Infections will skyrocket without social distancing, says official

[emptypockets]

6 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

400,000 die each and every year die from the flu (4 million over the last ten years) even with the vaccines are you suggesting that we ignore trying to save those people because there are vaccines and that covid19 may or may not be more deadly than the flu?As the experts say it's to early to say if it's more deadly and even if it is more deadly are you saying that the 400,000 men women and children who die from the flu are not worthy of the same measures to save them?At this stage even the experts are revising down quite considerably their estimates of how serious this outbreak really is.Nobody knows how infectious this outbreak is or it's severity at this stage.

It is pretty obvious how infectious this virus is. Just look at the new numbers published daily and the historical data to date. The severity ranges up to, and including, death.

Hope that answers your questions.

Comparing this to the seasonal flu is a flawed comparison. You assertion that nothing is done for victims of the seasonal flu is fallacious. As the ICU bed system gets overwhelmed we can expect the deaths from seasonal flu to increase substantially as well.

You can also add increases in deaths from normally treatable events such as heart attacks as the medical response times increases due to finite resources being stretched past the normal capabilities. 

Are the current policies the best we can do? Or should we be doing nothing? Time will tell. You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. Your call.

[emptypockets]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

So, here's what I'd do:

 

I'd follow the Netherlands model of allowing the virus to spread to those who've proven most resilient to Covid19, whilst isolating those most at risk of dying.

 

This would accelerate herd immunity where 60% are infected and thus stop the virus. 

 

Here's why, in Thailand the mass testing approach of SKorea and Germany would not work. Herd immunity will come before a vaccine and before mass testing. 

 

The sooner herd immunity comes the better it would be.

How are the Dutch determining who has proven most resilient to the virus? Those who don't die? Pretty severe way of finding out.

Like the flu virus, this may mutate and herd immunity may never be achieved.

Edited March 28, 2020 by emptypockets

[sjaak327]

8 hours ago, brain150 said:

Full panic mode activated !!!

Insanity is way more dangerous than any other disease ... especially in Government !!!

 

Just in case that anybody want to know what SCIENCE says about the Corona virus:

 

The New England Journal of Medicine [the most renowned Journal for medicine in the World !!!]

Link to the Article: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

 

... This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

 

The PANIC is real ... the PANDEMIC is not !!!

Yep, if we see the raw figures, the measures currently being taken are over the top. And if continued long enough, will make more casualties than the virus itself. The world has gone mad. Fear never was a good guideline. 

[tropo]

On 3/27/2020 at 3:43 PM, 4MyEgo said:

They younger groups of Thai's don't seem to give a rats a$$ as we see groups of 20 or so drinking away, sad really, what happens when they go home and infect good old mum and dad or their grandparents and they pass away, hope it was all worth it then.

Isn't this kind of behaviour typical of young people? The only way to prevent this is to bring out the heavy hammer. Wait for it - it is coming. Has the sale of alcohol been restricted yet? I'm not sure, but if it isn't now, it soon will be.

[sjaak327]

18 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

How are the Dutch determining who has proven most resilient to the virus? Those who don't die? Pretty severe way of finding out.

Like the flu virus, this may mutate and herd immunity may never be achieved.

In which case we have two choices, wait it out until we are all bankrupt, or wait for a vaccin, which might not work on the mutated virus in any case. What a choice hey !

 

It seems that the vast majority of people that were infected never even needed hospital treatment. we are talking about a tiny percentage of people that are vulnerable to this virus with major or deadly consequences. Logic would have it that these people should remain in isolation, whilst the rest of us can carry on with our life, and making sure the economy doesn't die. Staying all indoors will achieve only short time gains. The virus will not magically disappear. 

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 You have posted posted false information.

The Netherlands has reversed its initial position  and now acknowledges  that the strategy was inappropriate. In the past week the  Dutch government has implemented many of the restrictions  and measures seen in its neighbors.

 

Covid 19 has infected and killed  Dutch people who were assumed to not be at risk. These were people under age 60 and with no serious underlying health conditions.  It finally dawned on the Dutch that the "herd immunity" concept was not possible because it is impossible to separate  the at risk from the young. More importantly, it was acknowledged  that there is NO EVIDENCE  that  immunity occurs after infection with the novel coronavirus and how long an immunity would persist.

