1 hour ago, Chazar said:

its  not as  dangerous  as  driving daily  in Thailand if I check the death rate for  both in the next 6  months, theyre  gonna  need  at least 12000 deaths

Mate - over a 2-3 month period the covid19 virus has killed 18,440 people - stats from WHO reports 21 January to 25 March. Yes it is 'ramping up' in some places, but it is also scalaing down in many places - China. Korea and Japan are slowing. And yet more and more restrictions are being placed on people.  Sure, those restrictions have contributed to the slwoing and there is no doubt about that - I am following them all myself.   

 

But Covid19 was not a very contagious verson of the ebola virus and it is clearly not going to kill 100 million people.  Which were the sort of numbers first released and which forced Govts to react, and which have caused massive economic destruction.  

 

So lets get this Covid19 into perspective:

 

Every year WHO estimates that approx 290K to 650K (say 500,000) people die of the Seasonal Flu - 41,666 per month.

In 2018 HIV/AIDS killed 770,000 [570 000–1.1 million] according to WHO - that is 64,166 per month.

In 2019 WHO estimated that 1 million people died from Hepatitis - that is 83,333 per month.

In 2018 WHO estimated that 1.25 million people died from Turbuculosis - that is 104,166 per month.

 

WHO estimates that every year 293,331 die per month from the communicable infections of Seasonal Flu, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, and TB.  Add to that Malaria and Car Accidents and other preventable causes of deaths, and you get over 500K of people dieing every month from things that are preventable.  That is reality. 

 

Are the Govts going to stop people driving cars because 1.25 million people die every year - 104,166 per month??  Obviously some people would want that - but the vast majority accept that is the reality of life - but we all take precautions (some more than others).  IMO this total panic and destruction was never warranted - unless 300K+ people die in a month.  

 

Imagine the world Govts and Media being focussed daily on the number of people who have become infected with TB and are dieing.  That is the sort of numbers that the experts are claiming Covid19 will achieve.  That is already a reality. And there are far more dieing every month from other communicable infections and preventable causes of death.

 

However, what I am hopefull will come out of this worldwide is a more balanced and rational response to all future infectious diseases that could result in many people dieing.  If it has the death rate of ebola (40-50%) and is as contagious as the Flu, then shut the world down - please.  But if those ebola numbers are not showing quickly, then please take a more measured and rational approach next time - please. 

 

https://www.who.int/

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

 

3.28 million jobless claims last week in the US: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-weekly-initial-unemployment-claims-march-21-153036254.html

 

1000 deaths so far.

 

Is there any math that makes sense?  Or is it OK for the whole world to go down in flames to save a single life?  

 

 

I haven't read through all the replies, but my understanding is that the problem is not the percentage of people who die or get very ill, per se. So all the stats about morbidity rates and age groups miss the point-- plus, it seems far too early to really know what those numbers are anyway. The problem is that large numbers of people require intensive care quickly, which health systems are unable to provide. Hospitals and medical staff are getting overwhelmed, are unable to care for everyone, and consequently many patients are dying, particularly those weakened by age or other illness. We have seen numerous countries encounter this situation, some adapting better than others. So the "hysteria" as some call it is about relieving the stress on our capacity to respond by slowing down the rate of infection. The only way to slow transmission is to limit human interaction. This is complicated by a relatively long incubation period of 14-20 days (compared to Ebola, which incubates and produces debilitating symptoms within one week). Other ramifications are that it limits our ability to treat other medical needs, interrupts the blood supply, and reduces availability of medical professionals. In sum, it's not a matter of an absolute, objective, biological measure of lethality, but the challenges it presents to public health apparatus. 

