the Coronavirus outbreak thread

[77T]

The mask debate will go on and on methinks.

What I took away from that article in the Independent was this key point: misusing a mask is commonplace.

From the article...
Dr Harries added: “Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”

So it’s not the mask itself; it is the fact that a person’s own behaviors can thwart a masks effectiveness.

I do believe anyone wearing one to block his/her own exhaled droplets is doing the right thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Patton250]

https://apnews.com/67ac94d1cf08a84ff7c6bbeec2b167fa

I always knew that elitists never really understood the heart of America or Americans but nothing proves it more than this article.


While we wait, are we all shut-ins for more than a year? Almost no one thinks that’s realistic.

“I don’t think we can maintain social distancing as it is right now for the duration of the epidemic,” said Michael Levy, a University of Pennsylvania disease researcher.

What may be more feasible is a plan for intermittent restrictions and enhanced monitoring to control the disease, an idea explored in a new study from researchers at Imperial College London. Once the number of new cases falls below a certain threshold, schools, offices and restaurants could reopen. But if the number of infections spikes again, restrictions would be reinstated.

I have news for you Mr. Levy, our Government has a matter of weeks and no more to keep people pent up in their houses and not working. After that it’ll be utter chaos and riots in the street. It’s amusing to me that elitists that have plenty of money and feel secure because of that don’t understand that the vast majority of people in the world and even the United States live week to week. These people need to get back to work. So who is going to make the decision here? The choices are- A. Deal with the pandemic by letting it run its course or B. Completely and permanently destroy the world economy bringing us into a depression that will make the 1930s look like playtime. Those people that choose option A. had better realize that their feeling of financial security is unfounded once 60% of the country/world is completely depleted of money and is searching for food.

In my opinion we stay shut down for 2 or 3 weeks to curve the virus, then isolate the elderly and go back to work. Otherwise the social and economical consequences are too terrible to contemplate and will be irreversible. No one’s going to remember the dead from this virus when 90% of small businesses are all boarded up and people are starving. IMHO

[newu5er]

Originally Posted by 77T

The mask debate will go on and on methinks.

What I took away from that article in the Independent was this key point: misusing a mask is commonplace.

From the article...
Dr Harries added: “Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”

So it’s not the mask itself; it is the fact that a person’s own behaviors can thwart a masks effectiveness.

I do believe anyone wearing one to block his/her own exhaled droplets is doing the right thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is true in my mind. If you are infected, it's good to wear a max to limit your effect on people in your environment.
If you're not infected, you are just creating another entry point for the virus by wearing a mask. A lot of people don't get that once you contaminate the mask, it's done. But now you take if off and contaminate your hands and who knows what else if you don't practice good hygiene.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Patton250

https://apnews.com/67ac94d1cf08a84ff7c6bbeec2b167fa

I always knew that elitists never really understood the heart of America or Americans but nothing proves it more than this article.


While we wait, are we all shut-ins for more than a year? Almost no one thinks that’s realistic.

“I don’t think we can maintain social distancing as it is right now for the duration of the epidemic,” said Michael Levy, a University of Pennsylvania disease researcher.

What may be more feasible is a plan for intermittent restrictions and enhanced monitoring to control the disease, an idea explored in a new study from researchers at Imperial College London. Once the number of new cases falls below a certain threshold, schools, offices and restaurants could reopen. But if the number of infections spikes again, restrictions would be reinstated.

I have news for you Mr. Levy, our Government has a matter of weeks and no more to keep people pent up in their houses and not working. After that it’ll be utter chaos and riots in the street. It’s amusing to me that elitists that have plenty of money and feel secure because of that don’t understand that the vast majority of people in the world and even the United States live week to week. These people need to get back to work. So who is going to make the decision here? The choices are- A. Deal with the pandemic by letting it run its course or B. Completely and permanently destroy the world economy bringing us into a depression that will make the 1930s look like playtime. Those people that choose option A. had better realize that their feeling of financial security is unfounded once 60% of the country/world is completely depleted of money and is searching for food.

In my opinion we stay shut down for 2 or 3 weeks to curve the virus, then isolate the elderly and go back to work. Otherwise the social and economical consequences are too terrible to contemplate and will be irreversible. No one’s going to remember the dead from this virus when 90% of small businesses are all boarded up and people are starving. IMHO

On the flip side, if the virus outbreak gets exponentially worse as some predict, there won't be healthy people to vitalize the economy... a bit of a chicken and egg scenario...

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

On the flip side, if the virus outbreak gets exponentially worse as some predict, there won't be healthy people to vitalize the economy... a bit of a chicken and egg scenario...

The absolute worst case scenario is I’ve read is 1.8 million dead and the vast majority of those would be people over 80 years old and well past retirement.

