Generic Virus Thread

[bickster]

Just now, theboyangel said:

Strangely my fingers are crossed for this to happen. Italy does appear to be a hotbed at the moment 

Just checked Foreign Office advice on Italy and they only say don't go to the ten originally quarantined towns (like you actually could! doh!)

I suspect they might want to change that soon as the situation in Italy is far beyond when that advice was created.

[theboyangel]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Just checked Foreign Office advice on Italy and they only say don't go to the ten originally quarantined towns (like you actually could! doh!)

I suspect they might want to change that soon as the situation in Italy is far beyond when that advice was created.

 I expect decisions will be made by the respective RFU’s over the next few days.

[sne]

1600 cases in Italy now, 34 dead.

That's quite a steep increase.

[KenjiOgiwara]

14 hours ago, sne said:

1600 cases in Italy now, 34 dead.

That's quite a steep increase.

I don't get the hysteria. I bet 10 000 people die yearly in Italy from the flu. 

[sne]

3 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I don't get the hysteria. I bet 10 000 people die yearly in Italy from the flu. 

Think it's been mentioned in the tread a few times but basically what sets it apart is that it's new strain so hence the "hysteria" because:

• We have not been able to create immunity to the corona virus.

• There is no vaccine that the elderly or people with illness can get. 

• There are no antiviral drugs to help people with illness.

With the usual flu all these things exists, other than that the virus in itself isn't worse than the regular flu and unless you have other health issues you'll likely be fine.

Big issues isn't people dying but rather so many people being sick at the same time so that the gears that grind society will come to a halt. It's already starting to be a problem in industries where so many of the components are made in China and South Korea and with the Chinese new year followed by this there isn't enough components around. 

[Genie]

18 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I don't get the hysteria. I bet 10 000 people die yearly in Italy from the flu. 

 

Quote

Highlights

•

In the winter seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17, an estimated average of 5,290,000 ILI cases occurred in Italy, corresponding to an incidence of 9%.

•

More than 68,000 deaths attributable to flu epidemics were estimated in the study period.

•

Italy showed a higher influenza attributable excess mortality compared to other European countries. especially in the elderly.

 

Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)

 

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I don't get the hysteria. I bet 10 000 people die yearly in Italy from the flu. 

 

2 hours ago, Genie said:

 

Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)

 

The problem isn't that we think this is a super deadly disease. It's not Ebola.

The problem is that this is a new disease that we have no ability to combat directly and isn't one we've encountered before. This means there's considerable risk that it will affect more people more severely than if it were simply a flu outbreak, meaning it'll kill more people than otherwise might be expected. It also seems to be very infectious - for a disease with 1 point of origin it appears to be able to spread very well, even within the context of flu type viruses generally (which spread effectively anyway) with the only particularly effective way of cutting it's infection rate basically being to fully isolate those infected. This again means it's likely to make a lot of people ill in short order, and that is a problem in itself. We struggle to deal with 'normal' winter ill health, adding in thousands of severely ill (people requiring respirators etc) people at once will bring the system to it's knees - it's not meant to cope with that scale of incident.

There's also the concern that, as a new virus with an animal origin that is also very infectious, it may mutate. It might change to become something more deadly, or to cause more long term impacts. It might go from being a nasty flu virus into a full on respiratory failure in healthy individuals kinda thing. We don't know, because it's so new to us.

Let's not forget, a relatively common form of the flu virus caused a global pandemic that killed tens of millions of people when a particularly nasty strain of it appeared in 1918. This isn't a common virus. It's new. In 2009 the swine flu outbreak infected over 10% of the world when a grim mix of common flu viruses mixed again with a pig flu virus and nobody had any defence against it. If this mixes with a flu virus, **** knows what could happen. Best case scenario this burns out and goes away. Worst case it goes nasty. Most likely we've got a new flu virus that isn't going away and is nastier than usual.

[hippo]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

 

The problem isn't that we think this is a super deadly disease. It's not Ebola.

The problem is that this is a new disease that we have no ability to combat directly and isn't one we've encountered before. This means there's considerable risk that it will affect more people more severely than if it were simply a flu outbreak, meaning it'll kill more people than otherwise might be expected. It also seems to be very infectious - for a disease with 1 point of origin it appears to be able to spread very well, even within the context of flu type viruses generally (which spread effectively anyway) with the only particularly effective way of cutting it's infection rate basically being to fully isolate those infected. This again means it's likely to make a lot of people ill in short order, and that is a problem in itself. We struggle to deal with 'normal' winter ill health, adding in thousands of severely ill (people requiring respirators etc) people at once will bring the system to it's knees - it's not meant to cope with that scale of incident.