12 minutes ago, Puwa said:

I haven't read through all the replies, but my understanding is that the problem is not the percentage of people who die or get very ill, per se. So all the stats about morbidity rates and age groups miss the point-- plus, it seems far too early to really know what those numbers are anyway. The problem is that large numbers of people require intensive care quickly, which health systems are unable to provide. Hospitals and medical staff are getting overwhelmed, are unable to care for everyone, and consequently many patients are dying, particularly those weakened by age or other illness. We have seen numerous countries encounter this situation, some adapting better than others. So the "hysteria" as some call it is about relieving the stress on our capacity to respond by slowing down the rate of infection. The only way to slow transmission is to limit human interaction. This is complicated by a relatively long incubation period of 14-20 days (compared to Ebola, which incubates and produces debilitating symptoms within one week). Other ramifications are that it limits our ability to treat other medical needs, interrupts the blood supply, and reduces availability of medical professionals. In sum, it's not a matter of an absolute, objective, biological measure of lethality, but the challenges it presents to public health apparatus. 

Flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming the health system is conceptually sound — in theory. A visual that has become viral in media and social media shows how flattening the curve reduces the volume of the epidemic that is above the threshold of what the health system can handle at any moment.

 

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.

 

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Death rates: Italy 10% Germany 0.5%,there is a twenty fold difference?I've read that both have a mean age of 81 years for fatalities so whats the go with that?Surely Italy doesn't have a twenty fold difference in the number of 81 year olds?

Okay, when you see the words 'death rate' or 'mortality rate', you need to be very careful.

 

In most cases those figures merely count 'identified cases'.

 

Germany and the UK have a totally different approach. In Germany Prof Wieler insists he will only look at confirmed, identified cases. Typical German, only verified data. However, the UK's Sir Patrick Vallance says 'we identified x number' but the real number is more likely x times 10 or x times 20'.

 

I believe the UK approach is the correct approach. Because even in the absence of hard, verified data, we can look at past pandemics and extrapolate from numbers of infected and deaths there, fairly good models about the numbers of dead now. Yes, those are guesstimates, but they are incredibly sophisticated models using very well thought out equations.

 

Bearing this in mind you need to adjust the death rates that you found. 

 

Also bear in mind that only a minority of the population requires hospitalisation for Covid 19. And of those a minority again will die. A fairly small percentage. This will inevitably be skewed towards older people.

 

 

2 hours ago, saengd said:

Do you really think that just because the corona virus is no longer classified in the same category as ebola or lassa fever that it is not a massive danger to life, as such  do you really think the current actions are not warranted......really, you really believe that!

The world was faced with a very difficult choice: either lose one arm now, or lose two legs later. 

 

It has chosen the second option because it is how world leaders have been acting for decades: let's make the present as comfortable as possible, and damn the future... others will deal with it... 

Here are the latest mortality rates. 

 

In the US, for example, the rate is barely above that of the common flu... in Germany it is lower... 

2 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

The world was faced with a very difficult choice: either lose one arm now, or lose two legs later. 

 

It has chosen the second option because it is how world leaders have been acting for decades: let's make the present as comfortable as possible, and damn the future... others will deal with it... 

That is so true. Everything is always put on the shoulders of future generations to pay. We are living on credit from people who are not born yet.

Just now, Brunolem said:

Here are the latest mortality rates. 

 

In the US, for example, the rate is barely above that of the common flu... in Germany it is lower... 

I have to say I am very surprised Switzerland is performing so badly. 

 

Wonder why that is.

2 hours ago, geisha said:

logosone , It also states that all confirmed cases of the virus should be sent to the treatment centers and hospitals. So what do you, or they, suggest one does when these centers and hospitals are full to overflowing with very sick patients ? 

Actually the official advise in the UK states that you should not go to a hospital or GP surgery unless you are experiencing respiratory problems or under a high risk category, i.e. older people.

if you have coronavirus symptoms:

• do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital
• you do not need to contact 111 to tell them you’re staying at home
• testing for coronavirus is not needed if you’re staying at home

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have to say I am very surprised Switzerland is performing so badly. 

 

Wonder why that is.

It is all about who they test, and how many they test. 

 

For example, if they test only 1,000 persons showing up at hospitals with symptoms, out of which 20 die later on, they end up with very bad stats. 

 

But if they test randomly 5,000 persons, in and outside hospitals, out of which the same number of 20 die later on, they have much better stats. 

 

The probability is that there are far more positive persons than officially counted, because too many are not tested, and that the mortality rate is thus far lower than published. 

thanks, but they are all english, so they know how to think calmly.

most countries who are being destroyed by hysteria are small weak countries like

thailand , s. american countries ext.. they have no choice but to

obey the hysteric WHO.