Have you read a scenario worse than 1.8 million dead? I’m talking about the US by the way.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Moggo

Anyone else find these posts on social media from celebrities patronising?!

Arnie giving isolation tips from his hot tub! Bless him, really suffering. His house is probably bigger than most people’s neighbourhood! Try a one bed apartment!

Some having to use their own indoor pools for exercise, the sacrifice is incredible

All still looking for followers and likes its ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their messaging may help raise awareness among their followers’ demographic cohort. The 14-24 segment’s uptake and application of info has been less than desired. I’m sure all the 14-24 age group TRF’ers have assiduously complied!

But I agree that the motif in which they’ve made their vlog shows a conscious (or maybe unconscious) effort to display their “success”.

The thinnest veneer of sincerity methinks. But the PSA will go well with the probation officer supervising some of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Patton250

The absolute worst case scenario is I’ve read is 1.8 million dead and the vast majority of those would be people over 80 years old and well past retirement.

Have you read a scenario worse than 1.8 million dead? I’m talking about the US by the way.

NO, but my point was not factual more rather provocative thought... but 1.8 million dead is no bueno.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Patton250

The absolute worst case scenario is I’ve read is 1.8 million dead and the vast majority of those would be people over 80 years old and well past retirement.

Have you read a scenario worse than 1.8 million dead? I’m talking about the US by the way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/u...ite-house.html

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by daveathall

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/u...ite-house.html

Dave I’ve gotten quite fond of you over this past couple weeks and I don’t wish to sound unappreciative but if the New York Times assured me the sun was going to rise in the morning I’d be quite confident the planet was going to die that evening.

Anyway I did look at your link and it said 2.2 million dead worst case scenario. That’s 400,000 more than what I thought it was.

I must assume by your post your choice would be option B.

Peace to you my friend.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Dave I’ve gotten quite fond of you over this past couple weeks and I don’t wish to sound unappreciative but if the New York Times assured me the sun was going to rise in the morning I’d be quite confident the planet was going to die that evening.

Anyway I did look at your link and it said 2.2 million dead worst case scenario. That’s 400,000 more than what I thought it was.

I must assume by your post your choice would be option B.

Peace to you my friend.

Why though, Brett? Is it due to your personal bias or based on facts? Which news sources do you rely on? Just curious.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

Why though, Brett? Is it due to your personal bias or based on facts? Which news sources do you rely on? Just curious.

It’s not important but that paper has been agenda driven for a very long time. They lost my trust and patronage in the mid 90s. By 2005 I ignored them altogether. But if my friend Dave posts a link to it then I’ll read it.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Patton250

It’s not important but that paper has been agenda driven for a very long time. They lost my trust and patronage in the mid 90s. By 2005 I ignored them altogether. But if my friend Dave posts a link to it then I’ll read it.

Well you also called somebody else out several pages ago for mentioning the Washington Post (an actual employee) and used a similar sun rising analogy, so I think perhaps there's some bias, which is your right, but some of these sources are likely more reliable/credible (from facts) than some other mentioned here (even if there is some slight bias to the other side). But you can choose what you ingest, but don't criticize others for it, please. Just sayin.

Maybe I'll start a new news conglomerate... the gnuyork times with completely no bias, ha!

[emersm]

Originally Posted by Patton250

https://apnews.com/67ac94d1cf08a84ff7c6bbeec2b167fa

I always knew that elitists never really understood the heart of America or Americans but nothing proves it more than this article.


While we wait, are we all shut-ins for more than a year? Almost no one thinks that’s realistic.

“I don’t think we can maintain social distancing as it is right now for the duration of the epidemic,” said Michael Levy, a University of Pennsylvania disease researcher.

What may be more feasible is a plan for intermittent restrictions and enhanced monitoring to control the disease, an idea explored in a new study from researchers at Imperial College London. Once the number of new cases falls below a certain threshold, schools, offices and restaurants could reopen. But if the number of infections spikes again, restrictions would be reinstated.

I have news for you Mr. Levy, our Government has a matter of weeks and no more to keep people pent up in their houses and not working. After that it’ll be utter chaos and riots in the street. It’s amusing to me that elitists that have plenty of money and feel secure because of that don’t understand that the vast majority of people in the world and even the United States live week to week. These people need to get back to work. So who is going to make the decision here? The choices are- A. Deal with the pandemic by letting it run its course or B. Completely and permanently destroy the world economy bringing us into a depression that will make the 1930s look like playtime. Those people that choose option A. had better realize that their feeling of financial security is unfounded once 60% of the country/world is completely depleted of money and is searching for food.

