Corona Virus

[Uranyl Yellow]

27 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I think when you look at it in absolute numbers alone, then I suppose 100'000 deaths sound... for the lack of a better word, impressive, threatening.

 

At the same time, we forget about the historical context and putting things into a relative perspective.

 

The Spanish Flu infected more than 25% of the then-population and cost the lives of 3 million people or 3 percent of the population back in the days. And that's only an estimation, the real number could be even higher. That was in a time when we had 1.8 billion people living on this planet. We're approaching 8 billion now.

 

Recently, we had the 2015 heat wave that also killed thousands of people worldwide, the majority of those among the elderly also.

 

It may sound a bit cynical to downplay 100'000 deaths, but it is nothing in comparison to previous viruses that swept the globe at a time when we had a much smaller global population.

 

Personally, I think the media have little to no clue, as they are no medial experts. And I suppose even these experts are struggling to fully comprehend the scale of this outbreak.

Again, we should neither ignore the threat, nor fall for hysteria.

Not to mention that air pollution is roughly estimated to kill seven million people a year (if you choose to believe the WHO), but it doesn't stop people obliviously climbing in their cars and pootling 200 yards down the road to the chippy. I have no idea how bad this will get, but I do know that the Earth will continue to turn irrespective of whether we are on it or not. Whilst undoubtedly callous, it is a maxim that a highly virulent virus (and I don't think that this is it by a long shot) would be a very bad thing for humanity (at least in the short term), but it would be a very good thing for the world.

[hejammy]

2 minutes ago, Uranyl Yellow said:

Not to mention that air pollution is roughly estimated to kill seven million people a year (if you choose to believe the WHO), but it doesn't stop people obliviously climbing in their cars and pootling 200 yards down the road to the chippy. I have no idea how bad this will get, but I do know that the Earth will continue to turn irrespective of whether we are on it or not. Whilst undoubtedly callous, it is a maxim that a highly virulent virus (and I don't think that this is it by a long shot) would be a very bad thing for humanity (at least in the short term), but it would be a very good thing for the world.

Although the type of person who does have the biggest CO2 footprint will most likely have a better chance of survival than someone who doesn't have a big footprint (health care, sanitation etc) 

[Nod.E]

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, hejammy said:

The problem is that the current death rate is 3%, so if everyone caught it in the UK, around 60m people then at 3% that's around 1.9m people. Obviously this would be assuming a lot of things so if it was 100,000 in the end then yes it "wouldn't seem so bad" unless ofcourse you know personally any of the 100,000. Either way it's no reason to panic but there is a reason to be cautious, especially if you fit the criteria for being at risk if you catch it. 

SARS had a fatality rate of up to 10 percent if I'm not mistaken, and I can't recall us going so much overboard in terms of media coverage and hints of mass hysteria (panic buys/hoarding).

[somebum]

6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

I was pro brexit and I'm laughing at the hysteria around coronavirus. Is this what you mean? 

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, Nod.E said:

145 people have died in Italy. Out of over 60 million.

 

I'm sorry but I just think some people have a better grasp of numbers than others.

 

Don't let the media panic you.

 

7 hours later, the figure for Italy is 230+.

 

I'm not saying that anyone should panic. Too many people are panicking (bog roll!). 

This will probably turn out nowhere near as bad as the worst expectations and may not be as bad as middle-of-the-road predictions. But it has the potential to be very serious, so people should see it a serious risk and act with caution (not panic).

 

Having a good "grasp of numbers" isn't just about looking at the current figure. It's also about trajectory......145->230+ in 7 hours.....and there's a similar trajectory in UK infections (not deaths - yet).

 

If someone said "Leicester City are on great form. They won their last match", you wouldn't think they had a great "grasp of numbers", would you? I'd think they were being a bit short-sighted. 

[reynard]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I think when you look at it in absolute numbers alone, then I suppose 100'000 deaths sound... for the lack of a better word, impressive, threatening.

