Punshhh And you.

I don't think I've got it, although I have had a tickly throat and a sore nose. I live in isolation already, well except when I go to Morrisons. So I am planning to wear my beekeeping costume and surgical gloves to go shopping.

So will Trump do the right thing and bring all his troops in Asia home, before they get infected?
You know very well that he cant do something that drastic in the political situation he is in. At least he is taking steps in the right direction, by drawing down in Syria and preparing a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the swamp is bashing him for that already!
Come one, as much as you hate the guy, you have to acknowledge that that is vastly better than warmonger Clintons policy.
— Punshhh

Or will he bottle out and start denying the seriousness of the situation? — Punshhh

Which situation? The ME or Corona? His natural reflex is to to be optimistic. And he gets bashed for that. But the "mainstream media" would bash him even more if is sounded alarmist. Damned if he does, damned if he does not.

I don't care who you caught it from; just quarantine yourself until the symptoms subside. — unenlightened

I have neither TDS than Corona. No idea if I can avoid Corona, but as long as I have a functioning brain, I sure as hell can avoid TDS.

Which situation? The ME or Corona? His natural reflex is to to be optimistic. And he gets bashed for that. But the "mainstream media" would bash him even more if is sounded alarmist. Damned if he does, damned if he does not.

This is the Coronavirus thread.
Trump should do the right thing, not worry about his image, or the election.

That can't be right. Death is a symptom. If you are asymptomatic, you don't die any more than you cough or have a temperature. And if you are asymptomatic, in most cases you don't get tested. — unenlightened

That's what I said. Death rate is estimated on the basis of confirmed infections. Adding a hypothetical number of untested and asymptomatic cases doesn't change anything if what you want to know is how dangerous and disruptive the epidemic will be, or what your chances of falling ill are, or what your chances of dying will be if you develop symptoms.

That is why the quarantined ship makes a good statistical sample - everyone was tested. — unenlightened

Yes, I mentioned that too. When the entire population or subpopulation is tested regardless of symptoms, that is where the true fatality rate becomes relevant. But such testing is done in a small minority of cases.

Bottom line is that statistics should be used with care.

if what you want to know is how dangerous and disruptive the epidemic will be, or what your chances of falling ill are, or what your chances of dying will be if you develop symptoms — SophistiCat

I see your point, but for most people, the "chance I die if I catch it" is very relevant in determining their reaction. For the big picture, cases requiring high intensity care are probably the most important statistic. For society at large, it doesn't matter all that much whether the eventual mortality rate is 1% or 3. But individually, 1% or lower feels better than 3.4%.

You don't have TDS? Then why go off like a rocket every time I make fun of Trump? :rofl:

That can't be right. Death is a symptom. If you are asymptomatic, you don't die any more than you cough or have a temperature. And if you are asymptomatic, in most cases you don't get tested. That is why the quarantined ship makes a good statistical sample - everyone was tested. In China many were quarantined, but not tested, in general, symptomatic people are tested, and that tends to over-estimate the death rate. — unenlightened

If you don't like the way that statistics is done, then your free to cherry-pick or make up any numbers that you feel like but in doing so it will be a given that your allowing bias to influence your judgement. If you want to only look at the statistics of the people on the ship then you can do so but I'm pretty sure there wasn't enough people on the ship to get a true sample size (which usually requires at least 2,000) and it is a given that wealthy people on a cruise ship are going to have access to better care than less wealthy people, people stuck in a hot zone, and/or people in developing countries.

If you listen to the experts on this, and even read between the lines with some of the things they are talking about you should realize this is likely going to effect us mush like the Spanish Influenza that happen close to one hundred years ago and kill more people than World War I and world War II combined.

If you listen to the experts on this, and even read between the lines with some of the things they are talking about you should realize this is likely going to effect us mush like the Spanish Influenza that happen close to one hundred years ago and kill more people than World War I and world War II combined. — dclements

The Spanish Flu had a significantly higher mortality rate, and hit societies which were in bad shape and had no warning. It also disproportionately affected young adults, possibly due to the war.

You don't have TDS? Then why go off like a rocket every time I make fun of Trump? — Benkei

I do not have TDS, you do. Hope you get well sometime.

This is the Coronavirus thread.
Trump should do the right thing, not worry about his image, or the election. — Punshhh

I agree this is the Corona virus thread. So take your antitrump cackling to the TDS thread, where it belongs.

