Coronavirus

[DarkFruitsRam7]

44 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

Ooooops seems someone forgot there sense of humour this morning 

Not aimed at you. 

Quote me next time though.

[Day]

47 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Isn’t that the case for a lot of people at the minute?

The point on percentages and not knowing the exact number that have it is valid. A number of people could be sat at home with it now and failed to notify the NHS. We hear about the cases where they have been hospitalised and later died, occasionally with a footnote if they had other medical issues without actually disclosing them.

I was reading an interview with someone that did have it, said it was nothing more than a bit of a sore throat and tight chest and he would have usually gone to work.

Any virus/disease that kills people is serious, no matter the age or number. 

The question is, does it warrant all this media coverage? I’m not suggesting they ignore it completely but it’s wall to wall at the minute and the advice of washing your hands, I mean are we not all taught that as kids?

I don’t want to use the word scaremongering, but I can see why some see it like that, we have people bog roll hoarding, I mean if a virus is about to wipe us all out the least of your concerns is being able to wipe your arse.

I would suggest buying copies of The Sun instead, but wouldn’t want to increase their sales.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I don't think we should be careful. Our health officials and government are currently misleading us about the scale. They are claiming 1% mortality rate and only 5-10% will require hospitalisation. That is not what the WHO are saying or the case is in Italy. The NHS is not prepared for the scale of people who will require hospitalisation. Once they reach capacity, the mortality rate will increase significantly. This is nothing like the common flu and people dismissing it as such are deluding themselves. 

So, looking at the figures on the link, mortality rates (excluding China and Iran as personally I would question there figures):

S. Korea 0.6%

Italy 3.8%

France 1.6%

Japan 1.6%

Spain 0.9%

USA 6%

Switzerland 0.8%

UK 0.9%

Hong Kong 2%

Norway 1%

Australia 3%

Total 1.6%

There is a pretty wide spread.

If you think the government is misleading us regarding the scale of current mortality rates then you must be implying that they are either over reporting the number of cases or, under reporting the number of deaths. Which do you think?

I agree that we shouldn’t dismiss it, I am very worried about it. I’m just saying that current mortality rates vary considerably (not surprising in statistics which such relatively low numbers) and I don’t think the government is misleading us regarding current mortality rates which I think is where we started.

[Bubbles]

Not a health expert but I've gotten into the practice of singing "Steve Bloomers Washing" while washing my hands.

Ensure they're squeaky clean.

I saw something the other day and it was basically saying something along the lines of the following:

You don't know you've got it until you've had it for a while.

You may dismiss it and think it's a load of baloney that only effects older people and people with existing health conditions.

However say you've got it, you don't know you've got it yet, you go and visit your mum/grandma or whatever and you go and see them, pass it on to them... You'll realise then it is actually serious.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Isn’t that the case for a lot of people at the minute?

The point on percentages and not knowing the exact number that have it is valid. A number of people could be sat at home with it now and failed to notify the NHS. We hear about the cases where they have been hospitalised and later died, occasionally with a footnote if they had other medical issues without actually disclosing them.

I was reading an interview with someone that did have it, said it was nothing more than a bit of a sore throat and tight chest and he would have usually gone to work.

Any virus/disease that kills people is serious, no matter the age or number. 

The question is, does it warrant all this media coverage? I’m not suggesting they ignore it completely but it’s wall to wall at the minute and the advice of washing your hands, I mean are we not all taught that as kids?

I don’t want to use the word scaremongering, but I can see why some see it like that, we have people bog roll hoarding, I mean if a virus is about to wipe us all out the least of your concerns is being able to wipe your arse.

I would suggest buying copies of The Sun instead, but wouldn’t want to increase their sales.

Clearly, people on both sides are going to be stupid. Anyone who’s buying 20 bottles of hand sanitiser is just as bad.

But I listen to the experts. The government’s chief health advisors think it’s sufficiently serious to warrant a bespoke 4-stage process, and we’re currently pretty much in Stage 2. 

I don’t have the arrogance to assume I know better than highly qualified professionals and dismiss it as a trifling matter. I listen to what knowledgable people say and follow their advice. If this is the most serious it gets, then people will say it was scaremongering but, as @Paul71 pointed out the other day, it will be because the appropriate measures were carried out to limit the impact.

I’m not worried in the slightest because there’s no point in worrying about things out of your control. I find some of the jokes about it funny (not @BriggRam‘s, that was utterly crap). But anyone who dismisses it as being nothing more than the common flu is, quite frankly, an idiot.  

