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

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,265 comments
  • 622,239 views
I should have elaborated more for you. I listen too much to Gov. Cuomo and he refers to ICU beds as ones needing ventilators. In that last post I was referring to beds as the same thing as ventilators. My bad. Let me be clearer and as you already know ventilators are more important but if there are no beds available then basically neither are ventilators. We don't need to go into all the different setups and areas that have both/neither on ships on land,whatever. The way I read your statement was that there is no problem in your area with beds, or ventilators, correct?

Danoff is in Colorado, and currently, they are not in any danger of running out of beds, ICU beds, or ventilators: https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/colorado

In fact, looking through the data, most western states aren't in any danger at this moment of not having enough healthcare resources to take care of their population. The eastern seaboard is another story though. In your state of Connecticut, they are woefully underequipped to handle the population. As of right now, they're nearly 5,000 beds short and an additional 1,200 ICU beds short. Across the board, PPE is another story, but that's solely the federal government's fault sine FEMA keeps buying up all the supply.
 
Two Australian states have been identified as 'guinea pigs' for the easing of coronavirus restrictions.
Western Australia and South Australia could be the likely locations for a plan like to monitor how successful lifting the restrictions would be.
Both states have some of the lowest number of virus cases on the mainland making them the most likely to be flagged for a possible trial.

The plan would likely involve lifting restrictions on playgrounds, cafes and restaurants sooner and give other states more confidence in doing so.
Authorities would monitor the progress to build a picture of a national impact if restrictions were limited.
The plan is set to be discussed at National Cabinet in the coming weeks.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/g...-to-trial-easing-of-virus-restrictions_090420

As someone that lives in one of the ''guinea pig'' states I'd suggest we put it to a vote. Surely the A.C.T. would be a better candidate :sly:.
 
I am getting so sick and tired of these damned sad music, we will survive, commercials. I am trying to watch the finale of Modern Family, one of my favorite TV shows, when the show is on I get taken away from this nightmare that is real life for just a bit, just to be dragged back into hell every time there is a commercial break.

We get it, we know it, we are all living it. We don't need a bunch of big corporations virtue signaling at us. STFU!
 
Danoff is in Colorado, and currently, they are not in any danger of running out of beds, ICU beds, or ventilators: https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/colorado

In fact, looking through the data, most western states aren't in any danger at this moment of not having enough healthcare resources to take care of their population. The eastern seaboard is another story though. In your state of Connecticut, they are woefully underequipped to handle the population. As of right now, they're nearly 5,000 beds short and an additional 1,200 ICU beds short. Across the board, PPE is another story, but that's solely the federal government's fault sine FEMA keeps buying up all the supply.
I agree with all of that. Never stated that I don't.
Also, I'd hope that we could avoid this kind of panic shut-down and do something more intelligent. Like maintain distance while not shutting things. Like wearing masks (and glasses) in public, and even altering school procedures, or even having face masks at schools. You'd think with lead time especially that we would not have to do something so ridiculous as shutting down our economy. We're smart creatures, we need to use our brains.
I was trying to understand how 1/2 the world population is social distancing and Danoff seems to think that it's a waste of time and money. I believe the links of information would give an insight but that remains to be seen. Be it schools, sports, construction projects, the tv/movie industries, etc, etc, etc...I don't see how so many could be wrong (inc experts) on the economic devastation of it either. Yes it will be costly but not as costly as not social distancing.

#StayhomeStaysafe
 
Three nurses forced to wear bin bags because of PPE shortage ‘test positive for coronavirus’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/nurs...-shortage-test-positive-coronavirus-12530286/


Good thing Borris was clapping for the NHS.