WHO is destroying economies and millions of jobs with his unprecedented powers 

to impose it's hysteric policies. 

WHO officials say that only total shutdown of all life aspects and all movements will 

bring to victory over the virus.

we know FOR A FACT that this is not true !!

FACT NO. 1   : GERMANY - only 107 deaths (in total, not per day!) without total shutdown.

FACT NO. 2: U,K. - chose the herd immunity approach and seems to be winning.

 

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Germany is 81.

 

The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Italy is 81.

what's more interesting, total numbers of dead in germany is a bit over 100.

in italy - over 7000...and germany is not in total hysteric shutdown.

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have to say I am very surprised Switzerland is performing so badly. 

 

Wonder why that is.

as usual, germany is the best

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

These gentlemen would most likely have died of other causes anyway at their advanced age, superb massages in Pattaya not withstanding.

 

Oh yes. One happy ending too many.

Quite literally a happy ending. Way to go.

What a bunch of nonsense. 

If this is like the normal flu, why is NYC running out of room to store the dead???

Does this happen every year during flu season???

Why does Italy need a convoy of army trucks to take away the dead and burn them?

Does this happen every flu season???

It might have similar numbers with seasonal flu but the time  is concentrated and resources exhausted.

Throwing a small pebble at your head every half hour for a month would be annoying,  but Hitting you on the head with a bag of pebbles might be fatal.  

 

flame post removed

 

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What a bunch of nonsense. 

If this is like the normal flu, why is NYC running out of room to store the dead???

Does this happen every year during flu season???

Why does Italy need a convoy of army trucks to take away the dead and burn them?

Does this happen every flu season???

It might have similar numbers with seasonal flu but the time  is concentrated and resources exhausted.

Throwing a small pebble at your head every half hour for a month would be annoying,  but Hitting you on the head with a bag of pebbles might be fatal.  

 

Actually the flu can be worse than this and have greater mortality by far.

 

That Italian convoy was carrying 61 dead, not 60,000. 

 

There have been football stadium disasters with similar numbers of casualties.

 

Obviously every instance of unexpected deaths can overwhelm a system geared to a certain number.

 

As a bodybuilder you learn that you can either train hard or long. But not both. That golden rule will most likely apply to this pandemic as well, there will be peaks of dead, but those death peaks will be over relatively quickly.

 

Italy, China all made that experience. That bag of pebbles maybe fatal for one. Not for 7 billion.

I think part of the disconnect is some people are concerned about stopping covid-19 at all costs.  I don't disagree that it will overwhelm health care systems if left unchecked.  Thousands will die.

 

However, I'm saying that we do need to consider the cost.  "The economy" isn't just the stock market, it's 3.28 million people out of work in just the US last week, at least some of which care for spouses and children.  So on the conservative side lets say 6 million people lost their primary income last week in the US alone

 

Is there any ratio of acceptable deaths to keep the world from going to <deleted> for the next 10 years?  

 

There are tough choices to be made, and I don't think any politicians in the world right now have the clout/respect to make them.  It's just a game to not be the leader with the most covid-19 deaths per capita.  

 

  

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Actually the flu can be worse than this and have greater mortality by far.

 

That Italian convoy was carrying 61 dead, not 60,000. 

 

There have been football stadium disasters with similar numbers of casualties.

 

Obviously every instance of unexpected deaths can overwhelm a system geared to a certain number.

 

As a bodybuilder you learn that you can either train hard or long. But not both. That golden rule will most likely apply to this pandemic as well, there will be peaks of dead, but those death peaks will be over relatively quickly.

 

Italy, China all made that experience. That bag of pebbles maybe fatal for one. Not for 7 billion.

Al these might be true , but it does not answer my question. was it the same every flue season, did NYC run out of room to store the dead last year, were the hospitals overwhelmed, did we ever rum out of ventilators? 

or would you rather argue how many dead were in the Italian convoy?

29 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Actually the flu can be worse than this and have greater mortality by far.