 

Why the change? Because the failure to initiate social distancing  as of Friday, March 27th resulted in  8,603 confirmed cases, with 1,172 new cases in the past 24 hours; 546 total deaths, with 112 new deaths in the past 24 hours.  There are at least 761 patients in serious or critical condition, with thousands more hospitalized and the numbers continuing to rise.   According to the "herd immunity" concept this should not have happened. 

 

The Netherlands now has regulations in place to stop gatherings of 3 people or more and it is being enforced. For example, In Duiven and Westervoort, young people were fined for not adhering to the rules of no gatherings consisting of 3 or more people and for not keeping 1.5 meters away from each other. In Kaag, the police took six young people out of a home. They were visiting, but despite warnings, were "sitting right next to each other on the couch". How's that for your  "herd immunity" nonsense.

 

 

Stop pushing out false and misleading information to support your  irresponsible  personal agenda. 

 

You are right, the initial position of herd immunity has been given up. I think and suspect this to be a grave and expensive error. Again, protect the vulnerable, let the rest go along. 

 

In my view, trying to semi or total lockdown is not going to solve the problem, it's short time austrich like behavior. Too bad the government has revised their intention, they were on the right track...

 

Herd immunity is not nonsense, and is the long term sensible solution to the problem, one just needs to achieve it in stages. As to your remarks about cases, until such time that the Netherlands take testing seriously, all that is useless. I think it is pretty sure the number of real infections in this country is ten or twenty times the number published. But without proper testing, that number is meaningless. Also in regards to achieving herd immunity. Based on the numbers versus the number of people that actually have been tested, you cannot possibly claim anything about herd immunity. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by sjaak327

[emptypockets]

16 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

In which case we have two choices, wait it out until we are all bankrupt, or wait for a vaccin, which might not work on the mutated virus in any case. What a choice hey !

 

It seems that the vast majority of people that were infected never even needed hospital treatment. we are talking about a tiny percentage of people that are vulnerable to this virus with major or deadly consequences. Logic would have it that these people should remain in isolation, whilst the rest of us can carry on with our life, and making sure the economy doesn't die. Staying all indoors will achieve only short time gains. The virus will not magically disappear. 

Don't disagree with what you are saying in principle.

Question: How do we determine who should stay in isolation when we don't know who is actually infected. 

Once we determine this (when symptoms are evident) it is too late as the potential spread of the virus has already occurred. Don't rely on mass testing to achieve this as it won't, in all likelihood, ever happen in Thailand.

It's a bit like a bushfire.Do we let it burn and create massive damage and loss of life or do we employ what methods we currently have - backburning, making sure spot fires are extinguished as soon as possible to prevent them becoming another major fire.

The short term pain may well be worth it in the long run.

I'm amazed, given the age demographic of most members, that anyone is even having the discussion about social isolation as they are likely to be in the most high risk group of death.

Just stay home for a couple of weeks, it won't kill you. The alternative may.

Edited March 28, 2020 by emptypockets
Fixed autospell error

[Sundown]

6 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

In which case we have two choices, wait it out until we are all bankrupt, or wait for a vaccin, which might not work on the mutated virus in any case. What a choice hey !

 

It seems that the vast majority of people that were infected never even needed hospital treatment. we are talking about a tiny percentage of people that are vulnerable to this virus with major or deadly consequences. Logic would have it that these people should remain in isolation, whilst the rest of us can carry on with our life, and making sure the economy doesn't die. Staying all indoors will achieve only short time gains. The virus will not magically disappear. 

I totally agree. I might add that the majority of people infected does not even have symptoms as the body fights the virus (every virus) with its own countermeasures, it's not a bacteria.

 

In January hundred thousands of infected people fled China and came guess where? Thailand. These add up to all those travelling for tourism during December. To this date, Thailand should be and probably is one of the most infected country. Lockdowns and measuring temperature at every corner is just useless. (Today I was measured at Tesco, such a joke. There were 40 degrees outside and everybody was scanned around 37.5!!!!)

 

They are creating a worldwide recession out of nothing. And I start thinking it is all planned.

