COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Famine]

So, now it appears that wearing face masks may, in fact, help in preventing the spread of the virus. This has always seemed somewhat self-evident to me. Being advised to "cough into your sleeve" is a good idea, but wearing a face mask isn't? A whole variety of prophylactic measures represents the logical way to control the spread, rather than relying on a single "miracle cure". I imagine, in the future, well-designed, reusable face masks will become a stock item in every household's medical kit.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/asia/coronavirus-mask-messaging-intl-hnk/index.html

This should always have been the message. Masks don't keep it out (and if you're not trained in correct procedure for putting on and particularly removing PPE, may put you at more risk), but they might keep it in.

I mean, I posted this on February 12th...

Unless you're getting a full face respirator, the masks are not much cop at stopping you from breathing in nCoV (or getting it in your nice moist eyes, more to the point). They're pretty useful to stop people who already have it spewing it out though.

 

[Biggles]

This should always have been the message. Masks don't keep it out (and if you're not trained in correct procedure for putting on and particularly removing PPE, may put you at more risk), but they might keep it in.

I mean, I posted this on February 12th...

If it's possible to be asymptomatic but be carrying the virus, then wearing a mask is going to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus - no? Also, even if mask's don't reliably "keep it out", is it not possible they have some efficacy in reducing the chances of picking it up? It's a numbers game to a large degree - anything reducing the rate of transmission helps. Of course, lack of availability of face masks has made prioritizing face mask use essential, but in the future making sure everyone has access to good quality face masks would seem like a good idea ... assuming that further research shows that face masks make a measurable difference.

 

[twitcher]

You think blaming a 16yr old child for a global pandemic emanating from a specific city in mainland China is a stretch, but blaming the population of a small town in Switzerland to be less of a stretch?


I love the stupidity of these conspiracy nuts, nothing ever changes

Yes, blaming the world elite who fly their private jets to Davos to discuss climate change and “saving the planet” is less of a stretch than blaming a single 16 year old girl.

You understand how greater than / less than statements work?

It was also a joke

 

[HenrySwanson]

A look at several studies by researchers at King's concludes that there's no evidence to say ibuprofen and other anti-inflammatory drugs can't be used in patients with COVID-19

 

[Danoff]

This should always have been the message. Masks don't keep it out (and if you're not trained in correct procedure for putting on and particularly removing PPE, may put you at more risk), but they might keep it in.

I mean, I posted this on February 12th...

If it's possible to be asymptomatic but be carrying the virus, then wearing a mask is going to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus - no? Also, even if mask's don't reliably "keep it out", is it not possible they have some efficacy in reducing the chances of picking it up? It's a numbers game to a large degree - anything reducing the rate of transmission helps. Of course, lack of availability of face masks has made prioritizing face mask use essential, but in the future making sure everyone has access to good quality face masks would seem like a good idea ... assuming that further research shows that face masks make a measurable difference.

That Korean doctor from many pages back was saying that since the virus is not "airborne", and requires coming into contact with droplets, that that a mask and glasses can significantly aid in preventing you from having someone's cough droplets end up infecting you through your nose, mouth, or eyes.

Virus caught in fibers appears to have a significantly shorter lifespan. On the surface of glasses it probably lives longer than caught in a respirator. Still I'd expect that as long as you're not being stupid with the outer surfaces of the mask and glasses, and wash your hands, that it would dramatically cut your chances of infection.

I agree that masks alone would only really be beneficial in containing your own infection.

 

[Famine]

If it's possible to be asymptomatic but be carrying the virus, then wearing a mask is going to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus - no?

Yes. Hence the additional advice that you should act as if you are, if it is possible for you to have been exposed to the virus, infected. That's less likely in the containment phase, when the infected are those with a direct connection to the hotzone or those one step removed (people on the same plane, in the same transport hub, in the same hospital/school/workplace) ,but in the delay phase it is much more likely because containtment has failed and infected people are now six steps down a line and can't possibly know who's been in contact with the people in contact with the people in contact with the people in contact with the people in contact with the people in contact with them.