The Spanish Flu had a significantly higher mortality rate, and hit societies which were in bad shape and had no warning. It also disproportionately affected young adults, possibly due to the war. — Echarmion

A virus doesn't have to have a high mortality rate to kill more people than viruses much more people than it, it just has to be highly contagious and spread to nearly everyone in the world to kill tens of millions. Even if the virus is 0.25% to 0.5% lethal (which are very optimistic projections for developed countries), that is still deadly enough to tens of millions of people over the next couple years.

You may not realize it but the governments of the world are in no way equipped to handle this virus if it keeps going at the rate it has been. It's not a virus that has evolved from the something like the flu but more similar to he common cold which means that is more efficient at jumping from person to person. If you were a scientist working on a bio-weapon and you wanted it to infect as many people as possible there is a good chance you would either work on a virus like the common cold and try to make it a bit more lethal or you might try and work on flu virus and make it a lot more infectious.

Even if the virus is 0.25% to 0.5% lethal (which are very optimistic projections for developed countries), that is still deadly enough to tens of millions of people over the next couple years — dclements

Which is tragic on an individual scale, but will not necessarily impact society much. Even the impact of the Spanish Flu was limited, and it's still around (in less deadly strains) killing people.

You may not realize it but the governments of the world are in no way equipped to handle this virus if it keeps going at the rate it has been. — dclements

It's likely to be a serious strain on hospitals and other healthcare providers. How bad it gets will depend on the rate of hospitalisations, how well we can protect the medical personell, and whether a vaccine is available quickly. I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen?

I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen?

I agree with dclements, for example the Italian health service is already struggling and they only have about 6,000 cases so far. It has become such a crisis that they have quarantined about 16,000,000 people and closed many institutions.

I do not have TDS, you do. — Nobeernolife

Strong come back. Erudite and all.

It's not anti-Trump to point out he's doing a shit job. But if you have TDS, everything is about Trump innit?

I agree this is the Corona virus thread. So take your antitrump cackling to the TDS thread, where it belongs

This wasn't supposed to happen, Trump was going to secure his place in history as a successful president. But now we have a global crisis greater than the financial crisis of 2008, perhaps as serious as the Second World War. Now as president it is his duty to step up to the plate and show presidential leadership. Will he perform, or will he shy away and attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation, out of fear?

Which is tragic on an individual scale, but will not necessarily impact society much. Even the impact of the Spanish Flu was limited, and it's still around (in less deadly strains) killing people. — Echarmion

And I guess one could say the black death in Europe which is estimated to kill 33% of the human population at the time was kind of tragic but some human being survived and life went on. However I believe it is unwise to say that pandemics that kill a large amount of the people do not in any way change society of the psyche of the human civilization.

It's likely to be a serious strain on hospitals and other healthcare providers. How bad it gets will depend on the rate of hospitalisations, how well we can protect the medical personell, and whether a vaccine is available quickly. I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen? — Echarmion

I think by definition when governments fail to stop an epidemic from becoming a pandemic that reaches nearly every country in the world then it is a given they where either unable or unwilling to contain a virus. The corona virus is spreading almost as fast as if nothing was being done at all.

As to what will eventually happen while we go through this pandemic and after it is all over is unknown. It is likely that if it spread long enough that like the flu and common cold at some point it will mutate/evolve and become different strains that will resistant to existing immunity to the current strain and any vaccines that might be developed to counter it. It think it is safe to say that just like whomever opened Pandora's box, trying to get everything back to the way it was before everything came out of it and getting the lid back on will be a bit more difficult than taking the lid off in the first place.

The coronavirus outbreak exposes a hidden weakness in the field of medicine, to wit the almost complete lack of antiviral drugs. I believe there are just a handful of drugs that work against viruses and that too with less than desired efficacy. Even if the nature of viruses as intracellular pathogens makes it extremely difficult to treat, a case can be made that viral drug research is not getting the attention it deserves. The current outbreak and the damage it's causing serves as a wake up call for the medical community - viral drug research needs more money and more personnel. Imagine if the coronavirus was even a tiny bit more contagious and more lethal; it would've been catastrophic for the globe.

Strong come back. Erudite and all. — Benkei

Simple statement of fact. Annoying, eh?

This wasn't supposed to happen, Trump was going to secure his place in history as a successful president. But now we have a global crisis greater than the financial crisis of 2008, perhaps as serious as the Second World War. Now as president it is his duty to step up to the plate and show presidential leadership. — Punshhh

Afaik, he is doing his job. What exactly are you bashing him for, except being Trump?

Will he perform, or will he shy away and attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation, out of fear? — Punshhh

"Downplaying" is a loaded word. The president is supposed to be optimistic; if he was not, you would bash him for spreading panic.

"Downplaying" is a loaded word. The president is supposed to be optimistic; if he was not, you would bash him for spreading panic.

