Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Unfortunately even Italy is still in early stages of infection as I understand it so it's likely things will get much worse before they better.
Hopefully my un educated guess is wrong and things improve quickly.
I have an Italian colleague from the North of Italy who is unable to return home who is terrified for his family.

 Ouze wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I would rather lose a few hundred million dollars than be wrong and lose a few hundred million lives.

Yes. Regardless of the specifics on the numbers, the economy will recover, and usually pretty fast.

Losing a great deal of lives (with a great many more living with the fallout, such as scarred lungs) isn't going to be as easy to spring back from.

 Scrabb wrote:
You picked the wrong post to attempt to bully him out of the thread.

I have pretty abjectly disagreed with him, but I do agree we should not be attempting to suppress his opinion. For all we know, he's going to turn out to be totally right in 3 months. I mean, I hope he is! The alternatives are horrifying.

IronWarLeg wrote:
For a feel good video, check out the penguins from the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, they are freaking adorable and appear to be full of wonder lol

My favorite so far was the penguins going down the stairs on the way to explore (not the Shedd, but similar).

To your second point, I have edited my posts, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for the penguins,

I loved that one too, some were all about going down the stairs and some weren't sure lol.. I really liked the one of the bonded pair roaming around the aquarium domes and the desk spaces

 H wrote:


But all that is partly built in the manner in which we practice science. It is not perfect. It does not ever grant certainty. But, if you think that common sense, intuition or extremely limited research grants one the same confidence interval as large data sets, cleverly applied, well, you are really not likely to have much of a case, in general. To take a stance that something is a binary, as in, either is certain, or is totally unknown, is just a false dichotomy. Which is why, to think that since no one can be certain of the exact numbers at any given moment, that a common sense, under-informed (because every single person in the thread is under-informed, me certainly included) is just as useful as the stance of those who have access to more data, more robust manners of interpretation and knowledge to apply to that data, is, frankly, pretty brazen and likely to do far more harm than good.

That's just it, we (generic we, not Dakka) don't have large high confidence datasets. Even the experts right now are underinformed , their guesses are just a little more educated than others. What do you do when the data sucks, the best you can and have the capability to adjust as more data comes in. I personally think the actions being taken are more right than not but I understand where Sqorgar is coming from, I just have a different risk tolerance.

PS. He's not going to be the one to get the thread locked, it will be on the people venomously attacking him for daring to have a different opinion, because that's all anyone has right now are opinions.

I do wonder about the possibility of the Coronavirus leading to a possible Planet of the Apes type situation, but with penguins.

What a time to be alive.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue here being that a huge number of people have such conditions, it seems that people in perfect health are relatively robust, but almost any pre-existing condition appears to monstrously magnify the mortality rate out of all proportion to more common seasonal viruses.

Look, I'm about to bail out of this thread as it is getting a little mean and a little personal, but I do want to say one thing before I go...

99% of the deaths in Italy had underlying conditions. That's as close as you can get to an absolute correlation. 75% of them had high blood pressure. 25% had diabetes. 25% had heart disease. All three of these can be treated (even cured) with proper diet and exercise - as opposed to taking drugs that only treat the symptoms. 50% of the people who died had three or more(!) underlying conditions. China has a high blood pressure problem, with it being poorly managed, and responsible for 2.3 million deaths a year. 1 in 3 adults in China has high blood pressure. 56% of Italian men between 35 and 79 have high blood pressure.

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
My state shut down all eat-in restaurants yesterday, and I own one. This stinks for my finances. I'm not going to go under or anything, I have an emergency fund that I could live off of for 6-months if neither my wife or I were working, but it took a while to build up and I don't like dipping into it.

What happens with your employees? No, this isn't a prelude to villainizing you, just an honest question.

I can't imagine virtually any small business owner can afford to subsidize employees who literally aren't working.

Sorry for the belated response. My employees can file for unemployment and can basically get fast tracked to get a check. Ironically, it looks like they will be getting unemployment checks before our next payroll was scheduled.

