• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Rorschach said:
Yeah sounds like that is a minimum time, but I guess this is hedging your bets.

I always thought Gates was a clown shoe when I started in IT many years ago, but he's not.
Click to expand...

He probably was then, but age and working on his foundation has changed him. His business practices were on the dubious end of cut-throat.

He was widely criticised for not giving some of his money to charity. I thought this unfair, as most people turn philanthropical late in life and few earn the money he did by their 40s. However, after he set up the foundation, he and his wife have been very hands on running it. It's not just a rich person giving some money away as some late life hedge against there being a GHod.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not sure going in and out of lockdown will work. It's the sharp shock of the lockdown that has already sent so many businesses under. Doing it over and again would probably be worse than extending this one.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying it should be done over and over again. It will be a last resort, as it was this time.

Smaller shutdowns, if version areas become overwhelmed might be necessary and far less harmful for the economy.
scaramanga said:
0.0016% infection fatality rate for under 10s.

That increases to a whopping 0.16% for 40-50s.

Meh.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing those numbers are with a functioning health care system. What happens if there aren't respirators, ICU beds or health care workers to treat those with severe symptoms?

Deaths are obviously the most severe outcome, but far from the only one. A lack of treatment will probably lead to longer illness periods, longer rehabilitation, which for the economy means expenses.

Even the most ardent keep things running politicians in the US are now shutting down. Why? They aren't liberal hippies.
 
braineclipse said:
I wasn't saying it should be done over and over again. It will be a last resort, as it was this time.

Smaller shutdowns, if version areas become overwhelmed might be necessary and far less harmful for the economy. I'm guessing those numbers are with a functioning health care system. What happens if there aren't respirators, ICU beds or health care workers to treat those with severe symptoms?

Deaths are obviously the most severe outcome, but far from the only one. A lack of treatment will probably lead to longer illness periods, longer rehabilitation, which for the economy means expenses.

Even the most ardent keep things running politicians in the US are now shutting down. Why? They aren't liberal hippies.
Click to expand...
Because few things are as guaranteed to lose as many votes as letting people die.

The public aren't good at big picture stuff.
 
photooftheday0002-Swine-Flu2.jpg


The WHO head best be careful.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Without wanting to sound rude. I suggest we're best to base discussions on accurate (emotionless) data and you quote a newspaper article.
Click to expand...

I don’t quote one newspaper article; I quote many newspaper articles every day in each of our daily papers detailing plenty of individuals who are young and healthy who are succumbing to this virus.

Statistics are great - until one of the statistics is your mum, or your sister, or your son or daughter. Also not wishing to be rude, but trying to view this situation in a way which completely removes emotion is not entirely helpful either.

Grays_1890 said:
From what I have seen its more conditions like emphysema, asthma, respiratory, kidney, liver and heart issues.

I've not seen the stats but its rarely reported that its young healthy folk which the media would for sure pick up on.
Click to expand...

I’ve read plenty in the press about young, healthy people dying. Emerging evidence (see below) that anyone’s reaction to the virus can be determined by their genetic make-up and, as the deaths of hospital staff around the world have indicated, how much of the virus an individual is exposed to.

So, in other words, it may well be down to luck.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...al-load-scientists-say?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
When some businesses can start partially operating again I bet quite a few 'lazy oafs' will have got quite comfy on 80% pay doing f.ck all. And when the request is put out for employees to come back...whose jumping at 20% extra pay for a full weeks work.

Just as there are the types that as soon as 'self isolation with full pay' was a thing ...there dialing it in and just trumping.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and my employer has already experienced issues not a million miles apart from those you describe. But my understanding is that, if the work is actually there, the 80% option falls away. In theory no one should be able to get away with this.
 
Mikey10 said:
Statistics are great - until one of the statistics is your mum, or your sister, or your son or daughter. Also not wishing to be rude, but trying to view this situation in a way which completely removes emotion is not entirely helpful either.
Click to expand...
Statistics ARE useful when you're saying to people 'this takes anyone' 'people of all ages are being admitted to hospital' etc. Along with the news stories this behaviour drives people's emotions and can directly affect their mental health. No beuno. It's one step away from the Facebook crowd.

For instance @SteveAWOL has posted something that is useful in breaking down what is going on out there. That's not stripping the emotion out of it, it's hopefully putting a lid on emotions and people's fears by giving them information.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Statistics ARE useful when you're saying to people 'this takes anyone' 'people of all ages are being admitted to hospital' etc. Along with the news stories this behaviour drives people's emotions and can directly affect their mental health. No beuno. It's one step away from the Facebook crowd.

For instance @SteveAWOL has posted something that is useful in breaking down what is going on out there. That's not stripping the emotion out of it, it's hopefully putting a lid on emotions and people's fears by giving them information.
Click to expand...
Even better, here's a statistical breakdown:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

If it's TL:DR, anyone healthy and under 60 really shouldn't be giving a single fudge about this - they're genuinely tiny odds.
 
If there is a country wide ban on exercise I'll not be happy.

It's ,in the main, cities that need to get their act together, and it's them that should suffer restrictions if not.
 
scaramanga said:
Because few things are as guaranteed to lose as many votes as letting people die.

The public aren't good at big picture stuff.
Click to expand...
They seemed perfectly happy to do just that. Trump seemed happy to do just that.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the economy vs. lives is a false dichotomy in this case and that the economy would be hit hard regardless.
scaramanga said:
Even better, here's a statistical breakdown:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

If it's TL:DR, anyone healthy and under 60 really shouldn't be giving a single fudge about this - they're genuinely tiny odds.
Click to expand...
I agree that healthy young individuals shouldn't worry too much about themselves. I don't worry and I don't worry for those in my family that are younger than me and healthy.

I have others in my family I worry about. I worry about others in my community. I worry about a collapse of the health care system. I take the advice of experts seriously because of that and I'm happy about what's being done as a result.
 
So that Scottish bird went to her 2nd home on the coast, as long as she was adhering to social distance from others, what’s the issue?
 
Grays_1890 said:
So that Scottish bird went to her 2nd home on the coast, as long as she was adhering to social distance from others, what’s the issue?
Click to expand...

Because the more you travel around, the more people you risk coming into contact with, the more risk of contracting/passing on the virus. Social distancing in itself isn't actually enough. It's a rule put in place to avoid a total lockdown,but it doesn't prevent the virus being picked up from a common surface (eg. petrol pump, assuming she drove and would have needed fuel at some point), and likely doesn't prevent airborne particles being passed on (would need to be more than 2m apart).
And not least of course she's the CMO telling people not to travel. Therefore she needs to demonstrate she can follow her own instructions or why should anyone else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back