|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Now all sick students will go home to their parents...
Exactly. How is that going to help the situation? 
|
|
|
|
|
Read my answer above.
TLDR: It is impossible to stop. The point is to slow it down. And the numbers being home are lower than being in the campus.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: So stop whining about what are in the broad scheme of things minor hiccoughs, and think about your duties to your fellow human beings...
You're right there but I, along with my professor was working on a ML project related to pandemics and as per plan it could have been in the favor of the situation but we had to stop.
Also we're on different pages here. So many people are still not necessarily taking precautionary health measures which perhaps could help more in controlling the situation than just shutting everything down. I'm also concerned how this shut down is going to affect the world economy. But I understand that we're living in different parts of the world which is why we might have different perspectives. 
|
|
|
|
|
MehreenTahir wrote: I'm also concerned how this shut down is going to affect the world economy.
That's an easy one.
More people alive when it's over = more people to rebuild the economy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that we have no vaccine... So how many month will you shut-in those are not in real danger? A year?
It would be much better to separate those are in the danger zone and let others immune system do the work for them...
It will create a lot of sick people, but most of them (the real majority) will go home for two weeks and done with it...
When the percentage of inflected pass the 25% barrier we will see a magical slow-down of the spread...
As for now the fact that isolation slows down the spread has no meaning if you intend to release the people from isolation in a few months now - we will be back to square one then...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
No, the idea is to take the strain off the medical facilities by spreading the infection out over a longer period. If 1000 people get it on the same day, that's a lot of stress on limited resources. If the same 1000 people get it at a rate of ten a day, then the stress on resources is lower in the short term and it can be managed better.
Instead of having 900 people on trolleys in corridors wondering when they get a share of the oxygen tank, you get a much smaller number on beds with "proper care".
And bored students at home is one thing, bored students in a hostel full of other bored, randy, pisshead / dopehead students is entirely another! (Or had you forgotten your Uni days?  )
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And bored students at home is one thing, bored students in a hostel full of other bored, randy, pisshead / dopehead students is entirely another!
My reference was to the working people - not those lazy students...
And bored students at home (4 of them) is something I have experience with from close... That's why I want to keep working at the office
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I listened to the whole of the UK government announcement(the three chaps including the PM) and could see that the government is really stuck between a Scylla and Charybdis.
The Scylla of covid19 and the Charybdis of the economy failing.
I think that without hindsight there is no really a good choice to make at the moment.
If everyone is asked to work from home - transport, hospitality and other sectors will suffer greatly.
If everyone can go about there everyday business, covid19 will probably spread and transport, hospitality and other sectors will suffer greatly.
The 'flattening the curve' approach that the UK government is taking does seem to be a sensible one to me.
I have been out of work for a week, on holiday, but reading through my emails today I see we have been asked to work from home.
The interesting part, the email does not mention for how long - everyone is flying blind on this.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see numbers in Germany...
80 million people, around 20 million in the risk group, 30k intensive places in hospitals...
Numbers in Spain...
45 million people, around 12 million in the risk group, 10k intensive places in hospitals (and that being generous)
And I suppose other countries are even worse preparated.
If we don't slow it down... the hospitals will get full and won't be able to manage everything.
So the more people of the risk group are infected at the same time, the higher will be the number of deads.
And indirectly the higher will be the number of other victims, because hostpitals will be that full that maybe have not capacities for people having an accident or if there is a fire or whatever "normal" life has prepared. So trying to take care of elder people, there will be less speed of response to take care of the younger ones.
I still prefer to be forced to stay home with bored kids and buying for 3 different housholds than the alternative of a collapsed system.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's where you wrong IMHO...
I do not know about the size of the risk group - but even in an 'old' country like Germany it is much less than the other...
And not all - not even a fraction of those get infected will need to attend to hospital... As - and until - today they were hospitalized as a better way to separate them from others...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: That's where you wrong IMHO...
I do not know about the size of the risk group - but even in an 'old' country like Germany it is much less than the other...
And I think you missunderstood me.
I don't want to have the system collapsed by old people that are going to die anyways in a couple of years. If I need to go to the hospital with my kids because whatever, and I don't get attended because they run out of capacity and / or the medics are infected themselves... I would go nuts.
I am not trying to protect the elder, I think this is good to protect us all.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 15-Mar-20 14:56pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: I don't want to have the system collapsed by old people that are going to die anyways in a couple of years.
That's dark.
Yes, I understand your point, but still. 
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say the things as they are... there are going to be victims.
If the young die, the system will recover harder than if the victims are the elder ones.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to save as much as possible. But I say the things as I see.
It is hard, yes. But the fact is: Natural selection has always been like that... elder, ill or injured are the first to die.
If we try too hard to save the ones that would die in the natural order of things and then the victims are in the other sector, then we are doing something wrong, really wrong.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Historically, virus epidemies have often hit populations differently, depending on their genetics. New World natives were severly hit, often fatally, by viruses brought by the immigrants, but to them only causing a light cold.
It is probably considered racist to point out the fact that in quite a few functions of society, the genetic distribution of those doing the job does not reflect the distribution in society as a whole. Some groups are overrepresented in jobs like management positions in cultural life, industrial leaders, toilet cleaners, taxi drivers, airplane pilots and fruit pickers.
We do not yet have enough information to tell if the corona death toll varies with genetic disposition. It could be. If the variation between popualation groups is strong, it could severely affect some functions of society far more than others, even if the average death toll is not that bad. I don't know which would be worse: Loosing half of the airline pilots, half of toilet clearners or half of the managers of cultural life. Neither represent a significant percentage of the population, but the effect on society might be dramatic.
