Coronavirus

[Maou]

Yes, but if you clean this way you have to touch much less things in the public toilets. Which generally are a good place to catch all kinds of diseases.


It isn't the greatest measure but it can't really do you harm.

You know what they say, toilet seats are cleaner than your kitchen counters lol.

I am a germophobe myself, and I always wash my hands twice lol. But I feel hand sanitizer is overkill. Unless its in a situation where you cannot wash your hands. Do not touch your face, and use it. Like at the store etc.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You know what they say, toilet seats are cleaner than your kitchen counters lol.

I am a germophobe myself, and I always wash my hands twice lol. But I feel hand sanitizer is overkill. Unless its in a situation where you cannot wash your hands. Do not touch your face, and use it. Like at the store etc.

If you have even been to a male public toilet you would know that this is only half truth. There is a reason why women are going crazy over the piss on toilet seat at home.


Well, truth to be told my skin doesn't like too much the liquid soap from public toilets, so from that side it is extra convenient.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Trump ‘not concerned’ as first coronavirus case confirmed in Washington, DC

 

[Maou]

Trump ‘not concerned’ as first coronavirus case confirmed in Washington, DC

I'm pretty sure if the president started freaking out, we'd have martial law. No one should expect the government to say anything but "Its okay" till there is serious collapse. Because at that point, its anarchy. In my opinion, far too many people are panicking. I myself felt it a bit, and I am not even in a hot zone. My family lives in Washington, and said people are clearing shelves. But I also seen the news literally removing items from shelves and filming them, claiming they were cleared by preppers. The media is part of the problem.

 

[ceecee]

I'm pretty sure if the president started freaking out, we'd have martial law. No one should expect the government to say anything but "Its okay" till there is serious collapse.

This shit you are spewing is the problem. It is not often that I give Andrew Cuomo any kudos but if you want to see how a leader should act in a time like this - look at him. YOU DO NOT WAIT until there is collapse. You don't have the slightest inkling what leadership is or looks like and you're not interested in learning.

But Trump is perfect, he's handled this perfectly and the thousands that have died and will die during is presidency is just a fake news.

 

[21%]

I'm pretty sure if the president started freaking out, we'd have martial law. No one should expect the government to say anything but "Its okay" till there is serious collapse. Because at that point, its anarchy. In my opinion, far too many people are panicking. I myself felt it a bit, and I am not even in a hot zone. My family lives in Washington, and said people are clearing shelves. But I also seen the news literally removing items from shelves and filming them, claiming they were cleared by preppers. The media is part of the problem.

You're not entirely wrong about the media being part of the problem. What this exposes is a highly divided society and a serious lack of good governance from your central government, which is terrible. I don't think you guys in the US are panicking enough, and most who panic are panicking about the entirely wrong things. You're already two weeks too late. What you need right now is speed, and the concern is that it's not exactly happening. You don't have the resources to contain/track everyone, and there *is* already community transmission, so now you have to shut everything down and break the infection chain. If you wait to the point where your health system collapses, you'll be in the situation where you're in your house with a dead family member but no one will take them away because the system is overwhelmed and the responders are falling ill themselves because lack of protection, not to mention that if the health workers lose faith in the system to protect them, they will prioritize their families and NOT show up for work, leading to a more severe collapse. So, no, leaders should not panic, but leaders should be swift, decisive and proactive. Then you'll contain it and nothing bad will happen and they'll be severely criticized for 'overracting' and 'fear-mongering'. Well, that's actually a leader's job to take such responsibilities and do the right thing.

 

[Swivelinglight]

 

[21%]

^^

Yes, thank you!

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I'm not going to argue what steps should be taken to handle the coronavirus: There are arguments both pro and con when it comes to letting it spread unchecked vs active intervention (travel restrictions, lockdowns, etc.). I've mentioned some of the arguments both ways in my earlier posts.

But I think it's important to keep in mind a couple things:
1) Pretty much like the normal flu, EVERYONE is going to get the coronavirus at some point in the next year or two.
2) And when they do get it, it's going to be quite mild for most: A cough and some sniffles. It's only one sector of the population that's going to be at substantial risk for more serious problems: The elderly and the infirm.

So if EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later, then why all this talk about containing the disease?

Well, it's a question of the RATE of spread of the disease. For example, if you can slow the spread of the disease somewhat, then you can spread out the rate of inevitable deaths in the vulnerable sector (the elderly and the infirm) over a greater span of time. A few deaths now, a few deaths later, and so on. Whereas if you let the disease spread quickly, then a lot of deaths among the elderly and infirm will all hit at once.