[Day]

@DarkFruitsRam7, read this by an expert earlier. So yes, more people could die which but for the majority it will be a mild illness.

Again that’s not dismissive of those that will die, but people die of all kinds of illnesses everyday

 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

4 minutes ago, David said:

@DarkFruitsRam7, read this by an expert earlier

 

I know that. Most people know that. I don’t mind people rationalising it for those who are worried that everyone is going to die.

But, as I said, this is clearly more serious than the common flu. When I say that, I’m not referring to the symptoms that the majority will experience. It goes beyond that. Even taking the human aspect out of it, it’s going to cause significant economic disruption if it continues in the current vein. 

When was the last time the flu caused top flight football to be played behind closed doors?

[Day]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I know that. Most people know that. I don’t mind people rationalising it for those who are worried that everyone is going to die.

But, as I said, this is clearly more serious than the common flu. When I say that, I’m not referring to the symptoms that the majority will experience. It goes beyond that. Even taking the human aspect out of it, it’s going to cause significant economic disruption if it continues in the current vein. 

When was the last time the flu caused top flight football to be played behind closed doors?

Economically no idea, I mean some sectors will be hit hard whilst others will thrive off manufacturing, supplying medical needs.

Could argue the same with the weather, how many died from flash floods, retailers closed, whilst clean up crews, electricians, builders etc. Saw a huge increase in trade?

Not for a second suggesting any of this is a good thing and we should look for the positives, just I haven’t researched and know enough how badly this will hit the economy.

[Norman]

9 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I know that. Most people know that. I don’t mind people rationalising it for those who are worried that everyone is going to die.

But, as I said, this is clearly more serious than the common flu. When I say that, I’m not referring to the symptoms that the majority will experience. It goes beyond that. Even taking the human aspect out of it, it’s going to cause significant economic disruption if it continues in the current vein. 

When was the last time the flu caused top flight football to be played behind closed doors?

I believe, from the meeting I had at work, that coronavirus has been around a long time. This is just a different strain. 

So, what is the difference between a bad strain of flu and a different strain of corona. I actually don't have clue. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Just now, Norman said:

I believe, from the meeting I had at work, that coronavirus has been around a long time. This is just a different strain. 

So, what is the difference between a bad strain of flu and a different strain of corona. I actually don't have clue. 

I’ve seen something like that. As far as I’m aware, ‘coronavirus’ is a virus with many strains, most of which we know about. The strain that is causing all this trouble is Covid-19, which is being labelled ‘the’ coronavirus because the umbrella term is easier to remember. Pretty sure the reason why this particular strain is so concerning is because we know so little about it.

I could be completely wrong and I hope someone corrects me if am. Regardless, I’m just following the advice I’m given, and I hope everyone else does too.

[GboroRam]

13 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I know that. Most people know that. I don’t mind people rationalising it for those who are worried that everyone is going to die.

But, as I said, this is clearly more serious than the common flu. When I say that, I’m not referring to the symptoms that the majority will experience. It goes beyond that. Even taking the human aspect out of it, it’s going to cause significant economic disruption if it continues in the current vein. 

When was the last time the flu caused top flight football to be played behind closed doors?

The problem is that this flu is particularly virulent and is easily transmitted. And symptoms go undetected while you are still able to transmit it.

It is far less deadly than, for example, Ebola. But someone ill with Ebola looks very sick and is easily and quickly quarantined. And there is a large percentage of Ebola victims who were dying, which sort of resolves the problem of transmission.

Coronavirus has potential to be a far bigger threat to life on numbers alone. Ebola numbers affected were kept relatively low, with a high percentage fatality. COVID-19 will affect far, far more people, enough that a small fatality rate will far outstrip the fatalities of a truly deadly disease like Ebola. If 2 million people contract COVID-19, with a 2% mortality rate that would result in 20,000 dead (mostly vulnerable people). That's the reason why this bad cold is such a concern. We need to be worried about the very young and the very old/sick, if this virus breaks out like we're being prepared for.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Economically no idea, I mean some sectors will be hit hard whilst others will thrive off manufacturing, supplying medical needs.

Could argue the same with the weather, how many died from flash floods, retailers closed, whilst clean up crews, electricians, builders etc. Saw a huge increase in trade?

Not for a second suggesting any of this is a good thing and we should look for the positives, just I haven’t researched and know enough how badly this will hit the economy.

There will always be winners and losers. I heard something about some firms actually benefitting from making people work from home because it’s allowing them to test and improve their video technology.

However, it sounds like the net effect on the economy is likely to be negative. Probably a mixture of reasons: uncertainty, people taking sick leave, etc.