(Obviously, the same population groups overrepresented e.g. as toilet cleaners are also overrepresented in other kinds of jobs, which would most likely be hit with similar strength. So to consider possible effects of corona hitting population groups with different intensity, we must look at all the kind of jobs that have a significant overrrepresentation of the group that may be hit badly.)
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point.
But my point was: What is worse? To loose 50% of the 75+ old people or to loose 30% of the young people?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Or: What is worse? To loose 90% of the toilet cleaners? To loose 90% of the bus drivers? To loose 90% of the CEOs of your country's medium to large companies? (as well as 60% of the Board of those companies) To loose 90% of the fruit pickers?
Once you start defining groups, telling that this group is more valuable that group, you should ask: What about other groups, maybe more focused? Is "young" by itself the right criterion? How about young criminals - are those the one you want to save? Young drug addicts? What if pot was like poison to corona, so that pot smokers survived? What if the genetic disposition for becoming a homosexual was linked to something making those persons immune to corona, would that be OK with you? If native Americans turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference to you? What is semites (such as Arabs) turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference?
Is age the only important criterion for selecting / applauding who shall survive, and the rest isn't so important?
It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best? If you could decide (hypothetically, since you have no such power, and we know that this isn't reality), either that all aryans, young and old, survive, but the majority of semites (such as Arabs) are taken out by the virus, or that young aryans and semmits (such as Arabs) come through it, but elderly aryans and semites die?
Let me say that I know quite a few who would not trade their old grandma for a young Arab. Maybe you could call that racial prejudice, but even the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights state (Article 16.3) "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" - this is very close to giving you explicit right to protect your family. (The declaration does not define "family" clearly - in some societies it could be a two-generation parent/child familiy, in others, it could be a multigenerational family.) I think that this is sufficient to justify that you give priority to your grandma.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best?
Is the natural one.
In your examples, if one of your groups is genetically predisposed or inmune it is a natural selection. I don't mind to try to help them, as I don't mind to try to help the elders.
I have a problem if we focus in helping them to the point that other people are then in disadvantage, because all the resources are busy with the elder ones. And my father (78) agrees with me.
And what if you have to choose between your grandma and a friend of the school time? or a cousin? or your nephew? I know I would say "sorry grandma"
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I did 
English is not my native language, so even though I consider myself "reasonably" fluent in English, when I am in a hurry, I make mistakes like that.
The good thing abot English is that it is used by so many people who master it poorly that you just nave to be reasonably tolerant. For e.g. Norwegian, there is far less traditional tolerance, and you may be frowned upon for minor details - details at the same level would go unnoticed in the English speaking world.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: it kills 3.5% of all infected persons
I don't know how they managed to reach that percentage, but 5,846 deaths and 75,954 recovered[^] works out as 7.7%, for me.
Maybe I just don't understand Maths as well as people who studied medicine.OriginalGriff wrote: groups of young people are a damn fine way to spread this around
They're closing hardly any schools in NL, because they say that children aren't as much at risk of getting bad cases, and rarely even have visible symptoms.
What children are good at, however (particularly symptomless ones), is carrying diseases to their parents, aunties, uncles, grannies, grandpas, neighbours, and everyone else.
The logic that rattles around in some people's (presumably empty) heads eludes me, sometimes.
If you see a bunch of schoolchildren going home from school, go in the other direction.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you see a bunch of schoolchildren going home from school, go in the other direction.
Oh, trust me - I've been doing that for decades! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Mark_Wallace wrote: If you see a bunch of schoolchildren going home from school, go in the other direction.
Oh, trust me - I've been doing that for decades!
Ain't restraining orders a bitch?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with these numbers is that they aren't testing everyone. So they don't actually know who's had it or not. What we are seeing is an educated guess.
Probably a better guess than most of us can come up with, but still a guess.
Here they tried to test everyone in the infectuous chain until it was clear it's spreading in society.
Now they only test the sick ones, to know how to keep the hospital personnel safer.
That's all about using the resources as good as possible.
There is only one (1) country that has the resources to test everyone that wants to get tested.
So take a look at the numbers of South Korea for (possibly) better statistics. South Korea Coronavirus: 8,162 Cases and 75 Deaths - Worldometer[^]
The other thing is that the first approximation from China that children doesn't spread the disease was probably quite wrong. Children isn't in the statistics because they never needed to go to hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
Case of lies, damn lies and statistics I think! The way I read it the mortality rate is 7.7% of all those known to have been infected that have either died or recovered. There are a whole bunch of folk who are infected but haven't yet died or recovered, in this larger group the mortality rate is 3.5%. I expect there is an even larger group that includes all those infected but don't know it yet, probably this will take mortality to something less than 2%. Pick the stat you want depending on how much of a doom mongerer you want to be!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: . Because it kills 3.5% of all infected persons,
That number keeps changing. And it's way lower among healthy and younger people so that number on it's own doesn't really mean much.
OriginalGriff wrote: and if everyone on the planet gets infected that's around 250,000,000 people who die as a result.
And if everyone on the planet gets infected with the regular seasonal flu 4-8 million people would die (which is hugely significant) but nobody cares (except for those directly affected.)
2 real problems that no one seems to be concerned with.
1. All this crazy hand-sanitizing is only going to INCREASE the odds of people getting it. Corona virus has been around forever and we won't eradicate this strain either. So, when people go back to normal there will be so many with weakened immune systems due to overdose of hand sanitizer that they will be more susceptible to it.
2. We are a shrinking world and this will happen again. Shutting down the world for a few months is hardly the answer.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
