COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[e30ernest]

I'm actually at a high risk of getting it, since my wife is a doctor and she sees a lot of possible infected patients (she screens them before sending them off to hospitals for actual testing). I've mentally prepared myself for that. I'm just hoping my kids won't get hit hard.

You're not alone! Not sure if you are American or not, but I just heard an expert speak and he suggested when the smoke clears, 20-60% of America will get this virus.

That's a lot of people, and it's only 1 country.

Dutch prime minister also said 'the majority' will get it (based on comments from the president of the Dutch institute of health, that over 50% will get it). Merkel has also reiterated the 50-70% originating from an MIT professor's assessment. And yeah, it's realistic. It's a lot of people, and we need to manage to spread that to keep it workable - while trying to maintain a somewhat decent lifestyle whilst in semi-isolation. It's a fine balancing act, but I do support the Dutch approach of self-isolation rather than full lockdown. Messages about re-infections are worrying, but don't negate the underlying idea. If people manage to adhere to social distancing, we can make it trickle rather than overflow. And we can keep living life to some degree at least. Get some sunlight. Go for a (solo) run or bikeride to keep healthy. My biggest worry is that people are just dumb and don't adhere to the measures.

Yeah dumb like this:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-e ... urch-goers

[izzy]

Thanks! I'm really proud of her.

I actually spoke to her as things started to pick-up regarding this. She didn't need to keep working since she wasn't under any hospital (she works under a private clinic in a mall). But she decided to stay working despite the risk since she said that even the work they're doing in that small clinic would help the bigger hospitals in triaging cases.

LOL at antibodies, yeah she does occasionally bring in some bugs in the house. Then again, we also have kids and they bring in nastier bugs from school. Right now we're pretty much constantly washing our hands and keeping our kids clean. The kids are currently stuck at home until this blows over.

yes we're all at home, so are our neighbours, luckily the internet bandwidth is holding up

then eventually we're going to have to go out into the wicked world again, before everything grinds to a halt, and then what? Hopefully not a new huge wave of crisis

[Phil]

People just don’t seem to understand what’s happening. Lock downs and other strategies such as the UKs are NOT intended to eliminate the virus, they can’t. They are intended to SLOW the RATE of spread so that health services can cope with those that get seriously ill AND so searches for, and implementations, of, treatments can go ahead and be useful.

It is OUR as well THEIR responsibility to do everything we can not to crash our health systems and have people die before their time. Unfortunately the disease does not only affect those who pursue the, “it’s not in our nature to follow rules” approaches.

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

[Just_a_fan]

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

[DChemTech]

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

Exactly, as a dutch virologist said, a full lockdown is like a fire in a landfill. It may seem extinguished at the surface at some point, but it's still simmering underneath. Let in some air, and you are back to square one. Better to let it burn down slowly, in a controlled way.

[Phil]

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

You're avoiding the question. How many ICU beds does your country have? Ours (Switzerland) has 800* (in a country of 8+ million). With the measures now taken, that could be increased to supposedly 1200, though they are already saying that beds are not necessarily the issue, but staff (and I would assume equipment/infrastructure).


And I'll re-iterate again; We're already way past the point of "keeping a steady flow of cases". You do a lockdown while keeping basic services open (gas stations, grocery stores, electricity, everything that basic services require) and you will STILL have spread and steady cases coming in, just not at the exponential rate we are all seeing now.

I'm curious to know what you think your country can sustain in 'severe cases' that will not overload the health services.

* confirmed in a press conference today btw. I'm not making these numbers up.

[Scorpaguy]

...just to change the subject a bit, COTA shutters, at least temporarily. I wonder how much of this we will see in the future.

COTA could be an outlier as it was and always has been a tenuous financial existence...and the off track grounds looked particularly ill kept this year. I assume that the major tracks of Europe are better off financially....but that is an assumption.

[Big Tea]

If people can become infected multiple times then no strategy will work other than a suitable vaccine. Lock down won't work because if there is even just one carrier in a population the disease will emerge again and spread again.

If you can't develop immunity to COVID-19 then we are just going to have to accept large numbers of deaths of the old etc. because there will be no other option. You can't lock down the world indefinitely.

Yeah precisely. Although, it makes the "herd immunity" strategy even less viable and partial lockdowns/quarantine to be a better solution for preventing the number of cases from skyrocketing out of control. It also means we probably won't see an F1 race happen since this will be a constant threat until the vaccines/anti-virals are out.

Work done in Australia on a woman from Wuhan suggests that the immune system does work. They have identified stages in the body's response that mimic those in influenza response.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51921403

It's possible that there might be groups who recover and are immune and those that, for some underlying (genetic, perhaps?) reason, don't become immune to the same degree. Or maybe the people who were "recovered" but then "reinfected" never were fully recovered in the first place.

If it can be contracted a second time then does this not mean inoculation will not work?
Being able to produce antibodies is what makes you immune to re infection, the same as is for inoculation.
If it does not work for one, would it also not work for the other ?
This makes it much worse.

Btw. Since I returned from spain 2 weeks ago I have been (mostly) self isolating, but find that to get an online delivery from a supermarket, the first available slots are more than 2 weeks away.

[LM10]

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

You're avoiding the question. How many ICU beds does your country have? Ours (Switzerland) has 800* (in a country of 8+ million). With the measures now taken, that could be increased to supposedly 1200, though they are already saying that beds are not necessarily the issue, but staff (and I would assume equipment/infrastructure).


