Businessess as usual in Britain despite virus

ex-runner wrote:

JesseIsGarbage wrote:

Boris will be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of his citizens. Britain is a fading nation and he won't be held accountable.

Here's a question some won't like.

If countries go on lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus in order to save those few hundred thousand deaths, the economy will collapse. Businesses will go under, potentially millions lose their jobs and descend into poverty. Countries will struggle to recover in the next 5-10 years.

Is it worth it?

You really think it would be possible for business to go on as usual with those few hundred thousand deaths? No way. People will not want to die or want loved ones or even neighbors to die. It's essentially a natural disaster. There's no getting around economic impacts until new cases start falling and things can gradually ease up.

The virus will come back a bit as things open back up and stores reopen, activities resume, so control still must be maintained by things like social distancing and case tracing, but it will no longer be out of control, and it gets easier to control as herd immunity gradually builds up. I've seen estimates that it would take two years to gradually gain herd immunity. You need at least 75% or 85% healthy and immune to reach that.

One thing to consider is that Apple closed their stores in China as the the virus started and grew in China. Recently, they reopened their stores in China, and have closed ALL their stores outside China. With respect to COVID-19, it's safer in China now than it is outside, save a few exceptions like Taiwan and Singapore. It's not a 5-10 year disruption. More like a few months to half a year, then things ease up.

How could it be safer in China if they've only had 81,000 cases out of a population of 1.3 billion?

Smismard wrote:

How could it be safer in China if they've only had 81,000 cases out of a population of 1.3 billion?

The whole lockdown thing with social distancing and isolation works if people are taught what to do and are motivated or required to do it. That's why most of the world is doing it now.

China's new cases on March 16, 2020 was 21 for the entire country... and they are doing sufficient testing, unlike the US at the moment. That's down from the highest day of 15,152 new cases on February 12, 2020. Of those 21 new cases in China, only 1 was from from the Wuhan, Hubei province, where China was hardest hit (50K of the 80K total cases). The exponential growth graph of new cases that you've probably seen as what to expect in the early part of an epidemic was curved to go horizontal (essentially no new cases).

Meanwhile, the number of new cases in on March 16, 2020 was 882. The real number of new cases in the US is way higher than 882 because people are still having a hard time getting tested. The number of new cases in the US is still increasing exponentially too, so today the number of new cases will be over 1,000. So of course you are way safer from COVID-19 in China than the US, with only 21 cases there on the same day and declining every day.

All the data and graphs are available at this great site. Look in the "China Provincial" tab and "China graphs" tab and compare to other countries.

'They' haven't.

Our clueless alcoholic dickhead of a Prime Minister has.

zzzz wrote:

One thing to consider is that Apple closed their stores in China as the the virus started and grew in China. Recently, they reopened their stores in China, and have closed ALL their stores outside China.

I looked this up for those interested. Apple close their 42 stores in China at the end of January and beginning of February as part of efforts to control the coronavirus. They reopened all 42 of their China stores by March 12, 2020, five days ago. On March 14, 2020, Apple closed all their stores in the world - except the 42 in China which were just reopened.

I bring up the Apple example because people are saying the China numbers are a hoax. Well Apple, an American company (and a smart one at that) sure doesn't think so. Their actions suggest China is safer than anywhere else (that they have stores) now.

Here's the citation on the Apple openings and closings:

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-closes-all-stores-outside-china-until-march-27-on-coronavirus-worries/

Chinese people step outside, virus returns. Repeat for 12-18 months until vaccine.

Ok, but isn't China easing up on the social distancing and isolation thing at this point in time? And if so, shouldn't the virus come roaring back if such a small percentage of their population has contracted the virus and there is still no vaccine?

Smismard wrote:

Ok, but isn't China easing up on the social distancing and isolation thing at this point in time? And if so, shouldn't the virus come roaring back if such a small percentage of their population has contracted the virus and there is still no vaccine?

I haven't looked up the details, but I'm assuming they are trying to get back to work. I imagine with all the tools and knowledge in place, they can easily continual to monitor things and will do so until there is a vaccine. For example, maybe they are still using masks and PPE, maybe limiting some types of unnecessary gatherings, regularly taking temperatures to check for fever, doing containment measures like contact tracing and isolation, which is very doable because there are few cases. You can probably use your imagination to think of how people can get back to work but in a safer way... and maybe they are doing it. Or look it up. There's surely an article somewhere.

thisisstupid wrote:

Problem with that is most people don't get infected, so there will be a wave 2 and twice the disruption (at least). All the countries doing complete lockdown are heading for at least a 2nd wave. Britain are the only ones actually following the science. Everyone else is pandering to mass hysteria.