There's also the concern that, as a new virus with an animal origin that is also very infectious, it may mutate. It might change to become something more deadly, or to cause more long term impacts. It might go from being a nasty flu virus into a full on respiratory failure in healthy individuals kinda thing. We don't know, because it's so new to us.

Let's not forget, a relatively common form of the flu virus caused a global pandemic that killed tens of millions of people when a particularly nasty strain of it appeared in 1918. This isn't a common virus. It's new. In 2009 the swine flu outbreak infected over 10% of the world when a grim mix of common flu viruses mixed again with a pig flu virus and nobody had any defence against it. If this mixes with a flu virus, **** knows what could happen. Best case scenario this burns out and goes away. Worst case it goes nasty. Most likely we've got a new flu virus that isn't going away and is nastier than usual.

I also think people should be more aware of the impact of a disease with a 98% survival rate. In other things 98% is good odds - but the ease with which it infects - lets say it hits 40% of the population - thats a considerable head count. Also consider the estimated 5% that need hospital treatment - you can easily see how the NHS and other services could get overwhelmed.  

[StefanAVFC]

98% survival rate isn't exactly a legit way to use stats though.

Truthfully, if you're young and healthy, you're at most 0.5% at risk to die from it. The elderly and sick skew the stats.

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

98% survival rate isn't exactly a legit way to use stats though.

Truthfully, if you're young and healthy, you're at most 0.5% at risk to die from it. The elderly and sick skew the stats.

Whats healthy though ? - I use inhalers to control my asthma 

Whats happened to the 2pm update.

 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

Whats healthy though ? - I use inhalers to control my asthma 

Whats happened to the 2pm update.

 

it's a virus that affects your respiratory system. If you have a condition that affects your respiratory system, then you're at a higher risk.

[Genie]

Rather than the total number of infections it would be useful to know number of current infections. I'd assume a lot of 80,000 or so infected in China have shaken it off by now?

Same in the UK, the media are fixed on total number... how many of the 40 total currently have it?

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Genie

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

it's a virus that affects your respiratory system. If you have a condition that affects your respiratory system, then you're at a higher risk.

So add in 5.4m people to the add risk group. 

 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

So add in 5.4m people to the add risk group. 

 

For sure. I said that in my original post  

[hippo]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

For sure. I said that in my original post  

I am 56 with controlled Asthma - I don't consider myself elderly or sick. Nor I would imagine do a lot of people with Asthma.

I work with a lot of people my age - most of us have some illness - but we still go on leading normal lives - personally I don't think 'Healthy' or 'Sick' has been defined.  

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, hippo said:

I don't consider myself elderly or sick.

I wouldn't consider you either of those things too.

But stats don't care what you consider yourself as.

My only original point was that stating it has a 2% mortality rate is incredibly simplistic and isn't a reflection of the stats. For example, if I got it, I wouldn't have a 2% chance of dying. If an 80 year who had pneumonia previously got it, he wouldn't have a 2% chance of dying either.

[hippo]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

I wouldn't consider you either of those things too.

But stats don't care what you consider yourself as.

My only original point was that stating it has a 2% mortality rate is incredibly simplistic and isn't a reflection of the stats. For example, if I got it, I wouldn't have a 2% chance of dying. If an 80 year who had pneumonia previously got it, he wouldn't have a 2% chance of dying either.

Well there are stats by age  - for my age it was 1.3% - I don't know if thats 1.3% of 'healthy' people  and 'sick' people combined. I read somewhere that smoking % are much higher amongst Chinese men - which could mean outside china the death % could be lower. 

 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

 I read somewhere that smoking % are much higher amongst Chinese men - which could mean outside china the death % could be lower. 

 

Would make sense.

[hippo]

I have heard that rubbing marmite on you're genitals stops it - to be fair Ive been doing this for years.

[useless]

Everyone should be concerned about getting it even if they're healthy individuals as the more healthy people that have it the more likely it can be passed on to people who might be more vulnerable.