 Sqorgar wrote:

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

What ifs are great, but do you have time to research IF the popular blood medication is the issue when people are dying? Maybe research that once you stop the pandemic, instead of coming to a solution that yes, BloodPressureDrug 1 was to blame on top of a pyramid of corpses that'd make the Aztecs blush?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue here being that a huge number of people have such conditions, it seems that people in perfect health are relatively robust, but almost any pre-existing condition appears to monstrously magnify the mortality rate out of all proportion to more common seasonal viruses.

Look, I'm about to bail out of this thread as it is getting a little mean and a little personal, but I do want to say one thing before I go...

99% of the deaths in Italy had underlying conditions. That's as close as you can get to an absolute correlation. 75% of them had high blood pressure. 25% had diabetes. 25% had heart disease. All three of these can be treated (even cured) with proper diet and exercise - as opposed to taking drugs that only treat the symptoms. 50% of the people who died had three or more(!) underlying conditions. China has a high blood pressure problem, with it being poorly managed, and responsible for 2.3 million deaths a year. 1 in 3 adults in China has high blood pressure. 56% of Italian men between 35 and 79 have high blood pressure.

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

Would be interesting to see that level of detail for another country, is there a M/F breakdown in the data ?

Here's the thing though, even if changing how we treat high blood pressure is the best long term solution it would not be a viable near term remedy and too many people would likely die in the next couple of months of course that goes back to the crap data we have on what likely is...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue here being that a huge number of people have such conditions, it seems that people in perfect health are relatively robust, but almost any pre-existing condition appears to monstrously magnify the mortality rate out of all proportion to more common seasonal viruses.

Look, I'm about to bail out of this thread as it is getting a little mean and a little personal, but I do want to say one thing before I go...

99% of the deaths in Italy had underlying conditions. That's as close as you can get to an absolute correlation. 75% of them had high blood pressure. 25% had diabetes. 25% had heart disease. All three of these can be treated (even cured) with proper diet and exercise - as opposed to taking drugs that only treat the symptoms. 50% of the people who died had three or more(!) underlying conditions. China has a high blood pressure problem, with it being poorly managed, and responsible for 2.3 million deaths a year. 1 in 3 adults in China has high blood pressure. 56% of Italian men between 35 and 79 have high blood pressure.

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

I wont argue with you about the fact there a re bucketload of morons who don't look after themselves. However my generation is certainly doing much better thanks to better education, scientific knowledge and living condition.

BUT some people have circumstances such as genetics, old age, and working 2 jobs while looking after children meaning so they basically cant really look after themselves. And those are the weakest in our society. And a society is only ever measured in my eyes in how it looks after its weakest, the vulnerable and the old. My dad is 65, is diabetic(bad family genetics) and has a chronic poulminary condition from years working int he coal industry. Certainly should be looking after himself and ive been trying to et him to change... But if some snot nosed snotdribble decides this isint serious because it cant hurt THEM, but could ppssibly kill my dad, and goes around spreading not caring, how am I suppose to view such a person?

The retirement age is steadily increasing so it would be nice for people to actually live out some decorum of retirement and not die of covid or other such things.. otherwise whats the point? They have earned it through years of labour. We should do everything in our power to try and not put them at risk. Do you not agree?

And if we are going to go full dystopia, and shift our social norm to the fact that the citizen is only a corporate meat robots and consumers so feth them because money is god, how long does this last? People need some sort of safety plan/systems of control to keep or whats the point? We are monkeys with gunpowder. Its back to the strong taking what they can and the weak suffering what they must.

Just look at what happened in the past when there were even slight disruption to complex societies in the form of fuel shortages. Its paramount this is controlled. Like it as not a possibly futile plan is better than no plan.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue here being that a huge number of people have such conditions, it seems that people in perfect health are relatively robust, but almost any pre-existing condition appears to monstrously magnify the mortality rate out of all proportion to more common seasonal viruses.

