2. It survives the summer unhindered, which almost all coronaviruses fail to do.
3. No vaccination or treatment plan is known - a lot of those deaths were early on when nobody knew what they were dealing with. As time goes by treatment will improve.

I think we'll end up with about double what we have today.
Click to expand...

The reason the estimates range from 10% to 70% infected is precisely because they take these things into account. 10% would probably be the case if the virus doesn't "survive" the summer and we do a good job containing it. As for the vaccination, it's a good chance it's not done before 2021.

If I'm not mistaken, somewhere between 20% and 40% get the common flu each year. It's really hard to contain these viruses, even with good measures.
 
The fact that cancelling Super-Tuesday hasn't even been seriously discussed by authorities and the public in the US just shows you how far we are from even acknowledging the problem.

Social media have blinded people completely. About half the Portuguese at this moment still believe this is little more than a flu and they reinforce each other on social media. With the amount of information we have these days it is absutely absurd.

That perspective changes when the disease actually gets near them and these uninformed fools are usualy the first to react disproportionatelly when push comes to shove.
 
Arruda said:
Even if you look at just of the number of (potential) dead, it's far greater than what you realize. If 0.5% of people you know die this year from a new cause you will bloody well notice.
Click to expand...
One thing that has struck me is how people in general don't know how to process the numbers involved in this and harp on about the common influenza and such.

People should read up on the Spanish flu, which was a remarkably similar disease. I believe that we are better able to contain it than back then, but people should understand that without the drastic containment measures, Spanish flu is the scenario we'd be looking at.
 
Penna said:
Just as a general point, if you're a religious person it has a place in every aspect of your life. If you happen to be a politician who's a religious person, you're going to pray for help in making the right decisions at a time like this. It doesn't mean you're going to disregard science.
Click to expand...
Yeah but there's a difference between praying by yourself / with your close ones, and praying in front of national television cameras for propaganda reasons.


If any of these had any sort of moral fiber they wouldn't be employed in the ungodly administration they are part of.
 
Arruda said:
The fact that cancelling Super-Tuesday hasn't even been seriously discussed by authorities and the public in the US just shows you how far we are from even acknowledging the problem.

Social media have blinded people completely. About half the Portuguese at this moment still believe this is little more than a flu and they reinforce each other on social media. With the amount of information we have these days it is absutely absurd.

That perspective changes when the disease actually gets near them and these uninformed fools are usualy the first to react disproportionatelly when push comes to shove.
Click to expand...
From one of the best paid columnists at the world's biggest news website... @Di Maria's angel

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: My default position on health scares is weary scepticism... but if my GP thinks I should steer clear of his surgery because of coronavirus fears, there must be something in it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...OHN-position-health-scares-scepticism-it.html
 
I'm living in Shanghai these days and am here now. It's true that the virus has been dramatically contained here, with just 1 new case here or there and many days of no new cases. They're slowly starting to open some things up again, but the vast majority are working from home and basically self-isolating. Getting essentials delivered, with the very efficient delivery services here.

Watching the West's response from the lens of having been in China since the start of the virus is quite frustrating. Always reacting rather than being proactive, basically repeating the exact same mistakes that were visible for all to see in China if they cared to look at the time. Chinese new year celebrations still allowed to go ahead, travel to the greater Hubei province still allowed, until the situation got worse and worse and panic grew. Thankfully since then the Chinese government really took control of the situation. But now with all that we know about the virus there's really no excuse for the lackadaisical approach taken by Europe and the US.

Soon I expect cities like Shanghai and Beijing will be safer than the likes of London and New York. If it isn't already the case!
 
Last edited:
justboy68 said:
I'm living in Shanghai these days and am here now. It's true that the virus has been dramatically contained here, with just 1 new case here or there and many days of no new cases. They're slowly starting to open some things up again, but the vast majority are working from home and basically self-isolating. Getting essentials delivered, with the very efficient delivery services here.

Watching the West's response from the lens of having been in China since the start of the virus is quite frustrating. Always reacting rather than being proactive, basically repeating the exact same mistakes that were visible for all to see in China if they cared to look at the time. Chinese new year celebrations still allowed to go ahead, travel to the greater Hubei province still allowed, until the situation got worse and worse and panic grew. Thankfully since then the Chinese government really took control of the situation. But now with all that we know about the virus there's really no excuse for the lackadaisical approach taken by Europe and the US.

Soon I expect cities like Shanghai and Beijing will be safer than the likes of London and New York. If it isn't already the case!
Click to expand...

That's exactly how it seems at the moment. Our work have had to take our own very sensible and reasonable decision to delay a meeting in a region of Germany where the outbreak has reached 101 cases. Our government would just have us continue as normal.
 
Jippy said:
From one of the best paid columnists at the world's biggest news website... @Di Maria's angel

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: My default position on health scares is weary scepticism... but if my GP thinks I should steer clear of his surgery because of coronavirus fears, there must be something in it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...OHN-position-health-scares-scepticism-it.html
Click to expand...