That Italian convoy was carrying 61 dead, not 60,000. 

There have been football stadium disasters with similar numbers of casualties.

Obviously every instance of unexpected deaths can overwhelm a system geared to a certain number.

As a bodybuilder you learn that you can either train hard or long. But not both. That golden rule will most likely apply to this pandemic as well, there will be peaks of dead, but those death peaks will be over relatively quickly.

Italy, China all made that experience. That bag of pebbles maybe fatal for one. Not for 7 billion.

Rubbish. We are only a few months into this, and we already see the devastating impact on the population as  thousands fight for their lives on respirators. We  see the significantly higher rate of death and you dismiss this as no worse than the flu. You are not even making an intelligent comparison, because you look at seasonal flu  which has a mortality calculation based upon multiple strains over multiple years vs. the Covid 19 pandemic at 3 months.  It is infuriating when sudden catastrophic incidents are tossed out to  diminish the impact of a deadly infection. A stadium catastrophe is avoidable and preventable. It is not a continuing event. A deadly infection continues. Your attempt to  make a comparison defies logic and is invalid.  You talk of death peaks as if you understand the impact of a deadly respiratory illness. Well, you do not. For a significant number of patients, including the young, a respiratory illness leaves long term damage in the lungs and leaves the patient susceptible to future infections and other diseases. That is a medical fact. 

 

18 minutes ago, tlock said:

I think part of the disconnect is some people are concerned about stopping covid-19 at all costs.  I don't disagree that it will overwhelm health care systems if left unchecked.  Thousands will die.

 

However, I'm saying that we do need to consider the cost.  "The economy" isn't just the stock market, it's 3.28 million people out of work in just the US last week, at least some of which care for spouses and children.  So on the conservative side lets say 6 million people lost their primary income last week in the US alone

 

Is there any ratio of acceptable deaths to keep the world from going to <deleted> for the next 10 years?  

 

There are tough choices to be made, and I don't think any politicians in the world right now have the clout/respect to make them.  It's just a game to not be the leader with the most covid-19 deaths per capita.  

The disconnect is that some people do not appreciate that a respiratory infection can persist. Unless stopped, it returns to ravage the population.  there is no demonstrable long term immunity, which means that if a person  was infected once, that person can be infected again. If left with lung damage from a  previous infection, that patient will most die with the next infection. Lungs need time to heal.  Yes, many people have lost their employment, but better a short term disruption than their death or long term disability. Some people want an immediate solution. It can't happen. All we can do is  wait this out. Another month or two of short term pain for long term  gain. Westerners are too focused on short term gains and not the long term. This is where China has the world beat. China plans for 10 years, 20 years, another generation in the future. The US driven mentality is to have a profit a gain now. That doesn't work with  deadly diseases.

 

 

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Al these might be true , but it does not answer my question. was it the same every flue season, did NYC run out of room to store the dead last year, were the hospitals overwhelmed, did we ever rum out of ventilators? 

or would you rather argue how many dead were in the Italian convoy?

But that's comparing apples with mangosteens, this is a pandemic, not a flu season. Yes, as a matter of fact there have been several flu pandemics that have been worse and considerably worse. 

If you leave bags of pebbles out of it and don't talk in riddles, too many will get ill and a system that wasn't designed to care for you, the unwashed masses, will fail you,as it was always designed to. And it's always somebody else's fault.

 

Put short they don't care about you, they never did and they still dont. You are a nuisance except at voting time which makes communism the superior system. They have to worry about you all the time in case you burn down their house.

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

But that's comparing apples with mangosteens, this is a pandemic, not a flu season. Yes, as a matter of fact there have been several flu pandemics that have been worse and considerably worse. 

Why isn't seasonal flu a yearly pandemic?

 

Because they fudged the definition?

 

Apples, mangosteens, bags of pebbles? Is everyone drunk tonight?