Look, I'm about to bail out of this thread as it is getting a little mean and a little personal, but I do want to say one thing before I go...

99% of the deaths in Italy had underlying conditions. That's as close as you can get to an absolute correlation. 75% of them had high blood pressure. 25% had diabetes. 25% had heart disease. All three of these can be treated (even cured) with proper diet and exercise - as opposed to taking drugs that only treat the symptoms. 50% of the people who died had three or more(!) underlying conditions. China has a high blood pressure problem, with it being poorly managed, and responsible for 2.3 million deaths a year. 1 in 3 adults in China has high blood pressure. 56% of Italian men between 35 and 79 have high blood pressure.

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

You keep saying "Had" as if the problem in Italy or China is over. Watch the video I linked on the previous page, this entire thing is just beginning. As for your "ThEm GoVeRmEnTs Is CoMin" junk, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue here being that a huge number of people have such conditions, it seems that people in perfect health are relatively robust, but almost any pre-existing condition appears to monstrously magnify the mortality rate out of all proportion to more common seasonal viruses.

Look, I'm about to bail out of this thread as it is getting a little mean and a little personal, but I do want to say one thing before I go...

99% of the deaths in Italy had underlying conditions. That's as close as you can get to an absolute correlation. 75% of them had high blood pressure. 25% had diabetes. 25% had heart disease. All three of these can be treated (even cured) with proper diet and exercise - as opposed to taking drugs that only treat the symptoms. 50% of the people who died had three or more(!) underlying conditions. China has a high blood pressure problem, with it being poorly managed, and responsible for 2.3 million deaths a year. 1 in 3 adults in China has high blood pressure. 56% of Italian men between 35 and 79 have high blood pressure.

What if the best way to reduce mortality is not to destroy our society in an effort to control the virus, but to simply better treat the underlying conditions that make it lethal? It would have strong benefits outside of the coronavirus too. Or what if it is related to the drugs they take for these conditions? What if the real culprit is a popular blood pressure medication? Maybe what we need most is to change how we treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease?

I mean, ideally those conditions would be better taken care of. However, as the virus is out in the world as it is, it has to be reacted to as a reflection of those current conditions. Attempting to emergency fix all high blood pressure cases (and their myriad of causes) in the world at once in order to stop Covid19 isn't a realistic option, and with the breadth of conditions being cited, it looks like we can either focus on the one common high mortality factor or chase a gazillion widespread multifaceted and non-communicative medical conditions.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
My state shut down all eat-in restaurants yesterday, and I own one. This stinks for my finances. I'm not going to go under or anything, I have an emergency fund that I could live off of for 6-months if neither my wife or I were working, but it took a while to build up and I don't like dipping into it.

What happens with your employees? No, this isn't a prelude to villainizing you, just an honest question.

I can't imagine virtually any small business owner can afford to subsidize employees who literally aren't working.

Sorry for the belated response. My employees can file for unemployment and can basically get fast tracked to get a check. Ironically, it looks like they will be getting unemployment checks before our next payroll was scheduled.

Thanks. Good to hear they are not totally in the lurch.

 Irbis wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
UK rise infection rates is similar to that elsewhere in Europe outside Italy. There is little difference.
The wise go with what virologists and epidemiologists say, I do, hopefully so do you. The problem is various virologists and epidemiologists say different things and do not agree. We can make our own minds up as to which expert is more likely to be right, and can logically differ.
Now must compound this with media attention which highlights the path not taken. In the UK herd immunity is questioned, in Italy lockdown is questioned. In both countries the media is saying not enough is being done.
Nobody knows which is the best route forward, there are too many variables.
However flip flopping between contrary poliicies is likely to be the worse option.
Pick a sound contingency and stick with it.

Except you don't. Actual experts who aren't his underlings called the de Spaffle plan 'a parody' - this alone should give you a pause and rethink moment.