PPE does two things. It protects you from what you're touching but - and this one is always underplayed except in labs that run RT-PCR - it protects what you're touching from you.

Of course, lack of availability of face masks has made prioritizing face mask use essential, but in the future making sure everyone has access to good quality face masks would seem like a good idea ... assuming that further research shows that face masks make a measurable difference.

That Korean doctor from many pages back was saying that since the virus is not "airborne", and requires coming into contact droplets, that that a mask and glasses can significantly aid in preventing you from having someone's cough droplets end up infecting you through your nose, mouse, or eyes.

Virus caught in fibers appears to have a significantly shorter lifespan. On the surface of glasses it probably lives longer than caught in a respirator. Still I'd expect that as long as you're not being stupid with the outer surfaces of the mask and glasses, and wash your hands, that it would dramatically cut your chances of infection.

Masks are contentious for two reasons. The first is that you need PPE training to put them on and (more importantly) take them off properly. If invisible virus snot lands on your mask and you don't take it off properly, you now have invisible virus snot elsewhere (usually on your hands, along with any surface in your house you then touch), while having the false sense of security that you're safe because mask.

Masks by themselves (and yes, you need eye coverings too, as per my February post) aren't a preventative, but with proper techniques they are greatly useful. We teach kids how to put a condom on a penis - or rather a fruit or vegetable resembling a penis - for similar reasons: a condom you don't put on right or take off right doesn't protect you from STIs properly.

The other reason is that the more masks Joe Q. Public buys to protect them from a virus they might be exposed to in public, the fewer there are available for healthcare professionals who are definitely exposed to the virus - and who may then expose others to it. Of course it's natural for people to want to protect themselves, but the sudden demand has lead to a shortage for doctors and nurses; our local health authority has "borrowed" safety spectacles from the local secondary schools...!

 

[Danoff]

Masks are contentious for two reasons. The first is that you need PPE training to put them on and (more importantly) take them off properly. If invisible virus snot lands on your mask and you don't take it off properly, you now have invisible virus snot elsewhere (usually on your hands, along with any surface in your house you then touch), while having the false sense of security that you're safe because mask.

Understood. But that invisible snot would have landed on or near your mouth if not for the mask. So this is clearly an improvement. Also, that invisible snot dies on the surface of the mask faster than a lot of other surfaces. And doesn't transfer as easily.

The standard for putting on and taking off masks doesn't need to be as high for the public as it is for healthcare workers. For the public, we're just trying to slow the spread. For healthcare workers, who we know will be greatly exposed and need to keep themselves healthy, more extreme measures should be taken when handling masks.

It's ok if some members of the public lick their masks and get sick.

Masks by themselves (and yes, you need eye coverings too, as per my February post) aren't a preventative, but with proper techniques they are greatly useful. We teach kids how to put a condom on a penis - or rather a fruit or vegetable resembling a penis - for similar reasons: a condom you don't put on right or take off right doesn't protect you from STIs properly.

Yea I'd think this is not an insurmountable hurdle.

The other reason is that the more masks Joe Q. Public buys to protect them from a virus they might be exposed to in public, the fewer there are available for healthcare professionals who are definitely exposed to the virus - and who may then expose others to it. Of course it's natural for people to want to protect themselves, but the sudden demand has lead to a shortage for doctors and nurses; our local health authority has "borrowed" safety spectacles from the local secondary schools...!

Priority 1 is to protect healthcare workers. But I think we can make some paper masks if it means avoiding a global meltdown. In the meantime, I'm not against having my kids wear masks and glasses at school until a vaccine is developed.

 

[Famine]

Understood. But that invisible snot would have landed on or near your mouth if not for the mask. So this is clearly an improvement. Also, that invisible snot dies on the surface of the mask faster than a lot of other surfaces. And doesn't transfer as easily.

It's a kinda/kinda not sitch.