And I'll re-iterate again; We're already way past the point of "keeping a steady flow of cases". You do a lockdown while keeping basic services open (gas stations, grocery stores, electricity, everything that basic services require) and you will STILL have spread and steady cases coming in, just not at the exponential rate we are all seeing now.

I'm curious to know what you think your country can sustain in 'severe cases' that will not overload the health services.

* confirmed in a press conference today btw. I'm not making these numbers up.

Yeah, I honestly don't understand what people think. Do they think that a lock-down will totally stop the spread? If you close schools, universities, restaurants, bars, etc., let people work from home and let groceries, banks and a few others open, the spread will not totally stop anyway. People still are in contact, they still are allowed to go out of their house and meet other people in other houses. It's inevitable that the spread will take place, but in a steady way.

Most countries in Europe have taken measures too late anyway. The UK still doesn't do anything, so can please some of the people thinking that UK's way of doing it will cause a steady flow of cases explain, how that's supposed to happen steadily and controlled, if you let all people do their everyday stuff as usual?

[Phil]

I really don't get the logic in defending ones own government. The "herd immunity" argument to me sounds like a cheap attempt to protect the economy rather than with the goal to save as many lives as possible. Just because your government is feeding you this story, doesn't mean it's also what's best for you as an individual and the population.

And before this turns to my-country vs your-country - despite Switzerland declaring "state of emergency" yesterday, my government is just as daft as most others. Here, only restaurants and social stuff are closed down and prohibited - everyone else can still go to work (and continue to spread the virus). I'm not blind to the fact that every (most) country is just trying to prolong the burden on the economy for as long as possible, but what i fear is that their inability to be courageous and act accordingly will cause way more problems both for health services and the economy and ultimately fatalities down the road.

I applaud countries like Austria who in my mind and from what I heard are doing exactly that.

[aral]

covid 19 is a new virus and NOBODY knows hot to contain or control it. however, a total lockdown appears to be most effective as cases in china are actually decreasing.
the figures are not very nice but they are way way lower than those produced by the normal flu virus and are said to be considerably lower than sars and mers.
will it spread more? who knows? will it get worse before it gets better?
the uk went one way and have quickly had to do a basic volte face. it was astounding that they allowed something like cheltenham to proceed without any controls. and why on earth have they not closed schools?
in ireland, after the lockdown, there were people celebrating in pubs etc, so the govt ordered their closure. not very nice for st patricks day, but everybody accepts that it is necessary. grocery shops remain open but dedicated hours are being allocated for the more vulnerable elderly.

[Big Tea]

I really don't get the logic in defending ones own government. The "herd immunity" argument to me sounds like a cheap attempt to protect the economy rather than with the goal to save as many lives as possible. Just because your government is feeding you this story, doesn't mean it's also what's best for you as an individual and the population.

And before this turns to my-country vs your-country - despite Switzerland declaring "state of emergency" yesterday, my government is just as daft as most others. Here, only restaurants and social stuff are closed down and prohibited - everyone else can still go to work (and continue to spread the virus). I'm not blind to the fact that every (most) country is just trying to prolong the burden on the economy for as long as possible, but what i fear is that their inability to be courageous and act accordingly will cause way more problems both for health services and the economy and ultimately fatalities down the road.

I applaud countries like Austria who in my mind and from what I heard are doing exactly that.

Not 'defending my government', but what happens if people do not go to work? In China it was a region 'locked down' but supported from the rest of a billion worker nation.

Some can work from home, but just about all these are non productive and can do nothing if the 'worker' is not producing or turning up in the hospital, or where ever they work. You can not produce food electronically from home. you can not even deliver it. Water, effluence, power to run the computer at home, all need people turning up in person.

[PlatinumZealot]

Essential services are kept running more likely. Banks are also making some allowances for loan payments etc.

[Big Tea]

Essential services are kept running more likely. Banks are also making some allowances for loan payments etc.

Depending on how you view it, most jobs fall into the essential services group one way or another.
Things need to be made, delivered, removed, looked after or cleaned, which would be way over half the 'non work from home' group. Simple jobs like deliver mail, stack shelves in supermarkets, or delivery baskets from supermarkets, and getting these people to and from work would still mean huge numbers needing to go out and mix.

[NL_Fer]

I really don't get the logic in defending ones own government. The "herd immunity" argument to me sounds like a cheap attempt to protect the economy rather than with the goal to save as many lives as possible. Just because your government is feeding you this story, doesn't mean it's also what's best for you as an individual and the population.

And before this turns to my-country vs your-country - despite Switzerland declaring "state of emergency" yesterday, my government is just as daft as most others. Here, only restaurants and social stuff are closed down and prohibited - everyone else can still go to work (and continue to spread the virus). I'm not blind to the fact that every (most) country is just trying to prolong the burden on the economy for as long as possible, but what i fear is that their inability to be courageous and act accordingly will cause way more problems both for health services and the economy and ultimately fatalities down the road.

I applaud countries like Austria who in my mind and from what I heard are doing exactly that.

Closing shops, events and travel will already be very hard on the economy. Even the Dutch measures, which are even more lenient (closed bars, restaurants, events and schools) are going to bring the economy to a halt.