Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[sparkie]

BBC news just said Italy has 15,000 confirmed cases with 1,500 deaths if that is correct then that's a 10% fatality!

But there will be 10,000's who are unconfirmed, so the % fatality will be somewhat lower.

 

[FloatLeft]

Wouldn’t it be better for those at risk from Coronavirus to self isolate and everyone else carry on as normal (whilst ensuring that those people self isolating get the help they need).

It appears to me that self isolation and travel restrictions seem to be targeting people who in the main are most likely not to be badly affected, with the end result of massive damage to the economy.

Seems to be me that there are many, many more people infected than the number of confirmed cases so the disease is being readily transmitted even with the controls in place.

How do we protect the vulnerable when some of us will never even know we’ve got Coronavirus (and therefore not self isolate).

 

[Notters]

BBC news just said Italy has 15,000 confirmed cases with 1,500 deaths if that is correct then that's a 10% fatality!

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/italy-coronavirus-united-states-preparedness/

 

[LamieRobertson]

....Aviva marketing on the ball (partially)...through the post today....but for previous occupant

 

[Blue3]

But there will be 10,000's who are unconfirmed, so the % fatality will be somewhat lower.

True but in China the death rate was around 2% based on confirmed cases while Italy is 10% based on confirmed numbers I can see the overall numbers including those who are so mild are never confirmed but we have to work on confirmed numbers

 

[raymondo]

Im trying not to think about how getting locked inside the apartment for the whole summer would affect the mental health of people living in northern Europe... 8 months of darkness and then locked up once the sun is visiting... could be a very long year this

The Gothenburg drug dealers could suffer...or would your government pay them sick pay for loss of earnings

 

[CHAPPERS]

I can't help but think that Boris has played an absolute blinder here. .

That’s an early shout if ever if seen one. GL!

 

[vegster]

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/italy-coronavirus-united-states-preparedness/

Interesting read, I never thought about some of the comparisons in the article before. The Land of The Free comes at a considerable cost to many.

 

[Creaky]

Wouldn’t it be better for those at risk from Coronavirus to self isolate and everyone else carry on as normal (whilst ensuring that those people self isolating get the help they need).

It appears to me that self isolation and travel restrictions seem to be targeting people who in the main are most likely not to be badly affected, with the end result of massive damage to the economy.

Seems to be me that there are many, many more people infected than the number of confirmed cases so the disease is being readily transmitted even with the controls in place.

How do we protect the vulnerable when some of us will never even know we’ve got Coronavirus (and therefore not self isolate).

The simple answer is you can’t protect the vulnerable.

Unless you are willing to be locked in solitary confinement for at least 3 months then you are likely to come into contact with the virus. Even after the worst has passed there will still be the risk of infection.

The best way is to keep the demand on the NHS as low as possible so that when someone at high risk does catch the virus there are the resources available to care for them.

Allowing the disease to infect the majority of the population all in one go is the worst possible scenario for those whom the virus could be fatal.

Isolation of those displaying symptoms means that they are less likely to infect others, isolation of those at high risk is merely postponing likely infection. In exactly the same way as washing of hands slows the spread of the virus and reduces the risk of catching it but doesn’t eliminate the chance of spreading it nor eliminate the possibility of catching it.

 

[Triggaaar]

I fully support the current stance. Can't see any point in closing schools whatsoever other than the 'appearance' of doing something. Kids and their parents are not the at risk group. But when the single mum who works as a nurse in ICU has to drop her daughter off with her parents so she can go to work, you're just going to see the wrong people exposed.

All of us under 60 and healthy should just carry on and get the virus. Everyone at risk - stay isolated at home. And when we're recovered and have immunity, we can go and spend time with them safely.

So you think that practically none of those under 60, who don't expect to be at risk, will need hospital treatment? My concern is that many will (even if it's a very small percentage), and that with the number of infections that your actions would cause (millions) it would be impossible for those at risk to avoid catching it.

 

[Sorrel]

True but in China the death rate was around 2% based on confirmed cases while Italy is 10% based on confirmed numbers I can see the overall numbers including those who are so mild are never confirmed but we have to work on confirmed numbers

The death rate for cases with an outcome (those who have recovered against those who have died) is around 47% in Italy at the moment.

