Coronavirus

[ariotofmyown]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I mean its clearly an easy thing to do.

Every other country in the world has the virus under a control and the perfect track and trace system in place right?

I'm sure many of the countries who have dealt with it well would be more than happy to help.

Why did we develop our own app really slowly? I'm sure say, Spotify, don't rebuild apps from scratch for each country. You would think that some countries/companies with apps that work would give them us for free.

Although imagine if Great Britain has to rely on charity from some foreigners! Plus there is lots of money to be made in getting very expensive consultants to work on projects that run over.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

30 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

How come if David Attenborough is filming a Lion killing a Gazelle then it is the rule that you can’t intervene?

I'm a bit lost with the relevance of where this fits with the thread, but maybe I missed something earlier. Anyway...

Following on from the success of Blue Planet II, Sir David Attenborough’s eagerly anticipated new nature programme follows the lives of five animal families including tigers, emperor penguins, chimpanzees, lions and painted wolves.

In the opening scene of the first instalment, a chimpanzee is savagely beaten by a rival group of apes and left to die without any help from TV crews filming the fight. However, in a later episode, the Antarctica based TV crew step in to save a group of newly hatched emperor penguins trapped down an icy ravine. They cut steps into the ice so their mother can haul them to safety.

So why save the penguins and not the chimpanzee?

For the simple reason that interfering with the chimpanzee would affect other animals, whereas helping the penguins did not.

Using an analogy of a leopard chasing a wildebeest Attenborough said: “What do you do? Suppose you did something that frightened the leopard off, the fawn would be disorientated and would probably not even be able to find its way home, so it is likely to die.

“The leopard would go off and have to find another fawn and it is likely to have problems with its cubs.”

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

For the simple reason that interfering with the chimpanzee would affect other animals, whereas helping the penguins did not.

Tell that to Brenda the fish, whose son will be now eaten by the saved penguin. On his birthday, she will send him out to the market to get some plankton, then all his "school" friends will sneak round for a surprise party. But he'll never return.

Before departing to market, he will have an argument with his mum about why he should have to go on his birthday. He will say some things he quickly regrets, and the last thing he will think of, as his head is crushed in the vicious penguin's beak, is how he never told his mum how much he loved her.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Tell that to Brenda the fish, whose son will be now eaten by the saved penguin. On his birthday, she will send him out to the market to get some plankton, then all his "school" friends will sneak round for a surprise party. But he'll never return.

Before departing to market, he will have an argument with his mum about why he should have to go on his birthday. He will say some things he quickly regrets, and the last thing he will think of, as his head is crushed in the vicious penguin's beak, is how he never told his mum how much he loved her.

That sounds like a horror remake of Finding Nemo 

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Andicis said:

How many people have already had the virus in the UK? How many people are naturally immune? 

Studies suggest less than 10% of the population have had it at the absolute most. There is no data to suggest that a statistically significant fraction of the population have any level of natural immunity. That said, even if they did, they already would have, and that limiting factor is built into the statistics we're already seeing. 

If you're curious of the studies into this, this one from August suggests about 6% of the population had caught it by then, and there is no suggestion that this second wave has caught up to the size of the first, though testing has been more thorough. This is consistent with the less than 10% estimates. 

2 hours ago, Andicis said:

The virus was already heavily prevalent in Europe before anyone was aware of it. Was the virus every so heavily prevalent in other regions without the knowledge beforehand? Here we go again with you coming in with some condescending final line as you always do. And you're calling somebody else childish. Lol mate. 

Source on it being 'heavily prevalent in Europe' prior to people being aware of it. The virus is novel, and unless you're claiming it made it to Wuhan from Europe (another left of field claim), there are limits to how early it could appear. 

Even with an earlier arrival date in Europe, it doesn't change that European countries did indeed control the virus, then let it all slip, unlike elsewhere in the World where control was maintained by what was, in essence, just listening to the expert advice on how to. 

