Coronavirus outbreak

[Hound]

I fear the worst case will be economic melt down, social unrest and whilst flattening the curve a little now, its only storing it up for later in the year

Almost a steady stream of cases over the next 12 months might be the least worst option. And I suppose to do that you would enforce some restrictions, plus ramp up the medical care side as much as is possible - which is not an easy thing to do

I'm not particularly enamoured with talk about flattening of the curve now being any kind of solution - like it will all just magically go away in 3-6 months and its all about limiting the deaths and spread to the absolute minimum now and we'll all be good.

Anyway, in summary I think whatever we do its going to be pretty horrific

[WestYorksRoyal]

I guess the economic fall out from this will only kill people if it's tied to neo-liberal austerity doctrine. The government will have to borrow loads to keep businesses afloat and people fed, to the extent that debt will take 50+ years to pay off.

The same happened in WW2, but we came out of it with solidarity and built our welfare state. It's easy to romanticize the government at the time, but in reality rationing continued into the 1950s to pay for it. Everybody contributed.

Compare this with the financial crisis. Corporation tax and higher rate income tax are lower now than the 90s and 00s; the vulnerable paid for our debt and, yes, people died because of it.

So, we are currently amidst one of our greatest peacetime crises. Of course the government should do whatever it takes to save 500k + lives; I can't believe anybody is debating this.

The question is, once this has blown over, who pays? I think we all should and will happily pay more tax. And if we follow this approach
nobody has to die. To be honest, looking at the past 5 years politically, I think any party looking towards the Thatcherite/Osborne model to pay it off will take a pasting. There will probably be a willingness from the electorate for higher taxes you wouldn't normally see.

But these are future debates. The idea that we should sacrifice half a million people to protect the economy is immoral and vile; I'm pretty sure we all know somebody vulnerable who would essentially be sentenced to death following that approach. Get a grip people.

[Snowball]

We have to flatten the curve for now, and again in 3 months, six months, probably 9 months and 12 months

Some in this thread are saying, "But yeah, we get flu-deaths every year, so..."

This is straight from Public Health England

Public Health England

Surveillance of influenza and other
respiratory viruses in the UK

OFFICIAL FIGURES

2016-17 111 Deaths
2017-18 330 Deaths
2018-19 312 Deaths

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -FINAL.pdf



2013-14 098 Deaths in 28 Weeks
2014-15 100 Deaths in 28 Weeks
2015-16 209 Deaths in 28 Weeks
2016-17 111 Deaths in 28 Weeks
2017-18 330 Deaths in 28 Weeks
2018-19 312 Deaths in 28 Weeks



That's 1,160 Flu Deaths in 6 years,
an average of 193 per year,
less than seven per week (6.89)
and an average just under one death nationwide per day.

The first Covid-19 Death in the UK was 5th March, 18 days ago

As we don’t yet have today’s deaths, we have had 281 deaths in 17 days,
an average of 16.53 days per day, an average that will go significantly higher

So, perspective. SO FAR Coronavirus is killing UK residents at 16-17 times the annual flu rate

and, presumably we will have also had c 200 seasonal flu deaths.

This is happening WITH the restrictions. Try to imagine the numbers with no restrictions at all.

[Snowball]

But these are future debates. The idea that we should sacrifice half a million people to protect the economy is immoral and vile; I'm pretty sure we all know somebody vulnerable who would essentially be sentenced to death following that approach. Get a grip people.

Well said

[Snowball]

Approximately 150,000 people die EVERY DAY in the world and yet we have virtually shut down the global economy for 10,000 or so COVID-19 deaths - many of whom were older people who were already extremely ill in hospitals - which have become a hot bed of infection.

Did you just INVENT that?

I'm pretty sure the PHE papers I've been reading are talking
about hospital admissions due to Covid-19.

So far, as far as I can recall, the only hospital-caught cases
have been nurses and doctors.

if what you say above is correct, where is the evidence?



EDIT:

I have found one mention of two patients tested in hospital
(King's) where at the time of the article it was uncertain where
they had contracted it. (The SUN)

I can't find any official references to suggest non-coved patients are being infected in hospital

[Millsy]

Remember also that there are several promising treatments (not vaccines) that are already in use for other things (may not be licensed but can still be prescribed) that are ready to go.

So to my mind it's not simply a case of flattening the curve.