BBC presenter praised for 'powerful words' on crisis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52225173?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5e8e96369cc871066e859d3f&BBC presenter praised for 'powerful words' on crisis&2020-04-09T07:30:50.690Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:a13f6f36-a43f-4c16-ae65-983bb36b16af&pinned_post_asset_id=5e8e96369cc871066e859d3f&pinned_post_type=share via @BBCNews


I tried to embed the video, or have an embeded link to it, but the BBC website isn't very friendly to use or its videos wont embed
 
Last edited:
I was trying to understand how 1/2 the world population is social distancing and Danoff seems to think that it's a waste of time and money. I believe the links of information would give an insight but that remains to be seen. Be it schools, sports, construction projects, the tv/movie industries, etc, etc, etc...I don't see how so many could be wrong (inc experts) on the economic devastation of it either. Yes it will be costly but not as costly as not social distancing.

#StayhomeStaysafe
To be fair, Danoff is not saying that social distancing is a waste of time and money... he's saying that the measures taken to alleviate the current crisis should not cause as much or even more damage than the virus.

It is a difficult thing to judge though, because clearly there is a balance to be struck. Lockdown measures are absolutely necessary - and the tighter they are, the better... but only for a limited time. And not all lockdown measures are equal - some will be required for a short time, and some for a very long time. The question is which measures are most effective, when they are most effective, and for how long do we need them.

Unfortunately, the harsher the lockdown measure(s), the more difficult it will be to sustain them. This is where the containment strategy starts to unravel, because containment (during a pandemic) is almost impossible without imposing the most draconian (and damaging) restrictions on daily life - and possibly to little overall effect. Take South Korea for example. If one country can virtually contain the outbreak, they will have a dilemma - when to lift the restrictions? Paradoxically, the fewer infections they have, the more prone to a severe outbreak they will be later as they will be much further behind other countries on the way to herd immunity. Can they afford to keep restrictions and testing regimes in place until a vaccine is developed? Probably not (though I hope so...). But if not, all of their amazing efforts could end up being for nothing and then they get a double whammy of having taking a massive economic hit and a worst-case outbreak.

Thus far, the 'flattening the curve' strategy seems to be the best solution, though alas that involves accepting the grim possibility of the same number of infections as doing nothing. It is far superior to doing nothing because it optimises the effect of the healthcare system (i.e. doing nothing would result in millions of people not being treated), but paradoxically it also means that doing too much (i.e. trying to contain the virus) could backfire.

I reckon the best solution is a compromise - short(ish) periods of fairly tight restrictions (like we have now) followed by a relative return to normality. However, we must be prepared for the unfortunate possibility of multiple cycles of this. If we are able to limit infections to just 5-10% of the population, that means that we could endure 6-12 cycles of this virus before herd immunity starts to have an effect. The good news is that we are (hopefully) likely to have a vaccine before then (i.e. this time next year, or approx. 3-4 more cycles of lockdown etc.), but either way it is probably going to suck for some time. The question is, economically, how can we survive for what could be an entire year or more without the economy running? I reckon we cannot - the EU, for example, is already witnessing record-breaking downturns that are plunging some of the richest countries on Earth into a deep recession, and we're only 50% through cycle 1... harsh as it may sound, there will come a point (and probably much sooner than people would like) where the economy needs to be revived, and hence, as Danoff is saying, we need to get smart about how to a) protect those most vulnerable and b) keep everyone else able to afford food, energy and shelter. I reckon it can be done, but it is not going to be an easy year for any of us.

-

Part of the problem with having a flexible approach to restrictions is that the general public are unlikely to respond well to anything other than a clear and unequivocal message. The reality may well be that we should have different levels of restriction of different people and different places, but that is by definition a mixed message. The majority of people want a black and white answer - is there a lockdown or not? The trouble for governments is how to square the circle of giving a black and white answer to a grey area question.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Danoff is not saying that social distancing is a waste of time and money... he's saying that the measures taken to alleviate the current crisis should not cause as much or even more damage than the virus.

