Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Worthing exile]

Hopefully not.

It hasn't gone unnoticed (by me anyway) that Boris got down to Twickenham last Saturday so if it was safe for him, then I believe that all grounds should remain open for those that want to attend.

Yes and I bet he wasn't on a crowded train or concourse or taking a leak in an unsanitory trough toilet with two sinks and two hand driers.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I'm certainly expecting it to be.

And, frankly, having digested some of the horrifying tales continuing to come out of Northern Italy, I'm not entirely sure I'll go on Saturday myself.

I stress, again, this wouldn't be for my own health concerns, but more that the more people that get this, the quicker it will spread very quickly: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09...-likely-not-infectious-after-recovery-begins/

I’ll be going without doubt.

 

[peterward]

I've seen people quoting 100,000 deaths from this. How?

China have only had 3,000 deaths and it is now going up in the 20s per day. So in a country of that size they are no where near this level.

100,000 deaths is based on the mortality being 10x that of flu and the average flu deaths being 10,000.

That would be for a fully unrestrained national transmission.

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm sure some no-necked Rodney will pop up Saturday night (if we lose) to moan about Solly not stopping for a selfie with his precision daughter Prosecco

[tweet]1237303674474545152[/tweet]

 

[Driver8]

Now I'm no friend of this government, but there is also a public health risk in the event of severe economic turmoil. Job losses, recession etc. could all lead to their own problems, and potentially deaths that otherwise might not have happened. I agree money shouldn't define our actions, but there are side effects to simply closing the country down, even for days let alone weeks.

True but taking action needn’t mean closing the country down. Preventing unnecessary mass gatherings won’t have much of an economic effect for example and may reduce the spread.

Likewise reducing travel and working from home where possible may slow things down a bit but needn’t lead to a complete shut down.

The cost of doing nothing can be seen clearly in Italy where the horse has well and truly bolted.

 

[sparkie]

[tweet]1236954229186723840[/tweet]

The "It's just the flu" crew have had their fun now.

Let's hope there is minimal doubling down from them from this point.

 

[rogersix]

It really is a double edged sword. Put measures in place that will do most to stop the virus and you damage the economy. Damage the economy and you lose jobs etc.. Alternatively you hold back until necessary and the virus continues to spread, the people/economy take a hit but hopefully it is short term.

Boris or Jezza do not want this virus, but it is here. How you mitigate the effect to the enth degree is the unknown.

Really not worth politicising the issue.

What issue is worthy of politicising then?

 

[Bozza]

I've seen people quoting 100,000 deaths from this. How?

China have only had 3,000 deaths and it is now going up in the 20s per day. So in a country of that size they are no where near this level.

I apologise for this, but: Jesus wept. How many times can we keep saying the same thing?

China locked up 60m people many weeks ago. Those people are still locked up in a most draconian way. If people aren't interacting with other people the virus can't spread.

When people aren't locked up this virus spreads exponentially. Every 4-6 days the number of people with the virus doubles. Small numbers quickly become big numbers. Try that "put 1p on the first square of a chessboard and double up as you move to the next square" thing for an illustration.

As more people get it, demand on an already-stretched health service soars. There aren't enough beds, respirators. There aren't enough kits for healthcare workers to keep themselves safe, so they get infected and will not be able to work. Those that remain working with be ridiculously over-burdened, they will make mistakes through no fault of their own.

As demand continues to pour into the health service, decisions have to be made as to who might be saveable and who isn't.

Death rates from the virus start to go up because, right now, they are largely based on the Chinese rapidly building vast centres to handle the sick and treat them quickly. We can't do that.

I really ****ing wish this was #JustTheFlu and a #MediaFrenzy where #JustAFewOldiesDieWhoWereGoingToDieAnyway, but I can't see how that can possibly be the case.

 

[vegster]

Some signs of hope . China seems to have a lid on it at last, new cases slowing rapidly...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51813876

TBH, common sense things like Handwashing and avoiding crowds etc will eventually work, especially if applied early enough.

 

[The Clamp]

I can see the course of events;


Do nothing
Do nothing
Do nothing
Right SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THE WORLD IS ENDING. NOBODY MOVE.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Can't speak for [MENTION=15046]peterward[/MENTION], but if was me and I was forced into the situation to actually use the medication, legal ramifications would be the least of my concerns.

If a loved one of yours was dying, would you consider that question yourself?

I didn't mean to come across insensitive I was just genuinely interested in the legality of what you were suggesting.

