I do not trust any numbers on this virus just yet. How many people have been infected and either did not show signs or symptoms of the virus or did and did not bother to see medical attention? The people that have unfortunately died from this virus are probably all accounted for. Those that have the virus however are not.
especially when you can be contagious without any symptoms whatsoever. that's kinda scary.
This to me is the one thing that does scary me a bit , low 40's no health issues that would complicate things , so with that said my worry would be more that I would have it months from now and not realize it thinking it is just a cold and a bunch of old folks die because of it. At least that is were I see this getting scary , it seems under 60 you are pretty much good ( I know some have passed that are younger but much like the flu sometimes you can be totally health get the flu and that is it ) but those over are much more at risk.
Our CEO sent out a company wide email today asking that if you have a cold to please stay home , just in case.
We're deploying an application that allows people to log into from home, into a remote desktop. So if you're sick, even a little, but don't want to take PTO, you have an option.
I do not trust any numbers on this virus just yet. How many people have been infected and either did not show signs or symptoms of the virus or did and did not bother to see medical attention? The people that have unfortunately died from this virus are probably all accounted for. Those that have the virus however are not.
I don't think we know that quite yet. The latest death in my county (King County, WA) was reported today, but occurred six days ago. "One of the deaths confirmed Tuesday happened six days ago at Harborview Medical Center, but the coronavirus diagnosis wasn't made until well after the person's death, said Harborview spokesperson Susan Gregg." https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/7th-coronavirus-death-reported-in-puget-sound-region The situation is such that the link shows "7th", but the article has been updated to reflect the 9 known COVID-19 deaths here.
If people didn't fit the age demographic, or show severe symptoms they weren't tested due to the limited number of tests and the time it took to get tests back. Now in my area we can test >200/day, and they expect to get to 1,000/day between the state lab, the UW medical center, and other facilities they're bringing on board. But until this past weekend, testing wasn't really being done for COVID-19 except in extreme cases because there was such limited capacity.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
I do not trust any numbers on this virus just yet. How many people have been infected and either did not show signs or symptoms of the virus or did and did not bother to see medical attention? The people that have unfortunately died from this virus are probably all accounted for. Those that have the virus however are not.
Yeah, I agree, PJNB. It's probably too early to be able to accurately assess the numbers for reasons you mentioned. I figure, this thing is going to spread, we should take the usual precautions, and I assume most of us will survive this like we did all the other scares. At least that's my hope.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Panic buying here in my city. Toilet rolls, tissues, pasta, rice, hand sanitiser are all cleaned off supermarket shelves.
That sucks, Thoughts. I was just reading about that on The Guardian website. I hope you have enough basics to get by with until things cool off.
Panic buying has not hit our area yet although had sanitizer is nowhere to be found these days.
I think the news media- and how people react to it- is driving a lot of people to over-react. I was in Davis, California yesterday (about and hour and a quarter drive from here) and some people were walking around outside wearing masks. They were all Asian students near the campus of UC Davis. I don't know what's up with that but it's really dumb. These people were walking by themselves, nowhere near anyone else and it was a beautiful day outside. What were they trying to avoid? No one else was wearing masks- not in the park we walked around, nor the restaurant where we had lunch, nor anywhere else. Some people are not thinking clearly.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
People are so stupid. And Asians are being abused in public here, even if they are not from China. A fellow student from Malaysia had some guy giving her stupid comments after she sneezed on public transport.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Northern Italy is the Joe Biden of swedish Corona. Dominating.
1. Woman in Jönköping who has been to China (31/1)
2. Man in Västra Götaland who has been in northern Italy (26/2)
3. Woman in Uppsala who has been to Germany (27/2)
4. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Northern Italy (27/2)
5. Person in Västra Götaland who is linked to number 2 (27/2)
6. Person in Västra Götaland who is linked to number 2 (27/2)
7. Woman in Stockholm who has been to Iran (27/2)
8. Man in Jönköping who has been in northern Italy (28/2)
9. Woman in Uppsala who has been to Iran (28/2)
10. Person in Stockholm linked to number 7 (28/2)
11. Person in Stockholm linked to number 7 (28/2)
12. Person in West Götaland who has been to Iran (29/2)
13. Person in Stockholm who is linked to number 7 (29/2)
14. Person in Västra Götaland who is connected to cases in the region (1/3)
15. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (2/3)
16. Woman in Jönköping who has been in northern Italy together with number 8 (3/3)
17. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 18 and 19. (3/3)
18. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 17 and 19. (3/3)
19. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 17 and 18. (3/3)
20. Person in Skåne who has been in northern Italy. (3/3).
21. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
22. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
23. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3) 24. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
25. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
26. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
27. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
28. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
29. Person in Stockholm who is related to a person who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
30. Person in Stockholm who has been to Iran (3/3)
31. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Iran (4/3)
32. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Northern Italy (4/3)
33. Person in Region Skåne who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
34. Person in Region Värmland who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
35. Person in Region Värmland who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher.
it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.
if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders.
this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are).
and that idiot president is making it worse.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
Sorry, doesn't count.
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher.
it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.
if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders.
this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are).
and that idiot president is making it worse.
+1
and saved me from having to type a near exact response.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
Sorry, doesn't count.
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
I don't even know of people who are panicking. It seems like people equate "news coverage" with "panic".
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher.
it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.
if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders.
this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are).
and that idiot president is making it worse.
The vast majority of people do survive plane crashes. Most "crashes" dont even have any fatalities at all. You only hear about the ones that take a nose dive and everyone dies though. There are plenty of "fender benders" when it comes to planes.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
Sorry, doesn't count.
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
I don't even know of people who are panicking. It seems like people equate "news coverage" with "panic".
