Coronavirus (aka COVID-19) - just how serious?

[roubaixtuesday]

The WHO were on the ground, and they, and the modelling, seem to think it's realistic and credible.

Tiananmen was not hidden, we all know about it.

No we don't! And, I didn't get that from our press.

Wait and see, if you survive....

Al

I'm happy to say I've absolutely no idea what you mean.

Best for you and yours.

[[XAP]Bob]

The Chinese have already brought the disease under control through means to stop it's spread not by thinking lets get it spread to 60% of the population.

And what will happen when they say it is okay for everyone to go back to work, as they must at some point? They cannot stay shut down indefinitely. What happens when the shutdown ends? Assuming that 60% have not already had the virus.

Then you have a very small population carrying the virus - so given a three week shutdown then you should be back to a very manageable infection rate.

[fullupandslowingdown]

I was talking to a random stranger at Lidl who told me that he had seen a previous week on the CDC website that diarrhea was a rare but possible symptom of the virus. That snippet was then removed after 3 days, but not before the Australians had seen it and started of all the panic buying.

Today I saw a snippet on the beeb site saying Germany had ordered 10,000 ventilators from Draegerwek, and 5,000 by Italy. Can't find it on the beeb now, though it's still on Reuters, CNN and ABCNews. So obviously that was a bit of false news rapidly taken down by our alert and efficient aunty beeb, thank god someone pays their license fee.

The web is awash with falsehoods and nonsense. Trump was absolutely right when he declared the virus to be under control. He's said that the number of cases may soon go down to zero. The country was prepared for any circumstance, "there is no reason to panic at all". See it, wash your hands and it's all sorted.

warning of extreme sarcasm, may sting if enters eyes

[Postboxer]

What if we employed a one week off, one week on system, people go to work til Friday, then everyone possible stays home for 9 days, any with symptoms continue to stay home, everyone else, back to work for 5 days, then 9 days off again, would it slow the spread enough to not overwhelm the NHS while not being a complete shut down, would it be better than a total month long shutdown? Could we divide into two groups, half go to work and school, half don't then the next week vice versa? Any other radical ideas?

Edit - Apparently there are some radical ideas, such as isolating all of the over 70's!

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... OQ_nskC0hU

Also been wondering about how technical a respirator is and whether somewhere there is a team of scientists, doctors and engineers stuck together in a room trying to figure out how to make one from household items, much like the scene in Apollo 13 where they figure out how the astronauts can make a CO2 scrubber.

[mercalia]

so the panic starts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51883440

oz

the reintroduction of ration books?

[horizon]

A chink of light in the darkness at last (I've been saying it for years):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -infection

[Bonefishblues]

The Chinese have already brought the disease under control through means to stop it's spread not by thinking lets get it spread to 60% of the population.

And what will happen when they say it is okay for everyone to go back to work, as they must at some point? They cannot stay shut down indefinitely. What happens when the shutdown ends? Assuming that 60% have not already had the virus.

Then you have a very small population carrying the virus - so given a three week shutdown then you should be back to a very manageable infection rate.

We'll soon find out in the World's largest study of epidemiology.

[Oldjohnw]

so the panic starts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51883440

Capture.JPG

the reintroduction of ration books?

Why should we be surprised at the great British public being selfish and not caring about the vulnerable? The recent referendum and General Elections have already well demonstrated those character traits.

We even have a Health Secretary who puts his advice behind a paywall in the Telegraph, subsequently lifted following protests.

[dim]

OK .... put on your tinfoil hats and watch this video

[youtube]L5rEmaYv6KY[/youtube]

[Oldjohnw]

The poet Ian McMillan

They self-isolate, your mum and dad
They like to tell you that they do
Because the air around is bad
Breathed in and out by folks like you.
But they were isolated years ago
By silences in chilly rooms
So always let the talking flow:
Life gleams when conversation blooms.

[pwa]

Our focus has to be on those who are particularly vulnerable to this virus. For most of us it does not matter, except that we are potential carriers. We have to keep the virus away from the vulnerable. I think my Mum has got the message, but she can be stubborn so we may still have some work to do there. My son works in the Health Service so he has stopped calling on her so that he can't be a means of the virus reaching her. My wife and are doing her shopping but will be keeping some distance and observing the clean hands routine. If and when we get sick we will have to phone round and get someone else to step in for a couple of weeks.

[djnotts]

At least at 1 branch (where my son works) of a major budget supermarket shoppers were yesterday limited to no more than 4 of any one item. Shoppers were not happy, but only 1 foolish enough to direct his anger at my son (he suspects this sort of rationing will become general and advises me to stock up - modestly! - today).FWIW I think that some form of rationing is very likely (psychological reasons as much as practical) and that the isolation of over-70s is a real possibility. I cannot see how I can escape contagion indefinitely nor death when I do become infected. I am arranging my affairs accordingly. Anyone with existing health conditions should make their Will now - don't want lawyers to be the main beneficiaries of half a million "early" deaths!

[Mick F]

Mrs Mick F is off to Gambia on Saturday morning. She'll be there this time next week.
She'll be doing voluntary work and distributing donated stuff sent out in a 40ft container. The container ship carrying it to Gambia is at anchor off Tangier prior to picking it up from the dock on Wednesday. It was taken out from here via Southampton, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, and to Tangier. Due in at Banjul on the 26th.

https://www.maersk.com/tracking/#tracking?TGBU6790567

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/AS ... -538090541

She'll be away five weeks. We're both concerned that she'll not be allowed to leave UK. Her flight leaves Gatwick to Lisbon, and then to Banjul, Gambia. She may not be able to fly via Lisbon, so her flights may be cancelled. Coming back at the end of April could be difficult too. She could be stuck out there!

Meanwhile, I'll be keeping the home fires burning. I've been inundated with support offers should I fall ill and told I mustn't hesitate to let them know how I am. Dog walking, shopping etc on offer too.

People are really nice.

[661-Pete]

Why should we be surprised at the great British public being selfish and not caring about the vulnerable? The recent referendum and General Elections have already well demonstrated those character traits.

One piece of evidence of Englanders' 'selfishness' has been reports that food banks for the most impoverished in our society are running short - presumably because it's "everyone for themselves and damn the rest..."

But possibly not - at least not in our local Tesco's. There, we put a couple of tins in the food bank collection box - as we often do. The box was almost full of stuff. So people are still giving.

Perhaps these were the people who voted against the trend you mentioned above? In Burgess Hill, that wouldn't be surprising.

[pete75]

That's assuming catching the disease once gives long term immunity. A country with a population of 60 million planning to get 60% of it's citizens infected with a 3% death rate disease obviously doesn't care about 108,000 of them dying. If that's the plan then it's not surprising Johnson said you're going to lose some of your loved ones.

You're off by a factor of 10. Death rate would have to be 0.3% for only 108,000 to die.

Yep I left a 0 out. Maybe I do need reading glasses...