But to answer your question, well, yes, I would consider. Because I know my loved ones, for example, wouldn't want me risking time in prison (if that is a possible outcome) attempting something like that.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Some signs of hope . China seems to have a lid on it at last, new cases slowing rapidly...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51813876

TBH, common sense things like Handwashing and avoiding crowds etc will eventually work, especially if applied early enough.

This would seem to back that up:

[tweet]1234491912775782400[/tweet]

 

[sparkie]

I didn't mean to come across insensitive I was just genuinely interested in the legality of what you were suggesting.

But to answer your question, well, yes, I would consider. Because I know my loved ones, for example, wouldn't want me risking time in prison (if that is a possible outcome) attempting something like that.

I doubt prison would be an outcome, but insurance policies may not be so understanding.

 

[peterward]

This would seem to back that up:

[tweet]1234491912775782400[/tweet]

watching that, I might move to Anglesea in Wales

 

[Gazwag]

Better make the most of Saturday’s game then, could be last home game we see this season?

Don't want it to be behind closed doors as it would be like a home game for Arsenal

 

[Bakero]

I've seen people quoting 100,000 deaths from this. How?

China have only had 3,000 deaths and it is now going up in the 20s per day. So in a country of that size they are no where near this level.

 

[vegster]

I apologise for this, but: Jesus wept. How many times can we keep saying the same thing?

China locked up 60m people many weeks ago. Those people are still locked up in a most draconian way. If people aren't interacting with other people the virus can't spread.

When people aren't locked up this virus spreads exponentially. Every 4-6 days the number of people with the virus doubles. Small numbers quickly become big numbers. Try that "put 1p on the first square of a chessboard and double up as you move to the next square" thing for an illustration.

As more people get it, demand on an already-stretched health service soars. There aren't enough beds, respirators. There aren't enough kits for healthcare workers to keep themselves safe, so they get infected and will not be able to work. Those that remain working with be ridiculously over-burdened, they will make mistakes through no fault of their own.

As demand continues to pour into the health service, decisions have to be made as to who might be saveable and who isn't.

Death rates from the virus start to go up because, right now, they are largely based on the Chinese rapidly building vast centres to handle the sick and treat them quickly. We can't do that.

I really ****ing with this was #JustTheFlu and a #MediaFrenzy where #JustAFewOldiesDieWhoWereGoingToDieAnyway, but I can't see how that can possibly be the case.

All very valid points but the highlighted point is possibly THE most important one. It's a very difficult question to ask of government because the answer might be genuinely terrifying, but, PMQ's tomorrow someone needs to ask " How many patients do we currently have in beds being given artificial respiration and, how many spare beds capable of artificial respiration are available in the UK ?"

Then extrapolate the figures for the 15% that will need artificial respiration for a period / the amount of the population who may have Covid-19 at any one time over the next 3 months.

 

[vegster]

I didn't mean to come across insensitive I was just genuinely interested in the legality of what you were suggesting.

But to answer your question, well, yes, I would consider. Because I know my loved ones, for example, wouldn't want me risking time in prison (if that is a possible outcome) attempting something like that.

If Gove can self-medicate with a class A drug and retain a job in cabinet I'm sure you will be fine.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Try that "put 1p on the first square of a chessboard and double up as you move to the next square" thing for an illustration.

£1.28 ?

 

[Rodney Thomas]

I apologise for this, but: Jesus wept. How many times can we keep saying the same thing?

China locked up 60m people many weeks ago. Those people are still locked up in a most draconian way. If people aren't interacting with other people the virus can't spread.

When people aren't locked up this virus spreads exponentially. Every 4-6 days the number of people with the virus doubles. Small numbers quickly become big numbers. Try that "put 1p on the first square of a chessboard and double up as you move to the next square" thing for an illustration.

As more people get it, demand on an already-stretched health service soars. There aren't enough beds, respirators. There aren't enough kits for healthcare workers to keep themselves safe, so they get infected and will not be able to work. Those that remain working with be ridiculously over-burdened, they will make mistakes through no fault of their own.

As demand continues to pour into the health service, decisions have to be made as to who might be saveable and who isn't.

Death rates from the virus start to go up because, right now, they are largely based on the Chinese rapidly building vast centres to handle the sick and treat them quickly. We can't do that.

I really ****ing wish this was #JustTheFlu and a #MediaFrenzy where #JustAFewOldiesDieWhoWereGoingToDieAnyway, but I can't see how that can possibly be the case.

I am more positive than you about the possible scenarios in the UK and Europe and how this can be dealt with but there is obviously cause to be concerned.

And if that is not enough, this tweet sums up the toll this virus is having on individuals and families in Italy (an no doubt across Europe soon):

[Tweet]1237325865731719169[/tweet]