[Sith Happens]

2 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

How come if David Attenborough is filming a Lion killing a Gazelle then it is the rule that you can’t intervene?

Funny you should say this, but there will be a special tomorrow night from attenborough on the lives of an internet forum poster...he really shouldn't have used this thread as his source though

[rynny]

9 hours ago, jimmyp said:

Do you stop people going to Burger King for dinner? 

Yes, no one should have to put up with eating Burger King. 

[rynny]

8 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

That sounds like a horror remake of Finding Nemo 

Sounds better than the original. 

[Eddie]

6 hours ago, Sith Happens said:

Funny you should say this, but there will be a special tomorrow night from attenborough on the lives of an internet forum poster...he really shouldn't have used this thread as his source though

Reincarnation?

[Ghost of Clough]

10 hours ago, Albert said:

Also makes borders and boundaries harder to monitor and track, yet they've still done it. 

The majority of Australia's population is fairly tightly packed as well. 

Harder than in the UK where cities are on top of cities?

I have a feeling the connectivity between cities in the UK is significantly higher than in Australia, meaning Covid spreads much quicker. For example, many people who work in London travel from cities such as Bristol for work. Similar in Australia would be Canberra to Sydney. 

Over 9 hours by car to get from one of the top 5 populations Australian cities to another of the top 5. It takes 28 hours to get from Perth to any city with a population greater than 80,000 people.

Meanwhile in the England, in 9 hours you can drive from the most north-eastern point of to the south-western most point.

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Harder than in the UK where cities are on top of cities?

I have a feeling the connectivity between cities in the UK is significantly higher than in Australia, meaning Covid spreads much quicker. For example, many people who work in London travel from cities such as Bristol for work. Similar in Australia would be Canberra to Sydney. 

The major centres are less connected, but if this is your line of reasoning, then you really need to consider how somewhere like Korea could have the virus under control if this really was the problem. 

20 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Over 9 hours by car to get from one of the top 5 populations Australian cities to another of the top 5. It takes 28 hours to get from Perth to any city with a population greater than 80,000 people.

Meanwhile in the England, in 9 hours you can drive from the most north-eastern point of to the south-western most point.

Again, the point is moot, as there are countries that have this issue, but far worse, that have successfully controlled the virus. 

[Ghost of Clough]

18 minutes ago, Albert said:

The major centres are less connected, but if this is your line of reasoning, then you really need to consider how somewhere like Korea could have the virus under control if this really was the problem. 

Again, the point is moot, as there are countries that have this issue, but far worse, that have successfully controlled the virus. 

Most cases in a day
Korea - 851
Taiwan - 27
Vietnam - 50

It's a lot easier to control a virus before it spreads.

 

Different strain of virus?
Apparently Europe has the mutated strain which is 10 more contagious than the original strain (dominant in Asia and Oceania). The countries which appear to have contained the virus are all located in Asia. Not a single European country is close. Coincidence? This'll make it even harder to contain than what the countries you've previously listed had to put up with.
https://www.biospace.com/article/mutated-covid-19-viral-strain-in-us-and-europe-much-more-contagious/

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

The major centres are less connected, but if this is your line of reasoning, then you really need to consider how somewhere like Korea could have the virus under control if this really was the problem.

The UK is massively interconnected.  It is virtually impossible to keep covid under control here unless you repeatedly lockdown - our economy relies upon the movement of people and services;

http://www.undertheraedar.com/2015/06/the-polycentric-south-east.html

Comparing the UK to any other country, such as Korea it a moot point - different cultures, economies, etc.  Korea has a declining, aging population for example whereas the UKs is growing year on year.

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Most cases in a day
Korea - 851
Taiwan - 27
Vietnam - 50

It's a lot easier to control a virus before it spreads.

It's also telling that despite a larger outbreak, dense cities, and a highly interconnected country, Korea did indeed manage to get control of the situation. 

