You will get that in Wetherspoons at 9 in the morning
Covid-19
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Are you online 24 hours a day? Considering you once said you had similar views to me, you often come over as a right tw*t.thatdberight wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:37 pmIt must have been a very quick glance not to spot it.
Still, much better to rely on an old lady than the now multiple sources you've been given showing your numbers to be, yet again, way off.
By the way, I inadvertently 'Liked' your post when I intented to quote it.
Re: Coronavirus
The bickering on here has been rising exponentially quicker than the number of panic stories in the newspapersFactualFrank wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:06 pmThis thread has been 90% bickering.
Can't you just add each other to the ignore list, rather than make us all suffer having to read it.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank tiger76
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'll take that as a compliment. We are multiple entities manning the post 24/7, by the way.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:48 pmAre you online 24 hours a day? Considering you once said you had similar views to me, you often come over as a right tw*t.
By the way, I inadvertently 'Liked' your post when I intented to quote it.
If you're still struggling to spot that;
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
No, I'm not online 24 hours a day. I use this forum on a computer that is permanently switched on, that's all.
As to the figures you post, that's an entirely different set of figures to those posted earlier about the 1989 flu virus. Which set is right, I don't know.
Either way, I'm still not worried.
People are still quoting 80,000 cases in China, even though about 55,000 have fully recovered and are no longer infected. Why? At the moment WHO says there are 23,000 active cases in China.
As to the figures you post, that's an entirely different set of figures to those posted earlier about the 1989 flu virus. Which set is right, I don't know.
Either way, I'm still not worried.
People are still quoting 80,000 cases in China, even though about 55,000 have fully recovered and are no longer infected. Why? At the moment WHO says there are 23,000 active cases in China.
-
- Posts: 7340
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2218 times
- Has Liked: 2207 times
Re: Coronavirus
Don't care what Pete Townshend thinks.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:58 pmAt the moment WHO says there are 23,000 active cases in China.
Bloody perv!
This user liked this post: deanothedino
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
We are legion.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:58 pmNo, I'm not online 24 hours a day. I use this forum on a computer that is permanently switched on, that's all.
As to the figures you post, that's an entirely different set of figures to those posted earlier about the 1989 flu virus. Which set is right, I don't know.
Either way, I'm still not worried.
People are still quoting 80,000 cases in China, even though about 55,000 have fully recovered and are no longer infected. Why? At the moment WHO says there are 23,000 active cases in China.
There were no other figures posted about the 1989 virus - or if they were they were just posted with no source.
You've been given three credible media sources and one primary scientific report and still you "don't know what to believe". Because you just like to believe whatever random nonsense comes into your head - or what an old lady told you.
I presume the 3,000 who've died in China still count or do they not count because they were in the past as well? That's pretty good news - that means that, as of now, nobody who's still alive has died.
-
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Coronavirus
Galaxy News Radio
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Oh, so if I had Flu 15 years ago I still count in this years Flu figures eh?thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:07 amWe are legion.
There were no other figures posted about the 1989 virus - or if they were they were just posted with no source.
You've been given three credible media sources and one primary scientific report and still you "don't know what to believe". Because you just like to believe whatever random nonsense comes into your head - or what an old lady told you.
I presume the 3,000 who've died in China still count or do they not count because they were in the past as well? That's pretty good news - that means that, as of now, nobody who's still alive has died.
The figures being quoted are being quoted as active case, when they clearly are not.
Past my bedtime.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
And so, yet again, you quietly move on from the erroneous information you were coming out with only a few minutes ago...Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:11 amOh, so if I had Flu 15 years ago I still count in this years Flu figures eh?
The figures being quoted are being quoted as active case, when they clearly are not.
Past my bedtime.
-
- Posts: 5335
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1644 times
- Has Liked: 400 times
Re: Coronavirus
Covid-19 is not flu. Nor is the virus that it begins with, SARS-CoV-2.
For one, it is far more deadly. One reputable site says 3.4% of those infected die, so far (some other sites say 1%). Flu kills 0.1%. Even if Covid-19 rate comes down it will still be more.
For another, it may be more contagious. Flu has a R0 value of about 1.3 which means every 10 people with flu infect 13 people. SARS-CoV-2 infects over 20.
A third thing, it causes worse respiratory illness in most people, even if they end up recovering.
The good thing is that it may be more containable despite the infection rate. With sensible isolation of people once they have a sniffle, this thing, like its SARS predecessor, can be killed off.
