|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On March 19 2020 21:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2020 21:07 Artisreal wrote:On March 19 2020 21:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 19 2020 08:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2020 07:03 SC-Shield wrote:On March 19 2020 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I believe the main reason is that they are 10 days-2 weeks ahead of many other countries and that you might see similar daily death counts in countries like spain france uk, where the response wasn't all that swift and where people took their fair time adhering to social distancing commands in the next two weeks.
(Going by worldometer numbers; 10 days ago, on march 8th, Italy had 6k infected, 366 deaths. France right now has 9k infected, 266 deaths. Spain almost 15k infected, 638 deaths. The UK is currently at 2600 cases and 104 deaths - Italy was at 3k cases and 107 deaths on march 4th, two weeks ago. % differences in mortality rate can be explained mostly by difference in amount of testing (how many low symptom or asymptomatic cases that are tested, in particular) and whether health care services are overrun or not, but it's pretty clear that many other countries are heading straight towards Italy numbers. This is exactly why it is so depressing to see so many countries with populations that are really slow to respond to social distancing mandates - these countries are overwhelmingly likely to be where Italy is today, with several hundred daily deaths, in a couple weeks time. )
If you go by a 40% infection rate and 1% mortality rate and you spread the disease out over an entire year (just for simplicity's sake), a country with Italy's population will be looking at something like 700 new deaths every single day for that year. Real mortality rates are certainly up in the air, how many will become infected is not a foregone conclusion either, but there are many countries that are headed straight for worse numbers than what we are seeing in Italy right now. I don't know why you guys go for estimates when every estimate you have is countered by the current situation in China and South Korea. Mortality rate is really low right now and a lot of people have recovered in China, too. More than Italy for sure. Some guy posted a map from Bing, so just check it out. China and South Korea clamped down hard and fast (China took a bit longer but they were the first and didn't know what they were dealing with yet.). Italy was to slow. The mayor of Florence encouraging locals to hug people of Asian appearance in early February probably wasn't the brightest idea in history.Countries should have closed their borders sooner but what's done is done, now we somehow deal with the economic fallout of this thing. The only match to your claim that I could find real quick is an obscure youtube channel. You can't speak Italian yes? What do you expect? The mayor's official Twitter feed is in Italian but watch the video he posted and it's pretty clear. https://mobile.twitter.com/DarioNardella/status/1223620740689338369Show nested quote +
The good thing about this corona crisis is people looking for and returning to credible news sources. You should follow their example.
See Mayor of Florence's video on his official Twitter above from Feb 1st.Credible enough for you? It happened.Whats done is done.Now we live with the fallout and fight on.
That you feel attacked by my post is on you, not me.
If you'd just adhered to the sticky or resorted to adding a simple "can provide source in italian only" like other people have done, I wouldn't have posted.
And yes, I don't speak Italian.
|
Trump administration preparing for 18 months of Corona
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/health/us-coronavirus-case-updates-thursday/index.html
Kinda insane. I'm starting to learn to program now. But then again, its not like manufacturing can just go away. No matter what, society will need manufacturing engineers. But with so many factories going on limited staff and clearly headed towards fully shutting down in the US, I feel like I'm gonna need a back up plan. Shit is hella wack.
|
On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious?
How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway.
|
I heard that they've started working out partial shutdowns of the automobile plants and working in rotating shifts to limit exposure. Not sure how that'll work out
|
On March 20 2020 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:Trump administration preparing for 18 months of Corona https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/health/us-coronavirus-case-updates-thursday/index.htmlKinda insane. I'm starting to learn to program now. But then again, its not like manufacturing can just go away. No matter what, society will need manufacturing engineers. But with so many factories going on limited staff and clearly headed towards fully shutting down in the US, I feel like I'm gonna need a back up plan. Shit is hella wack.
At least you have a real skill. There are going to be a lot of middle management and various desk jobs that won't be needed for more than a year (many of them won't come back) and if/when they are needed again it will be in cutthroat markets if there isn't a sustaining universal wage in the US. Think Globodyne but across the whole country. At least that is what I'm expecting at this point.
Read some quarterly projections and honestly I don't feel like people are taking this seriously enough (not panic) from the people on Florida's beach to the White House and everywhere in between. Granted I have seen various beacons of sanity, fortitude, and sober analysis spattered throughout media and the country.
Some updates from the WH/FDA are incoming.
|
On March 20 2020 00:29 Nevuk wrote:
I heard that they've started working out partial shutdowns of the automobile plants and working in rotating shifts to limit exposure. Not sure how that'll work out
Germany will close all car manufacturing plants from I think tuesday on. BMW, VW, ... From 2 weeks to a month.
German source.
I'm also pretty sure that we would get a curfew in place, if the weather would have been as good as the last couple of days.
People in the park are packed.
|
United States44243 Posts
It’s interesting that the temp workers at my plant without health insurance benefits paid for by the company are expected to keep going to work but the professional class, with salaries and health insurance, all have work from home.
|
Northern Ireland27269 Posts
On March 20 2020 00:46 KwarK wrote:
It’s interesting that the temp workers at my plant without health insurance benefits paid for by the company are expected to keep going to work but the professional class, with salaries and health insurance, all have work from home.
Interesting is one way to put it haha
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway.
It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
The list goes on, it's plenty of people
(just to add to the list)
|
On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list)
I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups.
The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state.
EDIT: Vulnerable people keep doing exactly what they are now, where they are doing it now or take even more restrictive/safe action
|
|
|
On March 20 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list) I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups. The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state.
Eh, I would rather separate vulnerable people. If you put them all together, one infected kills off the whole building.
