Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Caliga]

You know I'm really surprised that the pandemic hasn't yet caused any governments to collapse or led to widespread violence/revolution.  Aren't there countries (say in the Caribbean) that are wholly dependent on now non-existent tourism to drive their economies?  Economic collapse = revolution and civil war.

[celedhring]

You know I'm really surprised that the pandemic hasn't yet caused any governments to collapse or led to widespread violence/revolution.  Aren't there countries (say in the Caribbean) that are wholly dependent on now non-existent tourism to drive their economies?  Economic collapse = revolution and civil war.

It's still soon. Economic damage and social consequences will require a few months to be processed, so far most governments have been able to keep safety nets.

[Tamas]

Yeah, it's early days probably. 

[Caliga]

I guess... I guess I just would have thought there are probably at least a few banana republics where there is no safety net to begin with.

[FunkMonk]

I hope Curacao doesn't devolve into civil war. 

[DGuller]

It probably takes time for such things to brew.  Initially people are just processing the shock, recriminations start later.

[Malthus]

Okay so same thing but flip it. Constantly touching the mask increases chance that wearer spreads their germs.

The mask protects others, I understand, by physically stopping the little droplets of water laden with virus particles that people exhale from being broadcast (as far) to where other people can breathe them in or get them in their eyes, etc.

Constantly touching one's mask is no doubt not great for the wearer, but I can't see how it would harm others - as long as the mask is in place when you are busy breathing around them.

The conclusion: constantly putting one's mask on when near other people is okay for those other people (as long as you are consistent). It isn't so great for you, the wearer of the mask - but protecting yourself is not the main reason you are supposed to wear it, anyway: it is to protect others (a non-N95 mask isn't going to really protect you anyway).

The mask is a public health measure, not really personal protection - which is why any old cloth is better than nothing. A simple physical barrier to prevent the spread of one's possible viruses to others. If you want to effectively protect yourself, it isn't really enough, you need a medical-grade mask and probably a face shield as well - in that case, proper mask protocol becomes a lot more important.

[Tonitrus]

It probably takes time for such things to brew.  Initially people are just processing the shock, recriminations start later.

In this case, it will probably be when the credit/loans run out.

[garbon]

The mask protects others, I understand, by physically stopping the little droplets of water laden with virus particles that people exhale from being broadcast (as far) to where other people can breathe them in or get them in their eyes, etc.

Constantly touching one's mask is no doubt not great for the wearer, but I can't see how it would harm others - as long as the mask is in place when you are busy breathing around them.

True on wearer bit, so how about I have COVID and I repeatedly cough into my mask (and let's assume I don't know it is COVID but think it is let's say allergies). My mask is damp and my hands repeatedly touch that mask as I take it on and off. Isn't there some risk of say me touching say a counter at store and someone shortly thereafter touching it and then touching their face? I know surfaces aren't a key concern, but then again washing one's hands wouldn't be one of the key instructions if there weren't concerns of contact spread.

The conclusion: constantly putting one's mask on when near other people is okay for those other people (as long as you are consistent). It isn't so great for you, the wearer of the mask - but protecting yourself is not the main reason you are supposed to wear it, anyway: it is to protect others (a non-N95 mask isn't going to really protect you anyway).

The mask is a public health measure, not really personal protection - which is why any old cloth is better than nothing. A simple physical barrier to prevent the spread of one's possible viruses to others. If you want to effectively protect yourself, it isn't really enough, you need a medical-grade mask and probably a face shield as well - in that case, proper mask protocol becomes a lot more important.

While I agree the main benefit is to stop onward transmission, it seems counter-intuitive that they don't provide any protection at all from larger droplets (even if they can't help with small aerosolized particles that could also get into you through your eyes).

Now, I'm not saying any of those cases mean the government should mandate wearing masks at all times when not at home, though I do think a blanket rule might be easier to follow than piecemeal evolving rules (I've honestly no idea what latest guidance from UK is on when masks nor what activities are allowed in general).

[Oexmelin]

Economic collapse = revolution and civil war.

That's usually not the case.

[Tamas]

If you think about it, true fallout from the 2008 crisis and the general disillusionment with centrist politics it bought (that's standard with such upheavals) didn't manifest in force until 2015/2016.

[Razgovory]

Serious question:  Are we past the point where the virus can be contained in the United States?

[Sheilbh]

Serious question:  Are we past the point where the virus can be contained in the United States?

No. But you'd probably need to go back into strict lockdown until you not just bent the curve but got it all the way down again - so probably for 2-3 months.

By way of example - the UK, which had the worst outbreak in the world so far, is still re-opening and less open than many American states. Our rolling average number of cases is about 550, so just under 10 per million and that's with about 150,000 tests a day. We might get a second wave and an outbreak but other countries in Europe haven't, but they got it down to similar very low case levels.

As that Bloomberg piece put it, lots of the US (NYC is an exception) re-opened once they started to bend the curve, in Europe the approach has been to break the curve - get it all the way down again and then you're dealing with numbers that can be contained and outbreaks that can be isolated.

[Caliga]

Economic collapse = revolution and civil war.

That's usually not the case.

Really?

[Oexmelin]

Economic collapse = revolution and civil war.

That's usually not the case.

Really?

Yep, really. Of course, it depends what you mean by collapse. Most of the iconic modern revolutions have accompanied economic crisis, not total collapse - because crisis threaten groups that have been on the rise, and who suddenly see their future prospects severely curtailed. But these groups still need to control significant amounts of resources to mobilize. The France that revolted in 1789 was rich. It was the State that was poor. The elite merchants of the 13 colonies were anxiously witnessing the consolidation of their trade into London hands. The Haiti that revolted, or the Spanish colonies that revolted were answering an actual political crisis - they were rich, and getting richer.

Total economic collapse can shuffle the cards a bit, but they usually see the consolidation of existing power elites.