Soundbyte occur when the press listen. If the government tried a different tack different 'actual experts' would make other soundbyte worth comments which the press would lap up.

 Irbis wrote:

The herd immunity plan is exceptionally stupid for three reasons - first, because because it doesn't give a damn about disease spread and tens of thousands who will die as a result. The point of lockdown is not stopping the spread, it's slowing it down so hospitals can manage things. There is already death triage going on in Italy even with lockdowns - think for a second, how much worse it will be in UK with far greater sick numbers? It's literally condemning people to die. Easily preventable death, at that, just because you piled so much work on doctors there were no resources left for most of the patients..

First the government wants to isolate vulnerable persons sop yes the have concerned themse,lves over disease spread. Fuirthermore they are aware the disease would spread anyway.

Second you have the wrong idea of lockdown, it is not to slow the spread but to stop it, only it leaves a reservoir of uninfected people to be quickly infected as soon as lockdown ends, which it has to because other problems will compound. It is a very short term strategy unless you invent a whole nuew distribution network to service the isolated, or if everyone has prepared stocks. Truth makes a mockery of lockdown. Only a handful of societies have long term isolation stocks. Isolated small communities like the Falkland Islands do, Switzerland does as a long term strategem, and ifs IIRC the only country with this level of civic preparedness, also Mormons do as it is a tenet of their faith to have a years supply of food in the house. So Salt Lake City will be ok for long term isolation. However European countries, get real. Lockdown is the actual public salve, it is an action that makes governments look attentive and buys a bit of time at the expense of telling the populace to assume the position.

Third the Uk has not got far greater sick numbers. France, under lockdown has overtaken infection and death statistics even under lockdown and so has Germany. Lockdown isn't working. Very possibly because if you lockdown everyone the only people who will be able to cope as subsistence farmers, preppers and the first weave of panic buyers. Everyone else is fethed and has to sneak out in order to get supplies. Isolation looks like it might work right now because larders are not empty yet, these are very early days. Give it a week and lockdown will collapse completely because the vast majority of the population will be hungry and out of food. The UK is the only country I know of that has a staged plan to try and avoid lockdown and its inevitable ticking clock to supply breakdown..

 Irbis wrote:

Second, because Covid, unlike what Murdoch media say, is not harmless. It damages the lungs of people who survive it - opening them wide open to subsequent bacterial and fungal infections. This not only will add tens of billions to healthcare costs down the road, it will add to number of deaths, even if said deaths are seemingly not work of Covid (and will add to dumb crowing "flu/cold/whatever is more dangerous" when the primary reason why these will soon become deadlier is because Covid broken the ground, so to speak).

The dynamics of the virus remain true whatever strategem you prefer, lockdown no lockdown, people will get the virus, and from statistical evidence lockdown isn't making a difference. Why I do not know yet, but I suspect it is because a portion of the population will not care or obey.

 Irbis wrote:

Third, and most worrying case - viruses mutate. The more often the more of them there are. Bozo wants to explode their numbers, greatly increasing chance one mutates into something far worse, ready to reap already weakened population. How is that a sane plan? Just look at Spanish flu - terrifying as it was, its first stage was merely an appetizer. It's only when it really got going, it mutated by chance into the second stage that claimed the most victims, thanks to predecessor's work. A year from now, this moment might seem positively rosy compared to what came next. Then again, it might not - but what the Tories are doing right now is pulling at the pin of live grenade. Even if it doesn't go off, the mere idea of doing so is lunacy.

Johnson doesn't want to explode the numbers, by your logic I could argue Macron does, as France has a much higher infection an death rate, by public statistics, despite lockdown. But we both know that isn't true. The delay phase to herd immunity is to isolate the most vulnerable and let the virus run its course otherwise. Also its better to get the bug now before it mutates if that is a problem. If mutation is a problem and if lockdown works there will be nicely mutated extra superbugs ready to pounce on fresh victims when lockdown ends. Is this what you want?

