Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mlle. Zabzie

Covid Your Mouth When You Sneeze (Corona Virus/Covid-19 # 2)

Recommended Posts

Some of the border crossings with Italy are being closed and the traffic is being redirected to bigger border corssings. At those, the crossing into SLO is only going to be allowed to foreigners if they have a medical certificate stating that they do not have the virus. Still, there are plenty of SLO nationals who drive across the border for work every day, a lot of Italian children come to SLO every day to kindergarten/school ... Italy is very close. 36 cases here for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s gonna happen folks. Just accept you are likely to get Coronavirus and try and prepare to ride it out. If we can’t stop people getting the flu, how can we realistically prevent the spread of this virus in the interconnected world of today.

In the meantime, don’t panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poland, which only has 25 confirmed cases so far, have just decided to close all schools, preschools, universities, cinemas, theaters, and museums for two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It’s gonna happen folks. Just accept you are likely to get Coronavirus and try and prepare to ride it out. If we can’t stop people getting the flu, how can we realistically prevent the spread of this virus in the interconnected world of today.

In the meantime, don’t panic.

Perhaps. But the thing is, it didn't need to go this way. Recent previous potential pandemics were stopped before going global; this is a massive failure on the parts of public health and political authorities the world over.

It isn't necessarily too late now, but it'll take a concentrated push of testing and social distancing to dramatically slow down the viral spread while everyone with it can be identified. And, considering the consequences of letting it run loose, I think we still need to try. It's also the only way to ensure the gradual spread so that hospitals aren't overwhelmed with a sudden surge in cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Serbia, the whole situation has been handled very poorly so far.

At first, authorities were trying to calm everyone down with poor attempts of humour. I'm not kidding, sentence "Go shopping to Italy now, when it's not as crowed as usual" was heard on TV, as well as "drink more rakija (I'd say schnapps would be the most appropriate translation) and you'll be fine". After that, pure incompetence (and stupidity) was clearly displayed by statements such as "our genes are superior and we won't have as much of a problem as other countries".

Yesterday, foreign nationals coming from areas where virus has been reported relatively widespread were banned from entering the country and many flights have been cancelled for the weeks ahead. Things went from joking around to really serious extremely fast.

We still don't have many reported cases (12 is the latest number I've heard) but I'm quite sure that number is about to rise significantly within days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fez said:

Perhaps. But the thing is, it didn't need to go this way. Recent previous potential pandemics were stopped before going global; this is a massive failure on the parts of public health and political authorities the world over.

It isn't necessarily too late now, but it'll take a concentrated push of testing and social distancing to dramatically slow down the viral spread while everyone with it can be identified. And, considering the consequences of letting it run loose, I think we still need to try. It's also the only way to ensure the gradual spread so that hospitals aren't overwhelmed with a sudden surge in cases.

Is there a balance between containment and economic cost? At what point is shutting down an entire economy not worth lowering the minimal death rate? 

So the entire Italy is supposedly in lockdown for two weeks is it? So what of new cases arising in 3 weeks time? Do you shut the country down for another 2 weeks? For a month?  At what point is it not worth it anymore?

I don’t have an answer to these matters, just asking the questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Is there a balance between containment and economic cost? At what point is shutting down an entire economy not worth lowering the minimal death rate? 

So the entire Italy is supposedly in lockdown for two weeks is it? So what of new cases arising in 3 weeks time? Do you shut the country down for another 2 weeks? For a month?  At what point is it not worth it anymore?

I don’t have an answer to these matters, just asking the questions.

 

A 3.4% death rate is not minimal, it is absurdly high for a global pandemic; especially if it reoccurs seasonally like the regular flu. And we have no idea what the death rate might get up to if health care systems are entirely overwhelmed; in Wuhan it was 5.8%, and Italy is up there too. On top of that, there's the not-insignificant number of people who require hospitalization to not die; be stuck on a ventilator for 3 weeks is not a high quality life.

As a one-off black swan event this would have massive repercussions throughout the world; far greater than the economic pain of shutting almost everything down for a month. As a permanent, seasonal fixture, this is quite literally a species-altering change for the human race. The worldwide human growth rate is 1.1% right now, which means COVID-19 would cause us to go into population decline. Though hopefully we'd have greater immunity in future years, and maybe a vaccine to help.

On top of that, we have no idea yet if there will be any longterm health complications in people who recover from the virus. There may be deaths 10, 20, 30 years from now that are also attributable to the virus.

It is almost impossible to overstate how bad it would be having to have this spread unchecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fez said:

A 3.4% death rate is not minimal, it is absurdly high for a global pandemic; especially if it reoccurs seasonally like the regular flu. And we have no idea what the death rate might get up to if health care systems are entirely overwhelmed; in Wuhan it was 5.8%, and Italy is up there too. On top of that, there's the not-insignificant number of people who require hospitalization to not die; be stuck on a ventilator for 3 weeks is not a high quality life.

As a one-off black swan event this would have massive repercussions throughout the world; far greater than the economic pain of shutting almost everything down for a month. As a permanent, seasonal fixture, this is quite literally a species-altering change for the human race. The worldwide human growth rate is 1.1% right now, which means COVID-19 would cause us to go into population decline. Though hopefully we'd have greater immunity in future years, and maybe a vaccine to help.

On top of that, we have no idea yet if there will be any longterm health complications in people who recover from the virus. There may be deaths 10, 20, 30 years from now that are also attributable to the virus.

It is almost impossible to overstate how bad it would be having to have this spread unchecked.