We need to get real and start taking precautions, that way we win. Denying it, and claiming it is “just the flu” and many more will die.
For one, it is far more deadly. One reputable site says 3.4% of those infected die, so far (some other sites say 1%). Flu kills 0.1%. Even if Covid-19 rate comes down it will still be more.
For another, it may be more contagious. Flu has a R0 value of about 1.3 which means every 10 people with flu infect 13 people. SARS-CoV-2 infects over 20.
A third thing, it causes worse respiratory illness in most people, even if they end up recovering.
The good thing is that it may be more containable despite the infection rate. With sensible isolation of people once they have a sniffle, this thing, like its SARS predecessor, can be killed off.
We need to get real and start taking precautions, that way we win. Denying it, and claiming it is “just the flu” and many more will die.
-
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 695 times
- Has Liked: 297 times
Re: Coronavirus
its hard to read much into the fatality rate at the moment. The number of cases is likely vastly underreported as most people will only suffer a mild illness.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:37 amFor one, it is far more deadly. One reputable site says 3.4% of those infected die, so far (some other sites say 1%). Flu kills 0.1%. Even if Covid-19 rate comes down it will still be more.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
There'll definitely be some of that but as the science continues to develop there seems less reliance on that. There are, of course, other views among credible scientists but the WHO report this week suggested not so much.deanothedino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:40 amits hard to read much into the fatality rate at the moment. The number of cases is likely vastly underreported as most people will only suffer a mild illness.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03 ... -countries
"A critical unknown is how many mild or asymptomatic cases occur.
...the report notes that so-called fever clinics in Guangdong province screened approximately 320,000 people for COVID-19 and only found 0.14% of them to be positive. “That was really interesting, because we were hoping and maybe expecting to see a large burden of mild and asymptomatic cases,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “That piece of data suggests that’s not happening, which would imply that the case fatality risk might be more or less as we currently have.” But Guangdong province was not a heavily affected area, so it is not clear whether the same holds in Hubei province, which was the hardest hit, Rivers cautions."
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
People can repeat and repeat its only like flu, however I suggest your ignoring the actual data that’s out there.Greeny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:30 pmThe world has gone absolutely bonkers. It’s a newer version of flu for goodness sake. Coronavirus affects the same age group as ordinary flu. I have no idea why “Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic” Captain Mainwaring from Dad’s Army has been let loose to become editor of all the newspapers + hosting all tv + radio stations. Get a grip.
Just look at Italy’s figures, in a normal year of flu, I am sure there would be 8,000 in Burnley get flu, how many end up in hospital I wonder and how many in intensive care, probably single figures.
Just look at what’s happening in Italy!
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Just read the figures from Italy and take them in,
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I agree it’s too late to stop it or make it go away.thelaughingclaret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:26 pmIt’s a miracle we all survived swine flu. That was meant to kill most of us off wasn’t it?
This is flu, maybe it’s a bad flu but it’s still flu and a new flu no one on earth before a month or 2 ago had ever had and therefore no one is immune to it so of course it will have a higher infection and death rate. Human history has had influenza pandemics throughout history. The virus is out there now, it’s too late to stop it and make it go away. It’s in nearly every country on Earth now for crying out loud. It can not be stopped. We just have to carry on and hope you don’t get it, just the same as we have been doing our whole lives already in regards to normal flu and all other diseases you can get. What happened to put British way of getting in with life no matter what was thrown our way?
However, if you just let this virus go on with out attempting to delay it you will overwhelm the NHS leading to an increased death rate.
The Gov is attempting to balance, deaths, economic impact , panic buying , plus more.
If you read Italy’s stats, currently 11% of people who have tested positive, let’s leave the debate about how many have it we don’t know about.
In the UK we have around 4100 intensive care beds. They are around 85% occupied according to sky news.
If we got to 40,000 cases, all your intensive care beds are occupied even if you have cancelled all operations. Your then in the realm of deciding who you just let pass away.
That’s why they are attempting to delay it, that’s why China built two 1000 bed hospitals in 8 days.
The number of people who will get it is unlikely to change, the number of people who need intensive care is unlikely change but by extending the infection rate, less people are likely to die.
Plus the economic impact will be less.