20 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Rubbish. We are only a few months into this, and we already see the devastating impact on the population as  thousands fight for their lives on respirators. We  see the significantly higher rate of death and you dismiss this as no worse than the flu. You are not even making an intelligent comparison, because you look at seasonal flu  which has a mortality calculation based upon multiple strains over multiple years vs. the Covid 19 pandemic at 3 months.  It is infuriating when sudden catastrophic incidents are tossed out to  diminish the impact of a deadly infection. A stadium catastrophe is avoidable and preventable. It is not a continuing event. A deadly infection continues. Your attempt to  make a comparison defies logic and is invalid.  You talk of death peaks as if you understand the impact of a deadly respiratory illness. Well, you do not. For a significant number of patients, including the young, a respiratory illness leaves long term damage in the lungs and leaves the patient susceptible to future infections and other diseases. That is a medical fact. 

 

The disconnect is that some people do not appreciate that a respiratory infection can persist. Unless stopped, it returns to ravage the population.  there is no demonstrable long term immunity, which means that if a person  was infected once, that person can be infected again. If left with lung damage from a  previous infection, that patient will most die with the next infection. Lungs need time to heal.  Yes, many people have lost their employment, but better a short term disruption than their death or long term disability. Some people want an immediate solution. It can't happen. All we can do is  wait this out. Another month or two of short term pain for long term  gain. Westerners are too focused on short term gains and not the long term. This is where China has the world beat. China plans for 10 years, 20 years, another generation in the future. The US driven mentality is to have a profit a gain now. That doesn't work with  deadly diseases.

 

 

There are so many errors and falsehoods in your above posts, I will try just to address the main ones:

 

It is not a significantly higher rate of death, there have been flu pandemics with a much worse rate of death.

 

The flu pandemics are actually much worse than Covid19. 

 

Of course Covid19 also has multiple strains. And will have many more.

 

A stadium catastrophe is indeed avoidable, and so was this pandemic. In 2012 the Robert Koch Institute warned about this pandemic. In 2015 Bill Gates warned about a coming pandemic. And those are just the ones who went on record.

 

And you're telling me this could not have been prevented by our governments not acting sooner instead of watching Wuhan like paralysed deer?

 

Your medical analysis notwithstanding, in Iceland where thus far the biggest testing effort has been made 2% of those tested had Covid19. A very small number. And of that small number again only half had symptons. Of that even smaller number a fraction had to go to intensive care. Of that even even smaller number a smaller fraction are in mortal danger, mostly those over 80.

 

With due respect, but we've already seen a respiratory disease that persists and keeps returning. It's called the flu. Have we locked the entire planet down for 10 weeks? I don't think so.

 

And your biggest mistake: There is no immunity? Of course there is immunity.

 

Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: 

“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/the-big-question-over-coronavirus-can-a-person-get-it-twice

 

Short term pain? The Great Depression lasted 10 years. Can you guarantee me that the coming depression will not last 10 years?

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

There are so many errors and falsehoods in your above posts, I will try just to address the main ones:

 

It is not a significantly higher rate of death, there have been flu pandemics with a much worse rate of death.

 

The flu pandemics are actually much worse than Covid19. 

 

Of course Covid19 also has multiple strains. And will have many more.

 

A stadium catastrophe is indeed avoidable, and so was this pandemic. In 2012 the Robert Koch Institute warned about this pandemic. In 2015 Bill Gates warned about a coming pandemic. And those are just the ones who went on record.

 

And you're telling me this could not have been prevented by our governments not acting sooner instead of watching Wuhan like paralysed deer?

 

Your medical analysis notwithstanding, in Iceland where thus far the biggest testing effort has been made 2% of those tested had Covid19. A very small number. And of that small number again only half had symptons. Of that even smaller number a fraction had to go to intensive care. Of that even even smaller number a smaller fraction are in mortal danger, mostly those over 80.

 

With due respect, but we've already seen a respiratory disease that persists and keeps returning. It's called the flu. Have we locked the entire planet down for 10 weeks? I don't think so.

 

And your biggest mistake: There is no immunity? Of course there is immunity.

 

Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: 

“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/the-big-question-over-coronavirus-can-a-person-get-it-twice

 

Short term pain? The Great Depression lasted 10 years. Can you guarantee me that the coming depression will not last 10 years?

The coming financial collapse is overdue anyway - nothing will stop it. This virus could be stopped in a few weeks but only with great effort.