It is a difficult thing to judge though, because clearly there is a balance to be struck. Lockdown measures are absolutely necessary - and the tighter they are, the better... but only for a limited time. And not all lockdown measures are equal - some will be required for a short time, and some for a very long time. The question is which measures are most effective, when they are most effective, and for how long do we need them.

Unfortunately, the harsher the lockdown measure(s), the more difficult it will be to sustain them. This is where the containment strategy starts to unravel, because containment (during a pandemic) is almost impossible without imposing the most draconian (and damaging) restrictions on daily life - and possibly to little overall effect. Take South Korea for example. If one country can virtually contain the outbreak, they will have a dilemma - when to lift the restrictions? Paradoxically, the fewer infections they have, the more prone to a severe outbreak they will be later as they will be much further behind other countries on the way to herd immunity. Can they afford to keep restrictions and testing regimes in place until a vaccine is developed? Probably not (though I hope so...). But if not, all of their amazing efforts could end up being for nothing and then they get a double whammy of having taking a massive economic hit and a worst-case outbreak.

Thus far, the 'flattening the curve' strategy seems to be the best solution, though alas that involves accepting the grim possibility of the same number of infections as doing nothing. It is far superior to doing nothing because it optimises the effect of the healthcare system (i.e. doing nothing would result in millions of people not being treated), but paradoxically it also means that doing too much (i.e. trying to contain the virus) could backfire.

I reckon the best solution is a compromise - short(ish) periods of fairly tight restrictions (like we have now) followed by a relative return to normality. However, we must be prepared for the unfortunate possibility of multiple cycles of this. If we are able to limit infections to just 5-10% of the population, that means that we could endure 6-12 cycles of this virus before herd immunity starts to have an effect. The good news is that we are (hopefully) likely to have a vaccine before then (i.e. this time next year, or approx. 3-4 more cycles of lockdown etc.), but either way it is probably going to suck for some time. The question is, economically, how can we survive for what could be an entire year or more without the economy running? I reckon we cannot - the EU, for example, is already witnessing record-breaking downturns that are plunging some of the richest countries on Earth into a deep recession, and we're only 50% through cycle 1... harsh as it may sound, there will come a point (and probably much sooner than people would like) where the economy needs to be revived, and hence, as Danoff is saying, we need to get smart about how to a) protect those most vulnerable and b) keep everyone else able to afford food, energy and shelter. I reckon it can be done, but it is not going to be an easy year for any of us.
At least it'll mean 2021's new years resolutions will be a bit more grounded;

  • have enough food to survive the winter
  • have some form of employment
 
The Beeb have missed a trick here. It's possible this clip may go viral (pardon the pun) without delivering any clicks to their website if they don't make it easier to share. Hopefully this YouTuber will get some much deserved traffic before the video is inevitably taken down for infringement by copyright bots.

 
At least it'll mean 2021's new years resolutions will be a bit more grounded;

  • have enough food to survive the winter
  • have some form of employment

#1) Plant a victory garden.
#2) Keep about 25 hens and sell eggs.
 
To be fair, Danoff is not saying that social distancing is a waste of time and money... he's saying that the measures taken to alleviate the current crisis should not cause as much or even more damage than the virus.

So your saying that he's saying that social distancing (SD(which in this post includes lock down)) is not working. And you two are ok with an estimated 2,500,000 million people dying in the USA alone, ok. Please read what i have linked in past posts and make an educated guess instead of using your own opinion as to what the future may bring.

It is a difficult thing to judge though, because clearly there is a balance to be struck. Lockdown measures are absolutely necessary - and the tighter they are, the better... but only for a limited time. And not all lockdown measures are equal - some will be required for a short time, and some for a very long time. The question is which measures are most effective, when they are most effective, and for how long do we need them.

The balance is keeping essential businesses open versus shutting down everything.The CDC is working on plans for opening the economy, bit by bit. Local leaders are the best qualified for which regions may be ready. As they shut down region by region they would presumably use the same concept for reopening the economy, region by region. The virus will most likely control that ultimately.