In my opinion we stay shut down for 2 or 3 weeks to curve the virus, then isolate the elderly and go back to work. Otherwise the social and economical consequences are too terrible to contemplate and will be irreversible. No one’s going to remember the dead from this virus when 90% of small businesses are all boarded up and people are starving. IMHO

I tend to agree with most of your logic.

The "opportunity cost" of an extended shut in period is the variable that worries me.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

Well you also called somebody else out several pages ago for mentioning the Washington Post (an actual employee) and used a similar sun rising analogy, so I think perhaps there's some bias, which is your right, but some of these sources are likely more reliable/credible (from facts) than some other mentioned here (even if there is some slight bias to the other side). But you can choose what you ingest, but don't criticize others for it, please. Just sayin.

Maybe I'll start a new news conglomerate... the gnuyork times with completely no bias, ha!

No criticism just opinion. I would absolutely put the Washington post in the same category as the New York Times. Both of them are highly agenda driven. Let me give you an example. If you were to listen to a Tampa Bay Buccaneers game on our local news channel you would accuse the announcer of being highly biased and you would be right. He’s a Buc’s fan. The Washington Post and the New York Times are like the Tampa Bay buccaneers local announcer. The difference is those two newspapers would deny it. I hope that helps.

One last thing. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a Tampa Bay buccaneers fan that thinks the announcer is biased. I think you know what I mean by that. :-)

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Patton250

No criticism just opinion. I would absolutely put the Washington post in the same category as the New York Times. Both of them are highly agenda driven. Let me give you an example. If you were to listen to a Tampa Bay Buccaneers game on our local news channel you would accuse the announcer of being highly biased and you would be right. He’s a Buc’s fan. The Washington Post and the New York Times are like the Tampa Bay buccaneers local announcer. The difference is those two newspapers would deny it. I hope that helps.

One last thing. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a Tampa Bay buccaneers fan that thinks the announcer is biased. I think you know what I mean by that. :-)

It doesn't but another area where we'll agree to disagree.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

It doesn't but another area where we'll agree to disagree.

You are a Tampa Bay Bucs fan I see.



No worries my friend. We have lots of other things in common.

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

On the flip side, if the virus outbreak gets exponentially worse as some predict, there won't be healthy people to vitalize the economy... a bit of a chicken and egg scenario...

Please don't paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture. The virus is most severe for people who are past the age when they do anything for the economy. It is relatively rare for young healthy people to perish from this, so I have no worries about there being people left to vitalize the economy.

[Moggo]

Just seen your US testing stats, 10% testing positive.

What are your criteria for testing? Anyone with symptoms?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Please don't paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture. The virus is most severe for people who are past the age when they do anything for the economy. It is relatively rare for young healthy people to perish from this, so I have no worries about there being people left to vitalize the economy.

Exactly. Now we just need world government to say the exact same thing.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Dave I’ve gotten quite fond of you over this past couple weeks and I don’t wish to sound unappreciative but if the New York Times assured me the sun was going to rise in the morning I’d be quite confident the planet was going to die that evening.

Anyway I did look at your link and it said 2.2 million dead worst case scenario. That’s 400,000 more than what I thought it was.

I must assume by your post your choice would be option B.

Peace to you my friend.

I also like you Brett, I didn't know about the NYT's my friend, we have papers like that over here as well. I didn't put the link as a counter of anything you said. I must admit, I don't really have an opinion about the options.

I think we are in bad times my friend.

This week has been the worst year I have ever experienced.

[joeychitwood]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Please don't paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture. The virus is most severe for people who are past the age when they do anything for the economy. It is relatively rare for young healthy people to perish from this, so I have no worries about there being people left to vitalize the economy.

Originally Posted by Patton250

Exactly. Now we just need world government to say the exact same thing.

I guess those of us who worked and raised families and built businesses and delivered healthcare for decades in order to pass it on to the next generation are expendable. I’m glad you don’t feel any doom or gloom thinking of all of us who are “past the age when they do anything for the economy” dying a horrible death from the virus.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I also like you Brett, I didn't know about the NYT's my friend, we have papers like that over here as well. I didn't put the link as a counter of anything you said. I must admit, I don't really have an opinion about the options.

I think we are in bad times my friend.

This week has been the worst year I have ever experienced.

I hear you Dave. I remember when I was a little boy in the 1970s my father told me I was very lucky and blessed that I would never experience anything as bad as the 1930s depression and World War II. My father passed away nine years ago not knowing he was probably wrong.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

I guess those of us who worked and raised families and built businesses and delivered healthcare for decades in order to pass it on to the next generation are expendable. I’m glad you don’t feel any doom or gloom thinking of all of us who are “past the age when they do anything for the economy” dying a horrible death of the virus.

