Covid-19 (Novel Coronavirus) - Effects on the production industry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cary Knoop said:
I must say I am rather disgusted by all this downplaying of a very serious situation and comments that only old people get it.
Click to expand...

Not downplaying. You are cherry picking statements. It is not about age but about underlying health problems.

But ok, let's join the panic then. And buy all the toilet paper that is left.

Perspective:
In the Netherlands each day 186 people in the age 85-103 die of natural causes with or without flu.
 
Last edited:
Paul F said:
That is true of every flu.
Click to expand...
I agree there shouldn't panic. I agree we have to strike a balance between being cautious and protecting the vulnerable. But this isn't the flu. We have vaccines for the flu. It's wrong to give statistics comparing it to the flu. It's wrong for people to spread misinformation. Wash your hands. Help your elderly neighbours. This is going to be a long ride and everyone will be impacted by it.
 
Liam Hall said:
No. You are wrong. Older people are at more risk. Fact.
Click to expand...

My last comment in this minefield: Liam you are right, but older people (metoo) are always at more risk.
That is why all people in the Netherlands older than 60 can get a free influenza vaccine each year (and the people with health problems). And hopefully next year a corona vaccine cocktail too!
 
I'm reminded of the Joker's "It's all part of a plan speech." 56,000 people die from the flu each year (14,000 every three months), but no one panics because it's all part of the plan. But when 4,000 people die from some unplanned virus in three months, everybody panics.






I could almost imagine a scenario where the news started going on about a "new" virus that is killing 56,000 people per year, the whole world panics, only for the news to at the end of the year say, "Just kidding. It was just the regular flu and this has been happening for years." In other words, if the news documented the deaths, spread, and new cases of the regular flu and pretended like it was some terrible pandemic, people may panic. At the end of the day, coronavirus is still causing less deaths than the regular flu but people are panicking at the unknown. Of course it remains to be seen what the yearly death tolls will come out to over time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it always stays below what the regular flu is (56,000), at which point, it would seem the panic was a bit excessive. Sure, these numbers are still in addition to the regular flu, but 53 million people die each year, so these numbers still seem small in comparison.

1.25 million people die in car accidents each year, and no one panics. Driving to work or NAB or wherever is most likely always going to cause more deaths per year than coronavirus ever will. Yet, people still drive cars. Meanwhile, they're canceling large events and self-quarantining which is yielding a much lower increase on their safety than if they were to give up driving. Which is actually ironic; if coronavirus causes people to travel less, the decease in car accidents or other travel related accidents could result in saving more lives than the actual avoiding of the coronavirus, but no one will credit those lives saved because dying in car accidents was always part of the plan.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
My last comment in this minefield: Liam you are right, but older people (metoo) are always at more risk.
That is why all people in the Netherlands older than 60 can get a free influenza vaccine each year (and the people with health problems). And hopefully next year a corona vaccine cocktail too!
Click to expand...

Yes, older people have a less effective immune system than younger people.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm reminded of the Joker's "It's all part of a plan speech." 56,000 people die from the flu each year (14,000 every three months), but no one panics because it's all part of the plan. But when 4,000 people die from some unplanned virus in three months, everybody panics.


I could almost imagine a scenario where the news started going on about a "new" virus that is killing 56,000 people per year, the whole world panics, only for the news to at the end of the year say, "Just kidding. It was just the regular flu and this has been happening for years." In other words, if the news documented the deaths, spread, and new cases of the regular flu and pretended like it was some terrible pandemic, people may panic. At the end of the day, coronavirus is still causing less deaths than the regular flu but people are panicking at the unknown. Of course it remains to be seen what the yearly death tolls will come out to over time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it always stays below what the regular flu is (56,000), at which point, it would seem the panic was a bit excessive. Sure, these numbers are still in addition to the regular flu, but 53 million people die each year, so these numbers still seem small in comparison.

1.25 million people die in car accidents each year, and no one panics. Driving to work or NAB or wherever is most likely always going to be more dangerous than coronavirus will ever be.
Click to expand...

Maybe try a different news channel...

:-)
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Maybe try a different news channel...

