COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[nzjrs]

Oh FFS. You think the virus is going to grow legs and walk.

It's a mutation. These new viral infections are all about mutation

Tautology. True of every "new viral infection".

[izzy]

Oh FFS. You think the virus is going to grow legs and walk.

It's a mutation. These new viral infections are all about mutation

Tautology. True of every "new viral infection".

that's right. so it's different, and then what do you know? you know you don't know everything about it

[izzy]

Really, F1 is a business; they are concerned about profit and lose, not ethics and morality. If they can't make a profit they will be out of business. They will do everything they can to continue as usual, not for ethical or moral reasons, but for business reasons. When is the last time you've heard of any for profit business giving up profit for ethical reasons? I'm just saying they won't act for such reasons; the MBA's of the world are not taught to run a business for the greater good, but rather just for profit, and mostly for short term profit. The world could be ending and there will be someone out there hoarding those dollars......

yes money is basically ruthless isn't it, tho it was FIA i was talking about for ethics. But it's an interesting subject i think, how money can be pure or not, depending, and probably becoming more pure over time with social media. F1 mustn't cause any deaths, and Liberty will be aware of that and trying to tread a line and not damage the brand. cos social media is very, very powerful and it's young people that F1 is especially chasing, and if F1 became known as a Covid-19 death spreader that would do a LOT of damage

[Phil]

Or maybe we should not overreact by cancelling all of daily life and spending insane amounts of money on ineffective measures to 'combat' a disease which, as far as lethality goes, still lies way below hunger, pollution, poor diet, lack of exercise, malaria, etc.

I could not disagree more with this post and this attitude. So, because hundredths of thousands people die of thousands of reasons every single day, we/governments should just ignore the spread of a (to many) lethal virus and go on and potentially encourage its spread?

[DChemTech]

Or maybe we should not overreact by cancelling all of daily life and spending insane amounts of money on ineffective measures to 'combat' a disease which, as far as lethality goes, still lies way below hunger, pollution, poor diet, lack of exercise, malaria, etc.

I could not disagree more with this post and this attitude. So, because hundredths of thousands people die of thousands of reasons every single day, we/governments should just ignore the spread of a (to many) lethal virus and go on and potentially encourage its spread?

I'm sorry but that's a total strawman of my position. I am not saying they should just ignore the spread. I am saying they should (1) not -overreact- to the virus. Take effective measurements, but think about the side-effects of these measurements on daily life too, and judge whether it's worth it and (2) there may be other aspects of our daily lives which affect the quality of life way more, perhaps also causing much more casualties, that receive far less attention. I'm suggesting we should re-balance our priorities in that sense.

In the USA alone, some 30.000 - 40.000 people die each year due to motor vehicle accidents. We don't stop driving altogether; even adjustments to traffic law (maximum speed, ...) are continually with skepticism and even hostility from some demographics. It's always balancing pros and cons. Yet, with Corona, some regions seem to opt for the equivalent of stopping traffic altogether at this point. And I don't think we should do that.

[nzjrs]

In the USA alone, some 30.000 - 40.000 people die each year due to motor vehicle accidents. We don't stop driving altogether; even adjustments to traffic law (maximum speed, ...) are continually with skepticism and even hostility from some demographics. It's always balancing pros and cons. Yet, with Corona, some regions seem to opt for the equivalent of stopping traffic altogether at this point. And I don't think we should do that.

I think from (first) precautionary principles one would say that the motor vehicle accidents are bounded. Or put another way. corona and similar pandemics are multiplicative processes. One should always be most worried about multiplicative processes for the possible rapid growth of their effects.

Closure of gatherings, schools, etc, is already well studied. Epidemiologically it's better to be early

One could argue that this has negative economic consequences, and those might be large, but (see above) the multiplicative effects of a pandemic or pandemic-like event have a non-zero chance to have truly enormous economic effects aka standard black-swan talk.

[turbof1]

One could argue that this has negative economic consequences, and those might be large, but (see above) the multiplicative effects of a pandemic or pandemic-like event have a non-zero chance to have truly enormous economic effects aka standard black-swan talk.

On short term these are indeed large. However, it does restore itself partly. Now with production coming to a halt, there will be shortages and low employment rate. Once the disease has resided, there will be a need to compensate for the shortages, causing high employment and momentarily large economic growth. So on long term the effects will quite mildered.

Economics wise a very interesting case study.