 Irbis wrote:

There is a reason why UK choose this, though. It's easy path, allows the PM to do nothing and just blame things at political opponents/poor/virus/foreigners/whatever, all while cutting more funds from the NHS (save for a few token splashes of money that can be quietly withdrawn once press reports these), plus giving a few more tax breaks to the 1%. After all, Singapore on Thames, etc, etc (ignoring the fact the real Singapore went hard into the lockdown, as usual doing exact opposite of what UK politicians say it supposedly did).

It is anything but the easy path. The easy path is doing whatever the press want when they want it to appease the populace. It is how the system in the UK normally operates, however Johnson has the balls to stick to a long term strategy. Contain-Delay-Research-Mitigate.
Is it guaranteed, no, does it not have downsides, no, but coronavirus is a pandemic and a major crisis. any honest pundit, and sadly there are insufficient numbers of those, know that every action is damned if you do damned if you dont. Every option is a trade off and there are no easy answers. The UK was the first western government to admit out the gate that methods will not be entirely successful, some people will die and nothing can be done about that. It was refreshingly honest. I think the government is being well advised by actual experts, but that doesnt mean they are the only experts, and the press still wants its pound of flesh.

 Ernestas wrote:
I'm not sure about lockdown and why you say it is ineffective. Logically it must be effective, if it is ineffective in German or whatever country it is because people are not following instructions. In Lithuania lockdown is soft as we rely on public awareness to remain isolated, but our streets look absolutely deserted. Companies either lay off people or we work remotely. We had locked down borders, isolated ourselves and we have the least number of cases amongst our neighbours.

If Lithuania like other cold winter countries where isolated communities keep large stocks for long winters. If so, and if you have stuff left you might be ok. But dont judge the 'ecttectiveness' of lockdown by early expereince. Consider it like holding your breath underwater, the first few seconds are easy, but it gets progressively harder.

Please stay away from people if you do get corona. Others might not be in robust health..

QFT. But more to the point he wont know if he hads COVID-19 until about two weeks after infection. So if he wants to go out and get infected, he has a two weeks 'Typhoid Mary' time fething up other people. Intentional infection is top tier bad idea fairy.
Thankfully I am reading this as thoughts from a troubled mind in trying times and not a statement of intent.

 Ernestas wrote:

Of course, I did not left my house for several days and I avoided visiting my grandmother due to quarantine. The issue with this virus is that if you are healthy or have robust health, you might not even get sick, but still be infectious. My body is acting strange. It is perfectly fine 95% of a time, full of energy, great appetite, etc, but then suddenly I'm feeling hot. I feel like I'm starting to have temperature, I want to drink a lot hot liquids and next hour it is all gone.

Psychosomatic, stress, anything else, also these are not COVID-19 symptoms.
I mentioned earlier I feel a cough coming on when I pass empty supermarket aisles, it brings the virus to my imagination and my body reacts. I deliberatly struggle not to cough so as not to freak out other shoppers.

 Ernestas wrote:

The funny thing is that I have an allergy which results in runny nose which is one of symptoms. Coughing or sneezing is also part of my allergy. So far allergy seems to be just that which manifested out of nowhere today while being completely absent since Saturday. For me it might be impossible to tell if a virus in me would manifest only very mildly and I would be one of those carriers who have natural resistance to virus.

I would like to say don't worry, but its futile, and COVID-19 is something to be concerned over.
If you feel helpless against the circumstances, pray. Works for me.

 Orlanth wrote:
Psychosomatic, stress, anything else, also these are not COVID-19 symptoms.
I mentioned earlier I feel a cough coming on when I pass empty supermarket aisles, it brings the virus to my imagination and my body reacts. I deliberatly struggle not to cough so as not to freak out other shoppers

I've been doing the exact same thing. You can only read about the virus for so long before your throat feels scratchy or you feel like you have a fever.