Optimism is probably the wrong approach too. My point is he's going to have to step up to the plate now.

Simple statement of fact. Annoying, eh? — Nobeernolife

Whoossh.

Whoossh, the sound of the stock market this morning. The recession is upon us already. Let's see how bad it is a week from now, or a month.

Coronavirus, COVID-19, is spreading exponentially. — Punshhh

It's closing in. Last Friday a school was closed for the day less than 20 k from where I live; today, more schools in the district; a month ago it was ‘some place in China’. And the stock market today here in Aus was scary. I think we’re heading for recession, the world’s been running on cheap money for too long, some bills are going to have to be settled, and they’re big bills.

German and Dutch bonds trade with a yield now below 0% up to a maturity of 30 years and considering the swapcurve a 40-year bond and possibly even a 50-year bond would trade on or around 0% yield.

The flight to safety is in full swing but it's unclear how much flatter this curve can go.

There will likely already be supply chain disruptions in various industries and product lines, due to China being a major supplier. Add to that the likelihood that, if many people are infected, the workforce will be diminished, and also the economic effects on the retail, food and travel sectors, I think it's pretty clear that it's not all just about the stock market (although the latter is of course also very significant). — Janus

What you say here might seem reasonable, but thinking it through it is the result of confusing two kinds definitions of the economy.

"Supply line disruptions" for anything important is made much worse by "letting the virus ride" which is the current policy in the US, UK, Europe as a whole and globally. China is of course now implementing systematic quarantine and testing of air travelers from essentially everywhere as well as turning away people likely infected (what they insisted the West not do, which was an easy sell to Trump).

Let's focus on one resource: medical masks.

Supply line disruptions of medical masks are essentially guaranteed by letting the virus go out of control. It would be only through aggressive measures of containment that the growth of the virus would be slowed so that production and distribution of masks could be scaled to match need.

Medical masks need to be changed several times a day; so we're talking about a lot of masks, and medical facilities are already starting to ration masks and the pandemic has barely even begun.

Without a proper supply of masks, two things happen (both terrible). First, hospitals becomes a spreader of the disease as people coming in with false-positive tests, or for any other reason, are now highly likely to get the disease from staff and other patients. Second, lack of masks means exponential growth of the virus within the medical community at exactly the same time as it peaks in the general population. Even if masks aren't 100% effective (which they aren't) by protecting medical staff as best as we can, it means infection within the medical community peaks after the peak in the general population.

Exponential infection of the medical community has a deleterious affect on outcomes for the community as a whole. Surviving the virus is highly dependent on care. Sickness in the medical community peaking in parallel to the general population means the scenario with the least possible care available when people need it; obviously that's bad, but it gets worse. Experience is generally correlated with age, meaning the most experienced doctors, nurses and paramedics will be the hardest hit either dying or taking a long time to recover, which causes another second order effect of collapse of moral in the medical community.

By slowing the spread globally, through essentially stopping all long distance travel internationally and domestically and then maintaining travel restrictions, the mask issue could easily be solved.

With the magic of the internet, essentially all business travel can be replaced by online meetings.

The negative part of stopping travel is the stocks of the airline and tourist industry. However, it's essentially impossible to describe a scenario where such economic knock-on effects will manage to kill more people than the pandemic, especially considering it's easy to do things to stabilize the situation economically for airline and tourist employees.

So, if our priority is saving lives, then the "hard" decisions around travel aren't even hard decisions, it's just the obvious thing to do.

If we view the purpose of the economy as "that which allows people to live" then it's essentially impossible to conceive of a scenario where the knock-on effects of doing what's actually effective in slowing the virus (not token measures like "banning meeting above 1000 people") will somehow kill more people than the virus. Especially considering there are easy policy measures available to make sure people disrupted economically don't just die of starvation from not having money.

However, the measures needed to ensure people don't die from economic disruption have another word to describe them: socialism. Obviously, a pandemic of a lethal virus is one problem the market is unable to prepare for or fix; socialist policies such as a UBI for people unemployed by travel restrictions and tourism plummeting, and of course free medical care to ensure everyone can be proactive with seeking care, are the only effective effective measures.

Restricting travel, especially if it was done early when containment was still possible, is the difference between several million deaths and one hundred million deaths, which this virus could easily cause in the current laissez-fair global response.

Do not be fooled by the onslaught of propaganda that will try to spin all the deaths as "inevitable". In the current "mask crisis" scenario we are currently in, I would estimate it's a safe bet that 80 to 90% of the deaths would have been preventable in a situation sufficient "travel restriction" scenario. People like to say "ah, travel restrictions don't work" but that's only if it's done half-asked. Obviously, it's quite easy to control travel between places with no land connection by simply stopping all flights and rigorous quarantining of any essential travel.

