Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[viper37]

You think your government's response is better because you have less infections. Maybe you even take strong enough actions that the cases go to almost zero. The problem is that once you resume life as normal it will come back--even if in a theoretical world you drove them to zero a traveler would bring them back. You can go with rolling lockdowns - a month on lockdown and then when it seems under control open back up, only as cases start expanding you have to lock down again. I don't think that will be tenable either.

You can see the actual mortality rates from what Sheilbh posted. They aren't worth destroying society to avoid.

Than you have death panels

Assuming Languish as our sample, and assuming the sample if of sufficient quality to represent the population (age, medical condition,etc, all relevent factor), than close to 7% of us would die, since we do nothing.

Who dies here?  You get to pick the names   I'll make it simple, I'll assume that no matter whom you pick is the one that wouldn't make it in real life conditions, because that would be the older or the sicker of the patients in an overcrowded ICU.

[viper37]

Fuck you Dix

do you sometimes work in BC or are you only travelling from Cali to Alaska back&forth?

[viper37]

Edit: And even "adaptive suppression" which is what they're watching China for maintains household quarantine and case isolation at all time. It's just every 2-3 months they re-impose a shutdown of schools and universities plus social distancing of the entire population for 2-3 months.

2-3 months is better than 18 months.

We do have more ICU beds than the UK, but not 8x more.  I've read the UK is the 3rd worst country in the OECD.

In the end, I am confident Quebec will come out with the least disruption and the least death, but yes, the economic toll will be huge.  And it really depends on the Federal government stepping up and doing its part.

[viper37]

On Fox News, suddenly a very different tune about the coronavirus

For weeks, some of Fox News's most popular hosts downplayed the threat of the coronavirus, characterizing it as a conspiracy by media organizations and Democrats to undermine President Trump.

Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity and Laura In­graham accused the news media of whipping up "mass hysteria" and being "panic pushers." Fox Business host Trish Regan called the alleged media-Democratic alliance "yet another attempt to impeach the president."

But that was then.

With Trump's declaration on Friday that the virus constitutes a national emergency, the tone on Fox News has quickly shifted.

On his program on Friday, Hannity — the most watched figure on cable news — lauded the president's handling of what the host is now, belatedly, referring to as a "crisis."

"Tonight, we are witnessing what will be a massive paradigm shift in the future of disease control and prevention," he said. "A bold, new precedent is being set, the world will once again benefit greatly from America's leadership. . . . The federal government, state governments, private businesses, top hospitals all coming together, under the president's leadership, to stem the tide of the coronavirus."
In all, it has been a complicated dance for a network whose hosts are among Trump's most ardent boosters and defenders — an increasingly challenging position to take as the crisis grew in magnitude. Trump, meanwhile, has long looked to Fox News and its personalities for guidance and approval, a dynamic that may have been pivotal this week after host Tucker Carlson reportedly visited with the president in person to urge him to take the coronavirus seriously.

Until then, Trump's allies on Fox News were inclined to take the same stance that the president himself promoted for several weeks — that this coronavirus that had sickened and killed thousands of people in China was no worse a threat than the seasonal flu.

Just a week ago, Hannity shrugged at the pandemic. "So far in the United States, there's been around 30 deaths, most of which came from one nursing home in the state of Washington," he said last Tuesday. "Healthy people, generally, 99 percent recover very fast, even if they contract it."
[...]

[Eddie Teach]

You think your government's response is better because you have less infections. Maybe you even take strong enough actions that the cases go to almost zero. The problem is that once you resume life as normal it will come back--even if in a theoretical world you drove them to zero a traveler would bring them back. You can go with rolling lockdowns - a month on lockdown and then when it seems under control open back up, only as cases start expanding you have to lock down again. I don't think that will be tenable either.

You can see the actual mortality rates from what Sheilbh posted. They aren't worth destroying society to avoid.

Than you have death panels

Assuming Languish as our sample, and assuming the sample if of sufficient quality to represent the population (age, medical condition,etc, all relevent factor), than close to 7% of us would die, since we do nothing.

Who dies here?  You get to pick the names   I'll make it simple, I'll assume that no matter whom you pick is the one that wouldn't make it in real life conditions, because that would be the older or the sicker of the patients in an overcrowded ICU.

Well, we know it won't be Grumbler.

[mongers]

Interesting how the virus is presenting itself in the UK, to some extent it currently appears to be a disease of the wealthy and the well travelled judging by the latest figures.

The chief medical officer today said the UK was about 4 weeks behind Italy, but that London was in advance of the rest of the country, so maybe 3 weeks.

I used the govt look up table to find results for different counties and borough and true enough counties like Hereford, Ceredigion, Carmanthanshire miles from london have one, tow or three cases, whereas nearer counties like Hampshire here have 55, though it's a much larger place with 1.6 million people.

There's no overall figure for greater london, but there seems to be quite a variance between boroughs:
There are 43 cases in Kensington and Chelsea, out of a local population of 156,197
There are 37 cases in Westminster, out of a local population of 255,324

The above two maybe the wealthiest London boroughs excluding the City.

Yet I think the most ethnically diverse borough Brent has noticeably less:
There are 20 cases in Brent, out of a local population of 330,795
As does Haringey:
There are 16 cases in Haringey, out of a local population of 270,624

edit:
I made a cases per 100 thou table:

Boroughs   Population   Cases   Cases per 100 thou.   
Haringey   270,624                  16     5.91   
Brent   330,795                  20     6.05   
Westmin.   255,324                  37   14.49   
Kens,Che   156,197                43   27.53   
            

[katmai]

Fuck you Dix

do you sometimes work in BC or are you only travelling from Cali to Alaska back&forth?

viper,

I've spent last year (March 15th was anniversary) working on tv show here in Washington state. I am five miles from the border. We are wrapping production next week and since I drove down with my own car last September I'm hoping to drive it back to Alaska.

If border is closed I may have to go become squatter at CdM's place in Spokane

[PDH]

Well, as long as you have free time you could go on a cruise...

[Zanza]

Interesting case distribution across ages in Berlin. That could explain why lethality in Germany is comparatively low.

[Syt]

It would also be interesting to see those case numbers in relation to tests performed.

[Zanza]

I cannot find numbers on tests conducted in Germany.

[celedhring]

Local police in Murcia stops a T-Rex violating quarantine.

https://twitter.com/MurciaPolicia/status/1239659731377098752

[Threviel]

The prime minister has called a press conference together with his two education ministers and the boss of the health ministry. Presumably all my assumptions about how Sweden doesn't bow to populist demands will be put to shame.

[Threviel]

Apparently not, all schools from high school and up are recommended to do education at home. A warning has been raised that all schools and day care may need to close in the future.

Emphasis on that the reason is not that the students themselves are in danger, but that travels are to be kept at minimum.

[The Brain]

It's not like I'm a huge fan of the Swedish government, but damn it's nice that we don't have completely retarded clowns at the helm like some Western countries.