That figure will go down as more people recover over time and undoubtedly misses many of the population who have not been counted as having the disease.

But it's still a terrible figure.

 

[FloatLeft]

The simple answer is you can’t protect the vulnerable.

Unless you are willing to be locked in solitary confinement for at least 3 months then you are likely to come into contact with the virus. Even after the worst has passed there will still be the risk of infection.

The best way is to keep the demand on the NHS as low as possible so that when someone at high risk does catch the virus there are the resources available to care for them.

Allowing the disease to infect the majority of the population all in one go is the worst possible scenario for those whom the virus could be fatal.

Isolation of those displaying symptoms means that they are less likely to infect others, isolation of those at high risk is merely postponing likely infection. In exactly the same way as washing of hands slows the spread of the virus and reduces the risk of catching it but doesn’t eliminate the chance of spreading it nor eliminate the possibility of catching it.

Perhaps in time, as we grow to live with the virus, most people with symptoms (who are at low risk) will not even bother to contact the NHS, therefore not burdening it, and freeing up resource for those at high risk.

And if those people at high risk could be protected for a few weeks then a pool of people who have had Coronavirus could then be available to help

I am playing devils advocate here as I do appreciate this view goes against government policy in all counties affected.

 

[Triggaaar]

Italy death toll jumps by 250 in one day to 1,266.

They could pass China in a week

 

[Triggaaar]

So, I suppose you're right that they're is a limit to how long you can shut yourself away from society. But let's say you can do a month, and so can everyone else. If we shut down schools, and offices, and bars and restaurants, and everyone tries to stay at home, when you finally emerge you are going to be surrounded by people who haven't had it yet and then it will spread once again, and the odds of you eventually getting it will be high.

No, the alternative to the government doing nothing is not for everyone to self-isolate for a month. Instead, the alternative would be to stop large gatherings and slow down the spread of the virus. Meanwhile, the more vulnerable should be very careful, but not completely self-isolate. The virus will spread, but not everyone will get the virus at the same time. The NHS will presumably buckle, but not as badly as if we let the virus spread unchecked.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

So you think that practically none of those under 60, who don't expect to be at risk, will need hospital treatment? My concern is that many will (even if it's a very small percentage), and that with the number of infections that your actions would cause (millions) it would be impossible for those at risk to avoid catching it.

I don't know. My cut off was obviously arbitrary to make a point. And I do agree with self isolation of anyone with symptoms.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

No, the alternative to the government doing nothing is not for everyone to self-isolate for a month. Instead, the alternative would be to stop large gatherings and slow down the spread of the virus. Meanwhile, the more vulnerable should be very careful, but not completely self-isolate. The virus will spread, but not everyone will get the virus at the same time. The NHS will presumably buckle, but not as badly as if we let the virus spread unchecked.

Of course. Again, took an extreme position to make a point. You're arguing for a certain place on the spectrum of no isolation to compete isolation. Other people are arguing for a slightly different place, hence disagreement with government policy.

 

[Badger]

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/italy-coronavirus-united-states-preparedness/

A very interesting read. I'm glad I'm not south of the border, a bit close for comfort though.

This sentence really sums it up for me:
"This country is structurally incapable and fundamentally unwilling to put people over money, and all people over just some."

 

[Nobby]

Interesting read, I never thought about some of the comparisons in the article before. The Land of The Free comes at a considerable cost to many.

The USA is in reality a very backward nation

 

[Nobby]

Perhaps in time, as we grow to live with the virus, most people with symptoms (who are at low risk) will not even bother to contact the NHS, therefore not burdening it, and freeing up resource for those at high risk.

And if those people at high risk could be protected for a few weeks then a pool of people who have had Coronavirus could then be available to help

I am playing devils advocate here as I do appreciate this view goes against government policy in all counties affected.

That’s now Government policy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nobby]

No, the alternative to the government doing nothing is not for everyone to self-isolate for a month. Instead, the alternative would be to stop large gatherings and slow down the spread of the virus. Meanwhile, the more vulnerable should be very careful, but not completely self-isolate. The virus will spread, but not everyone will get the virus at the same time. The NHS will presumably buckle, but not as badly as if we let the virus spread unchecked.

I’m lost. I thought we were letting the virus spread unchecked so that we develop a herd immunity
God its confusing, especially after starting Fridat nigtvdrinking