Luckily, after a lifetime in IT, I don't trust anything but metrics and once I take my temperature and see it's normal, I calm down. Even knowing it's psychosomatic, it still feels real.

Missouri's first COVID-19 death happened today in my own hometown. Yikes. It was an elderly person, according to what I've heard.

And yeah, I definitely sympathize on the psychosomatic thing. I felt a bit of a headache earlier today (was afraid it might be the onset of a fever), but it's gone now. I think my brain was playing on my fears or something. Enough to make me worry that I might have to isolate myself, but unless I feel significantly "off" tomorrow I'll probably go to work as normal, as I have not knowingly had any contact with anyone with the virus. Being really tired and stressed (working at a Walmart) probably doesn't help as far as psychological things go either.

I cant help but think that people are being extremely shortsighted on this.
the Bay Area has instituted shelter in place until april 7. I just got an email from work stating my new schedule effective april 8th.
For me, I do not want to be going back until this entire thing has blown over. I dont get why my work isnt planning for the worst. Yeah i get you dont want kids to regress and assuring parents that services will resume soon, but what is worse? Kids regressing or people dying?

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Psychosomatic, stress, anything else, also these are not COVID-19 symptoms.
I mentioned earlier I feel a cough coming on when I pass empty supermarket aisles, it brings the virus to my imagination and my body reacts. I deliberatly struggle not to cough so as not to freak out other shoppers

I've been doing the exact same thing. You can only read about the virus for so long before your throat feels scratchy or you feel like you have a fever.

Luckily, after a lifetime in IT, I don't trust anything but metrics and once I take my temperature and see it's normal, I calm down. Even knowing it's psychosomatic, it still feels real.

Hm, I have not had that at all. Snuffles and sneezes but just the same ones I always deal with via allergies.

 gorgon wrote:
Somehow people got it stuck in their heads that younger adults are borderline immune because most of the fatalities were from the elderly in China. And it does seem that the risk is lower, but some ARE getting seriously ill, and many others may be spreading it.

Yeah, that. The "number of deaths" statistics is misleading. First, it doesn't tell us of the severity of the illness during recovery. Staying home two weeks in bed isn't the same as being in the ICU unit. Second, these numbers don't tell us the number of outbreaks. A family of seven infected in a city in California is not the same as ten different unrelated people infected in different parts of Northern and Southern California.

Anyway, "Despite initial data from China that showed elderly people and those with other health conditions were most vulnerable, young people — from twenty-somethings to those in their early 40s — are falling seriously ill. Many require intensive care, according to reports from Italy and France. The risk is particularly dire for those with ailments that haven't yet been diagnosed.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/yes-younger-people-are-falling-seriously-ill-from-coronavirus-1.622964


Also, at Stanford, two more cases: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/03/18/2-more-students-report-positive-coronavirus-tests/

And what happens to those when there\s no ICU's avaible.

But that doesn't matter to certain people even here. Nothing should be done and people can die just so they personally can get lots of money.

 ced1106 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Somehow people got it stuck in their heads that younger adults are borderline immune because most of the fatalities were from the elderly in China. And it does seem that the risk is lower, but some ARE getting seriously ill, and many others may be spreading it.

Yeah, that. The "number of deaths" statistics is misleading. First, it doesn't tell us of the severity of the illness during recovery. Staying home two weeks in bed isn't the same as being in the ICU unit. Second, these numbers don't tell us the number of outbreaks. A family of seven infected in a city in California is not the same as ten different unrelated people infected in different parts of Northern and Southern California.

Anyway, "Despite initial data from China that showed elderly people and those with other health conditions were most vulnerable, young people — from twenty-somethings to those in their early 40s — are falling seriously ill. Many require intensive care, according to reports from Italy and France. The risk is particularly dire for those with ailments that haven't yet been diagnosed.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/yes-younger-people-are-falling-seriously-ill-from-coronavirus-1.622964


Also, at Stanford, two more cases: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/03/18/2-more-students-report-positive-coronavirus-tests/

While undoubtedly young people are falling ill and very ill and perhaps disproportionately so (maybe due to not following advice) I am not convinced by the mr chow article because Bloomberg said they were unable to confirm any of it.