But yeah I think we can agree on healthy young people not being in need to be locked down so drastically.
|
On March 20 2020 01:49 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list) I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups. The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state. Eh, I would rather separate vulnerable people. If you put them all together, one infected kills off the whole building. But yeah I think we can agree on healthy young people not being in need to be locked down so drastically.
There is some research going on that asymptomatic young people are the vector so that is a dangerous game.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0702
RESULTS: There were 731 (34.1%) laboratory-confirmed cases and 1412 (65.9%) suspected cases. The median age of all patients was 7 years (interquartile range: 2-13), and 1213 cases (56.6%) were boys. Over 90% of all patients were asymptomatic, mild, or moderate cases. The median time from illness onset to diagnoses was 2 days (range: 0 to 42 days). There was a rapid increase of disease at the early stage of the epidemic and then there was a gradual and steady decrease. Disease rapidly spread from Hubei Province to surrounding provinces over time. More children were infected in Hubei province than any other province.
CONCLUSIONS: Children at all ages appeared susceptible to COVID-19, and there was no significant gender difference. Although clinical manifestations of children’s COVID-19 cases were generally less severe than those of adults’ patients, young children, particularly infants, were vulnerable to infection. The distribution of children’s COVID-19 cases varied with time and space, and most of the cases concentrated in Hubei province and surrounding areas. Furthermore, this study provides strong evidence for human-to-human transmission.
When you combine this with the fact that young children will walk up and cough in your face, you're really playing with fire. There are also some Japanese studies saying that most spread is from adults to children and that children are NOT a vector so who knows what is true.
|
Canada8990 Posts
On March 20 2020 01:49 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list) I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups. The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state. Eh, I would rather separate vulnerable people. If you put them all together, one infected kills off the whole building. But yeah I think we can agree on healthy young people not being in need to be locked down so drastically.
Well the point is that these people don't infect other people but also don't go to hospital, it dosen't really matter if they survive and get out within one or two days, it's still precious time and space that are wasted on them.
The health systems are already under a very big pressure in normal time and a big part of the staff is overwork all year long. Shutting down non-pressing operation and activity work for a time but a lot of these will need to be done at some point.
There will still be heart attack, cancer patient, women giving birth, various accident, ect... It's already hard to find the time to heal those when there's a normal flu going on if the hospital are full of corona virus patient, these people who will be in danger too, even tho they are not technicaly corona virus victims.
It's not like there's thousand of nurses and hospital bed just lying around
|
On March 20 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list) I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups. The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state. EDIT: Vulnerable people keep doing exactly what they are now, where they are doing it now or take even more restrictive/safe action
Restricted movements wouldn't be enough to keep the vulnerable away from an infection that most of the 'healthy' population would be carrying in that scenario, you'd need full blown apartheid.
Then there's the fact that a lot of people have undiagnosed comorbidities, especially in developing countries and you'd be sentencing an unnecessary amount of them do death just by adding them to the non-vulnerable pile.
|
|
|
Dutch minister for health fainted and collapsed briefly during debating with parliament yesterday. He claimed he had been exhausted. Today he resigned by advice of his doctor. Not a job to envy :X
|
On March 20 2020 02:17 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2020 01:26 deacon.frost wrote:On March 20 2020 00:28 iNsaNe- wrote:On March 19 2020 13:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want capitalism to die, but for those that wish to preserve it, I don't think Vivax is entirely out of pocket on this one.
What if we just locked down the people at risk and gave them empty residences to quarantine in (or for cohabitants to temp relocate to) if they lived with people outside of the at risk group?
Couldn't you keep the economy chugging while minimizing exposure for those most at risk? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? How would you do that though? All 70+ people to a camp? A lot of them require normal elderly care, health care and other services as well, it's not like they can be isolated without a virus, at least at this point anyway. It's not just elderly people. How about asthma? How about hypertension, diabetes(both are being suspected by being a big liability)? How about some worse lung things than asthma - e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? The list goes on, it's plenty of people (just to add to the list) I'd just point out the alternative is restricting everyone's movement as opposed to just those that are vulnerable/medical professionals and the interactions between the two groups. The people you'd move would be the people not directly caring for the vulnerable people where they are (the ones that need non-covid care). The ones that are still going in public would be moved away from vulnerable people they cohabitate with into empty properties rented by the state. EDIT: Vulnerable people keep doing exactly what they are now, where they are doing it now or take even more restrictive/safe action Restricted movements wouldn't be enough to keep the vulnerable away from an infection that most of the 'healthy' population would be carrying in that scenario, you'd need full blown apartheid. Then there's the fact that a lot of people have undiagnosed comorbidities, especially in developing countries and you'd be sentencing an unnecessary amount of them do death just by adding them to the non-vulnerable pile.
I think this is interesting but I want to clear up a couple things before it gets out of hand. The context of this was how I thought capitalism could be better preserved, which I don't want. So I don't want to derail this thread with that as fascinating as a discussion as I find it.
|
On March 20 2020 02:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Dutch minister for health fainted and collapsed briefly during debating with parliament yesterday. He claimed he had been exhausted. Today he resigned by advice of his doctor. Not a job to envy :X
holy crap
|
german source https://www.berlin.de/corona/massnahmen/verordnung/
Since yesterday march 18th, in the german capital all non-essential stores are closed until 19th of april. So you won't be able to buy anthying that is not food. Also all public and private places to do sports and exercising are closed, which explains why I see joggers everywhere instead of the open local sport places where they usually run.
Public transportation has been reduced since demand is reduced. This works out much better than expected, since the streets are free, public transport suddenly is on time and you wouldn't know they basically halfed it's capacity, since even on half capacity, suddenly there are many free seats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
