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.

Da Boss - There's quite a few things happening (a nationwide relief bill, and of course state measures, since we're obviously a much larger country). But the suddeness of this is obviously going to be difficult for both businesses and their workers who are suddenly unemployed...

Restaurants are the last places where you are likely to get infected when compared to Churches or supermarkets.

 RiTides wrote:
What's the justification for the several states / cities who closed sit down restaurants, but allowed carry out? I guess in the first case, you interact with a server, and in the second case the only interaction is those preparing the food? Generally, tables are not that close together, so it must be concern about an infected server, right? But an infected cook would result in similar...

I don't know, at some point the cure might be worse than the disease. Are they really going to bankrupt all restaurants in their states by keeping them closed for months? And now all those workers are unemployed...

I just can't think of a time I felt I got sick from eating at a restaurant. I can see gatherings where people are closer together, like bars or concerts, but I would like to see where it was recommended that they take this action. It certainly seems to have contributed to the grocery market panic buying, which is a huge negative. Overall, just not sure that was the right call... society has to continue to function.

Anyway, yeah... interested in thoughts on this!

This is a very contagious virus that can be spread (primarily spread?) by people showing no symptoms. Stop thinking about it as *your* risk and start thinking about it as the risk that *you could be sharing it* with many other people in a given gathering place.

Again, facts are important. Rudy Gobert, an NBA player, tested positive and had interactions with thousands of people before he realized.

So far a week later, only his extremely close teammate who shares a locker, and an opposing center he physically fought for a whole game, tested positive.

We're talking about public health and society. People sitting in their own booth are very unlikely to spread the disease. So is it worth closing All sit down restaurants in a state, and putting all those people out of work, to mitigate that risk? Those people don't disappear, maybe now they need to go into settings where they have even closer contact.

I just want to see some sort of science based justification for that policy. Again, have you ever felt like you got a cold or flu from a sitdown restaurant? As Ernestas said, it's one of the last public places I think you're likely to get infected, because people already distance themselves due to food being involved. Schools, churches, even supermarkets seem wayyyyy more likely.

I'd love to see a study of how cold/flu is transmitted, and where sitdown restaurants rank on that.

I always try and avoid using the salt/pepper shakers in restaurants.

Rarely cleaned and..well.... you've read all the stuff about how few people were washing their hands after bathroom trips and similar...


https://www.3dprintingmedia.network/covid-19-3d-printed-valve-for-reanimation-device/


3d printing to the rescue.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVfWaQi31l8VNUY6CVctJm5bElMmBKL7YG3mHY8ASvvcwrag/viewform

efforts towards open source ventilators :

https://twitter.com/zedejose/status/1239338453659258891

I just can't think of a time I felt I got sick from eating at a restaurant.

I can think of about a dozen times where the only potential vector was a restaurant. Granted some of those times were food poisoning or digestive related, but inadequate cleaning and serving staff are easy to see as potential routes of infection.

People need to clam their tits. This is no worse than seasonal flu. I couldn't even buy any fething hot pockets at the store because some people came in and bought them all.

Edited by RiTides - Language

Voss: But food poisoning and digestive things don't count, obviously - it's whether or not you got the cold/flu. Regarding hard surfaces, from what I'm seeing those are a very low risk for contracting the disease - it's all about personal contact.

i caught the norovirus from eating at a diner, resulting in me being sick for 24 hours with intense stomach pain, diarrhea, vomiting and high fever.
I guess whomever prepared my food must have had the virus beforehand and did not wear gloves doing work.

But that's the point, if something was in the food, forcing the restaurants to only serve carry out would make no difference at all in that scenario...

 Togusa wrote:
People need to clam their tits. This is no worse than seasonal flu. I couldn't even buy any fething hot pockets at the store because some tards came in and bought them all.

No, this is definitely worse than seasonal flu. I agree though, people should remain calm.

It's worse, but in some ways, the reaction is out of proportion.

I think what got me riled up about this today was reading about the restaurant closures, which contributes to a run on supermarkets, which where I went today were completely out of baby wipes.

Yes, I can wash my young child's butt in the sink, but you can bet I'm fuming about all the irrational behavior / non-science-based decisions people are making while I'm doing so

 Togusa wrote:
This is no worse than seasonal flu.

