Lucky it's just a mild corona virus

The solution is obvious. Don't try to quarantine the infected, instead quarantine the vulnerable once there's a chance of infected people being around. Let it run its course among the strong, then the herd will be immune and the vulnerable won't have anything to worry about.

Every government must be eyeballing the upside of this - let it spread and cull the elderly, thereby saving vast amounts on state pensions and health/social care, while leaving the economically active generations more or less intact. Wouldn't you?

I doubt any government entities would entertain any such thing. You ought to be embarrassed for even suggesting it.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The solution is obvious. Don't try to quarantine the infected, instead quarantine the vulnerable once there's a chance of infected people being around. Let it run its course among the strong, then the herd will be immune and the vulnerable won't have anything to worry about.

You and your entire family and loved ones first. Otherwise you are completely FOS.

What an utterly moronic thing to say.

You're the selfish one with your manic panic. Let go of it.

This is one of those times when all the people who refused to learn math in school because they thought they'd never need it reveal themselves. COVID-19 just ran its course in China and sickened only 80k people out of a population of 1.4 billion - that's 1 out of every 17,000. Undoubtedly many more were infected but never got sick. As with other lung bugs, 3% is not an unusual death rate for cases bad enough to seek medical attention. Overall chance of death in China: 1 in 510,000.

Feel better now? If not, it's because you don't want to, admit it.

Naive empiricism at it's worst. It's as simple as using basic division just like calculating risk of car accidents and dog bites, right?

I still remember you saying "it's over" about two weeks ago. Best of luck with your "math".

Wouldn't you? wrote:

Every government must be eyeballing the upside of this - let it spread and cull the elderly, thereby saving vast amounts on state pensions and health/social care, while leaving the economically active generations more or less intact. Wouldn't you?

I don’t know if there is enough data to back this up yet. But let’s assume that you are right and only the weak will be affected.

So what you are saying is that countries with strong social systems (State run health, social welfare for the elderly...), which decide not to shut down companies, schools... during this outbreak will certainly come out ahead. They will save a lot of costs in the long run and yet they will not have bankrupted many of their local companies (in the short run), by shutting them down, in the hope of stopping the pandemic.

I wonder if financial analysts are already hard at work predicting which countries will decide not to close down businesses and which one will.

I can see countries such as Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada... shutting down companies.

I don’t know which countries with strong social systems will have the foresight not to destroy their local economies (ie close down companies).

Countries with little manufacturing will do better, since remote office work is easier.

The baking system will be hit hard no matter what.

*banking

Bad Wigins wrote:

The solution is obvious. Don't try to quarantine the infected, instead quarantine the vulnerable once there's a chance of infected people being around. Let it run its course among the strong, then the herd will be immune and the vulnerable won't have anything to worry about.

Brilliant!

There's a possible silver lining to this scare. Every winter, about 100-200 people die per day from the flu so all the extra awareness and prevention steps for Covid 19 could lead to far fewer flu deaths.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the economy crashed due to a couple of hundred deaths from Covid 19 while several thousand people who would have died in a normal flu season survived due to better prevention steps?

fartlekpa wrote:

I still remember you saying "it's over" about two weeks ago. Best of luck with your "math".

And don't forget it! It was over. Total cases was about 66,000 in China then, now it's 80,000. Dead in the water. Its growth curve was already concave down, now it's flat.

There's no reason to expect this to be any different in other countries. It will look like scary exponential growth in the early stages from a few to a few hundred cases, but the final numbers will be completely unremarkable. The paranoia measures, canceling events, travel restrictions, destroying the economy, and so forth will have nothing to do with it; people will just be careful not to catch it, by washing their hands etc.

fisky wrote:

There's a possible silver lining to this scare. Every winter, about 100-200 people die per day from the flu so all the extra awareness and prevention steps for Covid 19 could lead to far fewer flu deaths.

Covid is unstoppable, there are no long term effective prevention steps, everyone will get it, sooner or late. All you can really do is Pray to God and juice your own immune system with collodial silver, elderberry, vitamin-c, etc.

jsuejeueuu wrote:

I don’t know which countries with strong social systems will have the foresight not to destroy their local economies (ie close down companies).

The UK fits in that quadrant. State healthcare = high, government's social/moral values = low. The PM, Dominic Cummings, has done all the analysis already, no doubt about that. Coronavirus is a godsend to him.

oisdkiwjdj wrote:

Covid is unstoppable, there are no long term effective prevention steps, everyone will get it, sooner or late. All you can really do is Pray to God and juice your own immune system with collodial silver, elderberry, vitamin-c, etc.

Yes, praying and elderberries. Those pesky viruses don't stand a chance with those in our armoury.

They both have some efficacy, maybe for different reasons...

I am suppose to fly with my gf in a couple weeks to Holland as she has to visit hospital. It's already been booked. I'm scared to go incase I catch this thing and give it to her as she has underlining medical risk. Seems not smart to go to airports planes and hospitals.

If you get COVID-19, then you should not be overly concerned about your health. There is a 98% chance you will survive, and a 80% chance you will have very mild symptoms. The problem is that if you are an @rsehole, then you will spread this virus to many other people.

In nature, you typically find two types of viruses (there are always exceptions):

(1) Viruses that have a high mortality rate (how many people per 100 the virus kills), but the virus does not infect many people.

For example, Ebola has a mortality rate of about 50%, but it does not infect many people. In the 2014 outbreak of Ebola only about 30,000 people were infected; therefore, Ebola in the 2014 outbreak, killed about 15,000 people.

(2) Viruses that have a low mortality rate, but infect many people.

For example, The Common Cold has a mortality rate of about 0.1%, but can infect millions or billions of people.

If The Common Cold infects one billion people, then it will kill about one million people.

The Common Cold is actually far more deadly than Ebola, SARS, MERS etc. combined because the Common Cold infects so many people.

The problem with COVID-19 is that it can spread like the Common Cold, but COVID-19 has a mortality rate that is about 20 times higher than the Common Cold i.e. a mortality rate of about 2%.

If one billion people get the Common Cold, then one million people are expected to die.

If one billion people get COVID-19, then twenty million people are expected to die.

In the worst case scenario, billions of people could get COVID-19 over a several year period, and the stress on healthcare systems across the world could cause the deaths of over 100 million people because of COVID-19 and because of the lack of resources to treat other patients with health problems that have nothing to do with COVID-19.

The number of active cases is on the decline.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/

that's the headline you took from that article? Looks to me like we're over that huge spike from mid-Feb from when the Chinese changed their measurement method and are now starting to grow outside China.