There are arguments for doing it either way (slow spread vs fast spread).
--A slow spread is easier on the health-care system, but it's far worse for the economy because of the costs of containment: Things like travel restrictions, lockdowns, etc. mess up the economy and cause disruptions for a lot of the population who aren't otherwise particularly harmed by this thing.
--By comparison, a quick spread results in a lot of illnesses and deaths fast, which is more of a short-term strain on the health-care system. But it's over a lot quicker: Less overall strain on the economy, no need to lock down population centers for months on end, etc.

Of course, all this is hypothetical; the disease is still a relatively new phenomenon, and there may still be some twists and turns to come.

But I just wanted to reiterate those two main points that I mentioned above:

1) EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later. The coronavirus acts pretty much like the standard flu, and the standard flu supposedly hits about 60% of the population in a normal year. At that point pretty much everyone is getting some exposure to it either directly or indirectly. So stopping the spread is effectively impossible. Any debate about what to do is really about affecting the RATE of spread, not stopping the spread. Even if the government can slow the spread down enough to come up with a vaccine, it's going to be like the standard flu vaccine: Hit and miss at best. Like the standard flu, this coronavirus seems to have multiple forms, so vaccines are going to be guesswork.

2) Most people will be fine when they get it. A cough and a sniffle. Many won't even know they had it. It's mainly going to hit one sector hard, and those are mostly folks whose health was already compromised in the first place. Their mortality rate was already higher than the rest of the population even before the disease started.

Don't get me wrong: Given that I'm in my 60s and have at least one foot in the vulnerable sector, I'm all for slowing the spread among the older population. But if EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later, then it's not necessarily worth shutting down entire countries over it. That has negative consequences too.

Again: I don't have any medical background, and this thing is still new. So I'm in in watch-and-wait mode like everyone else. I'm just pointing out a couple salient issues that explain why it's not necessarily the case that we should impose draconian disease-containment restrictions that might cause more harm than help.

Anyway, I'll shut up after this. Basically what's needed is more time to see how this thing shapes up. At this point, it's pretty much all guesswork as to what to do about the situation. Beyond that, I'm content to let the experts figure this stuff out. I'm just a guy on the sidelines, and there's really not much I can do about the situation other than practice good hand-washing and keep a low profile socially for a while. And aside from that, frankly I don't pay it much attention. I make what healthy changes I can, then I move on.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I talked with my sister today who is a nurse in SNF (skilled nursing facility). She said they are taking precautions, but it isn't as worrisome as the norovirus that hit them a few months ago (normally called the stomach flu, though that isn't technically correct or something).

Anyway, the norovirus was really deadly and the patients had diarrhea and it spreads via fecal matter so it was really dangerous in a facility like hers.

She is only moderated considered with Covid-19 and believes it is a bit overhyped right now. Her recommendation is wash hands often and don't touch anyone and stay home if feeling sick. Pretty sensible stuff.

As she noted, most people don't get lab work done everytime they get sick, so most people just move on infected, but not worthy of this hype.

Anyway, if the death rate to 5% of infected, that would be something, but it is only .6% in South Korea and they are really testing, so that looks pretty normal and not worth the panic....

 

[Amberiat]

I talked with my sister today who is a nurse in SNF (skilled nursing facility). She said they are taking precautions, but it isn't as worrisome as the norovirus that hit them a few months ago (normally called the stomach flu, though that isn't technically correct or something).

Anyway, the norovirus was really deadly and the patients had diarrhea and it spreads via fecal matter so it was really dangerous in a facility like hers.

She is only moderated considered with Covid-19 and believes it is a bit overhyped right now. Her recommendation is wash hands often and don't touch anyone and stay home if feeling sick. Pretty sensible stuff.

As she noted, most people don't get lab work done everytime they get sick, so most people just move on infected, but not worthy of this hype.

Anyway, if the death rate to 5% of infected, that would be something, but it is only .6% in South Korea and they are really testing, so that looks pretty normal and not worth the panic....

Glad there's still some common sense around.

It's bad, sure, but it's not a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions like a lot of people and even the media make it out to be.

That being said anything is possible as the situation is still developing but so far I don't think there's a good reason for people to lose their shit over.

 

[Yuurei]

I talked with my sister today who is a nurse in SNF (skilled nursing facility). She said they are taking precautions, but it isn't as worrisome as the norovirus that hit them a few months ago (normally called the stomach flu, though that isn't technically correct or something).

Anyway, the norovirus was really deadly and the patients had diarrhea and it spreads via fecal matter so it was really dangerous in a facility like hers.

She is only moderated considered with Covid-19 and believes it is a bit overhyped right now. Her recommendation is wash hands often and don't touch anyone and stay home if feeling sick. Pretty sensible stuff.

As she noted, most people don't get lab work done everytime they get sick, so most people just move on infected, but not worthy of this hype.