Yea, this is what I wonder. Are we going to indefinitely shut down everything with every new wave that comes along? So we won't have an economy or jobs left?

ex-runner wrote:

JesseIsGarbage wrote:

Boris will be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of his citizens. Britain is a fading nation and he won't be held accountable.

Here's a question some won't like.

If countries go on lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus in order to save those few hundred thousand deaths, the economy will collapse. Businesses will go under, potentially millions lose their jobs and descend into poverty. Countries will struggle to recover in the next 5-10 years.

Is it worth it?

I've been wondering about this the whole time and I don't think there is a plan for the effects of crashing the economy after we are down with these shutdowns and quarantines.

JesseIsGarbage wrote:

Read the entire article you carnivorous dope. The best outcomes in the simulations resulted from the 'extensive distancing' model, by far. We need to lock it all down to make this work. Not an utter quarantine, but mostly everything not absolutely critical gets shut down. NOW.

YMMV wrote:

In simulations, moderate social distancing is more effective than attempted quarantine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

How do we know that computer model is accurate at all? There are a bunch of random dots on a screen popping around. I read it and found it fascinating but wonder, "Is this just some made up model." And why can't you do forced quarantine plus social distancing?

rojo wrote:

JesseIsGarbage wrote:

Read the entire article you carnivorous dope. The best outcomes in the simulations resulted from the 'extensive distancing' model, by far. We need to lock it all down to make this work. Not an utter quarantine, but mostly everything not absolutely critical gets shut down. NOW.

How do we know that computer model is accurate at all? There are a bunch of random dots on a screen popping around. I read it and found it fascinating but wonder, "Is this just some made up model." And why can't you do forced quarantine plus social distancing?

Because if you're quarantined you're not socializing, so no need to distancing. Gawd you're dumb.

Another foot-dragging post from a site owner and Corona Bro. Awesome. READ THE ENTIRE article again please. You need the 'pink dots' circulating, and need to phase the pink dots into the population in ways that minimize portions of the population crashing into the medical system. STOP supporting foot dragging for Christ's sake.

rojo wrote:

JesseIsGarbage wrote:

Read the entire article you carnivorous dope. The best outcomes in the simulations resulted from the 'extensive distancing' model, by far. We need to lock it all down to make this work. Not an utter quarantine, but mostly everything not absolutely critical gets shut down. NOW.

How do we know that computer model is accurate at all? There are a bunch of random dots on a screen popping around. I read it and found it fascinating but wonder, "Is this just some made up model." And why can't you do forced quarantine plus social distancing?

british teeth wrote:

Business as usual in england. Dentistry offices are deserted.

Buggery as usual.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

They experienced the Blitzkrieg. They're resilient.

Seattle/King County are doing a soft restriction/social distancing right now, which I think is prudent and appropriate to the circumstances. No evidence of stridency or panic, despite being an epicenter. People are free to get out and exercise and are doing so in the right way. I feel like things will be very stable in weeks/a month on the outside.

zzzz wrote:

The whole lockdown thing with social distancing and isolation works if people are taught what to do and are motivated or required to do it. That's why most of the world is doing it now.

But the question is, is it worth it, given the consequences of that "social distancing? It is destroying the economy.

No doubt, the new coronavirus is a potentially bad STRAIN of coronavirus (we already have several strains that cause viral pneumonia in exactly the same way) but who is making this judgement call that the damage it could do is worse than the damage these extreme measures are doing to the economy, which will also ultimately kill people?

Who is deciding this in any rational way, unfettered by the media mania?

Keep in mind that the economic damage has so far outpaced the death toll by a HUGE margin. 8000 deaths? No, not worth it. Sure, there will one day maybe be 20,000 deaths. But by then, there will be more more economic damage too. Anyone who is claiming that 20,000 will outweigh the eventual economic damage (and deaths caused by it) needs to start PROVING their point of view. Enough of the manic repetition and vicious attacks on naysayers.

Business as usual in the UK, because Boris Johnson needed a few days more than others to understand.