2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
All schools in the UK to close.
I guess "letting nature take it course" is over.
I have not seen one medical expert who has not said it was bad idea from day one.
 
Why isn't there more global pressure on China to ban these markets? It seems crazy that so many viruses have cone from these places and yet they're still allowed.

Because SARS was stopped and people went back to business as usual including ignoring the potential for another SARS.
 
All schools in the UK to close.
I guess "letting nature take it course" is over.
I have not seen one medical expert who has not said it was bad idea from day one.
Haven't there been a couple on this very forum? :boxedin:
 
Sorry, too vague.

I invite you to read that posts that I made, then.

So if I present a counterpoint to your post it's not valid because obviously you know it already?

Wow, talk about complete non sequiturs. You're the one who intimated that my opinion was wrong because it differed from yours.

Fire away if you have a counterpoint. I'll be waiting.

Let me word it differently, do you think Italy and Spain did a bit too much?

Insufficient data. What exactly are you looking for?

Think the fact Trump dropped the ball for the first two months, (now what other country did that? Hmmm), might be one reason we need extreme measures to control the epidemic now?

How about you explain why we need extreme measures to begin with?
 
I don't understand. Are people who drive to a store, walk directly into the store, do their shopping, and leave more or less likely to sneeze or cough while they are in the store than people who stand outside for hours before going into the store? Are they more or less likely to have touched something that had viruses on it?
If people are crowded around the counter much more chance of the shop worker catching something.
 
1. The less time they are in the store the less they will cough or sneeze in the store. Coughing or sneezing in the close conditions inside the store is much more risky than in the open air outside the store.

(a) The grocery stores where I shop all have parking garages, so ventilation in the waiting area will be imperfect.
(b) People might buy more items, fearing not being able to get back in, and therefore spend more time in the store.
(c) People will be more conscious about trying not to cough when they are in the store (and be less stressed).
(d) I don't think that the few minutes that people generally stand in line to checkout will make that much difference.

2. More room for people to keep their distances outside than in.

Any reason to think that people will maintain spacing while waiting in a long line? Especially when some will start to get nervous and worry whether they will be able to get in and if they will there be anything left on the shelves?
Did the people trying to get through the temperature screening at airports keep their spacing?

3. Fewer surfaces outside the store for people to touch or sneeze on than inside the store.

They are probably going to touch just as many surfaces inside the store plus the surfaces they touched while waiting.

4. The wait outside the store should be no longer than if everyone was allowed inside the store at once. People per minute per cash register should be the same.

(a) If the next person in line has to wait for someone to not only get through the checkout line but to completely exit the store before they can even enter, the throughput will be slower.
(b) People might panic and think that they have to get into line NOW or never get in, which could lead to more people trying to shop at the same time.

ETA:
I suppose that it depends on how strict the limit is. If it isn't as strict as requiring there to never be a wait at the checkout counters, than most of my points won't hold.
 
Last edited:
The dawn of automation. The reason many tasks haven't been automated yet is because it's still cheaper or more lucrative to employ a human than to automate. The longer this goes on, the more the scales will tip in the other direction. I hope society will be able to adapt.
 
NOTHING going on now is thought to prevent the eventual exposure of us all, it is all just to delay the swamping of the resources. So let's move the discussion forward to how is it going to taper off? Or are we all going to stay in our bomb shelters for ever?
Not forever. But for a while yet. There's something between business as usual and staying cooped up forever.

I personally have no fear of getting sick but I live on a campus for the elderly. At present, I think it's showing good manners to limit my errands and wash my hands a lot. If I didn't live where I do, I'd probably be helping with the kiddos.

We don't know how it's going to taper off.
 
The current situation in Canada:
......Despite rather different responses, the US and Canada are seeing the typical 10:1 ratio (based on population) of infections and deaths between the two countries.


NONONONO!!!

The ratio is 10:1 of CONFIRMED cases to deaths. Since they only test symptomatic patients we can NOT extrapolate that to 10% of the overall population dying.