Unfortunately, the harsher the lockdown measure(s), the more difficult it will be to sustain them. This is where the containment strategy starts to unravel, because containment (during a pandemic) is almost impossible without imposing the most draconian (and damaging) restrictions on daily life - and possibly to little overall effect.

I would agree that we are (at least I feel like I'm dungeoned up here at home) living under draconian (to use your analogy) leadership. According to those articles I linked SD is working with a huge effect. In USA experts at first were using data that projected less than 50% of USA would step up and do SD. We now find out that more than that percentage have SD and those numbers of infected and dead have dropped considerably compared to first projections.


Take South Korea for example. If one country can virtually contain the outbreak, they will have a dilemma - when to lift the restrictions? Paradoxically, the fewer infections they have, the more prone to a severe outbreak they will be later as they will be much further behind other countries on the way to herd immunity.

On the way? No country is on their way to herd immunity and without a vaccine herding won't work, unless basically 90% of the population gets the virus.
https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#effectiveness
Using data (take the published numbers as you may, believe other countries numbers or not) about the most infected country per capita Switzerland has the highest at 1340 cases/million people. Their population is 8,637,642 with 11575 cases infected. For herding the number of infected would be (90%) 7,773,887 of which at a death rate of 3.4 % would be 264,311 deaths for Switzerland alone. In the UK that end number would be over 2,000,000. USA would be over 10,000,000. A vaccine would first be needed to even think about herding.

EDIT: using the VSL the economic cost to 10,000,000 deaths in the USA equates to $100,000,000,000,000, yes $100 trillion. Currently (2019) the DNP is above $19 trillion.


Can they afford to keep restrictions and testing regimes in place until a vaccine is developed? Probably not (though I hope so...). But if not, all of their amazing efforts could end up being for nothing and then they get a double whammy of having taking a massive economic hit and a worst-case outbreak.
The only double whammy I read about is if we stop SD too soon and open the economy too soon. Regionally we will open the economy, eventually.

Thus far, the 'flattening the curve' strategy seems to be the best solution, though alas that involves accepting the grim possibility of the same number of infections as doing nothing.

I agree on flattening the curve, who wouldn't but sorry, I would like to see some proof or theory (not your opinion) to that analogy that the SD would have the same effect on lives as doing nothing at all to prevent infections.

It is far superior to doing nothing because it optimises the effect of the healthcare system (i.e. doing nothing would result in millions of people not being treated), but paradoxically it also means that doing too much (i.e. trying to contain the virus) could backfire.

Are you actually suggesting not to treat anyone for the virus to optimize the effect of the HCS? I must be reading that wrong. Please clarify. Your the first person I've seen or heard even contemplating such an awful idea. I would like to see some proof or theory to that analogy also. One of the biggest reasons the USA is SD is not to overwhelm our HCS and leave people to die for reasons other than the virus alone. Our own downfall I agree. Everything I read or see (to me) proves that seeing this SD through is the only (economic) solution at this time. Please read past links for that evidence.

I reckon the best solution is a compromise - short(ish) periods of fairly tight restrictions (like we have now) followed by a relative return to normality. However, we must be prepared for the unfortunate possibility of multiple cycles of this. If we are able to limit infections to just 5-10% of the population, that means that we could endure 6-12 cycles of this virus before herd immunity starts to have an effect. The good news is that we are (hopefully) likely to have a vaccine before then (i.e. this time next year, or approx. 3-4 more cycles of lockdown etc.), but either way it is probably going to suck for some time. The question is, economically, how can we survive for what could be an entire year or more without the economy running? I reckon we cannot - the EU, for example, is already witnessing record-breaking downturns that are plunging some of the richest countries on Earth into a deep recession, and we're only 50% through cycle 1... harsh as it may sound, there will come a point (and probably much sooner than people would like) where the economy needs to be revived, and hence, as Danoff is saying, we need to get smart about how to a) protect those most vulnerable and b) keep everyone else able to afford food, energy and shelter. I reckon it can be done, but it is not going to be an easy year for any of us.
Yeah I agree about a compromise (it's what we're doing now) and I don't think anyone thought this was going to be easy or end in a few months time. The links I gave have an estimated 3 years projected into their models for the future economic turn around. We can bring back the economy, we can't bring back dead people.