[DChemTech]

In the USA alone, some 30.000 - 40.000 people die each year due to motor vehicle accidents. We don't stop driving altogether; even adjustments to traffic law (maximum speed, ...) are continually with skepticism and even hostility from some demographics. It's always balancing pros and cons. Yet, with Corona, some regions seem to opt for the equivalent of stopping traffic altogether at this point. And I don't think we should do that.

I think from (first) precautionary principles one would say that the motor vehicle accidents are bounded. Or put another way. corona and similar pandemics are multiplicative processes. One should always be most worried about multiplicative processes for the possible rapid growth of their effects.

Closure of gatherings, schools, etc, is already well studied. Epidemiologically it's better to be early

One could argue that this has negative economic consequences, and those might be large, but (see above) the multiplicative effects of a pandemic or pandemic-like event have a non-zero chance to have truly enormous economic effects aka standard black-swan talk.

Sure, I concur there. Yet, the same applies to regular influenza - and there we, to a degree, accept a substantial fraction of the population is infected and some .1-1% of that may not overcome the resulting illness. It's also a matter of being used to something, or it being 'new'. As far as effect goes, the current strain is, for all we know now, more deadly than a regular influenza case. So yeah, measures beyond simply washing hands and staying home if you feel really ill are in order. I have no issue at all with precautionary homestays in case of even a slight sign of symptoms, additional hygiene measurements, and re-evaluation of certain events in specific high-risk areas or for high-risk demographics. But I reckon a complete foreclosure of social life to be a bridge too far at this moment, especially in regions where there's no sign of a massive outbreak. And I rank cancellation of events that are due to take place in 2 months, or in this specific case, the suggestion to cancel the entire season, part of such an overreaction.

When it comes to pandemics vs. structural deaths due to e.g. traffic, pollution, malaria, etc., of course, the pandemic has the aspect of multiplication which warrants additional precaution. On the other hand, pandemics are incidental, whereas the other items are structural - so one could also argue that acting towards structural issues deserves more attention, as the effects of action may also be structural and create more benefits in the long run.

[Phil]

I'm sorry but that's a total strawman of my position. I am not saying they should just ignore the spread. I am saying they should (1) not -overreact- to the virus. Take effective measurements, but think about the side-effects of these measurements on daily life too, and judge whether it's worth it and (2) there may be other aspects of our daily lives which affect the quality of life way more, perhaps also causing much more casualties, that receive far less attention. I'm suggesting we should re-balance our priorities in that sense.

Overreaction is subjective and open to debate. How affected are you as an individual? Some are more, some are less. It quite frankly depends if you are part of an associated risk group.

Risk groups are people with: (according to my government)

- an age above 65
- high blood pressure
- diabetes
- cardiovascular disease
- chronic respiratory diseases (includes asthma)
- conditions and therapies that weaken the immune system
- cancer


As for taking effective measurements. What do you define as effective? What countries are you talking about specifically (not all countries are reacting equally to the situation)? In my country (Switzerland), the government main goal is to reduce the spread, to buy time to not overload hospitals with cases. To achieve that, large events/gatherings have been prohibited (concerts, large sporting events, large events like the Geneva International Motor Show, etc) and it's being discussed if this should be extended further while the public is being advised to be cautious and adhere to basic hygiene rules.

If the situation wouldn't be serious, would governments take actions such as these that are a direct detriment to the economy?

What you are suggesting as being an 'overreaction' has the goal to save lives. Maybe not your life, but those who are especially affected by COVID-19.

[nzjrs]

Sure, I concur there. Yet, the same applies to regular influenza - and there we, to a degree, accept a substantial fraction of the population is infected and some .1-1% of that may not overcome the resulting illness. It's also a matter of being used to something, or it being 'new'. As far as effect goes, the current strain is, for all we know now, more deadly than a regular influenza case. So yeah, measures beyond simply washing hands and staying home if you feel really ill are in order. I have no issue at all with precautionary homestays in case of even a slight sign of symptoms, additional hygiene measurements, and re-evaluation of certain events in specific high-risk areas or for high-risk demographics. But I reckon a complete foreclosure of social life to be a bridge too far at this moment, especially in regions where there's no sign of a massive outbreak. And I rank cancellation of events that are due to take place in 2 months, or in this specific case, the suggestion to cancel the entire season, part of such an overreaction.