 

At the same time, we forget about the historical context and putting things into a relative perspective.

 

The Spanish Flu infected more than 25% of the then-population and cost the lives of 3 million people or 3 percent of the population back in the days. And that's only an estimation, the real number could be even higher. That was in a time when we had 1.8 billion people living on this planet. We're approaching 8 billion now.

 

Recently, we had the 2015 heat wave that also killed thousands of people worldwide, the majority of those among the elderly also.

 

It may sound a bit cynical to downplay 100'000 deaths, but it is nothing in comparison to previous viruses that swept the globe at a time when we had a much smaller global population.

 

Personally, I think the media have little to no clue, as they are no medial experts. And I suppose even these experts are struggling to fully comprehend the scale of this outbreak.

Again, we should neither ignore the threat, nor fall for hysteria.

I presume you are talking about the flu pandemics of 1918/1919. If  so I'm afraid your 3 million deaths is way off the mark. Essentially it came in three waves each more virilant than the others. In Britain alone 250,000 are known to have died, mainly in the 20-40 year old bracket. Without accurate figues we are of course estimating worldwide deaths but anywhere between 50 and 100 million is likely.. (roughly equivalent to today's figures would be 325 million ie the population of USA).

 

Recent scientific work on survivng tissues show it was probably a type of bird flu and it probably started on a smale scale infection around 1916. To digress a study of many of the surviving army service records of those who fought in WWI show a great many men suffering from various fevers. These were usally noted as something called PUO or pyrexia of unknown origin. Some of these cases were almost certainly early carriers of the 1918/19 strain of flu. So it probably started small low key and spread incredibly rapidly.

 

Of course no one is suggesting a comparable death rate for this virus however, there are some similarities about its spread and advice given. In 1918 medecine was not as good as now and people were advised to gargle with salt water and to self-isolate.  It didn't work obviously.

 

Also, today, this is a virus to which very few people have any immunity. The death rates in the 1918/19 flu outbreak were far higher in countries where there was little immunity.

 

We seem to have swung form a believable worst case scenario, put out by the governement , of 80% infection rates with 500,000 deaths to this new figure of 100,000 deaths.

So far things seem to be getting under control in China but what happens when they start to let  people move about etc. Seems likely this virus will also come in more than one wave until the world's immunity levels are increased or an efficient vaccine is developed and then administered to a high enough level percentage of the world's population to eventually eradicate it as per small pox.

 

[martyn]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

SARS had a fatality rate of up to 10 percent if I'm not mistaken, and I can't recall us going so much overboard in terms of media coverage and hints of mass hysteria (panic buys/hoarding).

But SARS was far far far less transmissible than Coronavirus. You simply cannot compare. Sars blew itself out after 800 cases, Coronavirus is now growing exponentially everywhere where serious proactive, protective measures have not been implemented. 

 

Im amazed how many people are not taking this seriously. 

 

The numbers quoted also dont take into account what happens to health care capacity as infections contunue to increase. The percentage requiring hospitalisation and Intensive Care is alarming so how on earth do we cope when things ramp up here. Italy is already creaking. 

[hejammy]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

SARS had a fatality rate of up to 10 percent if I'm not mistaken, and I can't recall us going so much overboard in terms of media coverage and hints of mass hysteria (panic buys/hoarding).

SARS infected around 8000 people worldwide and around 770 deaths where as the total number for COVID-19 is now over 100,000 and nearly 3500 deaths. So slightly different but yes I still agree that the media propagate panic and hysteria. But then also the public need to also think for themselves and stop bulk buying antibacterial hand sanitisers for example (won't kill coronaVIRUS) 

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, hejammy said:

SARS infected around 8000 people worldwide and around 770 deaths where as the total number for COVID-19 is now over 100,000 and nearly 3500 deaths. So slightly different but yes I still agree that the media propagate panic and hysteria. But then also the public need to also think for themselves and stop bulk buying antibacterial hand sanitisers for example (won't kill coroNAVIRUS) 

Any hand sanitiser with ah alcohol content of over 60% will kill a virus. 

