Corona Virus - Should we be worried?

[parsonjack]

UK cases up 74 to 273.

[JoeyT]

Just now, parsonjack said:

UK cases up 74 to 273.

Don't think I'll be worried until we get in to the tens of thousands or even the hundreds of thousands.

Even at that figure considering our population is 66 million I'll still fancy my chances of not catching it.

 

[Chrisp1986]

3 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

UK cases up 74 to 273.

Do we know how many of those were successful in the first sale?

[deebeedoobee]

53 minutes ago, yehbutnobut said:

To lighten the mood a little, and for continued future reference throughout this growing thread...

Maybe The Knack will make a come back with My Corona?

[Matt42]

11 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Don't think I'll be worried until we get in to the tens of thousands or even the hundreds of thousands.

Even at that figure considering our population is 66 million I'll still fancy my chances of not catching it

Sorry there is something that does my head in. 273 CONFIRMED cases. I.e people who have actually been tested and received a positive result. I think 25,000 people in the U.K. have been tested so it’s good to see that there is a higher negative to positive ratio, but it annoys me that some people (and no I’m not referring to you, I’m referring to people who intentionally try and downplay this) believe that ONLY 273 people have it in the country. If the asymptomatic statistics are true the number of people infected is much higher than this.

 

39 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

putting things into perspective a little everyone ....and yes the jump in uk cases will be expected  

I appreciate lightening the mood but this falls apart pretty quickly.

This virus has only really been circulating since December. We are nowhere near the peak numbers. We can’t compare the peak numbers of other conditions to this virus in its early stages. In three months 107,802 have been infected across the world. 37,000 cases are now completely outside of China.

More people die of car crashes than Nuclear weapons every year, but I’m still concerned about nuclear weapons.

This is a NEW virus in its NEW stages. It’s only been around 3 months and it’s spread pretty rapidly across the world. We don’t know how dangerous this is yet, and so far we’ve seen that it can be pretty dangerous and hard to contain.

Comparing it to Cancer (which we have had decades worth of research on) is just silly. If governments and health services did nothing to try and fight the virus the numbers of infected + deaths would be significantly higher.

I’m not saying panic, but this is a completely different issue with its own problems. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Matt42

[Crazyfool01]

8 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Sorry there is something that does my head in. 273 CONFIRMED cases. I.e people who have actually been tested and received a positive result. I think 25,000 people in the U.K. have been tested so it’s good to see that there is a higher negative to positive ratio, but it annoys me that some people (and no I’m not referring to you, I’m referring to people who intentionally try and downplay this) believe that ONLY 273 people have it in the country. If the asymptomatic statistics are true the number of people infected is much higher than this.

 

I appreciate lightening the mood but this falls apart pretty quickly.

This virus has only really been circulating since December. We are nowhere near the peak numbers. We can’t compare the peak numbers of other conditions to this virus in its early stages. In three months 107,802 have been infected across the world. 37,000 cases are now completely outside of China.

More people die of car crashes than Nuclear weapons every year, but I’m still concerned about nuclear weapons.

This is a NEW virus in its NEW stages. It’s only been around 3 months and it’s spread pretty rapidly across the world. We don’t know how dangerous this is yet, and so far we’ve seen that it can be pretty dangerous and hard to contain.

Comparing it to Cancer (which we have had decades worth of research on) is just silly. If governments and health services did nothing to try and fight the virus the numbers of infected + deaths would be significantly higher.

I’m not saying panic, but this is a completely different issue with its own problems. 

I’m not downplaying it ... I’m particularly concerned as I’m prone to infections and vulnerable ... one of my Glastonbury’s was wrecked because of it  with a cut in my leg ... but I try to post as positively as I possibly can ... I manage my Diabetes pretty well but I’m seriously worried because of my workplace particularly... no amount of hand washing and sanitising is going to help me ... I’m going to be lucky or not ... 

[vardyvarvar]

I'm hoping for a bit of a false spring that will hopefully help people shake off their colds and light illness... It should hopefully help us get a better understanding of the situation.

I really don't want to spend another day in the office when someone sniffs and everyone has to make the joke.

[Matt42]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

I’m not downplaying it ... I’m particularly concerned as I’m prone to infections and vulnerable ... one of my Glastonbury’s was wrecked because of it  with a cut in my leg ... but I try to post as positively as I possibly can ... I manage my Diabetes pretty well but I’m seriously worried because of my workplace particularly... no amount of hand washing and sanitising is going to help me ... I’m going to be lucky or not ... 

I’m not accusing you I just don’t like these posts that circulate social media insinuating anyone that is concerned is being silly  There is more to be concerned about regarding a virus than just dying. Outbreaks can frustrate the entire economy (as we’ve seen). It can also put strains on public services and leave people in difficult situations. 

[kalifire]

48 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

trying to be positive  

Your defining characteristic. Long may you continue x

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, kalifire said:

Your defining characteristic. Long may you continue x

Cheers  I will 

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

I’m not accusing you I just don’t like these posts that circulate social media insinuating anyone that is concerned is being silly  There is more to be concerned about regarding a virus than just dying. Outbreaks can frustrate the entire economy (as we’ve seen). It can also put strains on public services and leave people in difficult situations. 

I also think perspective is important too ... all these things that are mentioned can and quite possibly will happen ... but in terms of now they haven’t ... Worst case scenario is horrendous but living by that I’m never going to leave my flat again ... 

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, Madyaker said:

Even if it were to escalate in the UK China are 7 weeks in now and they have a handle on it. They currently have 30,000 active cases but the spread has slowed right down. The NHS seem to think that almost all cases will appear in the next 9 weeks which takes us up to the week ending april 26th. That's 2 months away from Glasto so I would hope that they can stick the course and not be forced to cancel when this will likely be mostly over by the end of june.

But China took extraordinary measures to get there, despite their health system being overwhelmed. They were late to react and we do have more notice, but they did a lot more than tell people to wash their hands. I just don't think such mass measures are possible here, people get tetchy when told they arent allowed to do exactly what they want when they want. I doubt we'll be able to sort this in 7 weeks

[stuartbert two hats]

44 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Sorry there is something that does my head in. 273 CONFIRMED cases. I.e people who have actually been tested and received a positive result. I think 25,000 people in the U.K. have been tested so it’s good to see that there is a higher negative to positive ratio, but it annoys me that some people (and no I’m not referring to you, I’m referring to people who intentionally try and downplay this) believe that ONLY 273 people have it in the country. If the asymptomatic statistics are true the number of people infected is much higher than this.

Of course, the flip side is that the more unreported cases there are, then the lower the death rate is. Just as Trump was an idiot for only looking at it from that angle, it's still true.

Edit: and the closer we are to saturating the population and preventing the virus from growing and more.

But even if it was "only" as deadly as the flu, doubling the number of flu deaths is still not good.

Edited March 8, 2020 by stuartbert two hats

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I think there are always two things that keep getting mixed up. Perceived fear of the virus itself and the risk of actually getting it and it killing you, and the impact the spread of the virus will have and any attempt to contain it. I think for the vast majority of people on this thread how dangerous it is is irrelevant. Most aren’t fearful of getting it or it being fatal, it’s the impact of the spread and ultimately whether Glastonbury ends up getting canned or not.

[Mackem]

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

[Dusk1983]

 

2 minutes ago, Mackem said:

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

No, you aren’t. It has virtually zero chance of going ahead.

[Zoo Music Girl]

4 minutes ago, Mackem said:

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

I am on the fence but think cancellation is quite likely. That said I absolutely do not think it wouldn't sell out. Resales will still be murder. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, Mackem said:

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

I doubt they could just cancel now without significant finical loss anyway. Any sort of insurance policies they have will no doubt have clauses which wouldn’t cover them if the just randomly decide to cancel the festival without it being forced upon them by the government. I would assume they have entered into lots of agreements to pay acts to perform, so from a financial point of view I’d imagine they have a big financial liability already if they just cancel.

[kingbadger]

Coronavirus or not, there's no way the festival won't be a sell out. Say double the amount of tickets get returned than usual, the demand will still vastly outweigh the amount of tickets available in the resale. 

[efcfanwirral]

3 minutes ago, Mackem said:

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

I agree with all this, though I think for all those who drop tickets others will take them. If the resale happens I'm trying for sure, just in case. If it cancels officially I get the money back, but to be honest even if I felt like it was too much of a risk I'm not too bothered about losing that money if I decide not to go. I'd be surprised if demand drops without it being taken up by us lot

[stuartbert two hats]

8 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think there are always two things that keep getting mixed up. Perceived fear of the virus itself and the risk of actually getting it and it killing you, and the impact the spread of the virus will have and any attempt to contain it. I think for the vast majority of people on this thread how dangerous it is is irrelevant. Most aren’t fearful of getting it or it being fatal, it’s the impact of the spread and ultimately whether Glastonbury ends up getting canned or not.

My parents are in their 70s. Glastonbury is not my main concern.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

My parents are in their 70s. Glastonbury is not my main concern.

So are mine, but as it stands they still have an incredibly low probability of catching it and it then being fatal. 

[Crazyfool01]

9 minutes ago, Mackem said:

Just tuned into this thread so apologies if I end up repeating what's been said by everyone - but I'm going to anyway ...

I can't help thinking that cancellation is more rather than less likely. They’ll have to make a call by early May, just after the resale, I’d have thought. They may even decide to make the call before the resale - if they’ve had loads of returns - as it would look bad to sell new tickets then cancel a couple of weeks later. That's likely to be when the outbreak is at its peak. Sanctioning the biggest assembly of people in the country - from all over the world - to live in close proximity to each other in insanitary conditions for several days when a large proportion of the population are carrying a highly contagious disease wouldn't sound too responsible to the outside world, on the face of it.

I also suspect there’ll be a huge number of returned tickets and a much smaller than usual take up the spares in the resale, meaning the festival could be a long way from selling out - it may even make it financially unviable. Remember how worried they were the Jay-Z year when they only sold out days before the festival started.

If I was the Eavis’ I’d think: far better to cancel, minimise the potential risk both to attendees and to the festival's finances and reputation, and treat it like an extra fallow year.

Am I being too glum?

From what I’ve seen I don’t think the ticket sales will be an issue ... not seen anyone saying they will not try for tickets or give them up as yet ... of course large numbers of Ill people may change this 

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

My parents are in their 70s. Glastonbury is not my main concern.

Yep, same here, my mums 76 and I'm a Counsellor for people with cancer and their families, so my number one anxiety is catching it and unknowingly passing it on to them or them catching it independently of me

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

So are mine, but as it stands they still have an incredibly low probability of catching it and it then being fatal. 

As are mine ... along with my sister being a type 1 diabetic diabetes nurse and me with type 1 too ... so yeah I have worries