In essence, any invisible virus snot that doesn't land in your nose or pie holes won't infect you... directly. Invisible virus snot on your skin won't do jack, with two exceptions: if you then huff it in off your top lip in your 12 inhalations a minute, or if you touch the bit of your face before you wash it and subsequently stick your hand somewhere gooey (ears, eyes, poop chute, front bum). I'm actually not entirely sure that something so fine and light would attach to the skin - the interactions between the boundary layer of air and the surrounding atmosphere may make it less likely - but it definitely would if you had a beard. Also eyebrows and lashes, as anyone with hayfever will attest.

Those bits of you the virus can get into unmasked are surprisingly small - if you breathe through your nose normally, we're talking about maybe 2sqcm, and a low pressure region below it, which you could definitely snort up.

With the mask in place, there's a 200sqcm surface designed to do nothing but get invisible virus snot stuck to it, like a giant snot net. If it's also something like a plasterer's dust mask, rather than something a bit more discerning, your nose will be directly in contact with a piece of material which is both covered in invisible virus snot and not able to prevent it from passing through.

Best case, you end up with something literally covered with invisible virus snot. Even ignoring the people who will touch it while wearing it to adjust it, because they haven't had PPE mask training and aren't used to it and it's not actually fitted for them (there's a cool thing with either isoamyl acetate or saccharin for proper mask fitment), you've got people who will touch it, ungloved, while removing it - if not the actual mask itself, then the ear loops which may also trap the snot and are not a natural place to touch.


Overall, if you can manage to take off a disposable mask, while gloved*, and chuck it in the bin without touching it (pedal bin is good; we also have a new robo-bin which opens when you trigger two touchless sensors), along with the gloves which you remove without touching outside to skin, and then wash your face, hair, and hands, then a fitted mask of appropriate grade will be better than not having one in preventing you from exposure to the virus.


*People are all about the mouth and nose. Eyes rarely make the list, and hands don't even get a mention usually.

 

[Danoff]

It's a kinda/kinda not sitch.

In essence, any invisible virus snot that doesn't land in your nose or pie holes won't infect you... directly. Invisible virus snot on your skin won't do jack, with two exceptions: if you then huff it in off your top lip in your 12 inhalations a minute, or if you touch the bit of your face before you wash it and subsequently stick your hand somewhere gooey (ears, eyes, poop chute, front bum). I'm actually not entirely sure that something so fine and light would attach to the skin - the interactions between the boundary layer of air and the surrounding atmosphere may make it less likely - but it definitely would if you had a beard. Also eyebrows and lashes, as anyone with hayfever will attest.

Those bits of you the virus can get into unmasked are surprisingly small - if you breathe through your nose normally, we're talking about maybe 2sqcm, and a low pressure region below it, which you could definitely snort up.

With the mask in place, there's a 200sqcm surface designed to do nothing but get invisible virus snot stuck to it, like a giant snot net. If it's also something like a plasterer's dust mask, rather than something a bit more discerning, your nose will be directly in contact with a piece of material which is both covered in invisible virus snot and not able to prevent it from passing through.

Best case, you end up with something literally covered with invisible virus snot. Even ignoring the people who will touch it while wearing it to adjust it, because they haven't had PPE mask training and aren't used to it and it's not actually fitted for them (there's a cool thing with either isoamyl acetate or saccharin for proper mask fitment), you've got people who will touch it, ungloved, while removing it - if not the actual mask itself, then the ear loops which may also trap the snot and are not a natural place to touch.


Overall, if you can manage to take off a disposable mask, while gloved*, and chuck it in the bin without touching it (pedal bin is good; we also have a new robo-bin which opens when you trigger two touchless sensors), along with the gloves which you remove without touching outside to skin, and then wash your face, hair, and hands, then a fitted mask of appropriate grade will be better than not having one in preventing you from exposure to the virus.


*People are all about the mouth and nose. Eyes rarely make the list, and hands don't even get a mention usually.