[emptypockets]

23 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

In which case we have two choices, wait it out until we are all bankrupt, or wait for a vaccin, which might not work on the mutated virus in any case. What a choice hey !

 

It seems that the vast majority of people that were infected never even needed hospital treatment. we are talking about a tiny percentage of people that are vulnerable to this virus with major or deadly consequences. Logic would have it that these people should remain in isolation, whilst the rest of us can carry on with our life, and making sure the economy doesn't die. Staying all indoors will achieve only short time gains. The virus will not magically disappear. 

What is a tiny percentage of a billion? Two billion?

Forget percentages, look at real numbers of real people dying. You may be one of them.

The economy won't die but will bounce back, in a slightly different format no doubt. Marginal businesses will fail but solid businesses will survive. The world was heading into recession before the virus came along.

There will be a far greater impact to the economy by doing nothing instead of implementing some simple measures that have been proven to work while we wait for a vaccine.

Edited March 28, 2020 by emptypockets

[sjaak327]

6 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Don't disagree with what you are saying in principle.

Question: How do we determine who should stay in isolation when we don't know who is actually infected. 

Once we determine this (when symptoms are evident) it is too late as the potential spread of the virus has already occurred. Don't rely on mass testing to achieve this as it won't, in all likelihood, ever happen in Thailand.

It's a bit like a bushfire.Do we let it burn and create massive damage and loss of life or do we employ what methods we currently have - backburning, making sure spot fires are extinguished as soon as possible to prevent them becoming another major fire.

The short term pain may well be worth it in the long run.

I'm amazed, given the age demographic of most members, that anyone is even having the discussion about social isolation as they are likely to be in the most high risk group of death.

Just stay home for a couple of weeks, it won't kill you. The alternative may.

True, and that is also why testing is so incredibly important. There is good news on this front, as the Swiss company that has the recipe, now has agreed to release it, which means the Netherlands and other countries might be able to test more people, which will give a much better picture at exactly how the virus is progressing, and how many people have really been infected. This will also give a better ground for taking further decisions.

 

Testing is everything, if you know who already had the virus, the people that have not yet been infected and the people that are infected, you can take relevant and specific decisions. 

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

What is a tiny percentage of a billion? Two billion?

Forget percentages, look at real numbers of real people dying. You may be one of them.

The economy won't die but will bounce back, in a slightly different format no doubt. Marginal businesses will fail but solid businesses will survive. The world was heading into recession before the virus came along.

There will be a far greater impact to the economy by doing nothing instead of implementing some simple measures that have been proven to work while we wait for a vaccine.

Yes I might be one of them, or. I might already contracted the virus. I don't know. However I do know that the economy will bounce back, providing this period isn't taking too long. We cannot wait until a vaccine arrives, unless that time is about two months away. Anything longer, and the number of death not directly from the virus will dwarf the deaths from the virus. It is hardly rocket science. 

[emptypockets]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Yes I might be one of them, or. I might already contracted the virus. I don't know. However I do know that the economy will bounce back, providing this period isn't taking too long. We cannot wait until a vaccine arrives, unless that time is about two months away. Anything longer, and the number of death not directly from the virus will dwarf the deaths from the virus. It is hardly rocket science. 

Why do you think there will be more non virus related deaths?

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Why do you think there will be more non virus related deaths?

 

Do you really have to ask that question ? People that are out of work, have no income, no income means no means to feed themselves. Not every country has provisions for this (look at Thailand for instance) and even the countries that do, don't have infinite resources. Hardly rocket science again. 

[Sundown]

3 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Why do you think there will be more non virus related deaths?

You say solid businesses will not suffer. I am sure McDonald's and Apple will make it through this .

Just come to Phuket, where economy is driven by tourists . All hotels shut down. Everybody is unemployed.

In Italy they are starting to rob supermarkets.

Crime and suicides rates will surge very soon.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Sundown said:

You say solid businesses will not suffer. I am sure McDonald's and Apple will make it through this .

Just come to Phuket, where economy is driven by tourists . All hotels shut down. Everybody is unemployed.

In Italy they are starting to rob supermarkets.

Crime and suicides rates will surge very soon.