-
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 695 times
- Has Liked: 297 times
Re: Coronavirus
Quite small out of a population of 60m, no?Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:32 amJust read the figures from Italy and take them in,
455635FB-6CAE-4872-9756-75A72C72F2EA.png
Re: Coronavirus
I know you didn't mean to, but you're actually agreeing with memdd2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:55 pmCrickey Grumps you should be renamed Aesop given your prediction of the high risk of cancer from passive smoking compared with the risks from a virus that spreads easily and for which we have no immunity
The missing factor is what percentage of us do have some immunity to it
But pretty certain I would prefer exposure to passive smoke than this bugger over the next 6 months
I said you've got more chance of catching cancer from the smokers in the Bob lord bogs than you have of catching the virus there . Bearing in mind the chances of catching anything from the smokers is nil, if it was mathematically possible, catching the virus in there would be less.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Yes I agree.
I have no idea how many people will get infected nor have I claimed anywhere that X amount of people will get it.
China appears to have stalled its infection by simply putting millions of people in isolation in their own houses.
2-3 weeks more of data from Italy and Iran will provide a clearer picture of what’s likely to happen here.
This user liked this post: paulatky
-
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 695 times
- Has Liked: 297 times
Re: Coronavirus
My issue is that we’re letting the fear of it get out of hand. At the moment, there’s no suggestion that it would affect everybody and there’s no suggestion that already healthy individuals are at risk of dying from it.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:47 amYes I agree.
I have no idea how many people will get infected nor have I claimed anywhere that X amount of people will get it.
China appears to have stalled its infection by simply putting millions of people in isolation in their own houses.
2-3 weeks more of data from Italy and Iran will provide a clearer picture of what’s likely to happen here.
Rather than having everyone in a blind panic, buying all the pasta in the supermarket, we should encourage at risk categories to avoid travel, large gatherings etc. There’s no reason for someone fit and healthy in their 20s, 30s, 40s to significantly change their plans or behaviour at the moment.
These 2 users liked this post: Dark Cloud tiger76
Re: Coronavirus
What would you class as a large gathering? Turf moor on match day?deanothedino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:51 amMy issue is that we’re letting the fear of it get out of hand. At the moment, there’s no suggestion that it would affect everybody and there’s no suggestion that already healthy individuals are at risk of dying from it.
Rather than having everyone in a blind panic, buying all the pasta in the supermarket, we should encourage at risk categories to avoid travel, large gatherings etc. There’s no reason for someone fit and healthy in their 20s, 30s, 40s to significantly change their plans or behaviour at the moment.
Let's use a pie in the sky example...say 100,000 people have the virus, what do you think the odds are of one of those being at today's game, and then the odds of being close enough to them to catch it off them? More chance of seeing Elvis doing the half time draw...
This user liked this post: Gordaleman
-
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 695 times
- Has Liked: 297 times
Re: Coronavirus
I don't disagree but at the moment they're talking about having everyone avoid them...Grumps wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:19 amWhat would you class as a large gathering? Turf moor on match day?
Let's use a pie in the sky example...say 100,000 people have the virus, what do you think the odds are of one of those being at today's game, and then the odds of being close enough to them to catch it off them? More chance of seeing Elvis doing the half time draw...
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I completely agree with you on that.deanothedino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:51 amMy issue is that we’re letting the fear of it get out of hand. At the moment, there’s no suggestion that it would affect everybody and there’s no suggestion that already healthy individuals are at risk of dying from it.
Rather than having everyone in a blind panic, buying all the pasta in the supermarket, we should encourage at risk categories to avoid travel, large gatherings etc. There’s no reason for someone fit and healthy in their 20s, 30s, 40s to significantly change their plans or behaviour at the moment.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Figures for the 1989 UK outbreak of Flu, were quoted on here, but of course could have now been edited out. However, I accept now that the figure of 100,000 deaths was wrong. According the the chart below, it was only 26,000. (Bad enough I think, and far worse than the number of Covid-19 deaths we are likely to get.)thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:07 amWe are legion.
There were no other figures posted about the 1989 virus - or if they were they were just posted with no source.
You've been given three credible media sources and one primary scientific report and still you "don't know what to believe". Because you just like to believe whatever random nonsense comes into your head - or what an old lady told you.
I presume the 3,000 who've died in China still count or do they not count because they were in the past as well? That's pretty good news - that means that, as of now, nobody who's still alive has died.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... oss-the-uk
You are completely missing my point. The point is this. The media are still quoting 100,000 cases in China, as though there are STILL 100,000 people infected. This is simply not the case as there are only about 27,000 active cases in China now. (WHO figures.) This shows that the infection rate has peaked and is now on the decrease. The same is likely to happen here in the UK. It will peak quite quickly, then drop back but we are a few weeks behind China.