So we'd rather have the virus on your face, in your beard, after you arrive back home, than on a mask? Because even if you wash your hands first, and then rub your face, if the virus was going to be on a mask, then it's on your cheek instead, and you just washed your hands but not your cheek. So one rub is all it takes. This is not worse (as best I can tell) than removing your mask with your hand and then rubbing your face without washing. In fact it's probably easier to remember to wash your hands after removing a mask than it is to wash your face when you get home (without washing virus into your eyes).

I'm also not advocating that people toss their masks out. I'd advocate that people don't wear it for 24 hours (or more), let virus die in the fibers, and then re-use.

I agree that gloves would be the way to go, but short of that, washing hands after getting home and removing the mask and eyewear seems second best.

Washing eyewear would probably be a good move to remove any virus on the outside of it, which might live for days. But then, that's true of anyone who wears glasses in public right now. Which is still better than not wearing glasses in public right now.

Edit:

So I guess let me put it this way. What I intend to do on my next grocery shopping trip (which I have avoided for weeks now) is to put on safety glasses (mine have like a little foam seal under them), put on a mask, and wear cloth gloves (rather than latex).

I'll consider my hands contaminated the entire time. When I get home, I'll use those gloves to carefully remove the mask, and let it sit for at least 24 hours, and I'll use the gloves to remove eyewear and I might consider wiping that with alcohol if I need to go anywhere for the next 5 days. I'll put the gloves, mask, and eyewear in the garage to sit for at least 24 hours.

Then I'll go inside and wash my hands before touching anything. (I skipped the part where I clean cold grocery stuff before putting it in the fridge and leave pantry stuff in the garage for a few days).

Sure, I might have virus on my head or neck, or in my clothes, but I figure this is quite a bit improved over me just taking my open eyes into the grocery store and breathing through my nose.

 

[Touring Mars]

The growth rate of new cases in the UK has risen for the first time in 5 days - back up to 17% from 14% yesterday, which is not especially good news, though the lockdown has only been in place in the UK for 10 days thus far, and hence I'd expect numbers to start dropping consistently beyond two weeks after that, which would be from next Monday onward.

However, the UK is also falling well short of its target to test 25,000 people per day, and is only hitting around half that mark at the present time. (Even at the target rate, it would take an astonishing 3.5 years to test just 50% of the population...)

More shockingly, the total number of frontline NHS staff (est. at around 125,000) have only been sparsely tested - No. 10 citing figures of "over 2000", which is really not good enough.

Fortunately, commercially available home testing kits should be available to buy in the not-too-distant future, which should allow people to know whether they have had the virus already or if they are currently infected. That said, I don't know how expensive these tests will be, or how available they will be (in terms of supply and if they are actually going to be available to buy on commercial websites).

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

6ft is too close: Expert warns coronavirus can travel 27ft.

https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/worl...s-can-travel-27ft/ar-BB11YXfz?ocid=spartandhp

 

[novcze]

If it's possible to be asymptomatic but be carrying the virus, then wearing a mask is going to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus - no?

since we live with mandatory masks for 14 days already, few things to note:

- your mask/face covering is protecting others
- if you want to protect yourself more, you need FFP2 or better FFP3 masks
- masks with blow-out valve are not desirable for protection of others
- masks need to be wear by everyone since there are some 20 - 40% of asymptomatic cases


So unless your government make masks/face covering mandatory for everyone, your best chance is to use FFP3 mask + glasses + gloves and proper disposing of used stuff.

 

[Danoff]

proper disposing of used stuff.

I think this not sustainable and not necessary. We don't need to go deal with another infected patient 2 seconds later. We can stay home for a few days and let the virus die on the gear.

Edit:

Even better if you have like... 2 sets of things. So that you can rotate between them and leave even more time between use.

 

[Touring Mars]

British American Tobacco (BAT) claim to be developing a vaccine using genetically modified tobacco plants...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/04/01/cigarette-maker-claims-coronavirus-vaccine-breakthrough (paywall)

Others have reacted with skepticism, esp. at claims of a fast-track development programme which could see millions of doses produced every week and up and running within months. Of course, human trials and FDA approval are the major sticking points for any potential vaccine, but it would be somewhat ironic (but also quite cool) if Big Tobacco turned out to be the saviour of the modern world...