:-)
Click to expand...
To echo NorBro/DLD's cartel statements, have you not noticed how the news always bands together and reports the same incidents? When 9/11 happened, all the news banded together and reported the World Trade Centers going down. When Obama got elected, all the news reported on Obama getting elected. When Notra Dame burned down, all the news reported Notre Dame burning down. Note now how none of the news reported on 9/11 about the Empire State building collapsing, or Mitt Romney becoming president, or the Louvre burning down. I sense a conspiracy.

The Onion is probably the best known news source that does not follow these cartel practices.
 
Don't assume being 'younger' means all you'll get is a mild cough. Italy’s “patient one,” an otherwise healthy 38-year-old who fell ill with the virus in January, is now breathing on his own, after nearly three weeks on a respirator. He survived, but doesn't sound like it's just a regular cold. From this article--

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...avirus-covid19-restrictions-democracy/607729/

Also, there are some reports that survivors can have lingering lung damage from the virus, much like SARS and MERS. In the case of SARS and MERS that damage has lasted years and severely impacted victims quality of life. Again, I am a fit 47 year old who runs regularly and stays healthy, but I have had moderately severe asthma nearly my whole life and can't afford to gamble with this virus.
 
Publimix said:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03...n-of-coronavirus-risk-by-demographic-factors/
Click to expand...

Yes, that article agrees with my statement.

"But the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. By contrast, the fatality rate was 1.3% in 50-somethings, 0.4% in 40-somethings, and 0.2% in people 10 to 39."

Older people, particularly over the 80s, are more at risk as they are not as strong and healthy as younger people.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
To echo NorBro/DLD's cartel statements, have you not noticed how the news always bands together and reports the same incidents? When 9/11 happened, all the news banded together and reported the World Trade Centers going down. When Obama got elected, all the news reported on Obama getting elected. When Notra Dame burned down, all the news reported Notre Dame burning down. Note now how none of the news reported on 9/11 about the Empire State building collapsing, or Mitt Romney becoming president, or the Louvre burning down. I sense a conspiracy.

The Onion is probably the best known news source that does not follow these cartel practices.
Click to expand...

It's not the flu Eric. Grow up.
 
I never said it was the flu. I just said the flu currently has a higher death rate per month than the coronavirus. I also never said the coronavirus was a car accident, but I did say that car accidents have a significantly higher death rate per year than the coronavirus. I feel like a rational person would base their fears on actual statistics instead of emotions. As such, rationally speaking, it would make more sense to be more afraid of (and thus do more to counteract) something that is much more likely to kill you, even if, emotionally speaking, the boogeyman is scarier.

I have asthma and have had months of pretty rough bronchitis multiple years, but with 900 cases in the U.S., that's almost a one in 500,000 chance of getting it as this point, not to mention many (particularly young people) who get it have mild symptoms. Even in China where its "ravished," 80,000 cases out of 1.3 billion, so that's a one in 16,000 chance of having it in the continent which it's supposedly hit so hard. Each year there is a one is 6400 chance you'll die in a car accident, so the chance of dying in a car accident each year are higher than the chances of getting an in the vast majority of cases non-lethal coronavirus in the most susceptible country. So again, statistically speaking, this is very little to worry about from a survival point of view comparatively speaking. Economically, on the other hand, there's a 100% chance I'll be affected there; I've already lost a job or two. Obviously some will benefit economically from this, but most will be hit negatively economically.

I don't know how "It's not the flu Eric. Grow up." was a response to what you quoted. Perhaps I'm missing a joke or you quoted the wrong quote.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I never said it was the flu. I just said the flu currently has a higher death rate per month than the coronavirus. I also never said the coronavirus was a car accident, but I did say that car accidents have a significantly higher death rate per year than the coronavirus. I feel like a rational person would base their fears on actual statistics instead of emotions. As such, rationally speaking, it would make more sense to be more afraid of (and thus do more to counteract) something that is much more likely to kill you, even if, emotionally speaking, the boogeyman is scarier.

I don't know how "It's not the flu Eric. Grow up." was a response to what you quoted. Perhaps I'm missing a joke.
Click to expand...