When an entire country of over one billion people goes into lockdown, you'd be best not to bury your head in the sand. @Jippy I'm not that concerned about myself - I'm a relatively young and healthy individual. However, my concern is for the elderly. We should look to protect everyone.
 
justboy68 said:
I'm living in Shanghai these days and am here now. It's true that the virus has been dramatically contained here, with just 1 new case here or there and many days of no new cases. They're slowly starting to open some things up again, but the vast majority are working from home and basically self-isolating. Getting essentials delivered, with the very efficient delivery services here.

Watching the West's response from the lens of having been in China since the start of the virus is quite frustrating. Always reacting rather than being proactive, basically repeating the exact same mistakes that were visible for all to see in China if they cared to look at the time. Chinese new year celebrations still allowed to go ahead, travel to the greater Hubei province still allowed, until the situation got worse and worse and panic grew. Thankfully since then the Chinese government really took control of the situation. But now with all that we know about the virus there's really no excuse for the lackadaisical approach taken by Europe and the US.

Soon I expect cities like Shanghai and Beijing will be safer than the likes of London and New York. If it isn't already the case!
Click to expand...

This x 100.

From where I stand, start small scale lockdowns now and coronavirus will not be an issue.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
When an entire country of over one billion people goes into lockdown, you'd be best not to bury your head in the sand. @Jippy I'm not that concerned about myself - I'm a relatively young and healthy individual. However, my concern is for the elderly. We should look to protect everyone.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've deleted two posts I was going to make about Littlejohn and rejected another one in my head.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
This x 100.

From where I stand, start small scale lockdowns now and coronavirus will not be an issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need lockdowns as such yet. But I would like to see government advising business to encourage staff to work from home as much as possible. If you halve the number of people commuting and sitting in busy offices each day, it would surely help stem the spread somewhat. So many people don't actually need to be in the office to work.
 
It's good. A bit slow, and Felix isn't as good a villain as Esbobar or Pacho were. Scoot Mc Neary is much better in the lead role than Pena though.
 
WHO saying money may be a mean of transmission. I wasn't expecting that.
 
11101 said:
The Chinese were cleaning banknotes weeks ago, so they must have known.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that, but thought it was a "better safe than sorry" case. Wasn't expecting it to get traction.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't think we need lockdowns as such yet. But I would like to see government advising business to encourage staff to work from home as much as possible. If you halve the number of people commuting and sitting in busy offices each day, it would surely help stem the spread somewhat. So many people don't actually need to be in the office to work.
Click to expand...

Small scale. School and universities should be closed for 2 weeks.

Edit: and yeah, I absolutely agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Arruda said:
The fact that cancelling Super-Tuesday hasn't even been seriously discussed by authorities and the public in the US just shows you how far we are from even acknowledging the problem.
Click to expand...

Penna said:
I don't disagree with that at all. After all, Jesus said don't make a big public show of praying, but do it in private.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and when you remember that this is the current U.S government, and that they have used said 'prayer meeting' as a photo opportunity... and that they haven't even cancelled mass public shopping events (see the quote from @Arruda above)... I think it's fair enough to call them out on it.

Di Maria's angel said:
Yup. OK, you don't want to shut down businesses at the moment. But this is 2020, education could easily continue online or not at all for two weeks. Cancel the upcoming easter holidays for feck sakes and just give people time off now.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

horsechoker said:
Supermarkets should have limited the number of sanitisers per person.
Click to expand...

Indeed - they limit the number of Ibuprofen packs you can buy in one go for 'public safety', put a limit on Hand Gels sold per-person, and send out packs of it for free to the elderly etc.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't think we need lockdowns as such yet. But I would like to see government advising business to encourage staff to work from home as much as possible. If you halve the number of people commuting and sitting in busy offices each day, it would surely help stem the spread somewhat. So many people don't actually need to be in the office to work.
Click to expand...

yep, this would be awesome.
 
If my company tell me to work from home for a month I'm straight out buying a dog.

See, Covid-19 can be a positive thing if we do it right.
 
My mate's got to travel to Chicago from London on Thursday and is bricking it. He was in the Canary Islands a couple of weeks back, what are the chances he will be quarantined when he gets there?
 
senorgregster said:
What does that accomplish? What happens 2 weeks from now when there's likely more cases?
Click to expand...
1) People will be more mentally prepared for stricter measures down the line
2) You are reducing the rate of infection. Every little bit helps
3) You cannot turn off the whole economy at once. Chaos would ensue. You turn off things little by little and, if necessary, you keep the essential. But finding that balance isn't easy and may require some degree of trial and error.

Take the examples of China. Grocery stores are working, but slower and few hours. Delivery guys absolutely must work, and they do it with increased protection, etc... They probably didn't found that balance overnight.

Education, an investment for the future, is one of the least important economic sectors for the immediate short-term (save for it's function in guarding children while the family works). Kids are resistant but will be very likely be found to be capable of transmitting infection... It's a great place to start.
 
