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

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,265 comments
  • 622,229 views
Given some of the recent hot discussion about China's claims & their validity, curious if ya'll believe this man's statement that Italy is not doing enough, or if it's a bit of "because China says so". He is the VP of China's Red Cross.
"In the city of Wuhan after one month since the adoption of the lockdown policy, we see a decreasing trend from the peak of the disease," Sun said, according to CNN. "Here in Milan, the hardest-hit area by COVID-19, there isn't a very strict lockdown policy: Public transportation is still working, and people are still moving around, you're still having dinners and parties in the hotels, and you're not wearing masks. We need every citizen to be involved in the fight of COVID-19 and follow this policy."

In addition to Italy surpassing China in coronavirus deaths, the European country continues to report new cases daily, while China has reported no new locally transmitted cases.
https://www.newsweek.com/vp-chinese...ing-nearly-enough-slow-spread-we-must-1493476
 
I believe at this point, most health systems have a phone number you can call and they'll triage you. Where I'm at, we're doing free virtual visits for anyone who think they might have the virus and there's follow up with them at some interval (I think every 2-3 days). This still doesn't stop stupid people from showing up at the urgent care and ED demanding a test because they have a sniffle. It's not for a lack of communication either, right now they're running ads on TV, radio, the internet, on billboards, and pretty much anyplace else that you can think of.

At this point, you should probably only go to the hospital if you can't breathe, you have hyperpyrexia (I think it's like a temp of 105.5 maybe), or you're severely dehydrated. It's like people don't understand that more than just COVID-19 cases show up in the ED and at urgent cares. There are some seriously sick people in those waiting rooms, probably sicker than the average person with COVID-19. We do not need them getting this virus on top of whatever else they already have going on.
A woman walked into my mum's clinic coughing everywhere (with people in the waiting room too), demanding to be tested. Mum ended up getting the flu for a few days (most likely from this), and couldn't go to work. She was eventually tested negative (after the results were delayed a few days), but the selfishness and stupidity of people astounds me.
 
It definitely doesn't help that there was a lot of misinformation, confusion and apathy early on, and the borderline scare tactics that some of the media outlets are using to try and keep people at home are certainly not helping. There are people who are convinced that getting this is a guaranteed death sentence now, thanks to statistics being thrown around with little to no context behind them.
 
Except we are that middle road. Michigan for sure is but I'd argue America in general is. While there are no gov mandated force quarantine for the elderly and susceptible, no one has been shy about saying those people should be self quarantining. The gov at all levels are saying, the MSM is saying, Dr.s are saying it. It's no secret. And yet we see elderly and susceptible out there putting themselves at risk, which puts us all at risk.
Michigan has closed schools and many gov buildings. Have banned large gathering, put out all the warnings and done everything short of lock down. 334 cases thursday, 787 today de as deaths rose from 3 to 6. Even if we see a vaccine in a months time, at the growth rate we are observing here, I dont think we are going to slow it enough to not tax our healthcare system, and a lot more people I think are going to end up affected than if some sort of lock down was initiated. Even if the lock down was more in spirit than enforceable policy.

personally, I don't perceive closing schools and the like as a middle road when doing so forces parents to stay at home, not to mention that kids weren't the ones at risk to begin with. If we want the elderly and similar to stay at home, we need to make ventures so that such a thing is possible. Afterall, they need food and so on same as the rest of us, and some require daily care. I'm not saying it would be easy, but setting up the necessary routine and infrastructure to allow them to isolate for a time, is to me, better than screwing over those who aren't at risk. Some will no doubt choose to go on with their lives, and that is their choice. The education at schools and universities is every bit as important for the future as the health care system is. As is the economy, which suffers from forcing the temporary closure of stores, and the layoffs that naturally follows.

A lock down might save more lives in the direct sense, but the overall effects are, I think, worse. Quality of life drops, as you remove so much of what makes life worth living in the first place. For any extended period of time, that's going to be a hard sell to the people on the whole. Or maybe people are more willing to give up their freedom's than I thought. Afterall, I couldn't image that the French, for example, would just sit back and take it when their government enforced full on lockdown. But would they take it for a full month? How about Three, or even more?
 