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The coming financial collapse is overdue anyway - nothing will stop it. This virus could be stopped in a few weeks but only with great effort.

It need not. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the Dow Jones gained 50% fairly quickly. The roaring Twenties were an age of economic boom time.

 

It will depend on how we handle the economy. But with everyday the biggest economies are put in lock down the damage will get worse.

 

Yes, the virus could have been stopped. The world was watching Wuhan. Our governments watched. Despite the repeated warnings of 2012, 2015 and no doubt many others, they did nothing. They could have isolated when there was time, test early. All lost opportunities.

 

And now, after they failed to isolate themselves, the governments tell the people go isolate yourselves, or else, 25000 Euro fine and imprisonment.

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

There are so many errors and falsehoods in your above posts, I will try just to address the main ones:

It is not a significantly higher rate of death, there have been flu pandemics with a much worse rate of death.

The flu pandemics are actually much worse than Covid19. 

Of course Covid19 also has multiple strains. And will have many more.

A stadium catastrophe is indeed avoidable, and so was this pandemic. In 2012 the Robert Koch Institute warned about this pandemic. In 2015 Bill Gates warned about a coming pandemic. And those are just the ones who went on record.

And you're telling me this could not have been prevented by our governments not acting sooner instead of watching Wuhan like paralysed deer?

Your medical analysis notwithstanding, in Iceland where thus far the biggest testing effort has been made 2% of those tested had Covid19. A very small number. And of that small number again only half had symptons. Of that even smaller number a fraction had to go to intensive care. Of that even even smaller number a smaller fraction are in mortal danger, mostly those over 80.

 

With due respect, but we've already seen a respiratory disease that persists and keeps returning. It's called the flu. Have we locked the entire planet down for 10 weeks? I don't think so.

And your biggest mistake: There is no immunity? Of course there is immunity.

Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: 

“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/the-big-question-over-coronavirus-can-a-person-get-it-twice

 

Short term pain? The Great Depression lasted 10 years. Can you guarantee me that the coming depression will not last 10 years?

You claim  There are so many errors and falsehoods in your above posts, and yet it is you who persists in  making incorrect comparisons to support your position. You state;

there have been flu pandemics with a much worse rate of death.

Your comparison is unacceptable because;

 

1. You seek to compare the Covid 19 pandemic after 3 months with pandemics that  stretched over a much longer  period of time.

 

2. You reference pandemics  that occurred under significantly different circumstances such that a comparison is not appropriate. The first H1N1 flu pandemic was 1918-1919 and there was no vaccine available. It stretched almost 2 years. We are at month 3 with Covid 19. The H1N1 flu pandemic of 2008-2009 started when there was no vaccine. However, a vaccine was quickly  available and prevented  deaths in the parts of the world that  administered the vaccine. I remember  getting my emergency vaccine.  Those who died were primarily not vaccinated.  There is no preventative vaccine available for Covid19.

 

In 2012 the Robert Koch Institute warned about this pandemic. In 2015 Bill Gates warned about a coming pandemic. And those are just the ones who went on record.

Yes, you have made this point multiple times. One entity  in a world with hundreds of specialty units that had differing views. Governments made strategic decisions. I do not disagree with you.  The western countries all stopped funding SARS research once the SARS crisis subsided.  The only reason there is a vaccine headstart in Canada is because the  Saudis were funding the University of Saskatchewan MERS research. However, this has no relevance to your claims that I am using false information.

 

And you're telling me this could not have been prevented by our governments not acting sooner instead of watching Wuhan like paralysed deer?

 

No, not saying that at all. Governments put profits ahead of common sense. The fact that Thailand allowed infected Chinese to flow in by the  thousands wrong. However,the western world  was equally wrong in that regard. The reality is that society as a whole refused to support the closure of borders. Look at the idiots who were still going on holidays as late as  March. People  have refused to comply with social distancing. That is their free choice but it is wrong and immoral.

 

Your medical analysis notwithstanding, in Iceland where thus far the biggest testing effort has been made 2% of those tested had Covid19. A very small number. And of that small number again only half had symptons. Of that even smaller number a fraction had to go to intensive care. Of that even even smaller number a smaller fraction are in mortal danger, mostly those over 80.