It saddens me you took that from my statements because that’s not what I meant at all. My mom is 76 years old with COPD and very much alive. I want to protect her. But I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again many many more millions of people have died due to poverty than all the combined viruses the world has ever experienced. The first world as we know it has just gotten out of that in the past hundred years. Someone is going to have to decide where we draw the line as far as plunging the entire globe into an economic depression that will rival the dark age.

[JParm]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

I guess those of us who worked and raised families and built businesses and delivered healthcare for decades in order to pass it on to the next generation are expendable. I’m glad you don’t feel any doom or gloom thinking of all of us who are “past the age when they do anything for the economy” dying a horrible death from the virus.

Some of the comments in this thread are just obscene.

Thank you for the service that you've provided in the past; I hope that you and your family are doing well.

[djgallo]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Please don't paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture. The virus is most severe for people who are past the age when they do anything for the economy.

Your statement here is inflammatory to many....retired people/of older age contribute in a multitude of ways to enhance economies....in seen, and unseen ways

It’s just a matter of opening your eyes....and mind....

[Fleetlord]

Clearly there will have to be even more restrictions on gatherings and travel because of these dumbfounded dips#$&s.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/coron...cation-brknews

The problem is while small business are shut down and people are being laid off due to closing of establishments...all in the mission of stopping the spread of the virus, these #$%#% won't do anything to help with that goal...let alone and most importantly spreading it to people who can't party their ass off with a little virus because they will be need to be hooked up to a ventilator after the creeps leave town and go back to infect their folks..

So when the numbers keep going up and the economy needs to stall longer and longer because the virus can't be contained, then thank them for the extension of pain and suffering.

Unfortunately I think the only way to stop them, is to STOP them.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Clearly there will have to be even more restrictions on gatherings and travel because of these dumbfounded dips#$&s.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/coron...cation-brknews

The problem is while small business are shut down and people are being laid off due to closing of establishments...all in the mission of stopping the spread of the virus, these #$%#% won't do anything to help with that goal...let alone and most importantly spreading it to people who can't party their ass off with a little virus because they will be hooked up to a ventilator..

So when the numbers keep going up and the economy needs to stall longer and longer because the virus can't be contained, then thank them for the extension of pain and suffering.

Unfortunately I think the only way to stop them, is to STOP them.

JFC (jeepers freaking creepers)

[LandWatch]

Originally Posted by Patton250

https://apnews.com/67ac94d1cf08a84ff7c6bbeec2b167fa

I always knew that elitists never really understood the heart of America or Americans but nothing proves it more than this article.


While we wait, are we all shut-ins for more than a year? Almost no one thinks that’s realistic.

“I don’t think we can maintain social distancing as it is right now for the duration of the epidemic,” said Michael Levy, a University of Pennsylvania disease researcher.

What may be more feasible is a plan for intermittent restrictions and enhanced monitoring to control the disease, an idea explored in a new study from researchers at Imperial College London. Once the number of new cases falls below a certain threshold, schools, offices and restaurants could reopen. But if the number of infections spikes again, restrictions would be reinstated.

I have news for you Mr. Levy, our Government has a matter of weeks and no more to keep people pent up in their houses and not working. After that it’ll be utter chaos and riots in the street. It’s amusing to me that elitists that have plenty of money and feel secure because of that don’t understand that the vast majority of people in the world and even the United States live week to week. These people need to get back to work. So who is going to make the decision here? The choices are- A. Deal with the pandemic by letting it run its course or B. Completely and permanently destroy the world economy bringing us into a depression that will make the 1930s look like playtime. Those people that choose option A. had better realize that their feeling of financial security is unfounded once 60% of the country/world is completely depleted of money and is searching for food.

In my opinion we stay shut down for 2 or 3 weeks to curve the virus, then isolate the elderly and go back to work. Otherwise the social and economical consequences are too terrible to contemplate and will be irreversible. No one’s going to remember the dead from this virus when 90% of small businesses are all boarded up and people are starving. IMHO

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your perspective and recommended approach. Unpalatable as it may seem, I think it’s the only viable option. The collateral damage otherwise would be too catastrophic.

[Star Ferry]

to some extent I agree with Patton. "health comes first" and "safety first" attitudes will be strained to their limit, maybe past the breaking point. travel and hospitality workers now feel like sacrificial lambs.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by djgallo

Your statement here is inflammatory to many....retired people/of older age contribute in a multitude of ways to enhance economies....in seen, and unseen ways

It’s just a matter of opening your eyes....and mind....

Just out of curiosity have you ever seen what the elderly endure in extremely impoverished countries with no economy??? It ain’t pretty.