Plus there's a chance for those with asthma/COPD/hypertension etc etc to optimise their treatment, diet, exercise as much as they can in this period to improve their chances somewhat.

[Millsy]

What is the overlap to people who would have died anyway?

100%

[Wycombe Royal]

Approximately 150,000 people die EVERY DAY in the world and yet we have virtually shut down the global economy for 10,000 or so COVID-19 deaths - many of whom were older people who were already extremely ill in hospitals - which have become a hot bed of infection.

Did you just INVENT that?

I'm pretty sure the PHE papers I've been reading are talking
about hospital admissions due to Covid-19.

So far, as far as I can recall, the only hospital-caught cases
have been nurses and doctors.

if what you say above is correct, where is the evidence?



EDIT:

I have found one mention of two patients tested in hospital
(King's) where at the time of the article it was uncertain where
they had contracted it. (The SUN)

I can't find any official references to suggest non-coved patients are being infected in hospital

He didn't say in the UK.....

[krapmle]

you now have the european centre for disease prevention and control criticising european governments for closing borders etc.
They also criticise the different national approaches to covoid being influenced by politics.

[Snowball]

BREAKING NEWS


BBC



The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) says the coronavirus pandemic is "accelerating".

Speaking at a press briefing in Geneva, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

“It took 67 days from the first reported case to reach 100,000 cases,
11 days for the second 100,000 cases,
and just four days for the third 100,000 cases.”

[Snowball]

Approximately 150,000 people die EVERY DAY in the world and yet we have virtually shut down the global economy for 10,000 or so COVID-19 deaths - many of whom were older people who were already extremely ill in hospitals - which have become a hot bed of infection.

Did you just INVENT that?

I'm pretty sure the PHE papers I've been reading are talking
about hospital admissions due to Covid-19.

So far, as far as I can recall, the only hospital-caught cases
have been nurses and doctors.

if what you say above is correct, where is the evidence?



EDIT:

I have found one mention of two patients tested in hospital
(King's) where at the time of the article it was uncertain where
they had contracted it. (The SUN)

I can't find any official references to suggest non-coved patients are being infected in hospital

He didn't say in the UK.....

Try Googling and produce evidence UK or worldwide.

[krapmle]

But these are future debates. The idea that we should sacrifice half a million people to protect the economy is immoral and vile; I'm pretty sure we all know somebody vulnerable who would essentially be sentenced to death following that approach. Get a grip people.

Well said

Thats not what I am saying. I am questioning the sudden rise in morality for a virus that will ultimately kill less people than flu.
Flu kills year in, year out and has done for hundreds of years and we accept it. Deaths from flu run into the billions since we have been on this planet. That is what is immoral and vile.
Even if covoid takes out 500,000 this year, Flu will overtake that.

Get a grip people. There are bigger killers out there we more or less ignore. Bit like plane crashes. 400 die in one go, shock horror, outrage. The small fact that thousands die in car crashes each year goes straight over your heads.

So I want consistency on dealing with issues and not political or social media driven nonsense.

[windermereROYAL]

5.7% mortality rate now, its going up, but you need to keep in my mind only hospitalised patients are being tested.

[krapmle]

5.7% mortality rate now, its going up, but you need to keep in my mind only hospitalised patients are being tested.

Germany 0.4% so whats your point?

[Snowball]

Thats not what I am saying. I am questioning the sudden rise in morality for a virus that will ultimately kill less people than flu.

Coronavirus is already killing at a rate 17 times season flu, and that is ON TOP OF the seasonal flu deaths

So, right now we are at an 18-Fold increase in deaths, and today WHO announced that the pandemic is accelerating

[krapmle]

Thats not what I am saying. I am questioning the sudden rise in morality for a virus that will ultimately kill less people than flu.

Coronavirus is already killing at a rate 17 times season flu, and that is ON TOP OF the seasonal flu deaths

So, right now we are at an 18-Fold increase in deaths, and today WHO announced that the pandemic is accelerating

snowball you are still not listening. FLU will kill more. Its virtually impossible to catch up with flu death rates.
So why doesn't humanity do more?

The cost of this economic disaster now heading our way would probably be sufficient to find a cure for cancer.

I am suggesting our priorities are wrong, I am not suggesting get on with life and let people die.

[Snowball]

Thats not what I am saying. I am questioning the sudden rise in morality for a virus that will ultimately kill less people than flu.

