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

[sirjim73]

Eventually that is exactly what we have to do. The sooner we do it, the less damage we do economically. Based on the trajectory we're on, Easter looks like it would be right about crunch time. April 20th looks like it would be after the bump. It doesn't have to be April 20th, it's just an example. But we need something concrete, and something soon, or the fallout will continue.



Pizza delivery is one of the things that's going to keep the world running. Just be smart about your hands and the rest should be fine. COVID-19 is not as insanely contagious as Norovirus.

I live in the UK. The target in the UK seemingly isn't a date, but a number of deaths (20,000 due to the virus in the next year). That's on top of every other normal death of course.

The UK government were going for doing very little apart from herd immunity until a study said at least 250,000 would die with current measures.

They then did something last week. And closed the schools, you should work from home etc.

Then the same study updated last weekend, came out with a death total of about 100,000 based on the revised measures already put in place.

So they locked down last night.

That's out of a population of 66m ish.
And no, I don't know them all!

US population is ?300m?

So with working from home and schools closed for sometime but without a full lockdown, using basic maths that would suggest 0.5m deaths in the next year in the US based on that UK study.

So the question every one in the US has to ask themselves is, are you willing to let 0.5m people die in the next year?

And remember that's on top of everyone else that will die of everything else.

And remember without management of the sick rates, the hospitals will be full of nothing but Covid patients for months. Which means anyone with a bad heart attack, cancer, etc etc has a much higher chance of death than normal. Which means the extra deaths are potentially actually more than 0.5m in the US in the next year, maybe double that (doesn't seem unlikely if the hospitals are unable to cope?).

Which is 3% of the population of the US.

Which is why, in my opinion, I don't believe anyone can use a date as a target for anything right now. I will say that it is possible that might be a good approach for the second wave though.

The UK government was definitely much too slow to start in my opinion, but I do agree with having a target number of deaths to work towards. Sadly, even with a lockdown on and off over the period until a vaccine is available, I think even 20,000 is going to be way below the final figures. But I know I couldn't personally live with 100,000 - 200,000 deaths or more.

 

[Famine]

The UK government were going for doing very little apart from herd immunity

Just for reference, this was never actually said by anyone in government, though it's bizarrely been attributed to just about everyone relevant in it.

Aside from what I've already noted about what herd immunity is and isn't (it is having enough people vaccinated so that those who are not or cannot be vaccinated, or are immunocompromised, do not risk exposure day to day; it is not having enough people infected and recovered that the general population is not at risk of exposure after the immunocompromised have died from it), it also wasn't what the initial response was.

The initial response was containment - detecting existing cases and attempting to contain them by sequestering those infected and those with whom they have had contact. That moved to delay - containment has failed (some cases were not detected and could not be contained, others may have breached containment by not covering all of their contacts), and the virus is in the wider population, but we attempt to delay its spread by reducing movement (cancelling large gatherings like football matches for example, which we did at the start of March), in order to limit the impact it can have on health services with a smaller but longer spike in cases.

Neither was the government "doing very little", but a carrying out a planned, staged response according to the best scientific advice at the time - which you can see here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/group...mergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response


What we've seen over the last week is an increase in the measures taken for the delay phase, initially as advice and then - because the advice was ignored - enforcement.

It's all here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

And "herd immunity" isn't anywhere in that document.

 

[Danoff]

So the question every one in the US has to ask themselves is, are you willing to let 0.5m people die in the next year?

Which is why, in my opinion, I don't believe anyone can use a date as a target for anything right now. I will say that it is possible that might be a good approach for the second wave though.

You're misunderstanding me, as are others. You're trying to make my suggestion into something it isn't. We need a date to get back to work (especially school). I know, I know, you think that's impossible. It isn't. We can simply do it. And it will not result in the number of deaths that you think, because kids going to school, and their parents getting back to telework, and people under 40 returning to work isn't going to cause all of those people to die in the next year.

I don't think we should lift restrictions as fast as they went in place (and I don't think they should have gone in place as fast or as thoroughly as they have). We should lift restrictions in phases, and we should encourage people over 50 (or 60 or whatever the number is) to maintain a self-quarantine for the next 18 months or however long it takes for them to get a vaccine.