Part of the problem with having a flexible approach to restrictions is that the general public are unlikely to respond well to anything other than a clear and unequivocal message. The reality may well be that we should have different levels of restriction of different people and different places, but that is by definition a mixed message. The majority of people want a black and white answer - is there a lockdown or not? The trouble for governments is how to square the circle of giving a black and white answer to a grey area question.

Unfortunately @realDonaldTrump is not the correct leader for this crises, thank god for our governors that have stepped up. It's a huge country and I will agree that we need to open the economy again, and it would most likely be regional due to the size of the country but according to the experts without SD the economy would be far worst off in the long run.

#StayhomeStaysafe
 
Last edited:
So your saying that he's saying that social distancing (SD(which in this post includes lock down)) is not working. And you two are ok with an estimated 2,500,000 million people dying in the USA alone, ok.
Yeh... I'm not understanding these statements at all.

On the way? No country is on their way to herd immunity and without a vaccine herding won't work, unless basically 90% of the population gets the virus.
https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#effectiveness
Using data (take the published numbers as you may, believe other countries numbers or not) about the most infected country per capita Switzerland has the highest at 1340 cases/million people. Their population is 8,637,642 with 11575 cases infected. For herding the number of infected would be (90%) 7,773,887 of which at a death rate of 3.4 % would be 264,311 deaths for Switzerland alone. In the UK that end number would be over 2,000,000. USA would be over 10,000,000. A vaccine would first be needed to even think about herding.
Herd immunity works when a certain percentage of the population have immunity - in the absence of a vaccine, immunity can only be gained via infection and recovery. The percentage varies from virus to virus and is determined by the R0 number (the 'basic reproduction number') of the virus, which is an estimate of the number of new cases per existing case. For SARS-CoV-2, the percentage of the population required to achieve herd immunity is approx. 60-70%.

The true number of infections is likely to be at least 10 times higher than confirmed cases, hence if the USA ends up with one million confirmed cases, the likely reality is that at least 10 million people have had the infection. Yes, this is nowhere near enough for herd immunity to kick in, hence why I said that it will take numerous cycles of infection to reach that number - the paradox is that the more effectively we reduce infection rates now, the more dangerous a future cycle of infection could be. If anything, it would be a good thing if it turned out that the actual number of infections was 100x higher than confirmed cases, because that would mean that one million confirmed cases would actually be more like 100 million people infected, which is almost half way to herd immunity already (yet with the same number of people requiring hospital care...)

I agree on flattening the curve, who wouldn't but sorry, I would like to see some proof or theory (not your opinion) to that analogy that the SD would have the same effect on lives as doing nothing at all to prevent infections.
It is not my opinion, it's a basic fact. Barring a vaccine or eradication through containment (which most experts agree is not possible), the virus will ultimately spread through the population.

Public health authorities the world over are grappling with this fact. As such, the best strategy is not to try and eradicate the virus through containment (because it probably won't work) but to spread cases out over as long a time period as possible.

The virus is very dangerous, but it is even more dangerous to people who do not have access to health care - this is the rationale behind 'flattening the curve'.

Are you actually suggesting not to treat anyone for the virus to optimize the effect of the HCS? I must be reading that wrong. Please clarify.
Yes... you are reading that wrong.

Your the first person I've seen or heard even contemplating such an awful idea.
... see the comment above.

Everything I read or see (to me) proves that seeing this SD through is the only (economic) solution at this time.
I agree... though I'm not sure how you've seemingly got the impression that I don't.