Anyway, if the death rate to 5% of infected, that would be something, but it is only .6% in South Korea and they are really testing, so that looks pretty normal and not worth the panic....

I live in Seattle, a plave everyone has been freaking the fuck out about.

There were some people infected in a nursing home. They’ve since done a serious cleaning if the facility and it pretty much seems to have passed.

 

[Yuurei]

I'm not going to argue what steps should be taken to handle the coronavirus: There are arguments both pro and con when it comes to letting it spread unchecked vs active intervention (travel restrictions, lockdowns, etc.). I've mentioned some of the arguments both ways in my earlier posts.

But I think it's important to keep in mind a couple things:
1) Pretty much like the normal flu, EVERYONE is going to get the coronavirus at some point in the next year or two.
2) And when they do get it, it's going to be quite mild for most: A cough and some sniffles. It's only one sector of the population that's going to be at substantial risk for more serious problems: The elderly and the infirm.

So if EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later, then why all this talk about containing the disease?

Well, it's a question of the RATE of spread of the disease. For example, if you can slow it the spread of the disease somewhat, then you can spread out the rate of inevitable deaths in the vulnerable sector (the elderly and the infirm) over a greater span of time. A few deaths now, a few deaths later, and so on. Whereas if you let the disease spread quickly, then a lot of deaths among the elderly and infirm will all hit at once.

There are arguments for doing it either way (slow spread vs fast spread).
--A slow spread is easier on the health-care system, but it's far worse for the economy because of the costs of containment: Things like travel restrictions, lockdowns, etc. mess up the economy and cause disruptions for a lot of the population who aren't otherwise particularly harmed by this thing.
--By comparison, a quick spread results in a lot of illnesses and deaths fast, which is more of a short-term strain on the health-care system. But it's over a lot quicker: Less overall strain on the economy, no need to lock down population centers for months on end, etc.

Of course, all this is hypothetical; the disease is still a relatively new phenomenon, and there may still be some twists and turns to come.

But I just wanted to reiterate those two main points that I mentioned above:

1) EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later. The coronavirus acts pretty much like the standard flu, and the standard flu supposedly hits about 60% of the population in a normal year. At that point pretty much everyone is getting some exposure to it either directly or indirectly. So stopping the spread is effectively impossible. Any debate about what to do is really about affecting the RATE of spread, not stopping the spread. Even if the government can slow the spread down enough to come up with a vaccine, it's going to be like the standard flu vaccine: Hit and miss at best. Like the standard flu, this coronavirus seems to have multiple forms, so vaccines are going to be guesswork.

2) Most people will be fine when they get it. A cough and a sniffle. Many won't even know they had it. It's mainly going to hit one sector hard, and those are mostly folks whose health was already compromised in the first place. Their mortality rate was already higher than the rest of the population even before the disease started.

Don't get me wrong: Given that I'm in my 60s and have at least one foot in the vulnerable sector, I'm all for slowing the spread among the older population. But if EVERYONE is going to get it sooner or later, then it's not necessarily worth shutting down entire countries over it. That has negative consequences too.

Again: I don't have any medical background, and this thing is still new. So I'm in in watch-and-wait mode like everyone else. I'm just pointing out a couple salient issues that explain why it's not necessarily the case that we should impose draconian disease-containment restrictions that might cause more harm than help.

Anyway, I'll shut up after this. Basically what's needed is more time to see how this thing shapes up. At this point, it's pretty much all guesswork as to what to do about the situation. Beyond that, I'm content to let the experts figure this stuff out. I'm just a guy on the sidelines, and there's really not much I can do about the situation other than practice good hand-washing and keep a low profile socially for a while. And aside from that, frankly I don't pay it much attention. I make what healthy changes I can, then I move on.

I actualky think it is the most negative consequence. Without that, a few people die. The world keeps turning.
Mass hysteria is what causes society to break down and lead to what we know as the apocalypse.

 

[Lexicon]

I actualky think it is the most negative consequence. Without that, a few people die. The world keeps turning.
Mass hysteria is what causes society to break down and lead to what we know as the apocalypse.

I’m eerily reminded of this:
The Great Panic | Zombiepedia | Fandom

The actual audiobook is amazing, btw. Great on road trips!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why some people don't understand that there is the clear difference between panic and doing something about it ?

 

[Red Herring]

We have had cases in our town, including at the school where my significant other used to teach. So far I haven't seen any hoarding or panicking though. Just keep your fingers crossed they don't close the kindergarden or daycare.

 

[21%]

Any debate about what to do is really about affecting the RATE of spread, not stopping the spread.