The strange annomoly in this outbreak is Italy. No one seems to know why they have so many infections, or why there appears to be a high death toll. Everyone is still learning about this disease but that doesn't mean it's worse than anything seen before. We simply know too little about it.
Last edited by Gordaleman on Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Coronavirus
These 2 users liked this post: Gordaleman thatdberight
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Yes, a sensible report from a sensible newspaper. It shows that the virus can be controlled with simple precations and it also shows just how badly people are over reacting.Spijed wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:21 amGood article in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -reassured
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Coronavirus
I read that earlier, but didn't post it as I was expecting someone to start whinging about how they see it as inaccurate.Spijed wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:21 amGood article in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -reassured
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Coronavirus
I noticed WHO were starting to think there wasn't a large pool of asymptomatic/unrecorded cases. There has been a few anecdotal reports in the media of people, having recovered, saying things like "It wasn't so bad. Probably wouldn't normally have even gone to the doctors with it" so I was becoming increasingly convinced there must be such a pool. As such, the WHO saying there probably wasn't came as a bit of a jolt.thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:48 amThere'll definitely be some of that but as the science continues to develop there seems less reliance on that. There are, of course, other views among credible scientists but the WHO report this week suggested not so much.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03 ... -countries
"A critical unknown is how many mild or asymptomatic cases occur.
...the report notes that so-called fever clinics in Guangdong province screened approximately 320,000 people for COVID-19 and only found 0.14% of them to be positive. “That was really interesting, because we were hoping and maybe expecting to see a large burden of mild and asymptomatic cases,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “That piece of data suggests that’s not happening, which would imply that the case fatality risk might be more or less as we currently have.” But Guangdong province was not a heavily affected area, so it is not clear whether the same holds in Hubei province, which was the hardest hit, Rivers cautions."
(Chloroquine update, by the way: The Chinese have included it in their standard management plan, and are claiming success, but are yet to release much in the way of actual figures. The S. Koreans are advising their doctors to consider either Chloroquine or Kalletra according to their own judgment, but caution there's no evidence for either. The Japanese don't seem to be using it at all, and there's no mention of its use in either Italy or Iran. Pending some real data, it doesn't, right now, look as if it is living up to the promise the in vitro studies and early Chinese trials suggested.)
This user liked this post: thatdberight
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
"We know it can be contained (albeit at considerable cost). China’s draconian quarantine and containment measures appear to be working."Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:29 amYes, a sensible report from a sensible newspaper. It shows that the virus can be controlled with simple precations and it also shows just how badly people are over reacting.
Like you say, simple precautions.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
With a death toll so far of less than 4,000 (WHO figuers) and cases falling fast in the worst affected country, (China) I just don't understand how for some reason, some people expect the death toll in this country alone, to be much higher than the existing world total of 4,000.thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:07 am"We know it can be contained (albeit at considerable cost). China’s draconian quarantine and containment measures appear to be working."
Like you say, simple precautions.
Which brings me back to my point about Flu. Flu kills an awful lot of people in this country and there are multiple types of Flu, yet I don't remember any panic over those earlier events.
In 1957 / 58 Asian Flu killed 33,000 in the UK. In 1968 / 69 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 people in the UK. In 2009/ 10 Swine Flu killed 457.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk- ... ent-times/
Do we have any clear reason to suspect that Covid-19 will kill more people than any of the above? Yet no-one panics about Flu and there's no reason to panic about this virus. (Unless your family is unfortunate enough to lose someone.)
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
I am not sure if that’s an attempt at humour??thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:07 am"We know it can be contained (albeit at considerable cost). China’s draconian quarantine and containment measures appear to be working."
Like you say, simple precautions.
The Chinese have shut down completely in the area, one person is allowed out of the house every three days.
Several people on here are claiming we are overreacting, some people in China have not left the house in 5 weeks.
All factories shut, no travel allowed. You need a special licence to drive a car around.
As you say I t’s a very simple plan, not sure it’s going to go down well in the UK.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Coronavirus
I've just gone on to the Tesco site to place an order and most of the hand wash is indeed unavailable.
Let's hope the 240 toilet rolls will last me.