Arruda said:
1) People will be more mentally prepared for stricter measures down the line
2) You are reducing the rate of infection. Every little bit helps
3) You cannot turn off the whole economy at once. Chaos would ensue. You turn off things little by little and, if necessary, you keep the essential. But finding that balance isn't easy and may require some degree of trial and error.

Take the examples of China. Grocery stores are working, but slower and few hours. Delivery guys absolutely must work, and they do it with increased protection, etc... They probably didn't found that balance overnight.

Education, an investment for the future, is one of the least important economic sectors for the immediate short-term (save for it's function in guarding children while the family works). Kids are resistant but will be very likely be found to be capable of transmitting infection... It's a great place to start.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain why shops being open for fewer hours is a good thing?

It seems to me if you restrict the hours people can visit, then more people will be in the shop at any one time.

Generally speaking there won't be less shoppers, than if there were no restrictions on shops.

All it does in condense the traffic flow to a smaller window, which in my eyes is a bad thing.
 
Arruda said:
1) People will be more mentally prepared for stricter measures down the line
2) You are reducing the rate of infection. Every little bit helps
3) You cannot turn off the whole economy at once. Chaos would ensue. You turn off things little by little and, if necessary, you keep the essential. But finding that balance isn't easy and may require some degree of trial and error.

Take the examples of China. Grocery stores are working, but slower and few hours. Delivery guys absolutely must work, and they do it with increased protection, etc... They probably didn't found that balance overnight.

Education, an investment for the future, is one of the least important economic sectors for the immediate short-term (save for it's function in guarding children while the family works). Kids are resistant but will be very likely be found to be capable of transmitting infection... It's a great place to start.
Click to expand...
Where do those kids go during the 2 weeks? Close daycare as well?
 
VintageWhatnots said:
Can someone explain why shops being open for fewer hours is a good thing?

It seems to me if you restrict the hours people can visit, then more people will be in the shop at any one time.

Generally speaking there won't be less shoppers, than if there were no restrictions on shops.

All it does in condense the traffic flow to a smaller window, which in my eyes is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Was thinking the exact same thing.
 
senorgregster said:
What does that accomplish? What happens 2 weeks from now when there's likely more cases?
Click to expand...

It reduces the number of people using public transport. And those off school should be encouraged to study during normal school hours - at least keep them inside for certain periods of the day.

Business, today, should encourage more and more people to work from home - if possible. Especially those who us public transport.
 
Arruda said:
1) People will be more mentally prepared for stricter measures down the line
2) You are reducing the rate of infection. Every little bit helps
3) You cannot turn off the whole economy at once. Chaos would ensue. You turn off things little by little and, if necessary, you keep the essential. But finding that balance isn't easy and may require some degree of trial and error.

Take the examples of China. Grocery stores are working, but slower and few hours. Delivery guys absolutely must work, and they do it with increased protection, etc... They probably didn't found that balance overnight.

Education, an investment for the future, is one of the least important economic sectors for the immediate short-term (save for it's function in guarding children while the family works). Kids are resistant but will be very likely be found to be capable of transmitting infection... It's a great place to start.
Click to expand...
I assume you are of the opinion that all major gatherings, say more than the size of a school, should be banned? How about public transportation?
 
Di Maria's angel said:
It reduces the number of people using public transport. And those off school should be encouraged to study during normal school hours - at least keep them inside for certain periods of the day.

Business, today, should encourage more and more people to work from home - if possible. Especially those who us public transport.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it with your answer. But again, in 2 weeks time what happens if there are more cases by then (hint, there will be far more cases by then)
 
senorgregster said:
Was thinking the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the government has better contingency plans that we do. In fact, they've released some of the plans online and it does touch on the possibility of lockdowns if the severity increases. Again, you only have to look at the measures taken by China (not the extreme ones) to see how effective isolations can be.
 
senorgregster said:
Beat me to it with your answer. But again, in 2 weeks time what happens if there are more cases by then (hint, there will be far more cases by then)
Click to expand...

Then you keep the lockdowns in place unless you want the virus to spread more?

Whats the alternative here? Just allow it to spread and let millions of people die?

Honestly, can someone enlighten me. How else do you stop the transmission of a virus that spreads before you even realise you're infected?

Actually, the only alternative is to let this play out, and as the US suits did, pray that it doesn't get worse.
 
VintageWhatnots said:
Can someone explain why shops being open for fewer hours is a good thing?

It seems to me if you restrict the hours people can visit, then more people will be in the shop at any one time.

Generally speaking there won't be less shoppers, than if there were no restrictions on shops.

All it does in condense the traffic flow to a smaller window, which in my eyes is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I was just stating how it seems to ve the case from reports from China. Smaller hours is more likely a reflection of smaller workforce and the customer numbers are also much smaller (being advised to stay home for as much as possible people and probably buying just the essential in as little outings as possible, only one person).

It's probably more a side-effect. They are essentially living in a curfew.
 
@senorgregster also, we should be increasing screenings at airports. I read Sharp will begin manufacturing masks. The entire world needs to help each other. There is absolutely no reason we cannot beat this virus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.