It is only if we look at the economy's purpose as "that which provides dividends to investors" that it starts to make sense to "let the virus ride". Yes, doing so will kill millions, potentially dozens of millions, of people unnecessarily, but it is the fastest route back to getting things back to normal economically. "Quick and painful" is also the only route that does not require socialists policies of bailing out small business and individuals unemployed in the alternative "slow it down scenario"; obviously, if slowing it down is effective, the whole process takes a lot longer; much longer than can be reasonably asked of individuals and small business to simply "take the hit" with their own resources. Of course, there's already programs in place of permanent bailouts to the banks in the form of unlimited low-interest financing that other big business can easily access too; big business also has in general more resources to deal with a temporary disruption than does small business.

So quick and painful, "was really bad, worse than 'anyone could have predicted', but in the rear-view mirror now, things are getting back on track economically, finally!" is indeed the optimum choice if the purpose of the economy is to create dividends to shareholders.

However, if the primary purpose of the economy is to "keep people alive" then it's difficult to argue that letting 20 to 100 million people die is "worth it" to get the economy back to normal as quickly as possible.

Nothing terrible happens if the next iphone is delayed; people get it next year rather than this year.

Very, very, very terrible things are about to happen due to world leaders deciding to allow the unmitigated global spread of the coronavirus. Designing policy so that the peak is very early and so the medical community will experience a mask shortage is simply stupid. Masks aren't hard to make, by delaying by 1-2 months, the scaling of production and distribution of masks could be achieved at a global scale. Asking the medical community to deal with a respiratory viral pandemic without enough masks is like asking a modern army to fight a war without bullets, or, perhaps more apt, asking Republican politicians to raise money without corruption.

And everything I've described is basically admitted. Boris Johnson just came out and said "well, it's going to spread anyways". Yes, it will spread anyways, but there are massive difference in outcome depending on if something is done to slow it down or not. By saying "it's going to spread anyways", implying "so let's get it over with", he is thinking about the stocks and not the people; he is saying in no uncertain terms, "it's better to sacrifice a lot of people so global business can get back to normal as quickly as possible".

Informative posts by you in this thread. Thanks.

It's also interesting that the private calculus about the disease can run against what is socially advised. My dad is in a higher risk category, he's 70 years old and has chronic respiratory problems. If he develops corona now he's still assured to get the best health care the Dutch system can provide. If he gets it during the peak, this is not likely.

And everything I've described is basically admitted. Boris Johnson just came out and said "well, it's going to spread anyways". Yes, it will spread anyways, but there are massive difference in outcome depending on if something is done to slow it down or not. By saying "it's going to spread anyways", implying "so let's get it over with", he is thinking about the stocks and not the people; he is saying in no uncertain terms, "it's better to sacrifice a lot of people so global business can get back to normal as quickly as possible".

Johnson (Cummings) is like a rabbit caught in the headlights, as is Trump. The experts are telling him that we can't stop it, I expect they are saying that we should stop air travel, as well. It looks like the government is not stopping air travel, or other measures because they don't want to damage the economy. They don't seem to be taking the delay strategies seriously, I agree, they are thinking about the stocks and the money.

Also they have probably calculated that the virus will kill off a lot of older, ill people, which will solve the bed blocking problem in the NHS and save money. They are a hard right populist government which is only looking to the moneyed benefactors and friends. They don't want to jeopardise the Brexit project and will happily loose a few hundred thousand citizens and get it over with quickly, while safeguarding their ideological project.

I am hearing now that there is a military type triage operation in Italy brutally dividing the patients into those seriously at risk, from those with a good chance of survival. They prioritise respiratory equipment for the category with a good chance of survival and affectively let the serious cases die. They have got to this stage with only around 7,000 cases so far.

Also they have probably calculated that the virus will kill off a lot of older, ill people, which will solve the bed blocking problem in the NHS and save money. — Punshhh

Nobody would be so callous as to make that sort of calculation, would they?

Spot on.

The government has a critical negotiation to complete in record time with both the EU and the US, as the UK will leave the EU transition period in December, deal, or no deal. They don't want to take their eye off the ball with this, their own survival as a government is critical to this, because if they are voted out of office by a no confidence vote, the opposition could get into power and rejoin the EU. This is what is most important to the government.

The pandemic is a detail, which will only clear out about 1% of the dead wood. It's of little concern, just like, the floods and climate change.