Facemasks

[lurker]

If you want a really bonkers coronavirus fact, sales of Corona beer have apparently slumped because people are frightened it will give them the disease. If you like Corona ( more of a real ale man myself ), now is the time to stock up on cheap beer.

This started as a perfectly reasonable joke, but there are either an awful lot of thick as sh... folks out there, or we have a serious proportion of autistic members of the general population.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

If you want a really bonkers coronavirus fact, sales of Corona beer have apparently slumped because people are frightened it will give them the disease. If you like Corona ( more of a real ale man myself ), now is the time to stock up on cheap beer.

This started as a perfectly reasonable joke, but there are either an awful lot of thick as sh... folks out there, or we have a serious proportion of autistic members of the general population.

I'm really disappointed to learn that it <may> be something made up by the internet: https://www.barrons.com/articles/corona ... 1583165067

Of course it could just be damage control by the PR department...

 

[lurker]

In the past month I think I have tried to explain to half a dozen folks with degrees ( all under 40) the difference between a virus and a bacteria. Mainly why antibiotics don’t work with all illnesses. I doubt most of them took a blind bit of notice!

 

[jeremyduncombe]

If you want a really bonkers coronavirus fact, sales of Corona beer have apparently slumped because people are frightened it will give them the disease. If you like Corona ( more of a real ale man myself ), now is the time to stock up on cheap beer.

This started as a perfectly reasonable joke, but there are either an awful lot of thick as sh... folks out there, or we have a serious proportion of autistic members of the general population.

Dammit, I have fallen for an internet joke. Guess I am just as thick as .... whatever. Shame, I would have liked it to be true.

 

[lurker]

Like you I would never drink the stuff, so maybe we will not get the dreaded lurgy :wink:

 

[lurker]

I meant folks didn’t realise it was a joke and took it as a statement of fact.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I meant folks didn’t realise it was a joke and took it as a statement of fact.

Seeing as we are talking about the USA, I thought this might be appropriate:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

I was rummaging for the quote here and got completely sidetracked by his astonishing wisdom. Well worth a read, if you like cynical.

 

[John Brown]

Mencken is one of my favourites.
You might enjoy Ambrose Bierce, also on that site, if you're not already familiar with his cynical definitions.

 

[Chris152]

Can anyone help me understand this?

This morning, Matt Hancock on Radio 4 (at about 8.12 am) said that there was no clinical benefit in closing schools now, and that it would be highly disruptive in other respects (presumably parents unable to work). Indeed, apparently there's a plan to allow class sizes to increase above the current legal limit in case teachers become ill and can't work (creating, I'd have thought, a perfect environment for transmitting the virus), so the economic factor (keeping parents working) seems most important to the government.

Since it's apparent the virus is now on the move within communities in the UK, how is it possibly true that closing schools - making it no longer necessary for kids to be in close contact with large numbers of others in confined spaces, sharing keyboards, door handles etc) - would be of no clinical value (ie helping stop spread the virus). This seems patently untrue to me and, as a result, I find it very hard to believe anything the govt says to reassure us about how it's going to handle the outbreak.

 

[John Brown]

I think the answer's fairly simple. The government don't know what they're doing.
For political balance, I'm not suggesting the other shower would be any better...

 

[Chris152]

My concern is that, while they don't really know what to do, they know that for them the economy trumps everything else, and in the worst case a thinning of the population - particularly those who are the greatest drain on the country's resources - would not be an entirely bad thing. Which is not to say that's a defined goal by any means, but I've not yet got my head around how the ruling 'elites' regard the rest of us. And it's certainly not a party political point.

 

[AES]

Chris 152: You wrote, QUOTE: ..... but I've not yet got my head around how the ruling 'elites' regard the rest of us. And it's certainly not a party political point. UNQUOTE:

If it's any consolation at all (I'm sure it's not!) there's no real difference here (Switzerland). And Corona virus is only the latest example! About the only thing I take issue with in your point above is the word "yet". Personally, I'm pretty sure I'm NEVER gonna get my head around these "idiots" (virtually all of 'em), unless it could possibly just be self-serving interest!

 

[lurker]

Can anyone help me understand this?

This morning, Matt Hancock on Radio 4 (at about 8.12 am) said that there was no clinical benefit in closing schools now, and that it would be highly disruptive in other respects (presumably parents unable to work). Indeed, apparently there's a plan to allow class sizes to increase above the current legal limit in case teachers become ill and can't work (creating, I'd have thought, a perfect environment for transmitting the virus), so the economic factor (keeping parents working) seems most important to the government.

Since it's apparent the virus is now on the move within communities in the UK, how is it possibly true that closing schools - making it no longer necessary for kids to be in close contact with large numbers of others in confined spaces, sharing keyboards, door handles etc) - would be of no clinical value (ie helping stop spread the virus). This seems patently untrue to me and, as a result, I find it very hard to believe anything the govt says to reassure us about how it's going to handle the outbreak.

This is only true if you know for a fact that the politicians are ignoring advice from epidemiologists and virologists.

 

[Chris152]

Can anyone help me understand this?

This morning, Matt Hancock on Radio 4 (at about 8.12 am) said that there was no clinical benefit in closing schools now, and that it would be highly disruptive in other respects (presumably parents unable to work). Indeed, apparently there's a plan to allow class sizes to increase above the current legal limit in case teachers become ill and can't work (creating, I'd have thought, a perfect environment for transmitting the virus), so the economic factor (keeping parents working) seems most important to the government.