I agree with this. The problem right now is the public is not doing their part in slowing the rate, leading to an exponential increase in infections, which overwhelms the medical system. This is what's happening in Italy, and still some people refuse to practice social distancing. Then if enough people get sick and cannot get treatment, leading to death, and if the medical system fails enough that you can't get treatments for anything, e.g. car crash victims aren't being rescued, etc., you're going to get extremely angry people, riots, and whatnot. All I'm asking for is to postpone/cancel mass gatherings and we can avoid this. Putting 27k people in close contact is not doing anything to slow the rate of spreading, and LA is going to see a spike in cases next week simply from that, which will have easily been avoided simply by cancelling ONE event. No hoarding is needed. Just cancel big events. Not being able to run a marathon is not going to kill you.

The 0.7% fatality rate seen in South Korea is a good sign, but is not the final rate, and its impact might not be the same everywhere. There are still people in hospitals being treated and if you're in critical care it's 50-50 at that point. SARS started out with about 3% case fatality rate, but rose to 17% at the end of it, because those on life support ended up not surviving. (MERS fatality rate eventually fell, so at this point it's still difficult to tell what that is) So If your area can afford 10% of your total population being sick at once, then there's nothing to worry about. If you live in an area where hospital beds are scarce, you really don't want to arrive at the scenario where you have 10% sick people at the same time.

We shouldn't be panicking about the virus. We should be panicking about the fact that other people are not doing their part at all in trying to slow down the rate it spreads.

 

[Virtual ghost]

We shouldn't be panicking about the virus. We should be panicking about the fact that other people are not doing their part at all in trying to slow down the rate it spreads.

Well, have you seen general media coverage of this in US ? With all the doctors in the picture and related panic ? I mean in my place this is generally reported much more calmly and therefore the panic isn't that big. However since in some countries media are hysterical 24/7 the people are not taking them too seriously anymore .... what opens the gate for all kinds of problems. Since the outcome is either panic or ignore, and nether is useful.

 

[cascadeco]

I agree with this. The problem right now is the public is not doing their part in slowing the rate, leading to an exponential increase in infections, which overwhelms the medical system. This is what's happening in Italy, and still some people refuse to practice social distancing. Then if enough people get sick and cannot get treatment, leading to death, and if the medical system fails enough that you can't get treatments for anything, e.g. car crash victims aren't being rescued, etc., you're going to get extremely angry people, riots, and whatnot. All I'm asking for is to postpone/cancel mass gatherings and we can avoid this. Putting 27k people in close contact is not doing anything to slow the rate of spreading, and LA is going to see a spike in cases next week simply from that, which will have easily been avoided simply by cancelling ONE event. No hoarding is needed. Just cancel big events. Not being able to run a marathon is not going to kill you.

The 0.7% fatality rate seen in South Korea is a good sign, but is not the final rate, and its impact might not be the same everywhere. There are still people in hospitals being treated and if you're in critical care it's 50-50 at that point. SARS started out with about 3% case fatality rate, but rose to 17% at the end of it, because those on life support ended up not surviving. (MERS fatality rate eventually fell, so at this point it's still difficult to tell what that is) So If your area can afford 10% of your total population being sick at once, then there's nothing to worry about. If you live in an area where hospital beds are scarce, you really don't want to arrive at the scenario where you have 10% sick people at the same time.

We shouldn't be panicking about the virus. We should be panicking about the fact that other people are not doing their part at all in trying to slow down the rate it spreads.

I hear you on mass events, but by the same token, why wouldn't we tell people to not go anywhere? Don't go to the mall, don't go to Walgreens, don't go to Starbucks...I mean, hundreds of people go into these establishments daily. Similarly, why not cancel all big events going into the future and don't let anyone go on cruise ships every year during flu season? (it's kind of an unspoken 'given' that if you go on a cruise ship or bus tour through Europe, you're likely to come down with something).

I was also telling my coworker a few days ago that if I were to go to urgent care or stayed home every single time I woke up sniffly, had drainage, had a headache, a bit of a cough, or was blowing my nose, or felt like maybe I was getting a cold, I'd be going there twice a week. (I think allergies are usually the culprit)

I understand it's a new virus, thus there is concern; I also understand if we are legitimately sick (ie fever, really hacking stuff up), of course we should not be out and about. That should always be the case. I guess I have trouble wrapping my head around cancellation of things. I have trouble viewing it as anything different from the flu that many people get sick from every year, and we don't cancel things, have travel fears, etc, during that (or if we do, we just accept it as a known risk/chance of catching something). I am totally open to notching up my level of worry or changing my opinion, though, if I'm not aware of key info. [on a personal level I worry very much for my father/people like him with complicated health situations and compromised immune systems, but the same applies to him for the flu, common cold, etc.]

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Coronavirus going to hit its peak and fall sooner than you think