Let me be clear. The lockdown and social distancing measures are absolutely necessary (as I said above). We need to keep these restrictions in place until the chains of viral transmission are broken down to the point where the number of new confirmed cases every day is very low - that will take several weeks.

After that, restrictions can be gradually lifted, as you suggest as well. But... in the absence of a vaccine or successful drug treatments, lifting these restrictions will inevitably result in the transmission chains starting up again, and we will be back to square one. This is likely to happen over and over again until a treatment or vaccine is available.

The only issue is what happens when the economy and/or the general public cannot stand any more of the restrictions that are necessary to keep a lid on an outbreak cycle. This is where herd immunity starts to play a critical role - because if a country has already had a very high number of infections, then restrictions become almost completely unnecessary - and that might just come in handy when restrictions start to be ignored or cannot be tolerated any longer.

So, in general, we seem to be (as Danoff might say) in violent agreement with each other.
 
Just read this on MSN,

At least 74 people who had been diagnosed as recovered from coronavirus have tested positive for a second time after they were released from hospital.

Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of South Korea’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, said health authorities were testing virus and serum samples to determine whether patients who tested positive again would be capable of transmitting the virus to others and whether their bodies had properly created antibodies.

She said some of the patients did not show any symptoms before their follow-up tests turned positive, while others were tested again because they were exhibiting respiratory symptoms. She said none of these patients have seen their illness worsen to serious conditions.
 
I understand your point, but ultimately, regardless of COVID, if any country is violating Chinese sovereign waters, then yes, they have a right to complain

That said, the whole South China Sea situation is a gong show, and if anything happens, no matter what happens, it will be a big game of “Point the finger”, meaning no one will take responsibility for first action, and everyone will claim “the other guy started it”.

Not to bring up an irrelevant post and point that is separate from the thread itself, just a side note. The "South China Sea" that China believes it is theirs, isn't actually theirs by most international terrority standards. I forget the details but it is commonly agreed that 60-100 miles off the land border in the sea is their own terrority, while outside of that is international waters and no-one really has a "claim" to it.

This is where it comes into semantics as the Chinese government wants to have the "nine dash line" to be an accepted terrority for themselves, when technically its still for anyone to use and under no nation's control, even if they were to build land out of nothing and effectively create an miltary air + army base to launch "defensive" attacks on.

The above just seems like posturing for the Chinese government to show their own citizens that the Americans are bad people and should be controlled by themselves.

It is in bad taste to highlight this during a pandemic, but it does happen.
 
Three nurses forced to wear bin bags because of PPE shortage ‘test positive for coronavirus’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/nurs...-shortage-test-positive-coronavirus-12530286/


Good thing Borris was clapping for the NHS.


BBC presenter praised for 'powerful words' on crisis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52225173?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5e8e96369cc871066e859d3f&BBC presenter praised for 'powerful words' on crisis&2020-04-09T07:30:50.690Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:a13f6f36-a43f-4c16-ae65-983bb36b16af&pinned_post_asset_id=5e8e96369cc871066e859d3f&pinned_post_type=share via @BBCNews


I tried to embed the video, or have an embeded link to it, but the BBC website isn't very friendly to use or its videos wont embed
The Beeb have missed a trick here. It's possible this clip may go viral (pardon the pun) without delivering any clicks to their website if they don't make it easier to share. Hopefully this YouTuber will get some much deserved traffic before the video is inevitably taken down for infringement by copyright bots.


I watched this clip, and my immediate first thought was "well, why do we always say that people - especially kids - are brave and fighters when they "battling" and "beating" cancer?" Cancer doesn't give a **** about who you are just as much as COVID-19 doesn't, and you don't survive it through fortitude and strength of character either.


Or is it just offensive to suggest that people who die of something didn't fight hard enough when they aren't a public figure you don't like?
 