[reynard]

For those who like to get really depressed and are statistic fans then I suggest a reguler perusal of the following site from John Hopkins University

 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

 

Are you sure?

 

I was anti-Brexit and think coronavirus should be taken very seriously (though rationally, not in a panic).

 

Your point about the media raises an important issue, though. We live in times of great mistrust for authorities and for media information (and excessive trust in dodgy media sources, in some cases).

The other day a family member (middle-aged man, not schoolkid) was seriously claiming that this is all fabrication got up by those in power as a long-anticipated pretext to lock down the people.....he didn't mention the Bilderberg Group this time, but usually does. 

 

People not taking this seriously might well make it more serious than it need have been - if not for them (if they're young and lucky enough to have low vulnerability), then for their parents, grandparents or elderly/vulnerable friends/family, as others have pointed out.

[hejammy]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

Any hand sanitiser with ah alcohol content of over 60% will kill a virus. 

Problem is that most of these shop bought or amazon /eBay rip offs don't have that content, and even if then soap and warm water is far more effective. People buying 50p gels on amazon for £12.99 really need to think about what they are doing 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Your point about the media raises an important issue, though. We live in times of great mistrust for authorities and for media information (and excessive trust in dodgy media sources, in some cases).

 

Go to page 2 of this thread, scroll midway down the page for a perfect example of this. 

[String fellow]

If we're talking about transmissibility (if such a word exists), then the R0 factor should perhaps be given a mention. If I understand it correctly, this is, in effect, a measure of the probability of one person passing on an infection or virus to others. The good news is that R0 for the corona virus is much lower than that for measles or whooping cough.    

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, Nod.E said:

145 people have died in Italy. Out of over 60 million.

 

I'm sorry but I just think some people have a better grasp of numbers than others.

 

Don't let the media panic you.

You keep going on about numbers without seeming to realise we are still in the earliest stages of this.

 

Your point of view here is like being at the top of Grenfell Tower and refusing to panic as it's only the bottom two flats on fire.

 

The way you are talking its like you expect this to all be finished by next Saturday. We don't have a clue what the timescale is at the minute so its impossible to assess the impact of the numbers.

 

If you think the media are trying to panic people fine, but governments in Europe are already so concerned about this they are going to destroy their economies short term to deal with it - you can't put that on media panic.

[WigstonWanderer]

31 minutes ago, reynard said:

I presume you are talking about the flu pandemics of 1918/1919. If  so I'm afraid your 3 million deaths is way off the mark. Essentially it came in three waves each more virilant than the others. In Britain alone 250,000 are known to have died, mainly in the 20-40 year old bracket. Without accurate figues we are of course estimating worldwide deaths but anywhere between 50 and 100 million is likely.. (roughly equivalent to today's figures would be 325 million ie the population of USA).

 

Recent scientific work on survivng tissues show it was probably a type of bird flu and it probably started on a smale scale infection around 1916. To digress a study of many of the surviving army service records of those who fought in WWI show a great many men suffering from various fevers. These were usally noted as something called PUO or pyrexia of unknown origin. Some of these cases were almost certainly early carriers of the 1918/19 strain of flu. So it probably started small low key and spread incredibly rapidly.

 

Of course no one is suggesting a comparable death rate for this virus however, there are some similarities about its spread and advice given. In 1918 medecine was not as good as now and people were advised to gargle with salt water and to self-isolate.  It didn't work obviously.

 

Also, today, this is a virus to which very few people have any immunity. The death rates in the 1918/19 flu outbreak were far higher in countries where there was little immunity.

 

We seem to have swung form a believable worst case scenario, put out by the governement , of 80% infection rates with 500,000 deaths to this new figure of 100,000 deaths.

