Corona Virus - Should we be worried?

[AlexOvd]

Meanwhile Mad Cool with 90 cases just in Madrid:

[Matt42]

More and more days go on the more I’m confident it’s going ahead tbh. I don’t wanna jinx anything but it feels like things will be better by June.

Of course the immediate events will struggle, but it sounds like events such as Coachella have found ways around it.

[lukethekid]

Is it actually as bad as it’s being made out to be? Obviously it’s very transmissible so it’s easy to catch but it also seems very easy to get rid of, obviously those at risk need to be safeguarded but do we really need to be cancelling shit?  

[MrHew]

From latest BBC story:

The government is still deciding what measures will be taken in the delay phase, but has previously said they could include banning big events, closing schools, encouraging people to work from home and dissuading the use of public transport.

But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the government's scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage) had told him that closing schools and stopping big gatherings "don't work as well perhaps as people think in stopping the spread".

[Matt42]

Just now, lukethekid said:

Is it actually as bad as it’s being made out to be? Obviously it’s very transmissible so it’s easy to catch but it also seems very easy to get rid of, obviously those at risk need to be safeguarded but do we really need to be cancelling shit?  

Highly contagious and a real risk for the elderly and vulnerable but quite a lot of people will get it and not even notice.

I think the policy should be. If you’ve got moderate symptoms contact your work / 111 and stay at home.

If you’re having problems breathing call 111 and come into hospital.

Its the best way to do it. We need to discourage those with moderate symptoms hammering our public services. It sounds draconian but it will work.

[jparx]

4 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

More and more days go on the more I’m confident it’s going ahead tbh. I don’t wanna jinx anything but it feels like things will be better by June.

Of course the immediate events will struggle, but it sounds like events such as Coachella have found ways around it.

I suppose the other thing to consider is that events in the summer have time now to put measures in place. The hot water issue, for example, is something I imagine they're working on finding some sort of solution for.

Events in the near future will have had no chance to prepare properly and are most at risk of cancellation. Glastonbury have chance now to put contingencies in place and pitch then to the council. They will be pulling out all the stops to make sure it goes ahead I'm sure.

[Hugh Jass]

6 minutes ago, MrHew said:

From latest BBC story:

The government is still deciding what measures will be taken in the delay phase, but has previously said they could include banning big events, closing schools, encouraging people to work from home and dissuading the use of public transport.

But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the government's scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage) had told him that closing schools and stopping big gatherings "don't work as well perhaps as people think in stopping the spread".

Nothing is stopping Boris from gurning his tits off at 5am in the Stone Circle.

[lukethekid]

Would it not be better advising the elderly to stay at home and put services in place where anyone over 75 was cared for in the way of food deliveries etc. 

[squirrelarmy]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

Nothing is stopping Boris from gurning his tits off at 5am in the Stone Circle.

Today is getting scary. 
 

First Trump started by talking sense, now BoJo is saying the right things. 
 

We’re doomed. 

[AlexOvd]

Just now, lukethekid said:

Would it not be better advising the elderly to stay at home and put services in place where anyone over 75 was cared for in the way of food deliveries etc. 

A clever move from Glasto would be offering free refunds to the ones that are in a risk group if by the time of the festival the numbers are big. 

[morph100]

10 minutes ago, MrHew said:

From latest BBC story:

"don't work as well perhaps as people think in stopping the spread".

Grammar police?!?!

[kalifire]

Much more dangerous, surely, is public transport.

Would the government really cancel an event for 200k people in a few fields in Somerset for five days, but not worry about a crowded service used by 5 million people every day?

In terms of scale, we should try not to let the value we attach to Glastonbury distort how insignificant it is within this context.

[Ayrshire Chris]

3 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Much more dangerous, surely, is public transport.

Would the government really cancel an event for 200k people in a few fields in Somerset for five days, but not worry about a crowded service used by 5 million people every day?

In terms of scale, we should try not to let the value we attach to Glastonbury distort how insignificant it is within this context.