The most vulnerable members of our society need to stay isolated for the duration. And if they do, the hospitalization numbers will be a fraction of what you anticipate. @Woodybobs, and to a lesser extent you, are suggesting that there is one objective here, one target to be achieved. There is not. There are two, lives and prosperity. Right now we are sacrificing hard on prosperity and with that sacrifice we're not netting very many lives. What I mean (because I know that'll get misinterpreted), is that we are needlessly holding this out indefinitely, we can set a date, and we should, for lifting some of the restrictions, and getting the economy back on track. By not setting a date (which needs to be set for after the hospital bump) we are killing prosperity and it's not netting us lives.

Also, we need to be realistic. The working and school population is going to go back to work and get coronavirus. They can't sit out for the next 18 months (or whatever). We flattened the curve already, and I say we've paid the price for that already so we should get some of those benefits by maintaining until say... April 20th. And we can flatten it more by encouraging seniors to stay isolated. But we cannot prevent widespread infection. It's going to happen.

 

[Joey D]

So the question every one in the US has to ask themselves is, are you willing to let 0.5m people die in the next year?

I'm willing to bet more people will die if the economy collapses or goes dormant for a long period of time. Right now in Utah, the government is saying we could be in this limbo state for six months. No state can manage that and at some point, you have to weigh what's worse: people dying from the disease or people dying from lack of money to afford basic needs. I know some will say the government could/should step in, but it's not that simple. If the economy is flat then the tax revenue is lower too, so simply bailing people out isn't an option unless the state wants to go bankrupt. At the federal level, there will probably be even less of a tax base to pull from since earnings, in general, are down across the board.

At the very least most of us should be back to work by the first week of May so we can get things moving forward again. Say May 4th since that's a Monday and the start of the first full work week of the month.

 

[sirjim73]

Just for reference, this was never actually said by anyone in government, though it's bizarrely been attributed to just about everyone relevant in it.

Aside from what I've already noted about what herd immunity is and isn't (it is having enough people vaccinated so that those who are not or cannot be vaccinated, or are immunocompromised, do not risk exposure day to day; it is not having enough people infected and recovered that the general population is not at risk of exposure after the immunocompromised have died from it), it also wasn't what the initial response was.

The initial response was containment - detecting existing cases and attempting to contain them by sequestering those infected and those with whom they have had contact. That moved to delay - containment has failed (some cases were not detected and could not be contained, others may have breached containment by not covering all of their contacts), and the virus is in the wider population, but we attempt to delay its spread by reducing movement (cancelling large gatherings like football matches for example, which we did at the start of March), in order to limit the impact it can have on health services with a smaller but longer spike in cases.

Neither was the government "doing very little", but a carrying out a planned, staged response according to the best scientific advice at the time - which you can see here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/group...mergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response


What we've seen over the last week is an increase in the measures taken for the delay phase, initially as advice and then - because the advice was ignored - enforcement.

It's all here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

And "herd immunity" isn't anywhere in that document.

It is my belief that herd immunity was mentioned in that first Thursday press conference by the Chief Scientific Advisor, on the left of Mr Johnson (right of picture). He may have only made a passing reference in explaining an answer to a question, in which case I stand corrected. But that's where it was picked up from, personally. I haven't seen the Thursday conference again to check the context though. That's not to say it was stated policy and I accept that to be the case from your useful links, thanks for those.

The "impression" came out from that conference to many people that they were too relaxed. Especially given the situation in Italy at the time. However, its nigh on impossible to get the right tone in something like that.

That was the conference where they mentioned that we were 4 weeks behind Italy.

Also, to be fair, the football matches were cancelled largely because Mikel Arteta tested positive along with Hudson Odoi on that very Thursday. Which meant that the entire Arsenal and Chelsea teams and squads were in isolation for 2 weeks and forced the hand of the Premier League and then the rest of the League as more were expected to be imminently (Portsmouth have had a number of cases this week I understand). I think it's fair to point out this was not related to government policy, but was in fact ahead of any official announcement.

Having said that, we are where we are now, and I don't believe it really matters now how we got here, more how we get out of this.

There's a lot of hindsight to watch out for, but other evidence that government policy is being at least "pushed" by others. We were threatened by France government on Friday that they were going to close the border because we were not doing enough (widely reported).

I'm going to end though by saying the people responsible for much of the current position is the selfish irresponsible idiots who continue to congregate and frankly don't give a **** about anyone else.

EDIT @Joey D That's fine and I understand your point of view. What you're saying I think is you believe we should accept higher deaths from Covid because the alternative would be worse due to impact of actions and deaths from other causes (hardship etc). I disagree personally that the alternative would be worse, but then I dont have access to the knowledge to "prove" this either way.