Unless you happen to count mortality rate, in which case it's significantly worse. It's not a civilization-ender like the Plague obviously, but it's not "just" flu.

Well it must be starting to calm down.
Managed to restock my cupboards without going overboard like everyone else and I've got 20 rolls of loo roll which should last me 3/4 months no problem.

Still no soap or hand gel.
But plenty of lemon juice, savlon and salt.

 RiTides wrote:
Voss: But food poisoning and digestive things don't count, obviously - it's whether or not you got the cold/flu. Regarding hard surfaces, from what I'm seeing those are a very low risk for contracting the disease - it's all about personal contact.

I’ve read that most often, what people think is food poisoning is actually a stomach virus they picked up at the restaurant.

Most health officials are telling you that the masks are a dumb idea unless you already the virus. Granted, they’re talking about those little surgeon style masks. You could try a mask with a face shield to avoid getting stuff in the eyes, but if only your nose and mouth are protected and not the rest of your face, you’re doing nothing but looking like a fool. Cover your WHOLE face or don’t bother. And avoid people. Just...take 2 weeks, avoid the human race (other than the people you live with and required emergency services).

One of my bosses has it and decided to keep it to himself until he was hospitalised.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I’ve read that most often, what people think is food poisoning is actually a stomach virus they picked up at the restaurant.

Technically, "food poisoning" is a catch all term that covers any contamination of the food, which includes the stomach virus. But you are correct in that it is usually not the food itself which causes the sickness and instead a norovirus (which you get when the food preparation doesn't include enough hand washing after making poopies)

Cronch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
This is no worse than seasonal flu.

Unless you happen to count mortality rate, in which case it's significantly worse. It's not a civilization-ender like the Plague obviously, but it's not "just" flu.

2-3% so far with fewer er than 6K deaths world wide as opposed to the flu which has killed 50K plus? The media is trying to scare you, don't listen to them. Protect those with week immune systems who are most a risk. A healthy, non-obese, no problem 30 something isn't going to die from this.

You can't protect the immuno-deficient and elderly without taking precautions yourself.
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think? For a country the size of UK, that's 300 thousand dead, give or take a few thousand.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
One of my bosses has it and decided to keep it to himself until he was hospitalised.

Good grief.


That's the UK gone to 'avoid non-essential contact with others' and 'really, really avoid it if you're in London'.

Cronch wrote:
You can't protect the immuno-deficient and elderly without taking precautions yourself.
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think? For a country the size of UK, that's 300 thousand dead, give or take a few thousand.

There aren't 300K dead in the UK. Don't spread nonsense like that, the WW death toll according to the WHO for the 15th of March (most recent data) says that still fewer than 6K have died. Only ten deaths were recorded in China yesterday.

 Togusa wrote:
People need to clam their tits. This is no worse than seasonal flu.

not a flu, it is pneumonia and therefore medical treatment for the heavy cases cannot be done at home (unlike with the flu)

 Togusa wrote:

2-3% so far with fewer er than 6K deaths world wide as opposed to the flu which has killed 50K plus?

it is 2-3% with medical treatment, without it is 20% and as soon as there are to more people ill than hospital beds are available you get near those 20.

the flu is ~0,1-0,5% but total numbers are higher because it spreads much wider

Cronch wrote:
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think?

If it makes you feel better, different countries are experiencing very different numbers. It is considerably worse in China and Italy than anywhere else, which suggests that there are environmental, cultural, or dietary differences that affect the numbers. It's not just age. These factors are affecting the severity and the rate of spread. It seems like smoking might be a major contributing factor, with 68% of Chinese men being smokers, and 28% of Italian men.

A 2-3% mortality rate is almost certainly an exaggerated number due to limitations of testing and the fact that we are treating worldwide numbers as if they were the same situation - China, Iran, and Italy's numbers are inflating the projection when in other countries, it is not playing out with similar severity.

 Togusa wrote:

Cronch wrote:
You can't protect the immuno-deficient and elderly without taking precautions yourself.
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think? For a country the size of UK, that's 300 thousand dead, give or take a few thousand.