Even solid businesses will suffer if the period of inactivity is too long. why is logic being tossed out of the door ?

[emptypockets]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Do you really have to ask that question ? People that are out of work, have no income, no income means no means to feed themselves. Not every country has provisions for this (look at Thailand for instance) and even the countries that do, don't have infinite resources. Hardly rocket science again. 

Are you suggesting mass suicide?

Can't see that happening in Thailand or any developing countries. The people are very resilient and don't necessarily need money to survive. Gee some didn't have much money previously. I don't recall the MIL ever spending much money. Her kids send her money every month in the amounts each can afford. She recently lent one daughter 300,000 baht to buy some land!! She simply doesn't need money to survive. Grows rice and has her veggie patch. What she lacks she gets from others in the village and vice versa.

They often have large social networks looking after each other and still have the ability to hunt and gather.

Thailand managed to feed people through the various natural disasters, floods etc, in the past and will likely do so again.

So yes I do have to ask that question. Why do you think there will be more deaths?

 

[sjaak327]

Just now, emptypockets said:

Are you suggesting mass suicide?

Can't see that happening in Thailand or any developing countries. The people are very resilient and don't necessarily need money to survive. Gee some didn't have much money previously. I don't recall the MIL ever spending much money. Her kids send her money every month in the amounts each can afford. She recently lent one daughter 300,000 baht to buy some land!! She simply doesn't need money to survive. Grows rice and has her veggie patch. What she lacks she gets from others in the village and vice versa.

They often have large social networks looking after each other and still have the ability to hunt and gather.

Thailand managed to feed people through the various natural disasters, floods etc, in the past and will likely do so again.

So yes I do have to ask that question. Why do you think there will be more deaths?

 

No, I am talking about people that die from hunger, die from riots and more of that stuff. Not everyone is self sufficient with a patch of land, growing their own food, in fact, the vast majority of the world's population don't have this kind of life. It is going to get ugly the longer this drags on. You don't have to be a nobel price winner to understand this.

[emptypockets]

17 minutes ago, Sundown said:

You say solid businesses will not suffer. I am sure McDonald's and Apple will make it through this .

Just come to Phuket, where economy is driven by tourists . All hotels shut down. Everybody is unemployed.

In Italy they are starting to rob supermarkets.

Crime and suicides rates will surge very soon.

I have no doubt there will be social unrest. Businesses that focus on one product are always vulnerable. Remember all the video rental stores not so long ago? All gone as the world and technology changed.

[balo]

Too late, just let the natural selection carry on, 1000 times more people die in traffic accidents in Thailand anyway. 

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

I have no doubt there will be social unrest. Businesses that focus on one product are always vulnerable. Remember all the video rental stores not so long ago? All gone as the world and technology changed.

This time around, it doesn't really matter what products you produce. Even in my country, where there isn't a total lockdown (yet), the effect of just two weeks of semi lockdown are felt across the board. And not just felt by businesses that have been ordered to shut down (restaurants, bars and personal care businesses) it is even felt by businesses that are not been ordered to shut down. Anyone thinking we can keep this up for more than say two months without dire consequences across the board are dreaming.

[emptypockets]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No, I am talking about people that die from hunger, die from riots and more of that stuff. Not everyone is self sufficient with a patch of land, growing their own food, in fact, the vast majority of the world's population don't have this kind of life. It is going to get ugly the longer this drags on. You don't have to be a nobel price winner to understand this.

Actually the vast majority of the world's population DO have this kind of life. Rural China, India and the majority of the African continent live this way and have for millenia.

It's only when there is a drought that we ever hear about them. Not saying they have an easy life but they survive. 

Agreed the western world is going to have a lot of problems, most of our making as we have lost survival skills and rely on our labour to earn money to buy food. When that requirement for labour stops then there will be big problems.

[emptypockets]

23 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Even solid businesses will suffer if the period of inactivity is too long. why is logic being tossed out of the door ?

That is the million dollar question. Do we shutdown for a short period and feel the pain. Or do we do nothing and face even more pain over a longer period. I think this is the question the ruling class is trying to work out.

[sjaak327]

Just now, emptypockets said:

Actually the vast majority of the world's population DO have this kind of life. Rural China, India and the majority of the African continent live this way and have for millenia.