I guess governments will be weighing this up all the time, and there will probably be studies trying to predict the different possible outcomes. The figures I have mentioned previously come from 2 University College of London studies by the way.

I do think there will be a second wave, or even a third, before any vaccine or cure. And there may be a time when we have to take the lesser of two evils and not lockdown a new wave.

I REALLY don't envy the people having to make all these decisions. No-one has been in that position in most of Europe since the war. And I am grateful for that.

EDIT @Danoff thanks for the explanation/clarification. Those numbers were based on a scientific study based on a certain set of measures in place in the UK at the time. They said on top of the target of 20,000 deaths, there would be an additional 35,000 to 70,000 deaths in the UK under those measures. I have, to be fair, taken the higher end of that study forecast and rounded up from 90,000 to 100,000.
Those measures in the forecast were excluding any lockdown in the UK.

I hadn't taken into account the affect of the lockdown already on that forecast as they haven't updated it yet I believe. It's fair to say even a 4 or 5 week lockdown on it's own will reduce those figures by some amount 👍

I think though that the date suggested is too early and inflexible because it doesn't really take account of the position of health services in those countries. Italy has been in lockdown for more than 3 weeks now and one of the best health systems in the world is still overwhelmed and their cases and deaths still increase by around 10% every day. And Spain is rapidly joining it ( and the UK probably will and others unless we're fortunate). Not helped by the fact that staffing is hit by 10-15% of cases being health workers.

If your health services are still overwhelmed on the date you have set to start reducing measures, what do you do then?

Final comment - it's refreshing to discuss things here as this forum is much more restrained generally and open to serious discussion than most places right now

 

[Woodybobs]

Woodybobs, and to a lesser extent you, are suggesting that there is one objective here, one target to be achieved

That's not true. I'm suggesting that we give ourselves the best chance of getting the best outcome.

They can't sit out for the next 18 months

That's a worst case scenario. The choice is not April 20th or October 2021.

We flattened the curve already

We haven't come close nor do we know for certain that we will. We should find out if we have in the coming weeks.

We need a date to get back to work (especially school)

people under 40 returning to work

With half the workforce out that'll mean classes of 60 in Ireland.

The most vulnerable members of our society need to stay isolated for the duration. And if they do, the hospitalization numbers will be a fraction of what you anticipate

That's not what WHO predict.

 

[Biggles]

My impressions is that the data is not yet understood well enough to make confident predictions & so the idea is to err on the side of caution ... except that the competing idea is to err on the side of minimum disruption to the economy.

I still think that what happens in Italy over the next week is going to be very revealing. If Italy can get a handle on the virus, it will be an indication of what will be required in the US & elsewhere. The information coming out of China is not as reliable &/or may not be fully applicable to western countries.

The US will not be "over" the virus by Easter. It's seems likely, that even with lockdown measures in effect, NYC will be peaking in 2 to 3 weeks & other areas of the country will not be unaffected by the virus, but will be 2 to 3 weeks further behind.

Over the next month the US & other countries will also have the opportunity to evaluate other measures that can be introduced, after the initial lockdown period, to continue to control the spread of the virus, so even if they can't completely eliminate it they can minimize the health impact. That seems to me to be a possible way to proceed.

 

[Danoff]

That's not what WHO predict.

Citation needed.

The US will not be "over" the virus by Easter. It's seems likely, that even with lockdown measures in effect, NYC will be peaking in 2 to 3 weeks & other areas of the country will not be unaffected by the virus, but will be 2 to 3 weeks further behind.

Totally agree.

Over the next month the US & other countries will also have the opportunity to evaluate other measures that can be introduced, after the initial lockdown period, to continue to control the spread of the virus, so even if they can't completely eliminate it they can minimize the health impact. That seems to me to be a possible way to proceed.

It would really help if we could deliver some expectation that businesses will not have to string this out for the next 6 months. A light at the end of the tunnel will keep some lights on and doors open that will otherwise shut.

 

[kilesa4568]

It is my belief that herd immunity was mentioned in that first Thursday press conference by the Chief Scientific Advisor, on the left of Mr Johnson (right of picture).

I remember it. They were talking about an infection rate of 60% - 40 million people through the viruses life cycle to reach herd immunity. The virus will still be active but it'll struggle to find someone who hasn't already beaten it. A lot like the badly managed Spanish Flu, where experts said the virus died out because there was no one left on the planet to pass it on to.