Since it's apparent the virus is now on the move within communities in the UK, how is it possibly true that closing schools - making it no longer necessary for kids to be in close contact with large numbers of others in confined spaces, sharing keyboards, door handles etc) - would be of no clinical value (ie helping stop spread the virus). This seems patently untrue to me and, as a result, I find it very hard to believe anything the govt says to reassure us about how it's going to handle the outbreak.

This is only true if you know for a fact that the politicians are ignoring advice from epidemiologists and virologists.

I don't doubt that they are taking that advice into account, but my concern is how heavily it weighs in relation to other priorities that politicians have.

 

[lurker]

I share your distrust of politicians, but have faith that the experts are sufficiently independent speak out.

 

[Chris152]

I share your distrust of politicians, but have faith that the experts are sufficiently independent speak out.

I'm not saying we forget all other matters and focus singly on stopping the virus - too many other essential things would stop and we could end up in a worse situation. Which is presumably in the mind of health experts who know they know little or nothing about managing a nation in the midst of a potential viral epidemic.

Being told to keep calm and carry on while washing your hands and singing happy birthday doesn't really sound right to me. At the moment, it seems we're waiting for things to get worse before more strict measures are taken, rather than taking pre-emptive action to try to halt its progress.

Clearly I'm just a punter wondering, and really don't know what I'm talking about. But when I hear what sounds very much like incoherent advice on schools, I start to doubt whose interests are at the forefront.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I share your distrust of politicians, but have faith that the experts are sufficiently independent speak out.

I'm not saying we forget all other matters and focus singly on stopping the virus - too many other essential things would stop and we could end up in a worse situation. Which is presumably in the mind of health experts who know they know little or nothing about managing a nation in the midst of a potential viral epidemic.

Being told to keep calm and carry on while washing your hands and singing happy birthday doesn't really sound right to me. At the moment, it seems we're waiting for things to get worse before more strict measures are taken, rather than taking pre-emptive action to try to halt its progress.

Clearly I'm just a punter wondering, and really don't know what I'm talking about. But when I hear what sounds very much like incoherent advice on schools, I start to doubt whose interests are at the forefront.

I keep reminding myself of two points: firstly, this is the "common cold", which is common for a reason - it's really easy to catch. Secondly, there is no cure for the common cold. I said a couple of weeks ago that you were better served worrying about the 'flu than about this new virus, and as of today this still stands - you are much, much more likely to catch 'flu in the next week than you are to catch the coronanvirus. I'm not sure if I will be able to say that in a fortnight, however.

The good news is sunshine and warmer weather are its major enemy. Well, good news for me, anyway.

The brutal question to ask is whether the economic fallout of 2% of the population dying is worse than the fallout of stopping the world economy, all trade and travel, and keeping every human being isolated until the virus dies out through lack of fresh victims. In financial terms, what is 2% of the population worth?

There are people who get paid the big bucks to make the big decisions - it's not me, thank God.

 

[Chris152]

There are people who get paid the big bucks to make the big decisions - it's not me, thank God.

Agree completely, tho on the upside for them, presumably those big bucks allow them to put up effective barriers to protect themselves from the great unwashed (hands).

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Listening to the news conference from No 10 it seems that there is a plan which as a worst case ultimately assumes 80% of the UK is affected. This is just a guess but a good place to contingency plan.

Corona is still being dealt with as a containment exercise - self isolation, testing, hospitalisation of the small numbers infected. This works with a very small number of cases but there clearly comes a point where the number of cases and geographic spread make this implausible. I think we are at that point now - or will be in a few days.

The next stage is to accept that it is in the wider community and realistically containment is no longer a workable strategy. The strategy then changes to extending the outbreak to reduce the peak load on the NHS.

I assume hospitalisations would likely occur against some sort of skewed normal distribution curve - building up fairly rapidly (over, say, 3-8 weeks) to a peak which may last 4-8 weeks and then decline as new infections decline. Some of the remedies open to more authoritarian states (eg: quarantine of whole cities) would be difficult to implement in the UK.

So how does this relate to schools noting that chidren are least likely to have complications (apparently). Children at home will need family carers and it is unclear how long the schools would remain shut. So many parents (some of whom work for the NHS) could be off work for several months until the virus is "spent".

Strategically it may be better if those with children are infected at an early stage as they and their parents will normally be in lower risk groups and make more limited demands on the NHS. Schools and parents can then return to normal activities before the outbreak affects higher risk groups.

 

[AES]

Despite my general pessimism/cynicsm, matters DO seem to be coming together a bit better here now.

Last weekend was "Fassnacht" (Carnival) here in several towns & cities (actual dates vary according to Kanton) and it was cancelled or postponed in our area (NW of the country), and some others too.

As Carnival involves long processions with bands and people on floats chucking out hands full of sweets and fruit to the spectators, that sounds quite sensible to me. As said in an earlier post, it takes a LOT for the average Swiss to give up Carnival, they spend AGES rehearsing, and building all sorts of highly artistic Carnival floats, masks, etc.

All schools are already closed and will remain so for the next 10 days or so, but that's "standard", they always have about 2 weeks school hols for Carnival.

And when I went to my local hospital for my regular Physio this morning there were temporary barriers manned by Security people asking everyone if they have a sore throat or temperature. If yes "Only through that door there please" (where presumably medical staff would perform tests). If no, "OK, enter as normal here, but be sure to use the hand disinfectant just inside the door. It's obligatory".

Over reaction? Dunno, but looks/sounds quite sensible to me