 

You refer to Iceland as if it provides a definitive indication. It does not. The results are very different than what is being evidenced in parts of Canada, EU and USA.  The driver of infections in Iceland is that it  was Iceland national traveler based, as opposed to what we are seeing in Italy which was both italian  national traveler and foreign visitor based. Italy  received a much greater injection of the infection than some other countries. Iceland's nations were willing to self isolate. Other countries were not.

 

Your reference to data is unacceptable as it  does not provide a reliable data base for general conclusions.  Your data relies on the  initial testing of 5,571 people. It showed 48 positive results. Since  28 february there are 473  diagnosed patients in Iceland.  Yes, at the time of testing  50% did not report conventional symptoms. We don't know what happened a few days later. The disease progresses differently in people. We are seeing in North America that  people show with symptoms because they were asked to wait. In iceland it was testing without a waiting period.

 

With due respect, but we've already seen a respiratory disease that persists and keeps returning. It's called the flu. Have we locked the entire planet down for 10 weeks? I don't think so. And your biggest mistake: There is no immunity? Of course there is immunity.

 

Having recovered from influenza does not make one immune to influenza. Viruses mutate, they change over time. This is how they defeat antibodies. Some viruses mutate faster than others.

I stated that there will  be short term immunity, but there has been NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that there is long term immunity. What clinical studies  show long term immunity for Covid 19? please  cite them.  There is one study in China on monkeys  that showed  show short term immunity. Did you read it? That study used 4 monkeys. FOUR.  It is nice that you quote Prof. Cohen giving his opinion.  Others have an opposite opinion.

 

Immunity is estimated by the presence of specific antibodies. We see that people easily become reinfected by corona virus caused colds. Others have immunity for 1-3 years. MERS recovered patients showed antibodies persisted up to 3 years in some patients. In SARS, antibodies were seen in recovered patients of up to 7 years and in others of less than 1 year.  Yes, we can say there is immunity, but in respect to public health and population security this is not sufficient. We need to see population protection in excess of 90%.

 

 

Short term pain? The Great Depression lasted 10 years. Can you guarantee me that the coming depression will not last 10 years?

 

You refuse to give social distancing an opportunity to work. It is the most cost effective and immediate tool we have available. You play the  % game of trying to minimize impact by  emphasizing the young will be ok or that most will have  mild symptoms. Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing in North America. If it was mild  our ICUs would not now be filled to capacity. Young people are  becoming ill. They are hospitalized, some for 20 days+. This costs money. prevention is more cost effective than allowing the  infection to run wild.  Three more weeks of enforced social distancing will contain the illness, followed by  responsible social  distancing will give us the time to develop a  vaccine. If we do not do this, the social costs of watching family members succumb or having a die off of the otherwise functional population will devastate countries.

This is great, shows the spread of the virus from Wuhan and also shows that Bangkok took more visitors from Wuhan than any other country in the World:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-spread.html

9 hours ago, Logosone said:

It need not. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the Dow Jones gained 50% fairly quickly. The roaring Twenties were an age of economic boom time.

 

It will depend on how we handle the economy. But with everyday the biggest economies are put in lock down the damage will get worse.

 

Yes, the virus could have been stopped. The world was watching Wuhan. Our governments watched. Despite the repeated warnings of 2012, 2015 and no doubt many others, they did nothing. They could have isolated when there was time, test early. All lost opportunities.

 

And now, after they failed to isolate themselves, the governments tell the people go isolate yourselves, or else, 25000 Euro fine and imprisonment.

I meant that we were way overdue for a financial crash before the virus problem emerged. Yes the 20's were a boom after WW1 and the Spanish Flu but we are not in the same situation now.

 

Yes, too much gawking at China and hoping for the best by the rest of the world, before it was too late to catch it. China should have been waiving the red flag higher and much earlier, given their extensive history and experience of similar zoonoses. The existence of this virus was identified well before those 5 million were allowed to leave Wuhan, just before Chinese New Year and the lock-down - they dispersed all over China, and beyond - hopeless.

'