Jump to content

Coronavirus

1of4

By 1of4
in The Jim Smith Room

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Angry Ram

Angry Ram

Posted
Posted
On 29/02/2020 at 10:44, Grumpy Git said:

I've been working in Italy. Both times at arrival in the Italian airport just before passport control, everyone gets a non contact temperature check.

Arriving back in the UK from Italy, (both times) nothing, just bring in the germs.

Same experience for me.. Was working there for 10 days, checked on arrival.. Nothing when I came back.

My two week period was up yesterday.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BaaLocks

BaaLocks

Posted
Posted
On 27/02/2020 at 12:54, Highgate said:

Apparently It's about 30 times more deadly than the average flu virus.   So that gives you some idea of the potential death poll if COVID-19 becomes a genuine pandemic.  With no vaccine yet...it is no wonder why medical authorities are worried. 

But still, it's old and sick people that are the ones that seem to be in danger...among younger healthy people the death rate is still very low. 

The main issue I see with Covid-19 is that you don't get immunity from having it so you can catch it, spread it then catch it again. And all along, the virus has the chance to mutate into something more deadly. We have been due a pandemic like this for a long time and our globally interconnected ways of working has just set us up for it - we've walked (or rather flown) right into it. 

All governments should be trying to aggressively minimize spread, not because of what it is but because of what it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ilkleyram

ilkleyram

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

The main issue I see with Covid-19 is that you don't get immunity from having it so you can catch it, spread it then catch it again. And all along, the virus has the chance to mutate into something more deadly. We have been due a pandemic like this for a long time and our globally interconnected ways of working has just set us up for it - we've walked (or rather flown) right into it. 

All governments should be trying to aggressively minimize spread, not because of what it is but because of what it could be.

Not getting at you @BaaLocks but what does 'aggressively minimising spread' mean in practice? Banning all flights, for example; banning (like the French apparently have done), all gatherings of more than 5000 people; locking down whole cities like the Chinese have done?

The consequences of doing any/all of those things to economies - world and country, organisation and individual - are potentially huge.  What will happen if airlines go out of business (and put thousands of people on the dole); what will happen to football clubs (or rugby clubs) if matches don't happen for weeks and months whilst this thing goes on? What happens if Bury FC is just the tip of an iceberg; what happens to shops in Ilkley, or Derby, or Burton if there are no customers and then to the town centres (and local government income and then services) if no one ventures out any more?

And for what? There's a 98% chance that anyone with Covid19 survives. Yes, I don't want to be in the 2% that don't (and one of the latest victims comes from Ilkley and I'm over 60 so it's personal), and if the numbers that get the disease are huge then so are the numbers of people that die, but equally I don't want a world recession either.

I would argue that we want Governments to take a measured, sensible approach, not an aggressive one.  3000 people have so far died worldwide.  Somewhere (the estimates vary) between 30,000 and 70,000 people died in Europe alone in the heatwave of 2019. Perhaps the world might benefit from a lower population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of4

1of4

Posted
  • Author
Posted
31 minutes ago, Van Cone De Head said:

I work at a wholesaler and bloody hell it’s busy.

Not sure if this has anything to do with it or everyone’s won the lottery.

It's just all the wendy fans stocking up, so they don't have to venture out into Sheffield city centre, incase they bump into a member of the cone clan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coneheadjohn

Coneheadjohn

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

It's just all the wendy fans stocking up, so they don't have to venture out into Sheffield city centre, incase they bump into a member of the cone clan.

Get plenty of footballers in including the Wendies,I might remind them of where I’m from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BaaLocks

BaaLocks

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

Not getting at you @BaaLocks but what does 'aggressively minimising spread' mean in practice? Banning all flights, for example; banning (like the French apparently have done), all gatherings of more than 5000 people; locking down whole cities like the Chinese have done?

The consequences of doing any/all of those things to economies - world and country, organisation and individual - are potentially huge.  What will happen if airlines go out of business (and put thousands of people on the dole); what will happen to football clubs (or rugby clubs) if matches don't happen for weeks and months whilst this thing goes on? What happens if Bury FC is just the tip of an iceberg; what happens to shops in Ilkley, or Derby, or Burton if there are no customers and then to the town centres (and local government income and then services) if no one ventures out any more?

And for what? There's a 98% chance that anyone with Covid19 survives. Yes, I don't want to be in the 2% that don't (and one of the latest victims comes from Ilkley and I'm over 60 so it's personal), and if the numbers that get the disease are huge then so are the numbers of people that die, but equally I don't want a world recession either.

I would argue that we want Governments to take a measured, sensible approach, not an aggressive one.  3000 people have so far died worldwide.  Somewhere (the estimates vary) between 30,000 and 70,000 people died in Europe alone in the heatwave of 2019. Perhaps the world might benefit from a lower population.

Well, I'm not an epidemiologist and I'm going to take a punt you aren't either. I get your point but your disaster scenario of airlines and Burton on Trent going bust are but one scenario, in the same way that Covid-19 mutating into something far more severe is just another. 

I think the point you make that is interesting is that you measure the wellness of the planet, and the population within it by the impact it will have on our global economy - you don't want a recession being the ultimate goal to aim for, even if it means putting people like yourself (over 60s) at risk. Pragmatically you are right, it's your pension, my companies profits and Liverpool's title shot that will be impacted if we ban public gatherings and stop everyone travelling. What a shame though, that this is the ultimate measure of success - blimey we've got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ilkleyram

ilkleyram

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Well, I'm not an epidemiologist and I'm going to take a punt you aren't either. I get your point but your disaster scenario of airlines and Burton on Trent going bust are but one scenario, in the same way that Covid-19 mutating into something far more severe is just another. 

I think the point you make that is interesting is that you measure the wellness of the planet, and the population within it by the impact it will have on our global economy - you don't want a recession being the ultimate goal to aim for, even if it means putting people like yourself (over 60s) at risk. Pragmatically you are right, it's your pension, my companies profits and Liverpool's title shot that will be impacted if we ban public gatherings and stop everyone travelling. What a shame though, that this is the ultimate measure of success - blimey we've got it wrong.

Thank you for accepting the point. I don’t agree that we’ve got it wrong in trying to make sure that the economy, national and world, is as strong as it can be.  All kinds of things rely on it, including my (and your) pension and those of millions around the world.  The wellness of the world’s population does depend upon the economy. There’s no end of studies that say that poverty and poor health are linked.

In the end it’s all about numbers.  Apparently there are currently about 90,000 reported Covid19 cases in the world and 3000 deaths. There’s 8 billion people in the world.  Even if you trebled the number of Covid19 cases the percentage of those people in the world with the virus is miniscule, about 0.003% if my maths is right.  Only 2% of that number will actually die (and there’s all kinds of reasons why that percentage may be over reported).  The truth is that from an epidemiological point of view we are, so far, making this into a much bigger problem than it actually is.

Which is the reason why I think that Governments shouldn’t overreact. They should take action but not aggressive action.

If you don’t believe me then listen to Professor Sian Griffiths on Radio 5 this afternoon.  She co chaired the Hong Kong Government’s examination of the SARS outbreak.  She doesn’t use words like overreact but she does make the point that if we cause a downturn in the economy then the impact upon millions of people whose livelihoods will be directly affected is potentially huge. And the health impact of such a situation, given the link between work, income and health, especially mental health, is far, far greater than any Covid19 outbreak.

She also makes the point that the outbreak in China is now significantly reducing, that case numbers are falling and people in China are steadily  going back to work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...