Let's hope the 240 toilet rolls will last me.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
I don't have any expectation because it's all too novel. I do believe that a scenario which saw this spreading unchecked is worse than the flu. Your constant references to the flu are meaningless. You've just decided, contrary to the science, that it's no worse than the flu. Perhaps the scientist quoted at length by the "very sensible newspaper" (your view, not mine) is worth reading (Gabriel Leung, chair professor of public health medicine at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong and WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control founding director);Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:29 amWith a death toll so far of less than 4,000 (WHO figuers) and cases falling fast in the worst affected country, (China) I just don't understand how for some reason, some people expect the death toll in this country alone, to be much higher than the existing world total of 4,000.
Which brings me back to my point about Flu. Flu kills an awful lot of people in this country and there are multiple types of Flu, yet I don't remember any panic over those earlier events.
In 1957 / 58 Asian Flu killed 33,000 in the UK. In 1968 / 69 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 people in the UK. In 2009/ 10 Swine Flu killed 457.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk- ... ent-times/
Do we have any clear reason to suspect that Covid-19 will kill more people than any of the above? Yet no-one panics about Flu and there's no reason to panic about this virus. (Unless your family is unfortunate enough to lose someone.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... df6d274472
I find this interesting, as I do the reactions of those who will not or cannot take in the latest views of those who are expert. It's neither nothing, nor apocalyptic as best as I, as a layman, can interpret what those experts are saying. Instead, it's serious. So, serious people are taking serious steps to mitigate. With a bit of luck and all the work being done a potentially serious situation will be minimised.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Just what axe have you got to grind? I have given good accurate figures from respected people and in none of those scenarios does anything suggest that Covid-19 will kill more than a bad Flu epedemic.thatdberight wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:53 amI don't have any expectation because it's all too novel. I do believe that a scenario which saw this spreading unchecked is worse than the flu. Your constant references to the flu are meaningless. You've just decided, contrary to the science, that it's no worse than the flu. Perhaps the scientist quoted at length by the "very sensible newspaper" (your view, not mine) is worth reading (Gabriel Leung, chair professor of public health medicine at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong and WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control founding director);
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... df6d274472
I find this interesting, as I do the reactions of those who will not or cannot take in the latest views of those who are expert. It's neither nothing, nor apocalyptic as best as I, as a layman, can interpret what those experts are saying. Instead, it's serious. So, serious people are taking serious steps to mitigate. With a bit of luck and all the work being done a potentially serious situation will be minimised.
I am NOT saying this is like a mild Flu, I know that it's nothing like Flu. What I am saying is that given existing figures world wide, it will kill a lot less than a bad Flu outbreak. Surely, the amount of deaths is the critical thing and thus far, there are less than 4,000 world wide? Yet no one panics about Flu which kills far more.
All I am saying is that if the media hype was not over the top, people would not be emptying shops of hand gel etc.. I think people should calm down, follow the guidlines but otherwise carry on as normal.
This virus is being overblown because it's a new pathogen and there is uncertainty about it. Scientists are naturally cautious, it's their job to be so. That doesn't mean that this Virus is worse than any other, it just means they haven't done enough work on it yet.
No doubt you will find something to disagree with in this post. (It appears as though that's YOUR job.) If you do, fine. Let's agree to disagree as there is no point playing tennis with posts.
Re: Coronavirus
Would have a very serious effect on the economy which will take a long time to recover from.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:31 amI am not sure if that’s an attempt at humour??
The Chinese have shut down completely in the area, one person is allowed out of the house every three days.
Several people on here are claiming we are overreacting, some people in China have not left the house in 5 weeks.
All factories shut, no travel allowed. You need a special licence to drive a car around.
As you say I t’s a very simple plan, not sure it’s going to go down well in the UK.
The government will have to decide between personal health and economic health and unfortunately I think I know what they will choose
Last edited by paulatky on Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Coronavirus
Should we shut everything thing down? If so, how do you feed people if no one is working in manufacturing and other industries?
Re: Coronavirus
Don't expect him to have thought his argument through, just as long as he thinks he's scaring people, but it's not working, I guess 90 percent of this thread is in the keep calm camp.
This user liked this post: Gordaleman
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Keeping calm is the only sensible option. When did panicking ever help anyone?
I'm going to watch the first half of Arsenal v West Ham. then I'm off to expose myself to 20,000 people on the Turf.
I'll wash my hands first though.