Also Orlanth I have never been so glad to follow your advice , I have a l large stock of food, even growing my own herbs and planted potatoes for later ( hopefully not needed) for my family, the NHS who I work for are actually providing me some meals too. But looking at the shops empty , at only promises to refill , and if they do locusts strip them bare within seconds.

Hopefully your proved wrong and I have a small shopping bills In the future , but if your right.........

 Orlanth wrote:

Third the Uk has not got far greater sick numbers. France, under lockdown has overtaken infection and death statistics even under lockdown and so has Germany. Lockdown isn't working. Very possibly because if you lockdown everyone the only people who will be able to cope as subsistence farmers, preppers and the first weave of panic buyers. Everyone else is fethed and has to sneak out in order to get supplies. Isolation looks like it might work right now because larders are not empty yet, these are very early days. Give it a week and lockdown will collapse completely because the vast majority of the population will be hungry and out of food. The UK is the only country I know of that has a staged plan to try and avoid lockdown and its inevitable ticking clock to supply breakdown..

I think you misunderstand how the numbers work. French numbers are increasing because confirmed cases are and not because infections are. Due to testing rates, and the long incubation period, confirmed cases will continue to rise long after infections have decreased.

That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

nfe wrote:
That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

Not sustainable in capitalism you mean.

Working from home is a white collar priviledge. Factory workers are still forced to go to work (and now with no public transport and possibly sick) on pain of termination (and following starvation and homelessness) until they test positive, even if their workplace is already known to be compromised. This is the case in Slovenia, certainly the US, and probably almost everywhere.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

nfe wrote:
That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

Not sustainable in capitalism you mean.

Working from home is a white collar priviledge. Factory workers are still forced to go to work (and now with no public transport and possibly sick) on pain of termination (and following starvation and homelessness) until they test positive, even if their workplace is already known to be compromised. This is the case in Slovenia, certainly the US, and probably almost everywhere.

No. I mean in democracies. Even in a post-scarcity anarchic utopia you couldn't keep everyone confined to their homes for months. It does require force that most of us would oppose, or at least be nervous about creating a precedent for.

 gorgon wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:
I kind of feel like an ass complaining about gaming when people losing their lives, jobs, businesses ect but i don't get out of the house often and i was really looking forward to this years escalation league. I've already bought the full army, and we had 4 more months to go

It's okay to be disappointed, so long as you keep it in perspective. My kids were poised to have really fun baseball seasons because reasons, and I'm sad they won't get the chance to have those experiences and memories. Public health is infinitely more important and if this saves lives it's worth it, but I'm still sad for them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that most of us had some fun plans for 2020 that we won't be able to do. It's part of the collective experience now. In 5 or 10 years time, those of us who are still around will have grim conversations around 2020 as well as some black humour reminiscenses about the odd good times we managed to fit in.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

nfe wrote:
That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

Not sustainable in capitalism you mean.

Working from home is a white collar priviledge. Factory workers are still forced to go to work (and now with no public transport and possibly sick) on pain of termination (and following starvation and homelessness) until they test positive, even if their workplace is already known to be compromised. This is the case in Slovenia, certainly the US, and probably almost everywhere.

utter nonsense.

Mostly it's the stupidity and the whole shtick "but young people just shrugg it off bs".
Infact the later group is so slowed a Kanton had to clean off a promenade on a lake because the morons would just sit outside in larger then allowed groups.

Further, most european countries are not nearly capitalistic enough to actually allow for such a scenario to happen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. I mean in democracies. Even in a post-scarcity anarchic utopia you couldn't keep everyone confined to their homes for months. It does require force that most of us would oppose, or at least be nervous about creating a precedent for.