 

[novcze]

I think this not sustainable and not necessary. We don't need to go deal with another infected patient 2 seconds later. We can stay home for a few days and let the virus die on the gear.

Edit:

Even better if you have like... 2 sets of things. So that you can rotate between them and leave even more time between use.

I'm confused, what patient?

But yes, we can let virus die on the gear if we don't have spares or we can disinfect the gear. Some gear is designed for one time use though.

 

[Famine]

So we'd rather have the virus on your face, in your beard, after you arrive back home, than on a mask?

It depends.

Beards aren't actually good news in either case - they interfere with mask fitment, and they're much more likely to catch the snot. However there's a familiarity flipside - by the time you've got a beard, you're used to having a beard and you're less likely to reflexively touch it with your hands than you are something new and unfamiliar like an ill-fitting face mask.

In fact it's probably easier to remember to wash your hands after removing a mask than it is to wash your face when you get home (without washing virus into your eyes).

The difficulty with this is that anything short of a full-body condom or hazmat suit will leave body parts exposed to snare snot. When I used to have hair, I had to wash or rinse my fringe about nine times a day in hayfever season because it would retain pollen for later, and shuck it into my face when it felt like it.

It's likely to be the same but worse with snot-transmitted viruses - as I mentioned, I'm not sure about whether the boundary layer effect would provide protection on exposed skin, but if it doesn't then literally any part of your body can trap coronaphelgm, and it all has to be washed before you touch it - and we touch ourselves a lot, and without knowing about it some of the time. We can even be tricked into doing it by things we see, hear, and smell (smell is an incredible trigger) and not even remember it. If you fancy a laugh (and later recriminations), film your other half for an hour without her knowledge, then ask her how many times she touched her face or hair in that hour. It'll be about 5-10% of the true value.


Clothing is probably even worse. I haven't checked the virus survival time for clothing, but I'd reckon three hours is a solid minimum. That means you can go for a half-hour walk with your coat on, have it hoover up infected snot, then get it all over your hands when you take it off... then it hangs on the peg next to everyone else's coats and they get it all over their hands putting their coats on.

I'm also not advocating that people toss their masks out. I'd advocate that people don't wear it for 24 hours (or more), let virus die in the fibers, and then re-use.

It really depends on the mask. The commonest type is the surgical face mask - a basic rectangle of cloth with a loop over the ear - which is the type you see on commuters in stock Asian city footage. They're straight-up disposable, single-use items. The more elaborate face cones can be reused...

... however you should consider any surface you put a used mask on as contaminated. If you put it on a stainless steel worktop, it's contaminated for two days after the the time the mask is considered contaminated (I haven't looked up the fibre lifespan).

I'll consider my hands contaminated the entire time.

That's definitely a sensible approach.

 

[Biggles]

It depends.

Beards aren't actually good news in either case - they interfere with mask fitment, and they're much more likely to catch the snot. However there's a familiarity flipside - by the time you've got a beard, you're used to having a beard and you're less likely to reflexively touch it with your hands than you are something new and unfamiliar like an ill-fitting face mask.

The difficulty with this is that anything short of a full-body condom or hazmat suit will leave body parts exposed to snare snot. When I used to have hair, I had to wash or rinse my fringe about nine times a day in hayfever season because it would retain pollen for later, and shuck it into my face when it felt like it.

It's likely to be the same but worse with snot-transmitted viruses - as I mentioned, I'm not sure about whether the boundary layer effect would provide protection on exposed skin, but if it doesn't then literally any part of your body can trap coronaphelgm, and it all has to be washed before you touch it - and we touch ourselves a lot, and without knowing about it some of the time. We can even be tricked into doing it by things we see, hear, and smell (smell is an incredible trigger) and not even remember it. If you fancy a laugh (and later recriminations), film your other half for an hour without her knowledge, then ask her how many times she touched her face or hair in that hour. It'll be about 5-10% of the true value.