I watched this clip, and my immediate first thought was "well, why do we always say that people - especially kids - are brave and fighters when they "battling" and "beating" cancer?" Cancer doesn't give a **** about who you are just as much as COVID-19 doesn't, and you don't survive it through fortitude and strength of character either.


Or is it just offensive to suggest that people who die of something didn't fight hard enough when they aren't a public figure you don't like?
I guess, but there aren't people out there willingly giving themselves high chances of getting cancer to help cancer victims... unless you'd consider people who help others stop smoking???
 
I guess, but there aren't people out there willingly giving themselves high chances of getting cancer to help cancer victims... unless you'd consider people who help others stop smoking???
I don't see how that relates to her monologue, especially not the opening part of it. Here it is, transcribed:
The language around COVID-19 has sometimes felt trite and misleading. You do not survive the illness by fortitude and strength of character - whatever the Prime Minister's colleagues will tell us - and the disease is not a great leveller, the consequences of which everyone, rich or poor, suffers the same. This is a myth which needs debunking.
Swap in "cancer" and you've got a withering criticism of how we talk about little kids battling leukaemia.
The language around cancer has sometimes felt trite and misleading. You do not survive the illness by fortitude and strength of character - whatever the child's parents will tell us - and the disease is not a great leveller, the consequences of which everyone, rich or poor, suffers the same. This is a myth which needs debunking.
That seems... unhelpful to me.


Later on, she says that people "serving on the front line" (we've already been told by the Guardian that using the language of war is bad when talking about COVID, twice - and it is far from alone in doing so - which Maitlis seems to be out of the loop for) are "disproportionately the lower paid members of our workforce. They are more likely to catch the disease because they are more exposed.". That also applies to cancer; after the early-onset, heritable flavors, cancer is a lifestyle disorder. The poor* are disproportionately likely to suffer from it because it comes down to poor diet and poor lifestyle habits like smoking and drinking, or living or working in areas with high air pollution levels. The very wealthy get it by living long enough.

In fact the poor are disproportionately exposed to most common premature death factors - including heart disease and car accidents - because they can't afford not to be exposed to it. If you're poor you're also disproportionately like to be sexually or physically abused as a child, stabbed to death (or shot in the USA), and a drug addict.


*I don't really know what classifies as "poor" now. Shall we say the lowest 20% of wage earners?
 
Last edited:
Swap in "cancer" and you've got a withering criticism of how we talk about little kids battling leukaemia. It seems unhelpful.

I mean, I guess, but the reason you'd call kids like that brave is because it helps?
You can't do much about a lot of cancer and if it'll kill you or not... so I can't imagine it'd be that comforting for children if people where to /shrug ...where as if they're told how brave they are, they get some sort of sense of doing some good, despite doing nothing and dying a pointless death. The same way you lie to children about dead pets going to doggy heaven, when, obviously dogs have no soul...

It's probably also worth pointing out that the poor are more affected than most; because we have an acting Prime Minster who's openly said he's against human rights and economic support and a government who've claimed the PM getting this virus isn't due to his own wilful ignorance, but because this virus is a great leveller.
 
I mean, I guess, but the reason you'd call kids like that brave is because it helps?
You can't do much about a lot of cancer and if it'll kill you or not... so I can't imagine it'd be that comforting for children if people where to /shrug ...where as if they're told how brave they are, they get some sort of sense of doing some good, despite doing nothing and dying a pointless death.
Does that not apply to COVID-19? Was Ismail Adbulwahab not brave or a fighter? Is it not comforting to children to hear that their parents are bravely fighting the illness in hospital?

If we're attacking this kind of language around COVID we should be attacking this kind of language around any kind of illness. But we aren't. I don't think we need to wonder why.