Given some of the recent hot discussion about China's claims & their validity, curious if ya'll believe this man's statement that Italy is not doing enough, or if it's a bit of "because China says so". He is the VP of China's Red Cross.

https://www.newsweek.com/vp-chinese...ing-nearly-enough-slow-spread-we-must-1493476

Completely false, we are now more than two-three weeks without dinners , party and other forms of mass aggegation .
In Milan last week they Made the mistake to reduce the daily Numbers of the metro trains gathering too much people but this was resolved in short time ..

Guys , I'm fine till now, and I suggest to all , at this point, to stay at home .. If is possibile...

IR
 
personally, I don't perceive closing schools and the like as a middle road when doing so forces parents to stay at home, not to mention that kids weren't the ones at risk to begin with. If we want the elderly and similar to stay at home, we need to make ventures so that such a thing is possible. Afterall, they need food and so on same as the rest of us, and some require daily care. I'm not saying it would be easy, but setting up the necessary routine and infrastructure to allow them to isolate for a time, is to me, better than screwing over those who aren't at risk. Some will no doubt choose to go on with their lives, and that is their choice. The education at schools and universities is every bit as important for the future as the health care system is. As is the economy, which suffers from forcing the temporary closure of stores, and the layoffs that naturally follows.

A lock down might save more lives in the direct sense, but the overall effects are, I think, worse. Quality of life drops, as you remove so much of what makes life worth living in the first place. For any extended period of time, that's going to be a hard sell to the people on the whole. Or maybe people are more willing to give up their freedom's than I thought. Afterall, I couldn't image that the French, for example, would just sit back and take it when their government enforced full on lockdown. But would they take it for a full month? How about Three, or even more?
In Italy, 50% of people needing hospital care due to Covid-19 are under 65. In USA 40% are between 20 and 54. Isolating the elderly is not going to keep the hospitals from filling up. People would needlessly die from this virus, amongst other things, simply because the hospitals are full. Not to mention that the elderly tend to need the hospitals.

Alongside the issue with the hospitals there are many reasons to take a cautionary approach. We haven't had enough time to collect data on whether the virus causes any long term effects. Does it affect the development of foetuses at any stage? Does recovering from the virus provide long term immunity? The list of as yet unanswered questions is long. It is not wise to go on as normal, pretending we can foresee the future, because we will be wrong sometimes.
 
In Italy, 50% of people needing hospital care due to Covid-19 are under 65. In USA 40%
are between 20 and 54. Isolating the elderly is not going to keep the hospitals from filling up. People would needlessly die from this virus, amongst other things, simply because the hospitals are full. Not to mention that the elderly tend to need the hospitals.

I can't read or understand Italian so I can only look at the numbers presented, and I realise that this is ten days old, but the numbers for young people appear quite low. Factor in that we already know that people with certain pre existing medical conditions are at risk, then the fact that some youngsters require medical attention isn't surprising. You can artificially inflate the presumed risk to the young by including the 50-60 age group by quite a bit though.

Italian source: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/corona...eglianza-integrata-COVID-19_12-marzo-2020.pdf (page 5)

The problem with the US numbers is that we don't know the pre existing medical condition of the young, a fact that many news outlets choose to ignore when they cite the CDC report.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w

The CDC and WHO both recommend stringent measures to slow down the spread, but neither take into account anything beyond the medical sector. They are focused on saving lives, as is only right. That is afterall the cornerstone of their fields. It is up to the government and to other fields to balance the medical sector's needs with those of business and so on, while at the same time presumably safeguarding basic rights. To be sure, there are no easy decisions to be made here, and they'll be criticized no matter which direction they choose.


Alongside the issue with the hospitals there are many reasons to take a cautionary approach. We haven't had enough time to collect data on whether the virus causes any long term effects. Does it affect the development of foetuses at any stage? Does recovering from the virus provide long term immunity? The list of as yet unanswered questions is long. It is not wise to go on as normal, pretending we can foresee the future, because we will be wrong sometimes.

