COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[AJI]

...At this point they cannot test everyone anymore, so it's biased towards people with significant symptoms. People with mild symptoms in self-isolation are likely missed at this point.

This is the main reason for skewed results in the 1st world. In the 3rd world there are no results because there is very little testing.
Realistically, we lost control of the numbers over 2 weeks ago. Let's just move on, most of us are going to get it. It's time to come to peace with that

[Phil]

Or you can view the numbers for what it is and conclude that the number reflects those with bad symptoms. Doesn't make it less frightning, given Italys CFR is increasing (6.6% currently as of last night).

[Phil]

Also just for the record; Switzerland has just declared a state of emergency in the canton of Ticino (that borders northern italy). It is likely that the whole country will declare a state of emergency soon enough.

People with mild symptoms are no longer advised to get it checked/tested but to self-isolate and quarantine. We no longer have the ability to check every single case. According to some sources from two weeks ago, the lab in Geneva can do around 1000 tests per day. Go figure. At some point, we'll either not be able to count for more infections or people with the symptoms will simply be attributed to COVID-19. IMO of course.

For the record, we are at 858 cases today (up 33% from yesterday).

[Espresso]

It's one debate whether Corona is a severe disease or just comparable to a heavy flu.

I think in regard to F1 we have to look at it how the world (governments) perceive and handle the situation and influence our daily lives.

In case of McLaren I think Zak also wants to prevent his whole team getting infected and/or quarantined in Australia.
Thus loosing a whole team for at least 2 weeks.

They work in such close quarters 7x24 together that its possible another person is infected but not marked yet. And in turn can infect the remainder of the crew. Nowit seems 1 Person is infected and isolated and 12 in preventive Quarantaine. That should have a major impact on the team.
Hopefully the others stay clean.

It's a rough decision to cancel 1 race vs the possibility to loose a whole team in Australia, thus affecting participation in Bahrain and Vietnam.

Guess we just have to wait and see how this unravels...

[bosyber]

Not just one guy in isolation - depending on function, 12 is already quite a bit. I doubt McLaren could currently really join the competition even if they ignored everything else, and as you say, they clearly not do that.

[PlatinumZealot]

The UK has many fewer cases so far than a number of EU countries, so let's not blame the UK for spreading this thing, thanks.

I am not blaming UK for spreading it. It is spreading everywhere. The spread from UK is underestimated is what I am saying.

The spreading is occurring through the Shengen group as much as anything, also other countries have hub airports. Places like France that also happens to have a much high cases report so far. So, again, stop suggesting that the UK is an issue. We're to blame for lots of stuff but not this one.

Case numbers as of today: Italy (12 462), France (2 281), Spain (2 140), Germany (1 567), Switzerland (642), Denmark (516), Netherlands (503), Norway (489), Sweden (462), United Kingdom (456), Belgium (314), Austria (246)
France has had 48 deaths, Spain 47, UK 6.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographi ... ncov-cases

Those high numbers in the heart of the EU - Italy, France, Spain and Germany are the reason the US has closed the door to the EU.

Was not compating countries in Europe thouvh. You have gone off on a tangent there. I simply implying that the potential of virus spread in the UK is underestimated, and uninhibited passage of persons from the UK should be reconsidered.

[DChemTech]

Netherlands is forbidding events with 100+ participants. Let's hope that's lifted before Zandvoort...

[adrianjordan]

My posts were a play in 3 acts. If we all sit there on our thumbs 'its just a cold', then we all follow the curve because the innate dynamics of the virus will dominate (as it did with Ebola, nice and deadly that one). The countries that have managed to bend the curve have taken suppression of transmission seriously.

I would recommend slightly more fact in your early acts, in that case, as otherwise you might find the denouement has been robbed of weight.

There is also a world of difference between ignoring it and locking down the entire country. Both of those will have significant impacts that will kill people, simply in different ways. Each country has to walk a delicate tightrope.

Whilst I used Ebola as an example of how it spreads and impacts different countries differently depending on variations in socio, economic and geogrpahic environment, it's not a good comparison with our current situation as it's too deadly. It'll be interesting to see how our actions impact which mutations of the virus take root. It's possible it will mutuate to match Ebola's mortality rate (although that willl significantly hinder it's ability to propagate), but hopefully the approach of trying to limit transmission will see the strains that emphasise transmission becoming dominant. Yes, it means that those strains will likely become endemic to the global populace, but it will also significantly lower the mortality rate and, as we're in pandemic status already, that seems preferable. If nothing else, Healtchare systems will be better positioned to respond if they have a sustained period of time to treat people.

Ebola is a poor example, it is nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19. It may have been more deadly but covid-19 will kill many many more

Sorry that's just wrong. Ebola is massively contagious. In the NHS any suspected Ebola patient was transported in a dedicated "Ebola Ambulance" by Hazardous Area Response Team members wearing airtight suits and respirator equipment.

Suspected COVID-19 cases only require isolation suits and masks with suitable filters.

Ebola is also far, far more deadly which is why it spreads less freely.

[bluechris]

Netherlands is forbidding events with 100+ participants. Let's hope that's lifted before Zandvoort...

Isnt that the most stupid thing you had read? i mean the 100 cannot get the Covid but 100+1 will get it? they did the same in Greece at the start but yesterday the prime minister addressed the public basically saying "STAY HOME" and thats it.

My opinion? stay home and get out only for goods for eat once every X days with caution.