The same way you lie to children about dead pets going to doggy heaven, when, obviously dogs have no soul...
Does anyone?
It's probably also worth pointing out that the poor are more affected than most
Do we do that with any other illness or factor which prematurely terminates life?
we have an acting Prime Minster who's openly said he's against human rights and economic support
We... what?
and a government who've claimed the PM getting this virus isn't due to his own wilful ignorance, but because this virus is a great leveller.
We have no idea how Boris Johnson came to contract COVID-19. Everyone is operating under the assumption that he got it in that notable occasion when he said he was shaking everyone's hands at a ward with COVID-19 cases on it but that's got two big issues with it.

Firstly, it's not skin transmitted, so shaking hands with someone doesn't get you infected. It's a HUGE risk for the hand-to-mouth pathway - shoving your fingers in your nose, mouth, ear, eye, or fudge tunnel while it's covered with SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much the gold standard of infection - but not an infection mechanism by itself. Secondly, you have to assume Boris was telling the truth and not guffing up some bluster to make him sound more popular and people-friendly (and like Diana, with HIV). Given that his detractors think he lies about everything, it seems an odd time to decide that this one was true...

Ultimately the virus is as great a leveller as any other infectious agent or disorder. It doesn't give a **** what host it's in, so long as it's in one. Whether you're a brave, fighting 13-year old boy who dies from it, or a dissembling escaped remnant of The Sorcerer's Apprentice who survives it, the outcome is not up to any conscious choice or status. Or indeed most medical interventions, which mainly focus on keeping you alive long enough that your own immune system does the job.
 
As of yesterday the first death of COVID-19 was reported in my area, while we have around ~60 confirmed cases or so. I'm severely lacking so badly on my exercise that I really need to get out and start walking it off, but paranoia's getting the best of me. I've had to go to four different stores these last two weekends and I suppose the risk is significantly higher doing that than walking around my block, but you never know.
 
"They're saying you should add zinc. Very good things, zinc. Great things. I once knew a guy made of zinc. Ryan, I think his name was. Don Jr. told me to hire him as my inferior secretary. Ryan did so many good things. Not inferior at all. Ryan had to leave. I don't think I ever met the man. He said things that were, uh, that were not very nice. Any questions? Yes, you. OAN. O-A-N. Very good, OAN. What a beautiful question."
 
Does that not apply to COVID-19? Was Ismail Adbulwahab not brave or a fighter?
Who said he isn't?

Is it not comforting to children to hear that their parents are bravely fighting the illness in hospital?
You do not survive the illness by fortitude and strength of character...
Where is she saying you can't be brave?

If we're attacking this kind of language around COVID we should be attacking this kind of language around any kind of illness. But we aren't. I don't think we need to wonder why.
What?

We... what?
...we have an acting Prime Minster who's openly said he's against human rights and economic support...

We have no idea how Boris Johnson came to contract COVID-19.
Correct, and we never will... however our own Prime Minster wilfully ignored and belittled the danger of a deadly virus outbreak and openly and arrogantly boasted physical contact with people who carried the virus. Even if he didn't contract it from those sources he helped spread the virus throughout the lower house and put our own democracy at risk.
He isn't ill because millionaire's are just as at risk as NHS Nurses, or postmen, or delivery drivers or shelf stackers... he's at risk due to his own ignorance.


Edit: further more, the PM ‘ran’ the country from home while sick with the effects of the virus. He continued to do the most important and delicate job in the country, while ill. That’s idiotic and dangerous. If you are ill you cannot just get on with it (as she suggests). The context is direct and pointed. If you are sick you need to stop and recover, not carry on as normal, potentially making your sickness worse and require hospital treatment.

Cancer in this instance isn’t similar and the comparison is largely pointless.
 
Last edited:
@baldgye I do think Johnson was foolish to say what he said, but again, that doesn't mean that he actually contracted the virus by shaking hands with people. As has been said a few times, you cannot catch the virus from shaking hands. You can, however, come into contact with the virus by doing so and then subsequently become infected if the virus makes it from your hand into your body, but there isn't any proof that says Johnson was infected through 'ignorance'.

@MatskiMonk Certainly not the first outbreak of the Clap around these parts.
 
Back