So far things seem to be getting under control in China but what happens when they start to let  people move about etc. Seems likely this virus will also come in more than one wave until the world's immunity levels are increased or an efficient vaccine is developed and then administered to a high enough level percentage of the world's population to eventually eradicate it as per small pox.

 

You make good points. The 100,00 figure was not a worst case, though it has been spun as such since by politicians. On reflection I think Chris Whitty spoke of up to 20% off work at any one time. His upper limit for total infections was indeed 80%, which at a mortality rate of 1% does yield ~500k.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

If you think the media are trying to panic people fine, but governments in Europe are already so concerned about this they are going to destroy their economies short term to deal with it - you can't put that on media panic.

 

On this, the Sunday Times front page you posted is a good example of the media opting NOT to panic people.

 

If they'd wanted to panic people - or to maximise newspaper sales - their headline would have been "Coronavirus: 100,000 could die" or similar. 

Instead, their headline was "Whitehall plans for the worst as virus spreads", with the 100,000 figure in small print in the article.

 

Maybe some of the tabloids are panicking people to boost sales? I don't know as I don't read them. But the broadsheets and BBC have covered it quite cautiously, in my experience.

 

The wall-to-wall coverage can induce panic in some people. But should the media ignore the issue? And whose fault is it if idiots panic in response to rational, cautious, if worrying information? It's the fault of the idiots, not the messenger. 

 

Anyway, if the current trajectory is maintained, I presume that infections and deaths will increase markedly over the next week or two, and more people will hear of cases in their local area or among people they know. Hopefully, more people will take it seriously and take sensible precautions to protect themselves and others then - rather than the current polarisation, it seems, between people in panic mode and people in a state of denial. 

[Jon the Hat]

54 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

SARS had a fatality rate of up to 10 percent if I'm not mistaken, and I can't recall us going so much overboard in terms of media coverage and hints of mass hysteria (panic buys/hoarding).

Hardly anyone got SARS.

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

Bizzare view

 

The evidence is that if the government don’t take special measures then it spreads and 1% of people that get it die so if “getting scared” by it means managing the risk then so be it.

 

The media haven’t helped elements of it but go and listen to the experts who all seem pretty worried by it.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Obviously tough decisions will need to be made. I'm not saying this is an ideal situation, rather that the media panic is disproportionate to the severity of the situation.

 

Even if the worst case scenario happens and 100,000 die in the UK, that's still only 0.15% of the population. It's still 60,000 deaths less than cancer causes every year.

 

It's newsworthy, but it isn't day after day, headline grabbing, fearmonger worthy.

 

If you weren't worried about dying from cancer last month, then you shouldn't be worried about Corona virus killing you now.

But now you have to not worry about cancer as well as not worry about getting Coronavirus. One more thing.

[simFox]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

Every cvnt out there panic hoarding toilet paper and emptying the shelves, I hope you actually get coronavirus so your efforts aren't for nothing. 

 

Twats. 

So I take it you've been caught short this week? 

 

I've got a few rolls for sale on eBay.

[Uranyl Yellow]

1 hour ago, hejammy said:

Although the type of person who does have the biggest CO2 footprint will most likely have a better chance of survival than someone who doesn't have a big footprint (health care, sanitation etc) 

Oh sure. I would be the last person to hold my hands up in defence of the moral justice of Mother Nature. You only have to look at the world to know that she is an absolute bitch. Doubtless it would be better to line up all the jet-settin', meat-eatin', car-drivin', money-worshippin' freaks out there and club the to death with a smelly sandal and half a courgette, but maybe that would present its own problems.

 

Excuse me. I must climb into my private jet and try to track down some feckin' soap. I'm down to my last nub. At this rate I'll have to boil two pigs and saponificate my own.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

I'm noticing a correlation between people scared about Corona virus and those that were pro Brexit.

 

It's almost as though the media has an influence 😁

And people thought turning this subject into a culture war was just going to be the destiny of the daftest Trump supporters.