Coronavirus is already killing at a rate 17 times season flu, and that is ON TOP OF the seasonal flu deaths

So, right now we are at an 18-Fold increase in deaths, and today WHO announced that the pandemic is accelerating

FLU will kill more. Its virtually impossible to catch up with flu death rates.
So why doesn't humanity do more?

Love to know where you get "Billions" from. Plural, so at least 2,000,000,000?

Well, first, that's like saying "Heart-Attacks over the last 50 thousand years are X, there's no point in trying to prevent future ones.

The 1918-19 flu, erroneously called Spanish Flu (nothing to do with Spain) killed at least 40 Million people. Some estimates say maybe 100 Million died. The USA alone lost 2/3 of a million. The world population at the time was a quarter of today's population. Scaled up to current population densities that would be between 160 Million and 400 Million deaths

(Try The Great Influenza: John M Barry. Penguin Books)

What if this pandemic has the potential to kill at the same rate as 1918? We don't yet know but it's still accelerating fast. Flattening the curve is our only defence. If we don't, people will die for lack of care. It's likely we will be triaging like in Italy, letting older patients die to try and save younger ones even if we DO keep these restrictions.

As for humanity "doing more", most advanced countries have research departments forever looking to battle coronaviruses.
Every year there is a flu-vaccine (for flu's we know are coming)... There are people studying epidemiology all their lives.

There is always a balance to be struck. What is spent on X can't also be spent on Y.

I don't know the world breakdown by country on flu-deaths. I do know that despite vaccines being available, not enough people get vaccinated (including me). I bet that will change now!

[tmesis]

But these are future debates. The idea that we should sacrifice half a million people to protect the economy is immoral and vile; I'm pretty sure we all know somebody vulnerable who would essentially be sentenced to death following that approach. Get a grip people.

Well said

Even if covoid takes out 500,000 this year, Flu will overtake that..

I think you are confusing the numbers who could die here with the numbers flu kills globally each year.

It's also not just the vulnerable who'd die. If the hospitals became overwhelmed, which they would do if we had millions infected at once, people who would have otherwise survived with treatment will die.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Capitalism as it stands is shot... not too hopeful about what takes its place.

Anyone see that movie Elysium?...

[SCIAG]

I guess the economic fall out from this will only kill people if it's tied to neo-liberal austerity doctrine. The government will have to borrow loads to keep businesses afloat and people fed, to the extent that debt will take 50+ years to pay off.

The same happened in WW2, but we came out of it with solidarity and built our welfare state. It's easy to romanticize the government at the time, but in reality rationing continued into the 1950s to pay for it. Everybody contributed.

Compare this with the financial crisis. Corporation tax and higher rate income tax are lower now than the 90s and 00s; the vulnerable paid for our debt and, yes, people died because of it.

So, we are currently amidst one of our greatest peacetime crises. Of course the government should do whatever it takes to save 500k + lives; I can't believe anybody is debating this.

The question is, once this has blown over, who pays? I think we all should and will happily pay more tax. And if we follow this approach
nobody has to die. To be honest, looking at the past 5 years politically, I think any party looking towards the Thatcherite/Osborne model to pay it off will take a pasting. There will probably be a willingness from the electorate for higher taxes you wouldn't normally see.

But these are future debates. The idea that we should sacrifice half a million people to protect the economy is immoral and vile; I'm pretty sure we all know somebody vulnerable who would essentially be sentenced to death following that approach. Get a grip people.

I think this is a rather glib and superficial analysis. For one thing, people aren’t saying “we should sacrifice 500,000 to keep some numbers high”, they’re saying “we should sacrifice 500,000 people to stop a possibly larger number of deaths later”. Now that in itself is quite superficial as there’s no way to know which approach will save more lives over the next, say, 100 years. Would 500,000 people dying cause more of a long-term downturn than everyone staying inside? Also arguable.

The economy is not just numbers, the economy is people’s lives.

Your praise of rationing and the suggestion we should all pay more tax to deal with the crisis is very short-sighted though. Raising taxes is only slightly better than cutting welfare payments. The response to the virus shouldn’t be to make it harder to run a business or make a living. Suspect government borrowing is currently very cheap. There’s no need for the sort of harsh austerity you are (apparently accidentally) arguing for.

If you look at the past five years politically you’ll see the Tories going from strength to strength and socialist Labour sinking to historic lows, which hardly supports your idea.