OV9

Mito Man wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:05 am Wonder how long before it blows up here.

I saw on the news last night there's a case in Haslemere; far too close for comfort.


I keep singing Corona in the style of Daytona

We missed our chance to build the wall, the virus has landed north of the border!

Hoots mon, we're dhoomed!

I read somewhere that it hasn’t killed anyone under the age of 10 which was a surprise.

I shall prepare by eating sweets and watching cartoons till this all blows over.

Dave!

V8Granite wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:53 am I read somewhere that it hasn’t killed anyone under the age of 10 which was a surprise.

I shall prepare by eating sweets and watching cartoons till this all blows over.

Dave!

So carrying on as normal then, yeah?

Going on the current figures, people aged 40-50 i.e. me, have more chance of winning the lottery than dying from it. If you're over 80 and get it you're fucked, just like flu then. A lot of fuss over nothing.

Zonda_ wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:17 pm Going on the current figures, people aged 40-50 i.e. me, have more chance of winning the lottery than dying from it. If you're over 80 and get it you're fucked, just like flu then. A lot of fuss over nothing.

Assuming you catch it, your chances of survival are 99.6% (source). A 0.4% chance of dying. The chance of 'winning' the lottery are 1 in 45 million.

The reckon there's a possibility that 'most' people will catch it in the UK at some point, if current spread rate continues.

It really seems to depend on the healthcare. Right now everyone’s getting hospitalised in developed countries. If it gets to the point where the NHS just can’t cope and tell everyone to stay at home then that will be interesting. Let’s face it if you catch pneumonia at home that’s a death sentence.

I’d still rather avoid catching and spreading it. Even if I’m healthy and will survive, I’d rather not be responsible for passing it on to weaker/older people and putting them at risk.

China's death rate seems to be suspiciously lower than the rest of the worlds, who really knows what the real figures are?

China don’t seem to record it properly. If you die from pneumonia due to the virus they put the death down as just pneumonia from what I’ve read.

Rich B wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:30 pm I’d still rather avoid catching and spreading it. Even if I’m healthy and will survive, I’d rather not be responsible for passing it on to weaker/older people and putting them at risk.

Yes - even on the basis of a 0.4% mortality rate, if 70% of the UK were infected (in line with some estimates if it was left unchecked), it could potentially lead to additional deaths in the UK of a city the size of York (160,000 ish). Given the threat to older people it means that a considerable number of people would lose a parent or grandparent as a result - definitely not something to be dismissed as trivial.

It also has not insignificantly higher infectiousness than flu (R0 of >2 to flu's 1.3) and no available vaccine, unlike flu so those high figures of the % that could catch it should be taken seriously.

You also have to take into account the number of people that potentially would be hospitalised. If 70% of the UK caught coronovirus it would put a huge strain on the NHS and, in the alternative, if measures needed to be taken to isolate large numbers of people to stop such a spread it would have a significant negative effect on the economy.

Be interesting to see whether the uk can cope with a much larger proportion of people working from home. If it does then it's about time there was a shakeup to the antiquated idea of having to commute to a fixed place of work to sit at a desk in front of a computer.

integrale_evo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:02 pm Be interesting to see whether the uk can cope with a much larger proportion of people working from home. If it does then it's about time there was a shakeup to the antiquated idea of having to commute to a fixed place of work to sit at a desk in front of a computer.

its a discussion I see every day (I do office fit outs). Sometimes the antiquated way is still the best, but like you say - sometimes people haven’t ever actually tried/seen any alternatives.

Judging from our office a lot of people see working from home as a skive

I can work from home most days if I have to but I’m not really set up for it as well as I am in the office.

Also my missus is home most of the day as she works evenings and she also assumes that I’m home for a skive.

It’s one of those things which will get utilised more as the software gets more advanced and offers workers less freedom. Once all firms start using software which tracks every click and uses it to ensure productivity remains at the same standard then it will be widely adopted. And then that will be proper shit. Working alone at home, no banter, just you vs the computer.

Mito Man wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:27 pm It’s one of those things which will get utilised more as the software gets more advanced and offers workers less freedom. Once all firms start using software which tracks every click and uses it to ensure productivity remains at the same standard then it will be widely adopted.

or they could just trust their employees to get their job done however they deem appropriate.

Hahahaha. Ha.

There’s some fucked up things coming about in a few years.

Not every company thinks like you Mito...

Not wanting to be too pessimistic about it all, but the official lines/received wisdom of "it's no worse than seasonal flu" and "it's only old folks who have to worry" seems massively oversimplistic, and ignores what happens if it gets to the point of overwhelming the available medical care.

The massive difference between Covin19 and seasonal flu is the proportion of cases which require hospital treatment. With seasonal flu, it's around 0.2%, with Covin19 its around 20%, and of those about 40% require intensive care.

In China the overall mortality rate currently stands at about 2.1%, but that's massively skewed by provinces where the heathcare system has reached saturation - mortality in Wuhan stands at around 4.9%, primarily because lots of those who need hospital treatment simply can't get it. That figure also probably underestimates the true mortality rate because lots of people are either dying in their homes and haven't been reported, or have their deaths attributed to other things.

Now consider the UK - if there was an 8% infection rate (comparable to seasonal flu, but significantly below the 40-70% rate being predicted by some or the more pessimistic epidemiologists), that would be 5.4 million people infected, of which around 1.1 million would require hospital treatment. And by hospital treatment, we're talking 3-6 weeks isolated. The total stock of NHS beds in 140,000. It is very conceivable that at an 8% infection rate, the mortality rate would be 5-10%, not taking into account all the knock on effects of the NHS being unable to treat any other potentially fatal illnesses (or the resultant effect on supply chains for drugs for currently manageable conditions).

As that infection rate rises, so does the mortality rate. In the worst case scenario of a 70% infection rate, and a 7.6% mortality rate, that's 3.5 million deaths from Covin19 directly, plus another 2.5 million+ as a result of lack of available treatment for other illnesses.

Just sayin' y'all

You need to work on your bedside manner, Nef

I've noticed the stockpiling has begun already. The longlife stuff was looking pretty empty at the local supermarket yesterday, as were the cleaning isles....and you're shit out of luck if you want hand gel.