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Different strain of virus?
Apparently Europe has the mutated strain which is 10 more contagious than the original strain (dominant in Asia and Oceania). The countries which appear to have contained the virus are all located in Asia. Not a single European country is close. Coincidence? This'll make it even harder to contain than what the countries you've previously listed had to put up with.
https://www.biospace.com/article/mutated-covid-19-viral-strain-in-us-and-europe-much-more-contagious/

Ah yes, unpeer reviewed research from June, mangled into a grey literature, beautiful stuff. 

Here is a slightly more recent preprint on the same topic: Link. The key points are that the strain in question is the dominant one globally even by that point, and while in lab conditions it seems that it could be more infectious, in real World conditions there is no evidence that this is the case to this point. The suggestion from the article you linked that it's '10 times more infectious' was not even backed by the original unpeer reviewed link, but it should go without saying that your broader point is moot given that this strain is the dominant one globally. 

As to why the countries that have the virus under control are only in Asia, the key seems to be more about preparation than about region. They are all countries that dealt with the threat of SARS, and were all well prepared and quickly followed advice as evidence emerged. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

http://www.undertheraedar.com/2015/06/the-polycentric-south-east.html

Comparing the UK to any other country, such as Korea it a moot point - different cultures, economies, etc.  Korea has a declining, aging population for example whereas the UKs is growing year on year.

So, what you're arguing is that it is possible for countries with the same weaknesses, but far worse, to achieve better results, because their cultures are inherently superior in this situation? Seriously? 

Also, Korea having an aging population is actually a massive disadvantage when dealing with a disease that is more harmful to people of age. 

[maxjam]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, what you're arguing is that it is possible for countries with the same weaknesses, but far worse, to achieve better results, because their cultures are inherently superior in this situation? Seriously?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

 

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

Also, Korea having an aging population is actually a massive disadvantage when dealing with a disease that is more harmful to people of age. 

Alternatively they are more likely to be able to stay at home and isolate, ,whilst younger people are more likely to go out to work or socialising.

[GboroRam]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

Also, Korea having an aging population is actually a massive disadvantage when dealing with a disease that is more harmful to people of age. 

I read his post as South Korea having a declining aging population (as in it's getting smaller) but I can't find evidence that it's true.

 

Smaller than the UK aged population still, so there are differences. Also worth noting that, although South Korea has 3.5% less aged population, but has a youth population 5% smaller (a demographic more unaffected by COVID than the older population).

 

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I read his post as South Korea having a declining aging population (as in it's getting smaller) but I can't find evidence that it's true.

 

Smaller than the UK aged population still, so there are differences. Also worth noting that, although South Korea has 3.5% less aged population, but has a youth population 5% smaller (a demographic more unaffected by COVID than the older population).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea

[WhiteHorseRam]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Reincarnation?

I hope I don't come back as a Forest supporter … would settle for being a dung beetle over that ?

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

You noted that the different culture could play a role, as well as other previously discussed factors, and used that to dismiss any and all comparison. This inherently implies what I said above. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Alternatively they are more likely to be able to stay at home and isolate, ,whilst younger people are more likely to go out to work or socialising.

The issue is that the peak of their population are older people of working age, and culturally going to work on crowded public transport is the norm. The fact that this has been adjusted effectively to deal with a pandemic speaks volumes of the difference in response. When you're going on about 'well, the young people are less likely to go out', you know you're point is getting flimsy. 

Equally, if having more young people is the point, how do you explain Vietnam, or places like Australia and New Zealand? These factors all play together, but your methods seem to be to just pick them one by one to tackle in an ad hoc manner. 

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I read his post as South Korea having a declining aging population (as in it's getting smaller) but I can't find evidence that it's true.

 

Smaller than the UK aged population still, so there are differences. Also worth noting that, although South Korea has 3.5% less aged population, but has a youth population 5% smaller (a demographic more unaffected by COVID than the older population).

 

Korea has a very low birthrate, and while the population is yet to measurably decline, it's expected that it's about to start doing so.