[DChemTech]

Netherlands is forbidding events with 100+ participants. Let's hope that's lifted before Zandvoort...

Isnt that the most stupid thing you had read? i mean the 100 cannot get the Covid but 100+1 will get it? they did the same in Greece at the start but yesterday the prime minister addressed the public basically saying "STAY HOME" and thats it.

My opinion? stay home and get out only for goods for eat once every X days with caution.

Nah, sun is shining. I'm going out biking. As long as noone sneezes on you things are good - and the roads are nice and quiet now

edit: I'm not sure on stupidity. In the end the aim is to avoid rapid spread by keeping groups small. I think the government is just taking the stance that this thing cannot really be contained (of course, not explicitly mentioning that...), so we need measures that are effective for a slow spread. Keeping everyone at home for a month, and then releasing them altogether would also lead to a spike if the reports about the virus not being as heat-sensitive are true...

[adrianjordan]

Let's take a common sense approach.

All the evidence says that under 50's and those without underlying health risks will likely be fine in the long run.

Absolutely not what an earlier poster stated about lasting effects for most people. Someone who develops severe pneumonia or sepsis, potentially. Someone who suffers mild cold/flu like symptoms for a week or two? No.

What everyone needs to be doing is putting a ring of protection around anyone in society who is at risk. Isolate them as best we can from the risk of coming into contact with anyone suffering from it.

What everyone also needs to do, and this is FAR AND AWAY the best protection from indirect transmission is to wash your hands thoroughly and regularly. Also clean hard surfaces regularly.

Face masks offer very little protection, though they do limit the transmission slightly if they are worn by the person who is infected. Which is probably best as the NHS is running out of them quicker than we can restock.

But let's face facts. This virus is out there and we cannot contain it. All we can do is try to limit the impact on those who are actually at risk the same as we would for flu, measles or any one of a number of other viruses.

[the EDGE]

I would recommend slightly more fact in your early acts, in that case, as otherwise you might find the denouement has been robbed of weight.

There is also a world of difference between ignoring it and locking down the entire country. Both of those will have significant impacts that will kill people, simply in different ways. Each country has to walk a delicate tightrope.

Whilst I used Ebola as an example of how it spreads and impacts different countries differently depending on variations in socio, economic and geogrpahic environment, it's not a good comparison with our current situation as it's too deadly. It'll be interesting to see how our actions impact which mutations of the virus take root. It's possible it will mutuate to match Ebola's mortality rate (although that willl significantly hinder it's ability to propagate), but hopefully the approach of trying to limit transmission will see the strains that emphasise transmission becoming dominant. Yes, it means that those strains will likely become endemic to the global populace, but it will also significantly lower the mortality rate and, as we're in pandemic status already, that seems preferable. If nothing else, Healtchare systems will be better positioned to respond if they have a sustained period of time to treat people.

Ebola is a poor example, it is nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19. It may have been more deadly but covid-19 will kill many many more

Sorry that's just wrong. Ebola is massively contagious. In the NHS any suspected Ebola patient was transported in a dedicated "Ebola Ambulance" by Hazardous Area Response Team members wearing airtight suits and respirator equipment.

Suspected COVID-19 cases only require isolation suits and masks with suitable filters.

Ebola is also far, far more deadly which is why it spreads less freely.

Then how come we have never had a Ebola pandemic?

[DChemTech]

Ebola is a poor example, it is nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19. It may have been more deadly but covid-19 will kill many many more

Sorry that's just wrong. Ebola is massively contagious. In the NHS any suspected Ebola patient was transported in a dedicated "Ebola Ambulance" by Hazardous Area Response Team members wearing airtight suits and respirator equipment.

Suspected COVID-19 cases only require isolation suits and masks with suitable filters.

Ebola is also far, far more deadly which is why it spreads less freely.

Then how come we have never had a Ebola pandemic?

Because it's visible, so easy to identify the ill and quarantine them. Same with SARS-episode I, MERS,...
And very deadly viruses have the 'drawback' of killing their hosts before they spread. If you want to be successful as a virus, be contagious, but as invisible as possible - mild symptoms for most of the population so that they go out and sneeze on others before isolating themselves (and hence, not be too deadly either).

[JonoNic]

Ebola is a poor example, it is nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19. It may have been more deadly but covid-19 will kill many many more

Sorry that's just wrong. Ebola is massively contagious. In the NHS any suspected Ebola patient was transported in a dedicated "Ebola Ambulance" by Hazardous Area Response Team members wearing airtight suits and respirator equipment.

Suspected COVID-19 cases only require isolation suits and masks with suitable filters.

Ebola is also far, far more deadly which is why it spreads less freely.

Then how come we have never had a Ebola pandemic?

Because of strict isolation. Also those victims die quickly.

[Big Tea]

Ebola is a poor example, it is nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19. It may have been more deadly but covid-19 will kill many many more

Sorry that's just wrong. Ebola is massively contagious. In the NHS any suspected Ebola patient was transported in a dedicated "Ebola Ambulance" by Hazardous Area Response Team members wearing airtight suits and respirator equipment.

Suspected COVID-19 cases only require isolation suits and masks with suitable filters.

Ebola is also far, far more deadly which is why it spreads less freely.

Then how come we have never had a Ebola pandemic?

Ebola is far too effective for its own good. It kills people before they can travel far. If it had a longer incubation period it would be much, much worse.