If we can keep the hospital admissions down to cope with this initial outbreak, we'll be working towards herd immunity but it's a natural order thing and a long way off. A vaccine will likely come first.

 

[McLaren]

We flattened the curve already, and I say we've paid the price for that already so we should get some of those benefits by maintaining until say... April 20th. And we can flatten it more by encouraging seniors to stay isolated. But we cannot prevent widespread infection. It's going to happen.

Where have we flattened?

According to Johns Hopkins map, the first batch of recoveries is at 348. The death toll is at 783. Over the last week: 3/19 was at 19.1K, 3/20 was at 25.5K, 3/21 was at 33.3K, 3/22 was at 43.8K, & 3/23 was at 53.7K. That's an increase of 6.4K, 7.8K, 10.5K, 9.9K. Gov. Cuomo says New York is doubling every 3 days & isn't close to peaking.

 

[Danoff]

I hadn't taken into account the affect of the lockdown already on that forecast as they haven't updated it yet I believe. It's fair to say even a 4 or 5 week lockdown on it's own will reduce those figures by some amount 👍

It has to. School has been out for a week and a half in CO. Denver is in lockdown. Boulder is in lockdown. If we were to maintain that until April 20, that would mean school out for 5 weeks and Denver and Boulder in lockdown for 4. That should have a significant effect in flattening the curve. Keeping seniors isolated would have a major impact even if everyone else returns to work and school.

Where have we flattened?

According to Johns Hopkins map, the first batch of recoveries is at 348. The death toll is at 783. Over the last week: 3/19 was at 19.1K, 3/20 was at 25.5K, 3/21 was at 33.3K, 3/22 was at 43.8K, & 3/23 was at 53.7K. That's an increase of 6.4K, 7.8K, 10.5K, 9.9K. Gov. Cuomo says New York is doubling every 3 days & isn't close to peaking.

See above. School in CO (and many other places) has already been out for some time. All of CA is in lockdown. Many other states are as well. That alone will flatten the curve. We don't have to be past the peak to know we have achieved some flattening. All we have to do is take steps to ensure a slower spread, that necessarily "flattens the curve".

I think though that the date suggested is too early and inflexible because it doesn't really take account of the position of health services in those countries. Italy has been in lockdown for more than 3 weeks now and one of the best health systems in the world

Best at some things maybe... I'm not sure it's the best at this particular thing.

If your health services are still overwhelmed on the date you have set to start reducing measures, what do you do then?

You consider whether or not you have to take another major economic gut punch.

 

[sirjim73]

Yeh... it is not safe for anyone to carry on as normal.

A lot of focus has been put on the case fatality rate (which now looks to be something like 0.6% for all cases) but not enough of a focus on the numbers of people requiring hospital care which, frankly, people are not going to get during the peak phase(s).

This article does a reasonable job at putting some numbers on hospitalisation per age group (although these are high estimates):

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/coronavirus-covid-19-deaths-by-age

Summary: 10-19 - 7%; 20-29 - 14%; 30-49 - 20%; 50-69 - 36%; 70+ - 55%.

The troubling thing is that there also appears to be a higher infection rate among the 'young', so that 20-29 age group is likely to see a higher percentage of people being infected, and so the total number of people in hospital will be higher from that age group.

These numbers are extremely high - far higher than seasonal flu, and represent a huge risk to the efficiency of any healthcare system in the world.

Right now, lock-down is the only reasonable option - and that should continue until well after the growth rate of new cases has dropped significantly. Even then, until a vaccine or drug treatments are readily available, restrictions (like worker rotation etc.) will need to be enforced in order to prevent further waves (and thus further lock-downs).

Citation needed.



Totally agree.



It would really help if we could deliver some expectation that businesses will not have to string this out for the next 6 months. A light at the end of the tunnel will keep some lights on and doors open that will otherwise shut.

I remember it. They were talking about an infection rate of 60% - 40 million people through the viruses life cycle to reach herd immunity. The virus will still be active but it'll struggle to find someone who hasn't already beaten it. A lot like the badly managed Spanish Flu, where experts said the virus died out because there was no one left on the planet to pass it on to.

If we can keep the hospital admissions down to cope with this initial outbreak, we'll be working towards herd immunity but it's a natural order thing and a long way off. A vaccine will likely come first.

@kilesa4568 Yes, that's it. You've remembered the details better than I. It may have been accidental and completely unintended, but this is where people got a (fair play misguided) impression of this being actual policy.