Such a small percent of us have been tested it is impossible to extrapolate an overall death tally. At this time South Korea still has the most robust numbers, at .6%. And dropping.

And anybody who states a number rather than a percent is playing the emotion card. Save it for when you lose a loved one. There is a good chance it may never happen. Or as likely as grieving for a victim of pancreas cancer.
 
I think when all is said and done, we will realize that yes, perhaps we overreacted. At that point many people are going to say, "See! All this economic fallout could have been avoided if people didn't panic! Next time this happens, just let it run its course!"

I do understand and support the efforts at social distancing, "flattening the curve," not overwhelming fragile health systems etc. I get it. But at the same time is it actually worth risking a collapse of major economies? I think the answer will end up being, "probably not."

What I do think will be worth it is the hard look we all take at the fragile health system and keeping it supplied and equipped at all times. We will look at a lot of things in our society and I do hope we learn from this experience. I'm not overly optimistic, though.
 
How about you explain why we need extreme measures to begin with?
Pretty simple really. We do not have enough medical staff or hospital beds for the small % of people who will get seriously ill from this. Without hospital care the death rate is very much higher.

But if we have the exact same number infected, but spread out over a much longer period of time, then we will have plenty of room at the hospitals for those that need it.

The fatality rate will be much lower.

The problem isn't that it is all that horrible a disease. There are plenty that are worse. The problem is when everyone gets it almost at once instead of spread out over a long period of time.
 
I invite you to read that posts that I made, then.

Wow, talk about complete non sequiturs. You're the one who intimated that my opinion was wrong because it differed from yours.

Fire away if you have a counterpoint. I'll be waiting.

Insufficient data. What exactly are you looking for?

How about you explain why we need extreme measures to begin with?
When you can't defend the position, "I wonder if we're doing maybe a bit too much", obfuscate.

Darat said:
I can see this ending up like the millennium bug, "they said there'd be 20 million dead but only 1 million died". Well yes because we did something!
Belz said:
You are correct. However I wonder if we're doing maybe a bit too much.
 
People who don't want schools to close come up with other rationales that can also be debunked.

People who don't want to close schools should look at Japan.
_______________________

475 deaths in Italy yesterday.

Looks like we'll be over the 1,000 deaths/day starting tomorrow.

Is that enough dead for the naysayers yet?

(Remember, it's just starting - will 10,000/day be enough? 100,000?)
 
I think when all is said and done, we will realize that yes, perhaps we overreacted. At that point many people are going to say, "See! All this economic fallout could have been avoided if people didn't panic! Next time this happens, just let it run its course!"

I do understand and support the efforts at social distancing, "flattening the curve," not overwhelming fragile health systems etc. I get it. But at the same time is it actually worth risking a collapse of major economies? I think the answer will end up being, "probably not."

What I do think will be worth it is the hard look we all take at the fragile health system and keeping it supplied and equipped at all times. We will look at a lot of things in our society and I do hope we learn from this experience. I'm not overly optimistic, though.

It's absolutely not worth it, it's insanity. Italy, who has been the hardest hit, has only had ~2000 deaths, and they just released a study showing that 99% of them had prexisting medical conditions. It's crazy to destroy the economy and shut down the world over this. If it were just allowed to run it's course, maybe a quarter million people worldwide would die. Maybe these measures will reduce that by half. The damage to the economy will end up meaning that we valued each of those lives at somewhere between 300-600 million dollars each.

Sorry, but I just don't think that's worth it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ts-in-italy-who-died-had-other-illnesses/amp/
 
It's absolutely not worth it, it's insanity. Italy, who has been the hardest hit, has only had ~2000 deaths, and they just released a study showing that 99% of them had prexisting medical conditions. It's crazy to destroy the economy and shut down the world over this. If it were just allowed to run it's course, maybe a quarter million people worldwide would die. Maybe these measures will reduce that by half. The damage to the economy will end up meaning that we valued each of those lives at somewhere between 300-600 million dollars each.

Sorry, but I just don't think that's worth it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ts-in-italy-who-died-had-other-illnesses/amp/

You win the most hearless, ignorant post of the month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom