planetf1.com

I would guess that if everyone was explicitly told about the cure, assuming those comments are accurate, there'd be a run on the hospitals for it. Whereas right now they can keep the hospital numbers to a sensible number which means they can treat people more gradually and keep the death rate lower.

Battle Far wrote:

Siao7 wrote:By the way, since yesterday, Italy has surpassed the total death toll of China. Sad sad news for Italy, I saw pics of their military trucks carrying the dead. Yet, still people think this is all OTT and nothing to worry about

China and South Korea have been routinely treating Covid-19 patients with Chloroquine & Hyroxochloroquine since February.

South Korea's mortality rate is 0.5%, Italy's is 4.7%

Mortality rates are measured against confirmed cases, not actual cases.

South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms.

South Korea discovered there were huge numbers of 20-29 year olds who had COVID-19 but are asymptomatic. Italy is not detecting these cases. Italy has the second most eldery population after Japan, so has many many more people in the high mortality age bracket. These two things mean that Italy's mortality rate is always going to be much higher than South Korea's, even if treatment options and opportunities are identical.

j man wrote:What is more interesting to me is that our leaders seem so willing to crash the global economy to fight this pandemic yet are not willing to make any similar sacrifices to combat climate change. The latter will have much more far-reaching effects on a much larger number of people, but sadly the people who make the big decisions in this world are only capable of thinking in the short term.

That's because their voters are only capable of thinking short-term..

13,000 confirmed deaths....

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

cdc.gov wrote:There are laboratory tests that can identify the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens. State and local public health departments have received tests from CDC while medical providers are getting tests developed by commercial manufacturers. All of these tests are Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panels, that can provide results in 4 to 6 hours.

There are 50 million people in SK, 4hrs/test = 6 per day = 8,333,333 man days. Say there are 1000 laboratories each with 10 technicians, that's 833 man years.

There is physically no way that SK have tested their entire population in a month. Like every other country they will have tested those that present with syptoms

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

It's rather a common knowledge, have you even seen those multi-lines drive-through testing stations?

"The backbone of Korea’s success has been mass, indiscriminate testing, followed by rigorous contact tracing and the quarantine of anyone the carrier has come into contact with. As of March 19, the country has conducted more than 307,000 tests, the highest per capita in the world."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/south-korea-coronavirus

"Everyone" doesn't mean that they tested every citizen, but everyone who asked for it regardless of showing the coronavirus symptoms or not... unlike those other countries like Italy, UK, US...

Prema wrote:

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

It's rather a common knowledge, have you even seen those multi-lines drive-through testing stations?

"The backbone of Korea’s success has been mass, indiscriminate testing, followed by rigorous contact tracing and the quarantine of anyone the carrier has come into contact with. As of March 19, the country has conducted more than 307,000 tests, the highest per capita in the world."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/south-korea-coronavirus

"Everyone" doesn't mean that they tested every citizen, but everyone who asked for it regardless of showing the coronavirus symptoms or not.

So they've tested 307,000 out of 51,000,000? 0.6% of the population...?

DOLOMITE wrote:

Prema wrote:

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

It's rather a common knowledge, have you even seen those multi-lines drive-through testing stations?

"The backbone of Korea’s success has been mass, indiscriminate testing, followed by rigorous contact tracing and the quarantine of anyone the carrier has come into contact with. As of March 19, the country has conducted more than 307,000 tests, the highest per capita in the world."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/south-korea-coronavirus

"Everyone" doesn't mean that they tested every citizen, but everyone who asked for it regardless of showing the coronavirus symptoms or not.

So they've tested 307,000 out of 51,000,000? 0.6% of the population...?

Yes, the math appears to be right.
50k out of 67 mil in the UK...?
60k out of 330 mil in the US..?

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

cdc.gov wrote:There are laboratory tests that can identify the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens. State and local public health departments have received tests from CDC while medical providers are getting tests developed by commercial manufacturers. All of these tests are Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panels, that can provide results in 4 to 6 hours.

There are 50 million people in SK, 4hrs/test = 6 per day = 8,333,333 man days. Say there are 1000 laboratories each with 10 technicians, that's 833 man years.

There is physically no way that SK have tested their entire population in a month. Like every other country they will have tested those that present with syptoms

Somehow I don't think the testers sit there doing nothing for 4-6 hours while they wait for the results of a test before moving on to the next one.

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

cdc.gov wrote:There are laboratory tests that can identify the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens. State and local public health departments have received tests from CDC while medical providers are getting tests developed by commercial manufacturers. All of these tests are Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panels, that can provide results in 4 to 6 hours.

There are 50 million people in SK, 4hrs/test = 6 per day = 8,333,333 man days. Say there are 1000 laboratories each with 10 technicians, that's 833 man years.

There is physically no way that SK have tested their entire population in a month. Like every other country they will have tested those that present with syptoms

Apologies for the ambiguity - I did not mean they tested every single person in South Korea (I mean, it's self evident that is impossible), they tested anyone who asked for a test. Europe and USA have refused tests to people unless they strongly match the symptoms. As a result, South Korea's results are likely to be a closer match to the profile of the virus.

Essentially, South Korea's Corona incident was very very minor compared to the situation in every large population Western country. They got it under control by mass testing and tracing outbreaks, as opposed to Europe's policy of waiting until the horse had bolted, and the US's approach of waiting until the horse had bolted, denying the possibility the horse had bolted and telling everyone it was still in the stable, then saying the horse had stepped outside but was going to step back inside in a short period of time and then waiting three weeks until the farmer's daughter's husband's brother made a horse bolting detector that the farm would pay three times the money for, and then realising not only had the horse bolted, but it had liberated horses in all the farms in the district.

ie: the horse bolting analogy...lmao

i'm guessing everything happening in italy, will be occurring here in the states, just 3-4 weeks later

edit...i should add i laughed because i found that very funny and there is some truth there.

For those who are craving some quality racing during these difficult times.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... +marbula+1

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Battle Far wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:South Korea tested everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms. Italy only tested people who had symptoms

Where did you get this information because I call BS.

cdc.gov wrote:There are laboratory tests that can identify the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens. State and local public health departments have received tests from CDC while medical providers are getting tests developed by commercial manufacturers. All of these tests are Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panels, that can provide results in 4 to 6 hours.

There are 50 million people in SK, 4hrs/test = 6 per day = 8,333,333 man days. Say there are 1000 laboratories each with 10 technicians, that's 833 man years.

There is physically no way that SK have tested their entire population in a month. Like every other country they will have tested those that present with syptoms

Apologies for the ambiguity - I did not mean they tested every single person in South Korea (I mean, it's self evident that is impossible), they tested anyone who asked for a test. Europe and USA have refused tests to people unless they strongly match the symptoms. As a result, South Korea's results are likely to be a closer match to the profile of the virus.

Essentially, South Korea's Corona incident was very very minor compared to the situation in every large population Western country. They got it under control by mass testing and tracing outbreaks, as opposed to Europe's policy of waiting until the horse had bolted, and the US's approach of waiting until the horse had bolted, denying the possibility the horse had bolted and telling everyone it was still in the stable, then saying the horse had stepped outside but was going to step back inside in a short period of time and then waiting three weeks until the farmer's daughter's husband's brother made a horse bolting detector that the farm would pay three times the money for, and then realising not only had the horse bolted, but it had liberated horses in all the farms in the district.

Wild Hairball Conjecture here.

Covid-19 seems to have spent most of it's energy in Wuhan China and they seem definitely to be on the down-slope. From the mid-December origin to right now is a bit over four months. We may be looking at asking what we can do in terms of large gatherings in July or August. Of course a lot will happen in the world in those four months.

Mort Canard wrote:Wild Hairball Conjecture here.

Covid-19 seems to have spent most of it's energy in Wuhan China and they seem definitely to be on the down-slope. From the mid-December origin to right now is a bit over four months. We may be looking at asking what we can do in terms of large gatherings in July or August. Of course a lot will happen in the world in those four months.

I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

The glacier slow reaction of the USA, Australia and European countries means that it's very very unlikely that corona can now be permanently contained. A deployable vaccine is a minimum of 12 months away, probably at least 18 months to 24 months.

Lockdowns only reset the growth to zero. Once lockdowns stop, the virus growth will start again at the same exponential rate meaning that every 2 months, a 1 month lockdown will become necessary again. It's possible that if cheaper, faster tests are made that lockdowns could become regional, or city based, and that if countries adopt measures used in Korea, Singapore and Taiwan that they can be less severe than we are seeing right now - but that will require free, widely available testing and a policy that protects wage income of workers and finances of small businesses during the period so people who do get sick from it are immediately identified and isolated. This is something that is completely incompatible with American political ideology, and some elements somewhat unstomachable by several other Western nations.

It is a difficult thing for people to come to terms with, as the developed world has spent 75 years with a largely unchanged way of life. But this COVID-19 is akin to what happen when someone suffers a life altering disability as opposed to getting temporarily sick. The way the world used to be is not something we are going to be returning to any time soon.

In 2 years it is likely that the world will have recovered and be similar to what we saw in a pre COVID-19 world. However I expect that - assuming a vaccine is developed and we COVID-19 is consigned to the history books - that things like no more handshakes, wearing face masks during flu season, and hand sanitisers / hash washing facilities at the entrance of all food serving premises - will become common in the West. Western countries have become very complacent with hand washing and self awareness of spreading their colds in public - I think it's probably because food hygiene laws are very strict. The rate at which COVID-19 spread through Europe and the US definitely supports this, compared to countries where reduced personal contact / better hand washing practices / people taking take not to spread their illnesses is the norm.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

It is amazing how most countries in Europe seems to be adhering to the restrictions, but in the UK they couldn't give a second thought. Everyone was outside this weekend, the beach in Brighton and Hove was packed. The social distancing just doesn't seem to work here, the only place I witnessed it was in a queue for a cafe, people kept a meter distance between them (I was outside too, but in the car picking up supplies).

In a way it makes sense, we have had a terrible couple of months with rain and wind, the moment people saw a ray of sunshine, everyone just flocked outside. But this is not the way it should work, it is quite irresponsible.

Baku postponed now.

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

I would echo these concerns; the current policies that governments are following are absolutely correct in the circumstances but I don't see how this is sustainable economically for more than a few months. It may seem incredibly crass to even consider prioritising the economy over peoples' lives, but if we do see repeated outbreaks then I really do think there may be a decision to be made regarding the risk of letting this spread vs the risk of everyone's livelihoods being in tatters. Without a functioning economy many more will die through unrest, food shortages etc than the virus itself could ever do.

Unfortunately it may well be that herd immunity is the only long term way out of this, in which case we probably have the worst natural disaster of the modern age on our hands.

j man wrote:Unfortunately it may well be that herd immunity is the only long term way out of this, in which case we probably have the worst natural disaster of the modern age on our hands.

I think the best hybrid strategy is to maintain the distancing measures as long as possible while pouring massive amounts of government money into:

1) Welfare for those who can't work due to the quarantine.
&
2) Emergency prefab hospitals, extra beds in existing hospitals, ventilators, masks, etc.

Then when the restrictions inevitably begin to relax so the economy doesn't die, we're at a state of preparedness where the impact will be less than apocalyptic.

People saying a failed economy will kill more than the virus should take a look at the worst case scenario in Italy, where the fatality rate is nearing 10%. If you apply that to the entire human race, it would be unprecedented since the Black Death.

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:Unfortunately it may well be that herd immunity is the only long term way out of this, in which case we probably have the worst natural disaster of the modern age on our hands.

I think the best hybrid strategy is to maintain the distancing measures as long as possible while pouring massive amounts of government money into:

1) Welfare for those who can't work due to the quarantine.
&
2) Emergency prefab hospitals, extra beds in existing hospitals, ventilators, masks, etc.

Then when the restrictions inevitably begin to relax so the economy doesn't die, we're at a state of preparedness where the impact will be less than apocalyptic.

People saying a failed economy will kill more than the virus should take a look at the worst case scenario in Italy, where the fatality rate is nearing 10%. If you apply that to the entire human race, it would be unprecedented since the Black Death.

10% will be confirmed cases. If they only test people who turn up when they require hospital treatment ofcourse it's going to be artificially high.

South Korea is the better data set as they tested huge amounts of people, including those with symptoms and those without.

The entire world isn't going to stay shut for an extended period. China is already getting back to business in most regions so there is no chance USA is going to remain on lockdown (its only certain states currently) and watch their market domination be eroded. As soon as USA goes back to business fully the rest of the world will follow as debts are in dollars

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I think it is unlikely that we will see large scale gatherings allowed until late 2021 now. I think that when sporting events resume they will either take place with empty stadiums or very low capacity and spaced out crowds.

That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

It is amazing how most countries in Europe seems to be adhering to the restrictions, but in the UK they couldn't give a second thought. Everyone was outside this weekend, the beach in Brighton and Hove was packed. The social distancing just doesn't seem to work here, the only place I witnessed it was in a queue for a cafe, people kept a meter distance between them (I was outside too, but in the car picking up supplies).

In a way it makes sense, we have had a terrible couple of months with rain and wind, the moment people saw a ray of sunshine, everyone just flocked outside. But this is not the way it should work, it is quite irresponsible.

Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

The UK going into lock down because asking people to do what's best simply doesn't work.

pokerman wrote:Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

j man wrote:

pokerman wrote:Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

I would say as a rule but that message still won't be heard, young people will always feel they are somewhat indestructible.

pokerman wrote:

j man wrote:

pokerman wrote:Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

I would say as a rule but that message still won't be heard, young people will always feel they are somewhat indestructible.

I think that it is a misconception, that young people do not get it.

And going out for supplies this morning, I would say that old people still don't give a damn. Although much better than yesterday to be fair.

Zazu wrote:

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:Unfortunately it may well be that herd immunity is the only long term way out of this, in which case we probably have the worst natural disaster of the modern age on our hands.

I think the best hybrid strategy is to maintain the distancing measures as long as possible while pouring massive amounts of government money into:

1) Welfare for those who can't work due to the quarantine.
&
2) Emergency prefab hospitals, extra beds in existing hospitals, ventilators, masks, etc.

Then when the restrictions inevitably begin to relax so the economy doesn't die, we're at a state of preparedness where the impact will be less than apocalyptic.

People saying a failed economy will kill more than the virus should take a look at the worst case scenario in Italy, where the fatality rate is nearing 10%. If you apply that to the entire human race, it would be unprecedented since the Black Death.

10% will be confirmed cases. If they only test people who turn up when they require hospital treatment ofcourse it's going to be artificially high.

South Korea is the better data set as they tested huge amounts of people, including those with symptoms and those without.

The entire world isn't going to stay shut for an extended period. China is already getting back to business in most regions so there is no chance USA is going to remain on lockdown (its only certain states currently) and watch their market domination be eroded. As soon as USA goes back to business fully the rest of the world will follow as debts are in dollars

China returning back to business is apparently the result of achieving to contain the virus, after having applied the drastic measures of a mass quarantine. Trump, on other hand, is rather giving an ultimatum to the virus "You got another 15 days top, and we are back to business as usual".
How's that going to work out, is to be seen. So far it looks like the model of the virus development in Italy is more likely to be emulated, than the one in China. People in democracies are not used to be ordered around by their governments...

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote: That's one possibility. The other way it could go -- and the way that I personally think it will go -- is that the isolation will collapse well before that time because it will become economically unsustainable, eventually plunging us into a herd immunity situation whether we like it or not.

It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

It is amazing how most countries in Europe seems to be adhering to the restrictions, but in the UK they couldn't give a second thought. Everyone was outside this weekend, the beach in Brighton and Hove was packed. The social distancing just doesn't seem to work here, the only place I witnessed it was in a queue for a cafe, people kept a meter distance between them (I was outside too, but in the car picking up supplies).

In a way it makes sense, we have had a terrible couple of months with rain and wind, the moment people saw a ray of sunshine, everyone just flocked outside. But this is not the way it should work, it is quite irresponsible.

Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

From what I've seen it's quite the opposite. Young people, perhaps because of their easier access to social media, understand the dangers of this virus. From what I've seen it's the age group between 30 and 60 that appear to be the least prudent. Although I haven't seen enough of the public to make a significant claim.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

j man wrote:

pokerman wrote:Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

I would say as a rule but that message still won't be heard, young people will always feel they are somewhat indestructible.

I think that it is a misconception, that young people do not get it.

And going out for supplies this morning, I would say that old people still don't give a damn. Although much better than yesterday to be fair.

People queuing waiting for supermarkets to open goes down the route of stupidity it's like the virus doesn't exist at all or they see the bigger risk is running out of food despite being reassured that it won't happen, in this case it's like lemmings jumping off a cliff, one does it then they all follow suit.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: It's manageable - if people accept that for the duration of the crisis there has to be a managed economy. That's where it comes down to the issue of it being ideologically palatable or not. Herd immunity is a roll of the dice, and no guarantee - neither is a vaccine. While COVID-19's similarity to other viruses - being a member of the coronavirus family - makes a vaccine a possibility, it's not a guarantee. HIV doesn't have a vaccine after decades of research. And if that was as difficult to contain as COVID-19 a herd immunity spread would be been far more economically disastrous than any lockdown cycle would have been.

All the developed nations have the capability to restructure their economies and run a lockdown, minimal social interaction system. It just requires the political will, and public support. If the UK government - the most right wing post war government Britain has seen - is implementing the most left wing economic policy in British history, it shows that the political will can be found. I fear that is probably an ideological step too far for American politics - but if the USA can hold it together until November, even there we could see a shift. The situation in New York is quite dire already though, and if it goes that way in Florida, Florida will make Italy look like a fun place to be.

I really do hope you're right. I just look at how much people are chafing under the restrictions already, and I don't see it being sustainable for months or even years. Certainly not here in the Land of the Selfish.

(And a note on herd immunity: I think it's a terrible idea that will kill millions. I'm not advocating for it in any way.)

It is amazing how most countries in Europe seems to be adhering to the restrictions, but in the UK they couldn't give a second thought. Everyone was outside this weekend, the beach in Brighton and Hove was packed. The social distancing just doesn't seem to work here, the only place I witnessed it was in a queue for a cafe, people kept a meter distance between them (I was outside too, but in the car picking up supplies).

In a way it makes sense, we have had a terrible couple of months with rain and wind, the moment people saw a ray of sunshine, everyone just flocked outside. But this is not the way it should work, it is quite irresponsible.

Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

From what I've seen it's quite the opposite. Young people, perhaps because of their easier access to social media, understand the dangers of this virus. From what I've seen it's the age group between 30 and 60 that appear to be the least prudent. Although I haven't seen enough of the public to make a significant claim.

I admit I've not been out much myself, I've kind of been in lock down for over a week already, I saw a group of youths walking down my street a couple of days ago, and then of news outlets it showing young people still going to pubs, of course the latter helped to trigger the lock down, maybe I'm getting the wrong impression?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

j man wrote:

pokerman wrote:Young people in particular know that they are not high risk, so quite a few seem not to care.

That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

I would say as a rule but that message still won't be heard, young people will always feel they are somewhat indestructible.

I think that it is a misconception, that young people do not get it.

And going out for supplies this morning, I would say that old people still don't give a damn. Although much better than yesterday to be fair.

People queuing waiting for supermarkets to open goes down the route of stupidity it's like the virus doesn't exist at all or they see the bigger risk is running out of food despite being reassured that it won't happen, in this case it's like lemmings jumping off a cliff, one does it then they all follow suit.

Well, at least they were keeping at least 1m distance in the queue for the bakery this morning. There's still hope!!!

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

j man wrote: That's a misconception that we need to put an end to, and quickly. Here's two examples from the past day of healthy people in their 20s who would've died without hospital treatment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-52010927

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51995137

I would say as a rule but that message still won't be heard, young people will always feel they are somewhat indestructible.

I think that it is a misconception, that young people do not get it.

And going out for supplies this morning, I would say that old people still don't give a damn. Although much better than yesterday to be fair.

People queuing waiting for supermarkets to open goes down the route of stupidity it's like the virus doesn't exist at all or they see the bigger risk is running out of food despite being reassured that it won't happen, in this case it's like lemmings jumping off a cliff, one does it then they all follow suit.

Well, at least they were keeping at least 1m distance in the queue for the bakery this morning. There's still hope!!!

Good to see, is anyone wearing masks or are these a waste a time?

Just re-watched Contagion. In light of these past events it seems to be a very accurate depiction of a pandemic, recommended.

Young people are wholly and completely correct that Covid-19 represents a very small risk

Study of a random 355 death subset from the 6000+ deaths in Italy



Over half the dead were over 80, just 5 were under 40 and NONE under 30

How many of those that died had one or more existing serious illnesses



Just 1% (<4) did not have at least one serious condition

* More of the patients were over 90 than were under 60.
* The average age was 79 years.
* All but three of them had at least one other disease, so basically all of them were already sick.
* Three-quarters of them had two other diseases, and half of them had three or more other diseases.

Any person who can count can see that this disease kills the elderly and the sick NOT the young & the healthy

And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

Battle Far wrote:*a bunch of dubious science*

As Herb pointed out, young and healthy people can die of this disease.

A 355 people is a tiny number sample with huge error bars. We know that young people are more likely to survive - but 355 people means each person in that same accounts for more than .25% of the sample - which is a data resolution that will obscure those young people who are dying.

But it's also not about whether they die, it's about whether they infect others. COVID19 is hugely infectious. If one person has the flu, after 10 cycles of transmission they have caused 14 people on average to be infected. For COVID19, after 10 cycles of transmission they have caused 60,000 people to be infected.

Couple this with the fact that it's at least 10 times more fatal than the flu, that means that one infected healthy person with COVID19 will cause 42,000 times as many deaths after 10 cycles than someone with the flu.

It's not about young people dying, it's about them being the unwitting killers of others.

Herb wrote:And yet we've already had a 21 year old girl, with no underlying conditions, die in the UK after contracting the virus.

Not to put too hard a point on it, but 0.2% isn't 0.0%. Two out of a thousand still means two healthy young people will die out of every thousand who die. Just because a few young people die doesn't mean it's even remotely as dangerous to the young as it is to the old.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:It's not about young people dying, it's about them being the unwitting killers of others.

This is exactly the case. If the virus is alive and jumping from young person to young person it won't kill all that many, but it means the virus is still alive and transmitting -- and sooner or later it will find its way to someone it is far, far more likely to kill.

Additionally, while COVID doesn't kill very many young people, it does hospitalize plenty of them. In the USA they say something like 20% of hospitalizations are young people, and those are ICU beds that could be filled by someone in more need if those young people had been a little smarter.

Battle Far wrote:Young people are wholly and completely correct that Covid-19 represents a very small risk

Study of a random 355 death subset from the 6000+ deaths in Italy



Over half the dead were over 80, just 5 were under 40 and NONE under 30

How many of those that died had one or more existing serious illnesses



Just 1% (<4) did not have at least one serious condition

* More of the patients were over 90 than were under 60.
* The average age was 79 years.
* All but three of them had at least one other disease, so basically all of them were already sick.
* Three-quarters of them had two other diseases, and half of them had three or more other diseases.

Any person who can count can see that this disease kills the elderly and the sick NOT the young & the healthy

What a totally asinine and irresponsible point of view. That is the kind of thinking that will make this continue to spread unchecked with more and more cases and a frightening number of fatalities world-wide. Just because the fatality rate for young adults is low by comparison, it doesn't mean that they are not carriers.