@Danoff see @Touring Mars post above. Current POSSIBLE predictions therefore based on existing case results are 7% of under 20s and 14% of 20-29 and 20% of 30-39 would require hospitalization when infected. Obviously not everyone would be infected and not all at once, but 14% on average of those under 40. I dont know how many people there are under 40 but I'm guessing 14% x that number x say 50% infected over the course of a year is more than your health service can cope with.

EDITED TO ADD THE WORD POSSIBLE.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff see @Touring Mars post above. Current predictions therefore based on existing case results are 7% of under 20s and 14% of 20-29 and 20% of 30-39 would require hospitalization when infected. Obviously not everyone would be infected and not all at once, but 14% on average of those under 40. I dont know how many people there are under 40 but I'm guessing 14% x that number x say 50% infected over the course of a year is more than your health service can cope with.

See my response to his post above.

 

[RUI]

Just for reference, this was never actually said by anyone in government, though it's bizarrely been attributed to just about everyone relevant in it.

Wel, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser said it:

 

[TB]

All we have to do is take steps to ensure a slower spread, that necessarily "flattens the curve"

I saw this on another forum today. Drives the point home very well that doing what you can to stop the spread really does have a massive trickle down effect.

 

[McLaren]

See above. School in CO (and many other places) has already been out for some time. All of CA is in lockdown. Many other states are as well. That alone will flatten the curve. We don't have to be past the peak to know we have achieved some flattening. All we have to do is take steps to ensure a slower spread, that necessarily "flattens the curve".

Will flatten is not the same as currently flattening. It's far too early to claim what we've done has had a major effect. Out of 50 states, only 6 are on full lockdown (Ohio, New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey) according to a 2-day old article by the national post. That is not a lot & it won't take much for the remaining states to undo any flattening we may believe we're creating. Texas has left it up to the counties (my city has now hit its first day where 1 of 2 test sites has hit its daily test limit). Florida & Mississippi are refusing to lock down, 1 governor refusing to close the beaches (the cities had to do it themselves afterwards) & the other governor claiming, "Mississippi's never going to be China". That logic will undo your goal of "taking steps to ensure a slower spread".

 

[Woodybobs]

Citation needed.

You'd like a citation to something that doesn't exist? WHO have not predicted it. This on the back of your ramblings about what should be done without any data as to why it should be done.


There's also a tweet there somewhere that says the sheer volume of young people contracting covid-19 in a short space of time would likely lead to health services being unable to cope.

 

[Danoff]

I saw this on another forum today. Drives the point home very well that doing what you can to stop the spread really does have a massive trickle down effect.

Yup. I don't disagree.

Will flatten is not the same as currently flattening. It's far too early to claim what we've done has had a major effect.

We are currently flattening. Take a look at @TB's chart there to see it. Take even the very first person off, and it flattens. The first steps have the biggest downstream impact.

Out of 50 states, only 6 are on full lockdown (Ohio, New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey) according to a 2-day old article by the national post. That is not a lot & it won't take much for the remaining states to undo any flattening we may believe we're creating.

Colorado is one of the ones that is not on full lockdown. Our governor has been very aggressive with this, and while I don't agree with his every move, I think he's been outstanding. I've been meaning to post on how good he has been. But regardless, he hasn't done it because lockdown doesn't make sense for large swaths of the state. Denver and Boulder are shelter-in-place though.

You'd like a citation to something that doesn't exist? WHO have not predicted it. This on the back of your ramblings about what should be done without any data as to why it should be done.


There's also a tweet there somewhere that says the sheer volume of young people contracting covid-19 in a short space of time would likely lead to health services being unable to cope.

That doesn't show what I'd need to see. Yes young people are not invulnerable. And yes young people contribute to hospitalization (a little) directly from their demographic and (a lot) by infecting older or otherwise vulnerable people.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Well, of course Trump, as a deeply religious person, is anxious to have the country out of lockdown by Easter.

In an interview on Fox News later Tuesday afternoon, Trump said, Easter "is a very special day for me," and that it would be "great to have all of the churches full."

"So, I think Easter Sunday, and you will have packed churches all over our country. I think it would be a beautiful time and it's just about the timeline that I think is right," he later added. He said he isn't "sure" that would be the official deadline.

Completely delusional. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that it will be safe to have "packed churches" at Easter. More likely, most of the country will be peaking at that time & will have to maintain isolation in order to ensure that the numbers come back down.