-
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1049 times
- Has Liked: 723 times
Re: Coronavirus
I hope bertie bee takes you out!Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:53 pmI'm going to watch the first half of Arsenal v West Ham. then I'm off to expose myself to 20,000 people on the Turf.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
Why, have you planned a 'Sting'?
Re: Coronavirus
Just be careful of being hit by an asteroid, more chance of that than catching the virus at turf moor.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:53 pmKeeping calm is the only sensible option. When did panicking ever help anyone?
I'm going to watch the first half of Arsenal v West Ham. then I'm off to expose myself to 20,000 people on the Turf.
I'll wash my hands first though.
This user liked this post: Gordaleman
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Coronavirus
Latest UK figures
UK cases rise to 206
The UK government says the number of cases in the country is now 206, an increase of 43.
Two patients who tested positive for Covid-19 have so far died in the UK. Both were elderly and had underlying health conditions.
The Department of Health said that as of 07:00 on Saturday morning, more than 21,000 people had been tested for the virus.
Earlier, England's deputy chief medical officer Jennie Harries told the BBC that the UK remained in the "containment" phase of controlling the virus.
Yes the numbers are rising but not at an alarming rate,if those figures are anywhere near accurate,of the people tested less than 1% have tested positive,and the vast majority of those will likely have mild symptoms.
UK cases rise to 206
The UK government says the number of cases in the country is now 206, an increase of 43.
Two patients who tested positive for Covid-19 have so far died in the UK. Both were elderly and had underlying health conditions.
The Department of Health said that as of 07:00 on Saturday morning, more than 21,000 people had been tested for the virus.
Earlier, England's deputy chief medical officer Jennie Harries told the BBC that the UK remained in the "containment" phase of controlling the virus.
Yes the numbers are rising but not at an alarming rate,if those figures are anywhere near accurate,of the people tested less than 1% have tested positive,and the vast majority of those will likely have mild symptoms.
Re: Coronavirus
Stop talking sensetiger76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:13 pmLatest UK figures
UK cases rise to 206
The UK government says the number of cases in the country is now 206, an increase of 43.
Two patients who tested positive for Covid-19 have so far died in the UK. Both were elderly and had underlying health conditions.
The Department of Health said that as of 07:00 on Saturday morning, more than 21,000 people had been tested for the virus.
Earlier, England's deputy chief medical officer Jennie Harries told the BBC that the UK remained in the "containment" phase of controlling the virus.
Yes the numbers are rising but not at an alarming rate,if those figures are anywhere near accurate,of the people tested less than 1% have tested positive,and the vast majority of those will likely have mild symptoms.
These 4 users liked this post: Gordaleman CombatClaret Zlatan tiger76
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Coronavirus
Now if only there was 0 bickering on here and more posts like the above.tiger76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:13 pmLatest UK figures
UK cases rise to 206
The UK government says the number of cases in the country is now 206, an increase of 43.
Two patients who tested positive for Covid-19 have so far died in the UK. Both were elderly and had underlying health conditions.
The Department of Health said that as of 07:00 on Saturday morning, more than 21,000 people had been tested for the virus.
Earlier, England's deputy chief medical officer Jennie Harries told the BBC that the UK remained in the "containment" phase of controlling the virus.
Yes the numbers are rising but not at an alarming rate,if those figures are anywhere near accurate,of the people tested less than 1% have tested positive,and the vast majority of those will likely have mild symptoms.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Coronavirus
I'm merely reposting the info from the Beeb website,now i don't always agree with the BBC,but it's at times like this that their commonsense approach to just reporting the facts and simple medical advice is invaluable.FactualFrank wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:22 pmNow if only there was 0 bickering on here and more posts like the above.
Compared to the nonsense headlines in the redtops,which have fuelled a lot of unnecessary anxiety amongst the general public,of course we should be concerned and take precautions,but there's no need for the mass panic buying and hysteria.
These 3 users liked this post: Gordaleman CombatClaret thatdberight
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
In a sea of bad information, thank goodness you're talking sense. I just checked. c.200 cases of this virus in the last few weeks but 1,873 Brits struck by asteroids and associated debris in the same period.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Coronavirus
Jet fuel may not melt steel but this corona virus might...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51784167
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51784167
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 604 times
Re: Coronavirus
I'm not on Facebook, but a lady friend sent me this.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... cdDYU6UNqn
Pretty sound advice, I think.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... cdDYU6UNqn
Pretty sound advice, I think.