It's only when there is a drought that we ever hear about them. Not saying they have an easy life but they survive. 

Agreed the western world is going to have a lot of problems, most of our making as we have lost survival skills and rely on our labour to earn money to buy food. When that requirement for labour stops then there will be big problems.

The majority of the world's population live in the urban areas. And in many many countries, even the people that do not live in the urban areas, do not have this kind of life. Don't take Thailand as the example. And even in Thailand, a large percentage of people live in the cities, not in the field. 

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

That is the million dollar question. Do we shutdown for a short period and feel the pain. Or do we do nothing and face even more pain over a longer period. I think this is the question the ruling class is trying to work out.

I never claimed that we should do nothing. What is a short period ? One months, two months, and in doing so, what are the guarantees the virus doesn't return after a few weeks or months ? Again, I believe the herd immunity is the only viable approach in the long term. 

[emptypockets]

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

This time around, it doesn't really matter what products you produce. Even in my country, where there isn't a total lockdown (yet), the effect of just two weeks of semi lockdown are felt across the board. And not just felt by businesses that have been ordered to shut down (restaurants, bars and personal care businesses) it is even felt by businesses that are not been ordered to shut down. Anyone thinking we can keep this up for more than say two months without dire consequences across the board are dreaming.

I don't think anyone is denying there will be sure consequences. The question is isolate now and hope it works, or carry on as normal and see what happens.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I don't think anyone is denying there will be sure consequences. The question is isolate now and hope it works, or carry on as normal and see what happens.

There is another choice, which I already hinted at. You isolate the elderly and the people with "pre conditions" (and most people will know themselves that they are). The rest carries on to get the society going meanwhile building immunity from the disease. I personally think that to be a more viable solution than to order everyone inside with all the problems associated with that.

 

I know, the total isolation approach will yield quick results, the number of infections and deaths will drop after a month or so. But that is short time gain, the virus isn't going anywhere. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by sjaak327

[emptypockets]

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

The majority of the world's population live in the urban areas. And in many many countries, even the people that do not live in the urban areas, do not have this kind of life. Don't take Thailand as the example. And even in Thailand, a large percentage of people live in the cities, not in the field. 

Ever been to Bangkok during Songkran? The place is empty. Many people go to Bangkok for work but in reality they are visitors who are country folk who can switch roles pretty quickly. Probably 50% or more of the cities population

 

This thread is in the Thailand news section and the OP is about a statement made by a Thai person.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Ever been to Bangkok during Songkran? The place is empty. Many people go to Bangkok for work but in reality they are visitors who are country folk who can switch roles pretty quickly. Probably 50% or more of the cities population

 

This thread is in the Thailand news section and the OP is about a statement made by a Thai person.

Sure I have been to Bangkok during Songkran. (many times).

 

The place is anything but empty. I am well aware of the many people from the provinces that work in Bangkok. If you believe that those people can just go home, and then be oblivious to the financial problems facing the rest of us, I believe you should stop dreaming. The economic consequences do not stop at the rice field, one cannot grow rice without money to buy the seeds....

 

Why do you think all of those people go work in Bangkok in the first place ? To make money of course !

Edited March 28, 2020 by sjaak327

[Throatwobbler]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

And with a lock-down, people eventually will stop dying, until the next wave. It is hardly rocket science. Mother nature will do whatever she pleases. We can just try to influence her in a certain way. People that disagree with the total isolation venue aren't dumb. In fact they are trying to insert reason into the illogical fear. 

I am sorry but could you please tell me where you studied pandemic and infectious diseases  It is an important question because you seem to know better than all the world experts. So again I would like to know where you studied so I can weigh up both your arguments

 

[Blumpie]

Well that didn't take long.  Today the world infection rates (reported) were 100k.  So we're 100k per day.  

Soon it's going to be 200k.  Five days?  Then 300k.  

Interesting perspectives here, and hindsight will provide a great deal.  

Glad to see that 10,000 people dying in Italy (thus far) isn't just a bad flu.  No kids, this isn't a flu.  It's a pandemic.  If the bell curve is there, count on another 1.5X to die off more.  So best case scenario 25,000 Italy alone till the bell drops.