This is Trump's idea of "reassuring people" - lying. It's worked so well for him up to now that he's sticking with it.

That's absolutely out there in fairy tale land. I would hope that even if that was a possibility, the churches would stay closed.

“Obviously Trump is not rooted in reality,” said Dr. Tina Tan, a board member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a staff member at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“This is the making of a major public health disaster. I am not sure where he is getting his information from, but it is extremely flawed,” Tan said.

 

[Woodybobs]

That doesn't show what I'd need to see.

Funny that. It's more than you've offered for these. Maybe you have sources for these being correct if we begin lifting the restrictions on April 20th, or whatever other date suits you.

young people contribute to hospitalization (a little)

member: 8497"]The most vulnerable members of our society need to stay isolated for the duration. And if they do, the hospitalization numbers will be a fraction of what you anticipate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jtheripper]

When they say lockdown and closing of all businesses but essential services does that mean all companies must stop work too, and tell all employees to stay home workless? Or just means service businesses open to the public?

I mean office work etc. Just wonder if it is mandatory for the place i lost a contract that has just been cancelled.

 

[McLaren]

We are currently flattening. Take a look at @TB's chart there to see it. Take even the very first person off, and it flattens. The first steps have the biggest downstream impact.

Uh, no. We've taken measures to avoid a drastic upward spike in cases, but we are still on a rise.

If you're referring to TB's gif, that's what can happen if everyone works together. Unless there's another chart on a back page.

Colorado is one of the ones that is not on full lockdown. Our governor has been very aggressive with this, and while I don't agree with his every move, I think he's been outstanding. I've been meaning to post on how good he has been. But regardless, he hasn't done it because lockdown doesn't make sense for large swaths of the state. Denver and Boulder are shelter-in-place though.

Doesn't at all address the fact (you actually deleted it) that we have states who are downright ignoring the severity at hand by simply claiming they can't become China. No, they'll just become Italy instead. Or Florida citing they're not going to lockdown b/c when New York locked down, people fled to Florida for quarantine. As if that's a suitable argument for keeping beaches open.

 

[baldgye]

via: https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

Looks like the UK will have a higher peak than Italy going off that?

 

[PzR Slim]

I saw this on another forum today. Drives the point home very well that doing what you can to stop the spread really does have a massive trickle down effect.

I heard an infectious disease expert on the news a couple of nights ago saying that Covid-19 is more infectious than a normal winter flu. Normal winter flu has an infection rate if around 1.3 other people per carrier which after 10 rounds of it being passed on results in one person infecting 15 other people. Covid-19 has an infection rate of around 3, so only double normal winter flu, which doesn't seem a big deal. However, the maths means that after 10 rounds of it being passed on a single person has infected 59,000 people.

 

[daan]

I heard an infectious disease expert on the news a couple of nights ago saying that Covid-19 is more infectious than a normal winter flu. Normal winter flu has an infection rate if around 1.3 other people per carrier which after 10 rounds of it being passed on results in one person infecting 15 other people. Covid-19 has an infection rate of around 3, so only double normal winter flu, which doesn't seem a big deal. However, the maths means that after 10 rounds of it being passed on a single person has infected 59,000 people.

This guy?



He's really annoyed now.

 

[VBR]

I haven't panic bought anything at all. However, since the full lockdown, I thought it sensible to do a proper shop (I usually buy one meal at a time) & I ended up getting four bags of shopping this morning. I have to say that everyone was quite calm, there was a subdued atmosphere, & everyone was behaving very well despite the restrictions. I was queuing outside a chemist with a load of other people waiting for it to open & there were no problems with people pushing in or getting stressed etc. They were only allowing four people in at a time & everyone was cooperating. It was nice to see people chilled & doing what had been asked of them. There was plenty of food on the shelves too, which was a surprise as I usually go round there late when it's empty, & I got most of what I needed.

 

[Dennisch]

The RIVM, Dutch institute for public health, claims that the spread of Corona is slowing down now.

 

[MatskiMonk]

My experience so far... bunch of people 'working' from home, basically sat around doing sod all with nothing better to do than harass the few people left at work, each trying to do the job of 3 people, for answers via e-mail.

 

[PzR Slim]

Charlie the future King has tested positive.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-prince-charles-tests-positive-for-covid-19-11963363

 

[Famine]

Wel, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser said it:

And he's not part of the government. "Herd immunity" has never been an official part of our government's response, nor said by anyone in government.