There's a lot we don't know, yet we know enough to be able to say with conviction who are at risk. I'm not saying we should go on as normal, but I'm also not eager to throw away everything for something that does not present much of a danger to the majority of people.
 
Last edited:
Russia borders more than just China though and it has an extensive trade and transport network across Asia and Europe. I'm sorry, I don't believe there are so few cases in the country. Iceland has huge natural borders and still has more cases despite having a fraction of the population.
Why if Iceland :censored:ed up, then Russia must, too? With its population and 473 confirmed cases of CoViD-19, Iceland has infection rate of 1,386 per million (source), which is higher than in Spain (545) and Italy (886)! You're comparing Russia to a country with outstandingly bad situation and wondering "how can Russia have fewer cases?". You're not the first one I see with a line of thought like this. But this is almost like "If Sierra Leone had 14,122 cases of Ebola in 2014, how could the US have only 4?".

What about countries like Indonesia, Mexico or Ukraine, that reportedly have CoViD-19 infection rates similar to Russia (2 per million) or less, despite of their location? Are they lying, too?

You're either being lied to or Russia just isn't testing anyone to keep the numbers low. We did that initially in the US, it didn't work out so well.
Russia IS testing its people, and testing more than the US. Moreover, the test is free for the patient, you won't recieve a >$1,000 bill afterwards here. On a cite note, Russia has experience of successful dealing with outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases.

As for the rest of your post. I feel bad for the Russian people because I think your government is lying to you and I don't think you have the ability to change it. If you want to further discuss it, it's probably best to take it to another thread.
Sure, but you're the one who started it. Perhaps I should create a thread for Russia and other post-Soviet states, but some other time.
 
This is a general question and may be more suited for economics, but what's to hold us back from taking an economic pause while all this occurring to prevent job and business loss during the present crisis?

What I mean is one of the issues I'm noticing is that a lot banks, realtors, etc seem to be playing hardball with respect to whether to delay or waive rental and mortgage fees during this time frame for both small business and people who'd be not working at present due to a shutdown. I don't have deep knowledge in finance so what I'm going on is logic, but wouldn't the loss of business and property due to this result in a larger net loss long term than what would occur to put holds or abstain payments on everything but utilities? Even if the banks or financial institutions acquire the properties of businesses or evictions as physical assets, you'd have to assume that the economic downturn would drop the value of those assets considerably.

I say this because it's starting to seem more likely in the U.S. that a full lockdown of five weeks would be necessary so as a result a great deal of small to moderate businesses will not be operating during this time frame. Some of it is also some gamer logic in thinking that we could just hit pause on everything non-essential economically to prevent a significant impact so once some sense of normalcy returns we could just pick up where we left off.
 
These diseases are a necessary evil.
They're not. The Spanish flu mostly killed young adults. There was nothing necessary about that evil in the way you have suggested. Pandemics like these barely make a dent in population growth. After this is all over the population will continue to grow and get older. New viruses are flukes, nothing more. We need better solutions to the world's problems. The aging popoulation won't matter at all in the near future when robots are doing all but the creative jobs.
 
Well, that's good. They became free just recently, didn't they?
Earlier, a man was billed ~$3,000 for testing, that's what I read.

Sensationalist news. Insurance billing is way off sometimes.

Testing being free across the board is fairly recent. But I'd imagine that it was free for some insurance policies earlier as well.
 
personally, I don't perceive closing schools and the like as a middle road when doing so forces parents to stay at home, not to mention that kids weren't the ones at risk to begin with. If we want the elderly and similar to stay at home, we need to make ventures so that such a thing is possible. Afterall, they need food and so on same as the rest of us, and some require daily care. I'm not saying it would be easy, but setting up the necessary routine and infrastructure to allow them to isolate for a time, is to me, better than screwing over those who aren't at risk. Some will no doubt choose to go on with their lives, and that is their choice. The education at schools and universities is every bit as important for the future as the health care system is. As is the economy, which suffers from forcing the temporary closure of stores, and the layoffs that naturally follows.

A lock down might save more lives in the direct sense, but the overall effects are, I think, worse. Quality of life drops, as you remove so much of what makes life worth living in the first place. For any extended period of time, that's going to be a hard sell to the people on the whole. Or maybe people are more willing to give up their freedom's than I thought. Afterall, I couldn't image that the French, for example, would just sit back and take it when their government enforced full on lockdown. But would they take it for a full month? How about Three, or even more?
Michigan is about as middle ground as it gets. Citizens are not on lock down, we can still go to the store, or pick up food from a restaurant. Only just last night after another doubling of cases in a days time did the Gov put out that all salons are to be closed as well. Shes doing the best to balance public safety with economic concerns. In fact, I'd say most US states were middle ground until they weren't. Until the numbers started getting to big to ignore.

In Michigan universities and colleges are moving to online courses. Easy enough for them since nearly all of them already have some sort of online blackboard that they use. Not all, but a lot of middle schools and high schools do as well. And I suspect many of them well be launching online blackboard systems if the shutdown is extended. The problem with leaving schools open isnt necessarily to do getting children sick, it's the teachers. A good deal of teachers are older.
As for daycares, they are still open. Older middle schoolers and high school aged kids dont need it, and the younger children should already be set as parent need someone to watch their kids over summer anyway. We're offered up or spot at our daycare since we are currently working from home. However, a good number of others are as well, so our daycare is fairly empty.
Michigan, I would say is a pretty good middle ground. And even if not. And you think they are more on the "lockdown" side. What does it say that our numbers, both infection and death rates, are doubling almost every day? My mother worked with the first person who died from this in Oakland county. The time frame from likely contration of Covid-19 to death was less than a month. He went on a week vacation, got back, and within that week started showing symptoms. They ordered him to go home, he was tested and a week after that he died. 50 years old, only underlying health issue was being a bit overweight, like most 50 year old americans.
At a 2% mortality rate, if we let this burn through the population as it seems some of you are suggesting, we are talking about hundreds of millions of deaths. And that's without consideration for mutations that may make it that much more deadly for any age group, and without consideration for the stress on medical systems.
I think Thunderfoot does a good job presenting the numbers and possible outcomes.

He also brings up another good point, one I suspect we might see play out in China if correct. That being spiked in case for countries that have seen a down turn in numbers and have lessened quarantine restrictions. Without a vaccine or cure, I suspect it's just going to yoyo
 
This is a general question and may be more suited for economics, but what's to hold us back from taking an economic pause while all this occurring to prevent job and business loss during the present crisis?

What does that mean?

So, for example, let's say a corporation has a contact to license their design of a particular valve to another company for sale. This contract was signed, let's say, 10 years ago, in 2010, and has 5 years remaining on it. Does a pause lengthen that contract? That contract was negotiated between two parties in good faith, why are we interjecting to tell them that it has to be modified.

In the meantime, we do expect some financial services to keep running do we not? For example, we expect doctors to keep going to work, and nurses, and gas stations to get them there, and grocery stores, and mechanics, and military, and water, and electricity, and internet...

Edit:

Let's take a small concrete example. My kids have a weekend class that runs about $300/mo. It looks like it's shut for the next month or so. I don't expect to be billed $300 for a class that isn't open. But that business has employees. So where do we freeze all of this? Do I still pay for a class that doesn't exist? Does the business pay the employees to stay home?

Someone has to take this on the chin. The normal state of affairs is that if customers dry up, it's the business owner that eats the cost.

What I mean is one of the issues I'm noticing is that a lot banks, realtors, etc seem to be playing hardball with respect to whether to delay or waive rental

You mean landlords?

and mortgage fees

So far it seems like banks have been pretty forthcoming on that one.
 
Last edited:
Michigan is about as middle ground as it gets. Citizens are not on lock down, we can still go to the store, or pick up food from a restaurant. Only just last night after another doubling of cases in a days time did the Gov put out that all salons are to be closed as well. Shes doing the best to balance public safety with economic concerns. In fact, I'd say most US states were middle ground until they weren't. Until the numbers started getting to big to ignore.

In Michigan universities and colleges are moving to online courses. Easy enough for them since nearly all of them already have some sort of online blackboard that they use. Not all, but a lot of middle schools and high schools do as well. And I suspect many of them well be launching online blackboard systems if the shutdown is extended. The problem with leaving schools open isnt necessarily to do getting children sick, it's the teachers. A good deal of teachers are older.
As for daycares, they are still open. Older middle schoolers and high school aged kids dont need it, and the younger children should already be set as parent need someone to watch their kids over summer anyway. We're offered up or spot at our daycare since we are currently working from home. However, a good number of others are as well, so our daycare is fairly empty.
Michigan, I would say is a pretty good middle ground. And even if not. And you think they are more on the "lockdown" side. What does it say that our numbers, both infection and death rates, are doubling almost every day? My mother worked with the first person who died from this in Oakland county. The time frame from likely contration of Covid-19 to death was less than a month. He went on a week vacation, got back, and within that week started showing symptoms. They ordered him to go home, he was tested and a week after that he died. 50 years old, only underlying health issue was being a bit overweight, like most 50 year old americans.
At a 2% mortality rate, if we let this burn through the population as it seems some of you are suggesting, we are talking about hundreds of millions of deaths. And that's without consideration for mutations that may make it that much more deadly for any age group, and without consideration for the stress on medical systems.
I think Thunderfoot does a good job presenting the numbers and possible outcomes.

He also brings up another good point, one I suspect we might see play out in China if correct. That being spiked in case for countries that have seen a down turn in numbers and have lessened quarantine restrictions. Without a vaccine or cure, I suspect it's just going to yoyo


He talks about resetting the world pandemic clock with these lock-downs. That's not the goal of the lock-down. The lock down is just to try to smear out the pandemic. It's happening. There is no stopping this thing, we're not going to hold out for a vaccine as a general population. The world will be bankrupt if we try. The only way to save the people that this virus is going to kill is to find them (the people it's going to kill) and help them isolate now for a year (I'm still hoping for less with a rushed vaccine). That's it. Otherwise it just kills at the rate that it kills.

As @Famine and others have pointed out, there is some hope that the virus will not be as widespread as these projections suggest. Just running the numbers quickly results in the virus taking over the entire world. But that's not necessarily how the numbers will continue to progress.

We cannot keep doing these lockdown periods. We will eventually just turn this thing loose.
 
What does that mean?

So, for example, let's say a corporation has a contact to license their design of a particular valve to another company for sale. This contract was signed, let's say, 10 years ago, in 2010, and has 5 years remaining on it. Does a pause lengthen that contract? That contract was negotiated between two parties in good faith, why are we interjecting to tell them that it has to be modified.

In the meantime, we do expect some financial services to keep running do we not? For example, we expect doctors to keep going to work, and nurses, and gas stations to get them there, and grocery stores, and mechanics, and military, and water, and electricity, and internet...

Edit:

Let's take a small concrete example. My kids have a weekend class that runs about $300/mo. It looks like it's shut for the next month or so. I don't expect to be billed $300 for a class that isn't open. But that business has employees. So where do we freeze all of this? Do I still pay for a class that doesn't exist? Does the business pay the employees to stay home?

Someone has to take this on the chin. The normal state of affairs is that if customers dry up, it's the business owner that eats the cost.



You mean landlords?



So far it seems like banks have been pretty forthcoming on that one.
For maybe just the second time in his time as President, I think Trumo had a good idea. Of course he quickly ruined that idea, likely at the scoffing of his "republican" (read: nasty, corrupt, greedy ****s, not real republicans) cabinet. That idea being a $1000 monthly stipend to all US citizen 18 and up for the length of the quarantine. Along with that, all monthly bill's should also be put on hold for the same duration.
I mean, we are looking at giving trillions out to all sorts of companies. A hundred billion to take care of US citizens seems like a small ask compared to that.


He talks about resetting the world pandemic clock with these lock-downs. That's not the goal of the lock-down. The lock down is just to try to smear out the pandemic. It's happening. There is no stopping this thing, we're not going to hold out for a vaccine as a general population. The world will be bankrupt if we try. The only way to save the people that this virus is going to kill is to find them (the people it's going to kill) and help them isolate now for a year (I'm still hoping for less with a rushed vaccine). That's it. Otherwise it just kills at the rate that it kills.

As @Famine and others have pointed out, there is some hope that the virus will not be as widespread as these projections suggest. Just running the numbers quickly results in the virus taking over the entire world. But that's not necessarily how the numbers will continue to progress.

We cannot keep doing these lockdown periods. We will eventually just turn this thing loose.
I think in those terms, he was talking best case scenario we reset the clock, not what is actually expected. My guess is that he was using that to illustrate the fact that even if we do get it so low we can "reset the clock" we still aren't going to get rid of the virus and it's still going to be an issue.
 
I think what I'm getting at is that something like a pause on cost of living fees outside of utilities for businesses and individuals directly affected by the limitations and lockdowns. This coupled with a UBI of 1000 seems like it'd be enough to ensure that people are able to survive for the next 6-18 months depending on how long this lasts. This would be for those directly affected mind you, I'm fortunate in that I'm able to still work full-time through this at present, so I should not be afforded those benefits outside of say an extra two weeks of sick leave should I contract it during this time to diminish the economic impact. i think when I ask about what the issue with a pause would be, it'd be on how realistically you'd employ such a strategy to ensure that there would be minimal economic impact, while ensuring we're taking the right actions to mitigate the spread of the disease.

On a side note; Governor Cuomo is the anti-thesis of Trump in these press conferences
 
I think what I'm getting at is that something like a pause on cost of living fees outside of utilities for businesses and individuals directly affected by the limitations and lockdowns. This coupled with a UBI of 1000 seems like it'd be enough to ensure that people are able to survive for the next 6-18 months depending on how long this lasts. This would be for those directly affected mind you, I'm fortunate in that I'm able to still work full-time through this at present, so I should not be afforded those benefits outside of say an extra two weeks of sick leave should I contract it during this time to diminish the economic impact. i think when I ask about what the issue with a pause would be, it'd be on how realistically you'd employ such a strategy to ensure that there would be minimal economic impact, while ensuring we're taking the right actions to mitigate the spread of the disease.

On a side note; Governor Cuomo is the anti-thesis of Trump in these press conferences
The issue in this instance with making a UBI only for people that meet a certain criteria is that you add over head which needs more personnel to manage and more time to process. By time benefits are paid out it could be too late.
 
I've been effectively self-isolating (only going out for shopping and the occasional visit to the office) for almost three weeks - for the last 9 days I've only been out for shopping, with no public transport involved. I had a virtual pint with a mate on Friday but otherwise I've been sorting out my house (well, I've decamped to my Mum's) and getting stuff together for hunkering down.

Meanwhile, my Dad is still in self-isolation having come back from Spain the same day as I started my own isolation, and yet he is only isolating himself from us. He was in the pub on Friday when they announced that bars were closing that night :rolleyes:

I can't be too hard on him because he lives alone and he normally goes to the pub pretty much every day, so he will find it difficult. But, he's 78 and has asthma, hence for him to still be hanging out at the pub while the rest of us are effectively in lockdown seems pretty odd, and it also means that our efforts to avoid contact with infected people may be compromised if my Dad isn't being as careful as we are.

Anyway, this week has for most people been either a dry run for isolation or a 'last hurrah' before everything shuts down for several weeks... it remains to be seen just how much people actually pay attention to the growing threat.
 
... a 'last hurrah' before everything shuts down for several weeks... it remains to be seen just how much people actually pay attention to the growing threat.
Was the band was actually playing as the Titanic went down? I'd like to think so but I doubt it.
Totally altering normal human behavior is a big ask, particularly when the reason is invisible, not immediate, and not particularly dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Back