Very true, how many folk transit through airports such as Heathrow etc every day from all over the world? No way they would shut down airports 

[Mr.Tease]

14 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Much more dangerous, surely, is public transport.

Would the government really cancel an event for 200k people in a few fields in Somerset for five days, but not worry about a crowded service used by 5 million people every day?

In terms of scale, we should try not to let the value we attach to Glastonbury distort how insignificant it is within this context.

The problem with Glastonbury in this context is that its a gathering of people from all over the country (plus the world!), who would then all be rammed close together for days, in possibly wet conditions, with compromised immune systems (from partying), then all these people would be returning to their homes--from a disease spreading angle its quite a bad combo. 

From the governments perspective, public transport is necessary to keep the economy functioning, where as Glastonbury is just a festival to them, so there's less of an incentive for them to keep it going (there was an article in the Times showing that the impact of the economy seems as high if not higher than the loss of life issue) 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Mr.Tease

[Mimo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ghsb/select-committees-live-coronavirus-committee

Well worth a watch for some nice facts 🙂

[Mr.Tease]

28 minutes ago, lukethekid said:

Is it actually as bad as it’s being made out to be? Obviously it’s very transmissible so it’s easy to catch but it also seems very easy to get rid of, obviously those at risk need to be safeguarded but do we really need to be cancelling shit?  

It's not absolutely horrific, but I think the concern is a) it hitting all at once and overwhelming services, and b) it becoming a permanent fixture like normal flu, rather than a one off event

[babyblade41]

Matt Hancock at the British Chambers of commerce  said at lunchtime that cancelling large events won't have an affect of the spread as long as the basic  rules are followed.. or words to that affect 😄 

 

Still a problem with performers showing more caution but wait and see 

Edited March 5, 2020 by babyblade41

[chazwwe]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

The problem with Glastonbury I'm this context is that its a gathering of people from all over the country (plus the world!), who would then all be rammed close together for days, in possibly wet conditions, with compromised immune systems (from partying), then all these people would be returning to their homes--from a disease spreading angle its quite a bad combo. 

From the governments perspective, public transport is necessary to keep the economy functioning, where as Glastonbury is just a festival to them, so there's less of an incentive for them to keep it going (there was an article in the Times showing that the impact of the economy seems as high if not higher than the loss of life issue) 

Its what I've been saying for awhile, If they're going to stand up and say 'well no acts of x amount of people are allowed' but still let millions of people a day use the Tube for financial purposes thats kinda inhumane. We already know by June it'll probably be widely spread. Cancelling Glastonbury isn't going to suddenly stop that spread dead, or even prevent much of it. 

[Mr.Tease]

Just now, chazwwe said:

Its what I've been saying for awhile, If they're going to stand up and say 'well no acts of x amount of people are allowed' but still let millions of people a day use the Tube for financial purposes thats kinda inhumane. We already know by June it'll probably be widely spread. Cancelling Glastonbury isn't going to suddenly stop that spread dead, or even prevent much of it. 

Yes, but from their perspective public transport is necessary for the economy to function, where as an annual event is less economically damaging to cancel - it's about weighing risks/rewards 

[TownesMR]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Yes, but from their perspective public transport is necessary for the economy to function, where as an annual event is less economically damaging to cancel - it's about weighing risks/rewards 

That perspective makes sense, but only if cancelling large events actually does anything. From what the CMO is saying, seems like he doesn't believe that. At that point cancelling events would just be a punishment with no positive outcome.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

44 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Not at all: https://residentevil.fandom.com/wiki/Special_Tactics_and_Rescue_Service

Thanks for the explanation Deaf Nobby Burton. 

[Crazyfool01]

Panic over ... so we can now obliterate this thread  

[plot2pot]

I've just realised that every opinion on this thread has been expressed at least ten times so I'm ducking out for good. See you June!

[jparx]

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Panic over ... so we can now obliterate this thread  

Eh? Did I miss something, or are you being sarcy? 😝

[Stokesy10]

Tomorrowland in Belgium cancelled...?