When it comes to pandemics vs. structural deaths due to e.g. traffic, pollution, malaria, etc., of course, the pandemic has the aspect of multiplication which warrants additional precaution. On the other hand, pandemics are incidental, whereas the other items are structural - so one could also argue that acting towards structural issues deserves more attention, as the effects of action may also be structural and create more benefits in the long run.

I dont completely disagree. I would say the sting in the tail of our very current situation (vs. seasonal 'normal') influenza is for me, less about the fatality (CFR). I agree the is a bit scary, but in the longterm, the CFR 'is what it is'.

The multiplicative risk and the specific risks of this novel virus is that all the cases come at once. The CFR will remain what it is, but with 5% of cases requiring hospitalization (worst case), that is a lot of hospital beds that no-one has. How many respirators does your country have? how many spare healthcare staff do you have for their predicted contraction of the virus (acknowledging tbh they will almost certainly recover)?

If we have an uninhibited novel corona flu wave, and the end of a seasonal flu wave then it's a bit worrying if it happens at once. So from my side, delay the wave as much as possible with containment, prepare for it becoming endemic, but by the time that happens we might have actually bought ourselves enough time to do something about the CFR if we can.

edit: Phil also said basically this as I was posting.

[PlatinumZealot]

"Unpleasant ways with animals"

What?

Remember that the thing that makes you work - mitochondria - is likely a thing that invaded an early cell line. Don't assume all infection is necessarily bad.

I'm not assuming anything apart from NHS probably know what they're talking about. The whole coronavirus family probably arose from the way the Chinese intermingled ducks and pigs, and they've only just debunked the theory this mutation kicked off in a wildlife meat market. It was news they've suspended eating dogs and cats

A Canadian Scientist said this Virus was first stored (made?) in the United States. It was being studied in a Canadian Lab, where some of it was "stolen" by Chinese Spy Scientists. They took it to the only Level 4 containment Lab in China, in Wuhan, where it was accidentally released after a little screw up by the scientists there.

[Scorpaguy]

A Canadian Scientist said this Virus was first stored (made?) in the United States. It was being studied in a Canadian Lab, where some of it was "stolen" by Chinese Spy Scientists. They took it to the only Level 4 containment Lab in China, in Wuhan, where it was accidentally released after a little screw up by the scientists there.

...and a story like that has just gotta be true

[izzy]

A Canadian Scientist said this Virus was first stored (made?) in the United States. It was being studied in a Canadian Lab, where some of it was "stolen" by Chinese Spy Scientists. They took it to the only Level 4 containment Lab in China, in Wuhan, where it was accidentally released after a little screw up by the scientists there.

oh lol this is going to lead to a movie isn't it. apparently the original SARS mutated across from civets they were farming in China, and now this covid-19 is officially SARS-2 and genetically similar. The closest animal match is bats i think, genetically

but you could understand why a lab would want to study them, if they're going to keep coming like this

[henry]

. Yet, the same applies to regular influenza - and there we, to a degree, accept a substantial fraction of the population is infected and some .1-1% of that may not overcome the resulting illness.

Not really, or at least not here in the U.K. Every year we go to the trouble and expense of identifying the most likely Flu strains for the coming winter. We source vaccine and make it available, free of charge, to the more vulnerable members of society. This season that was 25m people. There’s around 2/3 take up in this group, so about 25% of the population is vaccinated, reducing hospitalisation and deaths and providing a degree of herd immunity to the rest of society.

Most other developed countries run similar schemes with varying degrees of eligibility and take up.

It’s possible that in the future a Covid vaccine may be made part of this process. Meanwhile we have to assume no herd immunity and take steps to prevent its transmission.

[DChemTech]

. Yet, the same applies to regular influenza - and there we, to a degree, accept a substantial fraction of the population is infected and some .1-1% of that may not overcome the resulting illness.

Not really, or at least not here in the U.K. Every year we go to the trouble and expense of identifying the most likely Flu strains for the coming winter. We source vaccine and make it available, free of charge, to the more vulnerable members of society. This season that was 25m people. There’s around 2/3 take up in this group, so about 25% of the population is vaccinated, reducing hospitalisation and deaths and providing a degree of herd immunity to the rest of society.

Most other developed countries run similar schemes with varying degrees of eligibility and take up.

It’s possible that in the future a Covid vaccine may be made part of this process. Meanwhile we have to assume no herd immunity and take steps to prevent its transmission.

that's a fair point