Corona Virus - Should we be worried?

[Sasperella]

34 minutes ago, Jack The Stripper said:

He’s been diagnosed with viral laryngitis

 

34 minutes ago, jparx said:

Isn't he ill? I thought he had laryngitis?

Oh!!!! Well, that....sucks still obviously. But at least it's not an indication of end of days I guess

[MaxPower]

1 minute ago, Matt42 said:

It’s the same as Sun articles on Glastonbury. Yes the source is cancer but they probably have friends in high places who know this sort of stuff.

The showbiz Sun for example, usually get accurate Glastonbury info because their sources are directly from the showbiz camp. Same with Perez. He is abhorrent but he probably does know someone involved in Coachella.

Coachella are adamant that it is going ahead, and I think it will, but obviously you don’t know what conversations are happening behind the doors.

Nah fuck that, he's a grifter.

[Toilet Duck]

48 minutes ago, Lycra said:

In terms of risk Coachella is in California which is approx 1.8x bigger than the UK and they have had 1 case whereas UK is currently 115. Ergo their risk is much lower

California has 60 cases. They’ve had 1 death. They also have a cruise ship with 3500 pax moored off SF harbour waiting for tests at a passenger on a previous cruise has tested positive. State emergency declared (mainly to unlock federal funds, but still way more than 1 case)...

[waynewdk]

Just been to the shops

[squirrelarmy]

9 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

California has 60 cases. They’ve had 1 death. They also have a cruise ship with 3500 pax moored off SF harbour waiting for tests at a passenger on a previous cruise has tested positive. State emergency declared (mainly to unlock federal funds, but still way more than 1 case)...

And there’s 2,500 passengers who were on that previous cruise who are now intermingling with the rest of the USA. 

[duke88]

20 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

California has 60 cases. They’ve had 1 death. They also have a cruise ship with 3500 pax moored off SF harbour waiting for tests at a passenger on a previous cruise has tested positive. State emergency declared (mainly to unlock federal funds, but still way more than 1 case)...

And although California is bigger than the UK, the population is much smaller, so the confirmed infection rate is similar.

[Matt42]

15 minutes ago, waynewdk said:

Just been to the shops

I feel like this is really fashionable tbh 

[Jack The Stripper]

The governments Chief Scientific advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance on Good Morning Britain is saying that they aren't looking to ban/shut down large scale events as you're much more likely to infect/spread people in smaller, enclosed environments like a pub. No plans to play football games behind closed doors etc. Sounds promising!

[Fingerbobs]

5 minutes ago, Jack The Stripper said:

... they aren't looking to ban/shut down large scale events as you're much more likely to infect/spread people in smaller, enclosed environments like a pub. No plans to play football games behind closed doors etc...

Rumours on the footy message boards that an as yet unknown fan is thinking of visiting a pub before the match tomorrow. Hope this message cuts through to them. And if any of you lot are thinking the same between now and Glasto, there will be lots of unimpressed smiley heads filling up your socials I can tell you 

[sjseabass]

Worrying. Acts pulling out so the festival isn't viable seems much more likely to me than events being ordered to cancel.

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by theevilfridge

[Lycra]

26 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

California has 60 cases. They’ve had 1 death. They also have a cruise ship with 3500 pax moored off SF harbour waiting for tests at a passenger on a previous cruise has tested positive. State emergency declared (mainly to unlock federal funds, but still way more than 1 case)...

Thanks for the correction guys. It's strange how differently they have reacted to the risk. Take several thousand cruise ship passengers who've been in close proximity in hygienic conditions for an extended period and they're treated like plague victims. Yet take a daily attendance of 99,000 plus stall holders, musicians, crew, security etc over 6 days with less than perfect hygiene and it's apparently low risk 🤔🤔  

[Hugh Jass]

7 hours ago, nicnac1983 said:

just seen this on Perez Hilton’s insta - hoping he’s just trying to get likes

The BUY MY BOOK!!! comment directly underneath should tell you all you need to know...

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

7 minutes ago, Lycra said:

Thanks for the correction guys. It's strange how differently they have reacted to the risk. Take several thousand cruise ship passengers who've been in close proximity in hygienic conditions for an extended period and they're treated like plague victims. Yet take a daily attendance of 99,000 plus stall holders, musicians, crew, security etc over 6 days with less than perfect hygiene and it's apparently low risk 🤔🤔  

Well I guess it’s as low risk as any town/city, public transport etc? A cruise ship is the perfect scenario to try and contain things if it turns out somebody has it, so why wouldn’t they?

Edited March 6, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[gigpusher]

I think if the symptoms hit someone on a cruise ship it makes sense to try and contain it but it's much more difficult if it's on land as people have already been in contact with so many people before they became symptomatic. For now I think the best policy is be hygienic, try not to touch your face (which is harder than you think) and be sensible based on the people you interact with. I am a generally healthy 42 year old living with a generally healthy 44 year old so suspect even if I get it I would live through it so am taking the keep calm and carry on approach. My husband's Aunt though has many long term health problems so for her and her family it is undoubtedly a bigger risk and concern. 