I guess it buys into the "fake news" narrative. I really don't know.
Also, we live in an age where "regular" people don't want to be told by the "elites" what they should do.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
Sorry, doesn't count.
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill. We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be. Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.
Back to plane crashes https://flyfright.com/statistics/ took a source from NTSB 2012-216 a total of 140 plane accidents in the States. Only 2 of which were fatal, that lead to a total of 9 deaths. I don't know ho wmany total passengers were on those 140 flights, but the death rate of a plane crash is probably less than 0.1%. So if youve been in a plane crash in the USA since 2012, you have a 99% + chance of surviving that crash.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher.
it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.
if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders.
this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are).
and that idiot president is making it worse.
The vast majority of people do survive plane crashes. Most "crashes" dont even have any fatalities at all. You only hear about the ones that take a nose dive and everyone dies though. There are plenty of "fender benders" when it comes to planes.
fine, even if you disagree with my analogy (I've never heard of airplane fender benders, and I'm talking about problems while in the air, like when you're driving, not on the tarmac, like in your driveway), the point still stands. If you are current infection rates, yes, it would be considered less deadly. If you consider the percentage of fatalities of those who contract it, coupled with how contagious it is, it is highly deadlier.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Side note- I love this show called Air Disasters. Its a documentary about plane crashes, and goes into the investigations about what causes them. I find that sort of thing interesting.
I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not. 9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons. 1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea. 2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
Sorry, doesn't count.
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill. We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be. Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.
This is due to a lack of testing units , they are hoping by the end of week to have more test more of the public. Also to have them not have to be flown to a few CDC sites as this can then take 3-4 days before test results are available.
Not panicking we just are not prepared for this new mutated form of virus( Convid-19)
Comments
"One of the deaths confirmed Tuesday happened six days ago at Harborview Medical Center, but the coronavirus diagnosis wasn't made until well after the person's death, said Harborview spokesperson Susan Gregg." https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/7th-coronavirus-death-reported-in-puget-sound-region The situation is such that the link shows "7th", but the article has been updated to reflect the 9 known COVID-19 deaths here.
If people didn't fit the age demographic, or show severe symptoms they weren't tested due to the limited number of tests and the time it took to get tests back. Now in my area we can test >200/day, and they expect to get to 1,000/day between the state lab, the UW medical center, and other facilities they're bringing on board. But until this past weekend, testing wasn't really being done for COVID-19 except in extreme cases because there was such limited capacity.
Oh, cool. Thanks for verifying. You're talking about good shit!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Yeah, I agree, PJNB. It's probably too early to be able to accurately assess the numbers for reasons you mentioned. I figure, this thing is going to spread, we should take the usual precautions, and I assume most of us will survive this like we did all the other scares. At least that's my hope.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Toilet rolls, tissues, pasta, rice, hand sanitiser are all cleaned off supermarket shelves.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We have plenty of toilet rolls.
And Asians are being abused in public here, even if they are not from China.
A fellow student from Malaysia had some guy giving her stupid comments after she sneezed on public transport.
2. Man in Västra Götaland who has been in northern Italy (26/2)
3. Woman in Uppsala who has been to Germany (27/2)
4. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Northern Italy (27/2)
5. Person in Västra Götaland who is linked to number 2 (27/2)
6. Person in Västra Götaland who is linked to number 2 (27/2)
7. Woman in Stockholm who has been to Iran (27/2)
8. Man in Jönköping who has been in northern Italy (28/2)
9. Woman in Uppsala who has been to Iran (28/2)
10. Person in Stockholm linked to number 7 (28/2)
11. Person in Stockholm linked to number 7 (28/2)
12. Person in West Götaland who has been to Iran (29/2)
13. Person in Stockholm who is linked to number 7 (29/2)
14. Person in Västra Götaland who is connected to cases in the region (1/3)
15. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (2/3)
16. Woman in Jönköping who has been in northern Italy together with number 8 (3/3)
17. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 18 and 19. (3/3)
18. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 17 and 19. (3/3)
19. Person in the Gothenburg area who has been in northern Italy together with 17 and 18. (3/3)
20. Person in Skåne who has been in northern Italy. (3/3).
21. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
22. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
23. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
24. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
25. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
26. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
27. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
28. Person in Stockholm who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
29. Person in Stockholm who is related to a person who has been in northern Italy (3/3)
30. Person in Stockholm who has been to Iran (3/3)
31. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Iran (4/3)
32. Person in Västra Götaland who has been to Northern Italy (4/3)
33. Person in Region Skåne who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
34. Person in Region Värmland who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
35. Person in Region Värmland who has been in northern Italy (4/3)
Good thing nobody travels through there
I'm looking for another promotion in the near future, maybe this will speed things up
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously?
And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.
I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.
Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.
I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?
it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.
if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders.
this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are).
and that idiot president is making it worse.
-EV 8/14/93
Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.
+1
and saved me from having to type a near exact response.
Also, we live in an age where "regular" people don't want to be told by the "elites" what they should do.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be. Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.
https://flyfright.com/statistics/ took a source from NTSB
2012-216 a total of 140 plane accidents in the States. Only 2 of which were fatal, that lead to a total of 9 deaths. I don't know ho wmany total passengers were on those 140 flights, but the death rate of a plane crash is probably less than 0.1%. So if youve been in a plane crash in the USA since 2012, you have a 99% + chance of surviving that crash.
-EV 8/14/93
This is due to a lack of testing units , they are hoping by the end of week to have more test more of the public. Also to have them not have to be flown to a few CDC sites as this can then take 3-4 days before test results are available.
Not panicking we just are not prepared for this new mutated form of virus( Convid-19)