Clothing is probably even worse. I haven't checked the virus survival time for clothing, but I'd reckon three hours is a solid minimum. That means you can go for a half-hour walk with your coat on, have it hoover up infected snot, then get it all over your hands when you take it off... then it hangs on the peg next to everyone else's coats and they get it all over their hands putting their coats on.

It really depends on the mask. The commonest type is the surgical face mask - a basic rectangle of cloth with a loop over the ear - which is the type you see on commuters in stock Asian city footage. They're straight-up disposable, single-use items. The more elaborate face cones can be reused...

... however you should consider any surface you put a used mask on as contaminated. If you put it on a stainless steel worktop, it's contaminated for two days after the the time the mask is considered contaminated (I haven't looked up the fibre lifespan).

That's definitely a sensible approach.

One other important question: is there any confirmed evidence so far about to what degree the AMOUNT of virus you come into contact with affects the likelihood of being infected or the severity of the infection?

 

[Famine]

One other important question: is there any confirmed evidence so far about to what degree the AMOUNT of virus you come into contact with affects the likelihood of being infected or the severity of the infection?

No, and I doubt that there will be. Your immune system will try to fight off anything foreign, and how successful it is for a given viral load will vary wildly from person to person.

 

[Touring Mars]

One other important question: is there any confirmed evidence so far about to what degree the AMOUNT of virus you come into contact with affects the likelihood of being infected or the severity of the infection?

It is being studied, but I guess it is too early to say either way.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-load-or-infectious-dose-make-covid-19-worse/

I would have thought that one would be more likely to stave off a serious infection if you were only exposed to a low dose of the virus, but that there is no guarantees as it depends on how well your immune system is functioning at the time.

That said, it is quite striking how many healthcare workers (who do not have underlying health conditions) are falling victim to severe illness and death, despite being among the lowest risk categories. Sadly, there may only be one way we are likely to find out whether high or repeated exposure to the virus is riskier than a one-off low dose.

 

[Danoff]

I'm confused, what patient?

I'm drawing a line between the recommendations for medical professionals handling C19 patients, and the lay person getting groceries. We don't need our masks to be clean in 5 seconds to see a new patient. We can leave ours in the garage for a while, and cycle through spares.

If I needed to be clean to avoid transmitting C19 from one patient to the next, and I need to do it right this second, I'd be disposing of as much as I could and re-suiting with clean gear. Ditch those gloves, ditch the mask, etc. Lay people don't need to do that. So we don't need to consume gear at the same rate.

Clothing is probably even worse. I haven't checked the virus survival time for clothing, but I'd reckon three hours is a solid minimum.

I've seen up to 24 hrs but it seems to get presented as an upper limit for clothing.

The commonest type is the surgical face mask - a basic rectangle of cloth with a loop over the ear - which is the type you see on commuters in stock Asian city footage. They're straight-up disposable, single-use items. The more elaborate face cones can be reused...

I'm assuming that the surgical or cone masks are basically like any other piece of cloth when it comes to desiccation of the droplet and killing the virus, so 24 hours is what I'm going on. Cardboard is supposedly 24 hours. A stainless steel table surface is like 7 days.

 

[twitcher]

Claims circulating that Bill Gates is advocating for using some form of microchip to track who has been treated for Covid-19 are being reported as false.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21I3EC

 

[Biggles]

It is being studied, but I guess it is too early to say either way.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-load-or-infectious-dose-make-covid-19-worse/

I would have thought that one would be more likely to stave off a serious infection if you were only exposed to a low dose of the virus, but that there is no guarantees as it depends on how well your immune system is functioning at the time.

That said, it is quite striking how many healthcare workers (who do not have underlying health conditions) are falling victim to severe illness and death, despite being among the lowest risk categories. Sadly, there may only be one way we are likely to find out whether high or repeated exposure to the virus is riskier than a one-off low dose.

I think it is important to know, because it may be very hard to eliminate exposure to the virus completely, but knowing that it is important to minimize it as much as possible would encourage people to be vigilant rather than fatalistic about it.