There aren't 300K dead in the UK. Don't spread nonsense like that, the WW death toll according to the WHO for the 15th of March (most recent data) says that still fewer than 6K have died. Only ten deaths were recorded in China yesterday.

Try to remember there are differences in how cause of death is recorded in China compared to Western countries.

If someone comes down with Corona Virus and they were diabetic, we call that a CV death. In China, they call that a diabetes death.

Mortality is a bigger figure than what the WHO will report. They know about the problem, it's not theirs to fix. But the numbers they release will always be suspect.

 Da Boss wrote:
Germany is making a huge fund available to businesses to help prevent them going bust. Is the US not doing something similar?

French is saying full losses covered as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
People need to clam their tits. This is no worse than seasonal flu. I couldn't even buy any fething hot pockets at the store because some tards came in and bought them all.

Riiiiiight. Seasonal flu has 3% overall mortality rate right?

Seasonal flu causes 10-20% patients need serious health support before healed?

Seasonal flu is so contaginous that entire country literally runs out of hospital places and they have to deny treatment even for people with 15% mortality rate because they are least likely to survive?

Lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
This is no worse than seasonal flu.

Unless you happen to count mortality rate, in which case it's significantly worse. It's not a civilization-ender like the Plague obviously, but it's not "just" flu.

2-3% so far with fewer er than 6K deaths world wide as opposed to the flu which has killed 50K plus? The media is trying to scare you, don't listen to them. Protect those with week immune systems who are most a risk. A healthy, non-obese, no problem 30 something isn't going to die from this.

Ignoring those who have done just that of course. Good way to claim something while ignoring those who did what you claim they didn't

Good arqument you have. Claim something while ignoring opposite. I ignored it, therefore it did not happen.

UK Government official advice is to work from home. Which I can.

It also means I don’t need to get out of bed at 5:30am.......

Never mind this being sensible, I’m mostly concerned with having a good old snooze!

 Sqorgar wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think?

If it makes you feel better, different countries are experiencing very different numbers. It is considerably worse in China and Italy than anywhere else, which suggests that there are environmental, cultural, or dietary differences that affect the numbers. It's not just age. These factors are affecting the severity and the rate of spread. It seems like smoking might be a major contributing factor, with 68% of Chinese men being smokers, and 28% of Italian men

20% of the cases needs hospital treatment, the difference in numbers in different countries for deaths depends mostly on how much places are available and how many people need them at the same time

North Italy has much more ill people than beds available and therefore the death rate is higher

 Togusa wrote:

Cronch wrote:
You can't protect the immuno-deficient and elderly without taking precautions yourself.
Also, 2-3 compared to flu's 0,1-0,2 is a pretty decent jump, don't you think? For a country the size of UK, that's 300 thousand dead, give or take a few thousand.

There aren't 300K dead in the UK. Don't spread nonsense like that, the WW death toll according to the WHO for the 15th of March (most recent data) says that still fewer than 6K have died. Only ten deaths were recorded in China yesterday.

Gee. OF course there isn't. It hasn't infected yet so many...Let's see. Simple math for elementary school level. Let's see if you can follow.

UK has 65 million people. UK's plan is herd immunity. Ergo it needs 60%+ population to catch it. Let's say they manage to keep it exactly 60% so. That's 39,000,000 infected? Still following?

Okay mortality rate is atm 3% but let's say that's too much. Let's go with 0.5%.

0.5% of 39 million is 195,000.

Following? Still with me?

Now consider this: That's seriously under what it is now. Then add to that that UK is pretty much ignoring it for sake of herd immunity so it will overwhelm NHS. There won't be room and equipment. 10-20% patients need hospital aid. Many of those critical. There won't BE enough room. Italy is already having to ignore people with statistically 15% mortality rate UNAIDED. Do you really expect mortality rate NOT go up if they get no medical help?

Today at work we had a large-scale trial of working from home. Pretty much everyone from our London office was at home, and most people from my site were at home. Only people in were people still working in the distribution centre, and a few IT bods like myself. It was pretty eerie actually, office usually has about 400 people in it and today it was more like 20...

Depending on the feedback tomorrow, we may be continuing it from now on. I know of at least one team that is.

For my team, we're going to do a weekly rotation with half the team onsite and half working remotely. Should at least reduce the risk of us all being taken out of action at once...