Eric, I'm not being emotional. I'm being rational. I have a tendency to trust experts and ignore pundits. Here's one expert answering all the pertinent questions:

https://medium.com/@davetroy/why-we...tions-and-answers-about-covid-19-6b166f1876e9

Please note the number of times he says, "we don't know". If the experts don't know, how can the amateurs?
 
Influenza is much more widely circulated at this point than Covid-19. This is a novel virus, and only started spreading a few months ago. Influenza has been with us at least two thousand years (as far as we know), and stays in circulation every year. It just keeps mutating to evade our immune systems and spreads more easily in colder months. A recent projection for Covid-19 actually expects it to peak early next year. By then we'll be able to make a fair comparison to Influenza...But two of the world's largest economies (China and Italy) have been basically shut down over this thing. That's not all due to panic.
 
Liam Hall said:
Eric, I'm not being emotional. I'm being rational. I have a tendency to trust experts and ignore pundits. Here's one expert answering all the pertinent questions:

https://medium.com/@davetroy/why-we...tions-and-answers-about-covid-19-6b166f1876e9

Please note the number of times he says, "we don't know". If the experts don't know, how can the amateurs?
Click to expand...
That article compares coronavirus to the flu. I'd like to see an article comparing it to car accidents, though that's not really necessary; the statistics are online and I've already listed some of them.

Yeah, if the coronavirus infects 50%-80% of the population like the article suggests and kills the misquoted (in your linked article) WHO mortality rates (I say "misquoted" as in WHO's mortality rates were based on reported cases so to leave out "reported cases" in a quote of mortality rates is misleading) then this would become a more serious concern. I personally don't think we'll see that article's suggested 30-100 million deaths from the coronavirus in the next year, but time will tell.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
That article compares coronavirus to the flu. I'd like to see an article comparing it to car accidents, though that's not really necessary; the statistics are online and I've already listed some of them.

Yeah, if the coronavirus infects 50%-80% of the population like the article suggests and kills the misquoted (in your linked article) WHO mortality rates (I say "misquoted" as in WHO's mortality rates were based on reported cases so to leave out "reported cases" in a quote of mortality rates is misleading) then this would become a more serious concern. I personally don't think we'll see that article's suggested 30-100 million deaths from the coronavirus in the next year, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

Imagine how many car accidents there would be if there were no safety measures put in place, like seat belts, traffic lights, signposts, speed limits etc? That's all the experts are asking to mitigate this virus outbreak.

At this point, we don't know if the WHO has overestimated the death rate as some studies show the virus mutating to a more deadly strain. But let's hope it has. Even if they have overestimated by 2x that's still 15-50 million deaths.
 
I spoke to a nurse at my local hospital today. She said the time to wear masks was when the nurses started to wear masks. One of my suppliers in China says production has started again and there were only 10 new cases in Guanzhou so she is confident it's passing. I sent here the pictures of empty shelves of toilet rolls, hand sanitiser and paracetamols and she was amazed. Our Government tell us what to do and we do it, even though it makes us poorer and the shops charge higher prices, but it works.

What does make me really cross are those who don't wash their hands or use sanitiser when available. My mum's been in hospital three weeks and we nearly lost her, and still today the woman in front of me, walked past all the hand sanitisers dispensers, open the door to the ward and walked in - the same handle I had to touch, so it would be so easy for idiots like her to bring in the virus. This is what makes me really angry.
 
Liam Hall said:
Imagine how many car accidents there would be if there were no safety measures put in place, like seat belts, traffic lights, signposts, speed limits etc? That's all the experts are asking to mitigate this virus outbreak.

At this point, we don't know if the WHO has overestimated the death rate as some studies show the virus mutating to a more deadly strain. But let's hope it has. Even if they have overestimated by 2x that's still 15-50 million deaths.
Click to expand...
Wearing seat belts may be an analogy for using hand sanitizer, but quarantining, staying home, not going to events, is equivalent to not getting in the car in the first place. An end to driving is not really something that has been advocated for (with current technology), while quarantining (which could harm civilization more in the long run) is.

Unless I misread the WHO's original mortality rate, it's not accurate to say they miscalculated. Their mortality rate as far as I'm aware was based on "reported cases," so it was never meant to be a flat out mortality rate. But I'm feeling too lazy to double check that so don't quote me on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top