The actions of healthcare workers in this situation is nothing short of heroic. They are putting themselves in harm's way on a daily basis. Deep respect.

 

[Danoff]

They are putting themselves in harm's way on a daily basis. Deep respect.

Hasn't really changed. Just more obvious. In some respect, we all do though. The 7 Eleven register worker risks getting robbed at gunpoint.

 

[fortbo]

This is interesting.

 

[Dennisch]

U.S. Intelligence kicks in an open door/preaching to the choir/states the obvious.

China has concealed the extent of the coronavirus outbreak in its country, under-reporting both total cases and deaths it’s suffered from the disease, the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a classified report to the White House, according to three U.S. officials. The officials asked not to be identified because the report is secret, and they declined to detail its contents. But the thrust, they said, is that China’s public reporting on cases and deaths is intentionally incomplete. Two of the officials said the report concludes that China’s numbers are fake.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is interesting.

Michael Levitt's opinion is certainly not to be disregarded lightly - and I hope he is right.

Another study from Stanford recently also suggests that many people suffering from COVID-19 (around 20%) also have another respiratory virus... I have wondered about the possible interplay between this outbreak and existing seasonal flu strains.

It would be fascinating to see if people with flu shots (as are common for over 70s in the UK) have a better survival rate than those who have not had a flu shot, and were unlucky enough to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 while already weakened by flu.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

We have got two metre stickers on the floor of the shop now which pretty much everyone is following, its still pretty busy despite the lockdown.

Our manager is off for another two weeks for her chest infection after she coughed on the shop floor on Monday and a customer complained, we will be getting three new temp staff by the end of he week.

The way the death number have risen in the UK in the last two days is pretty scary.

 

[Joey D]

U.S. Intelligence kicks in an open door/preaching to the choir/states the obvious.

China has concealed the extent of the coronavirus outbreak in its country, under-reporting both total cases and deaths it’s suffered from the disease, the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a classified report to the White House, according to three U.S. officials. The officials asked not to be identified because the report is secret, and they declined to detail its contents. But the thrust, they said, is that China’s public reporting on cases and deaths is intentionally incomplete. Two of the officials said the report concludes that China’s numbers are fake.

Glad it took US Intelligence to figure that out, when I, an average schmo sitting at home could've told you that.

My guess is that the disease has been prevalent in China for far longer than just November of last year. I'm also guessing deaths are hundreds of thousands instead of the 4,000-ish it reported.

 

[Dennisch]

The Chinese people need a revolution to get those absolutes skid marks out of power.

 

[Northstar]

I'm not sure whats worse, this post or the number of likes

I know, how dare I hold myself to the same standards that I hold other people to!

Look at it this way, if your employer came up to you and said they couldn't pay you but expected you to continue working as usual what would you say to them?

People wind up living paycheck to paycheck for a huge number of reasons.

I'm well aware things happen that result in living paycheck to paycheck, I've been there several times myself. It's largely the reason I've made sacrifices in order to build up a somewhat decent safety net.

I don’t think now is the time to be judging people for their financial situation.

I know it's harsh but I think it may also be necessary. I'm fine with safety nets like unemployment and food assistance, but if people are on the brink of missing their payments this early into this even with the government assistance we are going to be in rough shape.

There are plenty of multi billion dollar corporations who are asking to be bailed out after only a few weeks of shut down. How come Boeing was unable to set aside a rainy day savings account?

If they can't stay afloat by themselves they should sink.

Have you no clue what's going on around you? Millions of people live paycheck to paycheck. Many of those need more than one job to do it. The problem will get worse as more jobs become automated.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...nd-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/

There's plenty of well paying jobs, people just need to realize that getting your hands dirty isn't the end of the world. Currently trade jobs are so in demand companies put "Now Hiring" permanently on their vehicles and CDL gigs are always in demand and pay rather well.

The problem is we push kids to take on mountains of debt to get a 4-year degree just for the sake of getting a degree. Than once they graduate with their worthless degree that has no real career path they are stuck with said mountain of debt and no job prospects.