Aye.

Considering some off my former unit were called upon to get rid of the idiots on the promenade, it does require force. (well force is an overestimation for a bunch in 4 fruit pyjama unarmed militia men but still)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

nfe wrote:
That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

Not sustainable in capitalism you mean.

Working from home is a white collar priviledge. Factory workers are still forced to go to work (and now with no public transport and possibly sick) on pain of termination (and following starvation and homelessness) until they test positive, even if their workplace is already known to be compromised. This is the case in Slovenia, certainly the US, and probably almost everywhere.

utter nonsense.

Mostly it's the stupidity and the whole shtick "but young people just shrugg it off bs".
Infact the later group is so slowed a Kanton had to clean off a promenade on a lake because the morons would just sit outside in larger then allowed groups.

Further, most european countries are not nearly capitalistic enough to actually allow for such a scenario to happen.

I mean, they are right about isolation being a class issue. Poor people aren't being forced out physically to work, but their financial circumstances do dictate that they have to. It's just that removing that still wouldn't keep everyone inside.

Um even in dictatorships you can't keep everyone confined without force. Though they might have an attitude/infrastructure that enables it to last somewhat longer before there's riots/problems arising. Plus they might already have much of the system setup before an outbreak occurs.



Suffice it to say that people will only stay "caged" for so long.


There's also an attitude and experience aspect too. Many modern western democracies have had it good in the post-war periods in terms of diseases so there just isn't the cultural experience and built up behaviours to instantly shift and adapt behaviours. If anything the behaviours we've grown used too through our formative and adult lives have reinforced free movement in the extreme. Plus with family units breaking up and the shutdown of many smaller local services and the growth of supermarkets and major settlement hubs we've basically not just built a system that encourages free movement, but requires it.

 Overread wrote:
Um even in dictatorships you can't keep everyone confined without force.

Obviously. The point is that force is much easier to apply in a dictatorial or aggressively authoritarian system.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

nfe wrote:
That said, I do agree that hard lockdown is not sustainable in democracies. not for supply reasons, as it's relatively straightforward to permit individuals out to shop once the streets are dead, but because people simply wont do it for a long term without coercion. Even short-term is a struggle. Italian government say ca.40% of people are still moving around freely even after they've issued fines to thousands of people. France was the same for the first 48 hours. We'll see if their fines from yesterday have slowed movement.

Not sustainable in capitalism you mean.

Working from home is a white collar priviledge. Factory workers are still forced to go to work (and now with no public transport and possibly sick) on pain of termination (and following starvation and homelessness) until they test positive, even if their workplace is already known to be compromised. This is the case in Slovenia, certainly the US, and probably almost everywhere.

utter nonsense.

Mostly it's the stupidity and the whole shtick "but young people just shrugg it off bs".
Infact the later group is so slowed a Kanton had to clean off a promenade on a lake because the morons would just sit outside in larger then allowed groups.

Further, most european countries are not nearly capitalistic enough to actually allow for such a scenario to happen.

I mean, they are right about isolation being a class issue. Poor people aren't being forced out physically to work, but their financial circumstances do dictate that they have to. It's just that removing that still wouldn't keep everyone inside.

Atleast here, that is not the case, but then again contrary to other european states the swiss state swims in money due to an actal decentjob at budgetting. Will it affect them, yes, but atm workers are better off then small buisness owners due to how the swiss social security system is set up.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Um even in dictatorships you can't keep everyone confined without force.

Obviously. The point is that force is much easier to apply in a dictatorial or aggressively authoritarian system.

Depends wholly on the system of state and the position of the military and it's legitimate claim to shut down.
F.e. It's alot more difficult to tell the enfocring arm of the government off if the government is directly you and other citizens. hence why unarmed militia members can go and round up the whole promenade beeing outnumbered without violence.

Also on the sentiment of the population torwards the actions taken.