[SecretFish]

Just another viewpoint 

 

[wonker]

4 minutes ago, SecretFish said:

Just another viewpoint 

 

Oh, I'm sure the head of e-commerce at flydubai has no vested interests...

[squirrelarmy]

3 minutes ago, wonker said:

Oh, I'm sure the head of e-commerce at flydubai has no vested interests...

He’s not wrong though 

[Havors]

15 minutes ago, SecretFish said:

Just another viewpoint 

 

So whatsapp and Facebook are spreading the virus??   Bastards!! 

[wonker]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

He’s not wrong though 

No, but he's presenting the facts in a very deliberate way.

Yes, obviously there is more social media now than 20 years ago.

Mortality rate for < 50s - that's a shit argument that I hate, because it's very much the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude.

Global mortality rate outside China is 1.55% - that's still a hell of a lot.

80,000 of 89,000 infections are in China - what's the relevance of that? They've quarantined whole cities and it's that much and infection rate is only going up in the West.

I'm not saying that we should all panic, but I am saying that there is something to be deeply concerned about. 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' is an expression for a reason.

[Havors]

I think I should change my vote on the other thread.... the more I read and the more I see the media scaremongering the more I think everything this summer is going to be cancelled....  Sorry, I dont mean to be Mr Doom and gloom....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-how-peak-cases-could-be-cut-by-social-distancing-11950397?fbclid=IwAR0EgVB1lkZXcBj8g763niSBcI6uoz9HWODVoF-VWGKwXxRnAkOz6_vr15w

[gigpusher]

4 minutes ago, SecretFish said:

Just another viewpoint 

 

This is definitely true. I do think social media is responsible for causing panic and anxiety within people. I've seen it in Glastonbury groups all the time where one person's level of organisation makes other people panic about not being similarly organised. I've seen it with peopke worrying about what outfits they should wear, whether they buy their kids enough for Christmas. I think social media exposes the worst and the best of us. 

[guypjfreak]

A few things of interest. 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/05/major-world-events-cancelled-far-coronavirus-12353104/

[Madyaker]

4 minutes ago, wonker said:

No, but he's presenting the facts in a very deliberate way.

Yes, obviously there is more social media now than 20 years ago.

Mortality rate for < 50s - that's a shit argument that I hate, because it's very much the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude.

Global mortality rate outside China is 1.55% - that's still a hell of a lot.

80,000 of 89,000 infections are in China - what's the relevance of that? They've quarantined whole cities and it's that much and infection rate is only going up in the West.

I'm not saying that we should all panic, but I am saying that there is something to be deeply concerned about. 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' is an expression for a reason.

You may not like what he's saying but it's factually correct. Social media is amplifying this way out of proportion.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

8 minutes ago, wonker said:

No, but he's presenting the facts in a very deliberate way.

Yes, obviously there is more social media now than 20 years ago.

Mortality rate for < 50s - that's a shit argument that I hate, because it's very much the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude.

Global mortality rate outside China is 1.55% - that's still a hell of a lot.

80,000 of 89,000 infections are in China - what's the relevance of that? They've quarantined whole cities and it's that much and infection rate is only going up in the West.

I'm not saying that we should all panic, but I am saying that there is something to be deeply concerned about. 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' is an expression for a reason.

Not necessarily, it helps to highlight how dangerous the virus actually is in the grand scheme of things. The mortality rate is still only 15% above 80 anyway, but the mortality rate for anything when you’re above 80 is gong to be pretty high regardless. As a human being you’ve only get a 30% chance of reaching 90, so there is a good chance something will kill you before then, whatever it is.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Toilet Duck]

8 minutes ago, SecretFish said:

Just another viewpoint 

 

While he has compared it to swine flu, what's missing from that is the case fatality rate for seasonal flu (about 0.1%, but it kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people per year). If this virus were to get a similar foothold, then the numbers of fatalities would be extremely significant (given that the fatality rate here seems to be somewhere from 1%-4%...ie, if similar numbers of people were to become infected as get the regular flu, there would be 2.5m upwards deaths). This is what health authorities are afraid of. The panic with swine flu was that is was a strain similar to the Spanish flu outbreak in 1918 (with a huge fatality rate)...didn't end up infecting anywhere near as many people as it might have as it didn't become endemic, can only hope the same thing happens here (and try to limit spread to achieve this)...The flip side is that there are major differences between flu and these new coronaviruses. Flu is endemic and is in constant circulation in the population. Flu drifts every year, so we essentially deal with a new virus every year (and the race begins to make new vaccines based on the most prevalent strains). Big shifts in the structure of the virus cause the massive outbreaks...coronaviruses will drift, but they aren't built to change massively in one big jump so outbreaks occur when they get a new host (in this case, seems to be bats to humans), not when they change so much we have no immunity to them. That's what's happened here, so the better comparison is with other coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS). Thankfully, this virus seems to have a much lower fatality rate than either of the two previous major new coronavirus outbreaks. On the other hand, this probably means more people will become infected (harder to infect people when you are so sick you can't move about, much easier when you think you only have a sniffle).