Just read on CNN that Merkel says 70% of Germany will eventually get infected. So if this will happen anyway, why go to such great lengths to try and limit the spread? Just focus on treatment as best possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fez said:

 

As a one-off black swan event this would have massive repercussions throughout the world; far greater than the economic pain of shutting almost everything down for a month. As a permanent, seasonal fixture, this is quite literally a species-altering change for the human race. The worldwide human growth rate is 1.1% right now, which means COVID-19 would cause us to go into population decline. Though hopefully we'd have greater immunity in future years, and maybe a vaccine to help.

 

 

Surely the death rate in subsequent years would be much lower as all the 'low hanging fruit' has been taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just read on CNN that Merkel says 70% of Germany will eventually get infected. So if this will happen anyway, why go to such great lengths to try and limit the spread? Just focus on treatment as best possible.

because you can't treat as well as possible if 70% of the population get it at the same time, but you can if 10% of the population have it over a period of months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

because you can't treat as well as possible if 70% of the population get it at the same time, but you can if 10% of the population have it over a period of months. 

Fair point. Do we know whether you can catch it more than once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Is there a balance between containment and economic cost? At what point is shutting down an entire economy not worth lowering the minimal death rate? 

So the entire Italy is supposedly in lockdown for two weeks is it? So what of new cases arising in 3 weeks time? Do you shut the country down for another 2 weeks? For a month?  At what point is it not worth it anymore? 

 

If not containment is applied (or attempts of) you will get an exponential rise of cases and people will be left to die. This is already happening in Italy with a mere 10k cases. And this has the potential to infect a much higher fraction of the population, which will be a social, economic and political pandemonium regardless.

I think we can now hope that the curve slows down as much as possible by applying S. Korean-like policies until a treatment is found.

https://www.flattenthecurve.com/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just read on CNN that Merkel says 70% of Germany will eventually get infected. So if this will happen anyway, why go to such great lengths to try and limit the spread? Just focus on treatment as best possible.

The pace of spreading the disease is of great importance, as completely overwhelmed medical care systems would be disastrous. If it spreads slower due to precaution measures, hospitals would have a chance to cure infected with the worst symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just read on CNN that Merkel says 70% of Germany will eventually get infected. So if this will happen anyway, why go to such great lengths to try and limit the spread? Just focus on treatment as best possible.

Because if everyone gets sick at once, even more people die. Hospitals have limited treatment capacity, and the more overwhelmed they get the less they can do. In China, in Wuhan the death rate was 5.8%, in some other parts of the country its only 0.7%.

 

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Surely the death rate in subsequent years would be much lower as all the 'low hanging fruit' has been taken?

Sure, maybe. Yes in the sense that a lot of people with bad complications will have died this time around. But next time around there may be plenty of other people who got lucky this time who don't again. Also, we don't know yet to what extent the virus can/will mutate. Maybe we get lucky and it mutates into something mostly harmless, or maybe it gets more deadly; and we have no idea what kind of conferred immunity getting it once gives you. How long will those antibodies last? No clue.

There's so many unknowns right now. And its entirely possible that we get the good answers to these questions; the Spanish Flu disappeared after all. But the stakes are far too high to just hang our hats on that hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

because you can't treat as well as possible if 70% of the population get it at the same time, but you can if 10% of the population have it over a period of months. 

You CANNOT treat even the 10% of the population. Italy is reporting a mere of 10k cases, ok let's say is 10 times as high, still is much below the 10%)

China got 80k confirmed cases and has to build 14 hospitals in matter of days. These are the scales we are talking about.

Infect the 10% of the population at the same time and you have people dying on the streets

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Fair point. Do we know whether you can catch it more than once?

There were some reports of people catching it again, but it’s around the same numbers as could be attributed to false negatives; i.e someone got falsely cleared of the virus and then tested positive again, when really it’d never left there system.

But as has been said, the huge threat here  is the 15% who may require hospitalisation, and who won’t get it. That’s why Wuhan was high and why Italy’s death rate is rising quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rotting sea cow said:

You CANNOT treat even the 10% of the population. Italy is reporting a mere of 10k cases, ok let's say is 10 times as high, still is much below the 10%)

China got 80k confirmed cases and has to build 14 hospitals in matter of days. These are the scales we are talking about.

Infect the 10% of the population at the same time and you have people dying on the streets

 

yeah, i was illustrating the difference between widescale infection and slowing it down to keep it to meaningful levels.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to remember is that the 80%-85% of cases that are "mild" aren't always a walk in the park. Some certainly are. There's definitely a large group of people that are asymptomatic or just feel a bit under the weather. However, "mild" just means the case wasn't bad enough that you needed hospitalization; basically it means that you were still able to breathe on your own. Mild can run the gamut from "no problem at all" to "have a fever of 102F, a wracking cough that stops you from sleeping, and aches and fatigue all over." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the crisis in China is likely over, China is offering help to other countries.

Italy has confirmed a deal with China where China is providing 1,000 ventilators, 100,000 respirators and 2 M face masks.

Wait until China offers help to the US - would the US accept it?

There is an all-out war going on right now between China and the US with regard to the origins of the virus. Note that all of Trump’s administration have taken to calling it the ‘Wuhan virus’ or the ‘China virus’ instead of Covid-19. In China the censors have vanished and people are being given free rein to claim the virus originated in the US. The Republicans are running campaign ads saying ‘this is exactly why we need a wall and we’re building it as fast as we can’.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...