[WhiteHorseRam]

45 minutes ago, David said:

I would suggest buying copies of The Sun instead, but wouldn’t want to increase their sales.

How absorbent are Forest shirts?

[Day]

3 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

How absorbent are Forest shirts?

Not helping to pay for their new stand!

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

So, looking at the figures on the link, mortality rates (excluding China and Iran as personally I would question there figures):

S. Korea 0.6%

Italy 3.8%

France 1.6%

Japan 1.6%

Spain 0.9%

USA 6%

Switzerland 0.8%

UK 0.9%

Hong Kong 2%

Norway 1%

Australia 3%

Total 1.6%

There is a pretty wide spread.

If you think the government is misleading us regarding the scale of current mortality rates then you must be implying that they are either over reporting the number of cases or, under reporting the number of deaths. Which do you think?

I agree that we shouldn’t dismiss it, I am very worried about it. I’m just saying that current mortality rates vary considerably (not surprising in statistics which such relatively low numbers) and I don’t think the government is misleading us regarding current mortality rates which I think is where we started.

Compare deaths to recovered instead and it's a lot more frightening.

[Van der MoodHoover]

46 minutes ago, David said:

Economically no idea, I mean some sectors will be hit hard whilst others will thrive off manufacturing, supplying medical needs.

Could argue the same with the weather, how many died from flash floods, retailers closed, whilst clean up crews, electricians, builders etc. Saw a huge increase in trade?

Not for a second suggesting any of this is a good thing and we should look for the positives, just I haven’t researched and know enough how badly this will hit the economy.

to conflate a couple of threads together....one specific example is

- Virgin Atlantic flight bookings are 40% lower than this time last year (attributed to Coronavirus)

- Therefore Virgin Atlantic said "no more cash" to Flybe

- Who have folded.....2,500 jobs under threat (people have left work and so at present are not being paid I believe)

Obviously, too early and inexact to wildly extrapolate across the whole economy but it could get messy. This example is going to hurt us in Hampshire.....and the cash is heading north for "levelling up" purposes.

[Uptherams]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

So, looking at the figures on the link, mortality rates (excluding China and Iran as personally I would question there figures):

S. Korea 0.6%

Italy 3.8%

France 1.6%

Japan 1.6%

Spain 0.9%

USA 6%

Switzerland 0.8%

UK 0.9%

Hong Kong 2%

Norway 1%

Australia 3%

Total 1.6%

There is a pretty wide spread.

If you think the government is misleading us regarding the scale of current mortality rates then you must be implying that they are either over reporting the number of cases or, under reporting the number of deaths. Which do you think?

I agree that we shouldn’t dismiss it, I am very worried about it. I’m just saying that current mortality rates vary considerably (not surprising in statistics which such relatively low numbers) and I don’t think the government is misleading us regarding current mortality rates which I think is where we started.

What i mean is that the mortality rate is increasing to it's true figure once so many people have been infected and our government are using our stats instead of quoting The Who. There's various links, if you click on deaths, look at the change in Wuhan in just February. The last recorded statistic is 5.8% fatality rate. In a city that went into lockdown...a month ago? 

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

What i mean is that the mortality rate is increasing to it's true figure once so many people have been infected and our government are using our stats instead of quoting The Who. There's various links, if you click on deaths, look at the change in Wuhan in just February. The last recorded statistic is 5.8% fatality rate. In a city that went into lockdown...a month ago? 

The WHO's latest estimate is just 3.4%. As you point out, the current rate of resolved cases is 5.7%.

However, looking at the rates for Italy and S Korea you have 26% and 24%. The sample size is too small at the moment to get an accurate picture as the USA has the 5th most deaths with just 14. USA, France, Spain are hovering around the 50% mark though.

[SaintRam]

I think the virus should be taken far more seriously by many; but nonsense like this being done for the sake of appearances is not helping matters. 

Awareness over the virus' existence is prevalent. Everyone is hyper aware, if this is being done to boost awareness its wasted; and this does nothing to improve people's understanding of the severity of the situation.

Furthermore, football is a contact sport with players actively and constantly spitting all over the grass that they're constantly sliding around on. 

 

Although maybe it is for the best that the players don't have to shake the hands of the kids wandering about; who definitely won't not go and be a mascot when feeling under the weather. ? 

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, SaintRam said:

 players actively and constantly spitting all over the grass that they're constantly sliding around on.

Never  mind playing games behind closed doors. Get a spitoon behind each goal, and have mandatory breaks every 3 minutes to allow the players to hock up whetever they need to.