anonguest

I think these two issues are far more significant than the 'immediate' 1% mortality rate. Even IF it killed randomly across all age groups and ethnicities, rather biased to the elderly/health impaired, I would assume that if allowed to spread unhindered any society losing approx. 1% of its population would recover from the socio-economic impact within about a year or even less - IF it were a one time event. BUT.....IF the disease inflicts long term health damage on a portion of the population then the socio-economic impact could well be significantly higher than the short term effect of the initial outbreak (e.g. increased burden on welfare state, NHS, reduced productivity, etc). Then add on top of that spectre of the possibility of contracting/suffering the disease in subsequent years and the picture starts to become much more grim as to the long term effects of day to day life

Please provide a link for latest data to support that 20% hospitalisation rate. My understanding is that it is around 10%. Secondly, whilst I accept the wisdom and efficacy of the early lockdown in Vietnam, there could well be other contributing factors heloing them (and in other SE Asia countries). Namely that Vietnam is a hot and humid place, mostly. And we know that is not conducive to the virus surving long outside of hosts. BUT my main point was that base human needs/desires, such as sex, will ultimately cause the lockdowns to cease working in practice. Quite frankly even the idea of suggesting that a HUGE proportion of the sexually active population should completely cease engaging in sex/relationships, for the sort of extended peiod of time that policy makers are pushing for, is not just stupid it is morally repugnant. The very idea of formulating law and punishments for people doing something natural is downright evil.

You have just articulated, much better than me, the same sort of thoughts I have had recently as to WHY there is this seemingly disproportionate response to what, many will now argue, is not an excessively dangerous disease. Excessive in so far as it will not, if left to spread at will, result in serious and long term (i.e. more than 1 year) socio-economic damage (i.e when it is all over we will still have enough of all the people we need for society, as we know it, to keep functioning much the same as it has) I also think that a large part of it is indeed that modern Western sociry has become largely less dangeorus and much safer and death, in all forms and causes, become less of a day to day worry. so much so that WHEN something like this virus comes along it makes us feel that bit more vulnerable and helpless. So we try, to ridiculous lengths, to keep the grim reaper at bay.

The first reaction is to laugh. BUT it really is a serious issue. I had addressed this very issue just a week or so back. Sex between people not already living with each other when the lockdown came in effect had already been, in effect, prohibited. I actually put it to all here that this one factor alone will result in the lockdowns eventually ending in practice even if not officially - sooner rather than later. There really is, seriously, only so long TPTB can ask and seriously expect non-cohabiting members of the public to abstain from sexual relationships. Any policy maker who even dreams up the notion that the public will adhere to this de facto prohibition for more than 2 months is so detached from reality that they are proving themselves incompetent to occupy their role. I look at and read these proclamations and despair - given that we now know, with significant confidence, that this is not SARS or MERS or Smallpox, etc. Yes, it is somewhat more deadly than regaular flu. But so much more so that all these socially destructive acts are really necessary?

Well I may have called the wife 'your highness' on the odd occassion of frustration in the past. LOL

The wife of course.

IF you were in charge we would emigrate! 😉

Even in this picture i can see plenty of space not being used. And if you scroll down to tthe bottom of that BBC report you see, as I just now have seen, that I was right.......not much in the way of social distancing going on prior to the helicopter arrival! And, as a final point, I note that even the typically nanny state BBC doesn't even allude to this apparent lapse in social distancing, as you are, being an issue. They're out in BRIGHT sunlight (which kills airborne virus pretty quick) and in open fresh air. NOT inside a crowded supermarket. People seriously need to stop making mountains out of molehills.

My updated edit clarifies my point. No one put those people at risk other than themselves. I don't see people with guns forcing them into a tightly packed crowd. No one MADE them stand and gawp at the misfortune of others. They could have dispersed if they wanted to. So f**k 'em.

Errrrm.....how were those hundreds PUT at risk? Or, more accurately, WHO put them at risk? EVEN without the presence of the helicopter its clear to see that that beach was likely pretty darned too crowded already and, I'll wager, there was de facto no '2 metre rule' social distancing going on..

You left out a 'ZERO' option in your poll.

That won't stop the FTSE-100 likely going to the moon tomorrow on the mere thought of shops being open again. I can't help feeling that EVEN IF the economy gets back into gear/to the way things were pre-Jan really quickly......that this episode will have shaken a lot of peoples confidence and outlook in life - and focused a lot of minds on many things they had ignored or dismissed previously. One of those being that many will now be a lot more cautious with their money and less quick to spend EVEN IF it is on items that just recently thay had been plannign on buying. And that this may prevail for a quite a while after any such recovery of the economy. So this will, in effect, prevent the economy from getting back to 'how it was'

Do the latest mortality stats support that? I thought that the latest thinking is that obesity is serious aggravating factor? Plus, there is obesity and there is obesity - and we know that the degree of obesity in the states is worse than here? Even If, as you assert, the overwhelming majority will survive - there is the issue of post-recovery health damage. Do the obese that survive end up in a notably further reduced health state. IF so then the impact on US society could be significant? So IF almost all the middle obese do survive, the infection/disease, what will the affect be on their subsequent life expectancy (which presumably would already beforehand have been shorter than it should be)

Chatted with a friend who's currently living in the U.S (Texas). Reflecting on/pondering just what sort of percentage of the U.S populace has really been exposed to the virus. The most major outbreaks in the larger metropolis areas (e.g. New York) now appears to be waning? For now at least! The puzzle is......we know that the one physiological demographic that is worst affected by the virus are the obese? What are the latest stats for the mortailty rate of the obese? With the fact that there are only so far 1.6 million confirmed test infections and assuming, say generously, the actual true infected numbers are 10x that or even, generously, 20x that......then at best 30 odd million out of 360 million have been infected? 1/12th of the populace. Combine that with the knowleage that the U.S has, arguable, the most obese/unhealthy populace? Then there is argument to be made that actually this thing has barely got started in the U.S. It's spread might be more like a slow burn, as it takes time to spread out from the major cities progressively to the smaller, less densely populated and more remote communities - but it will eventually do so except to reach perhaps the most remote log cabins out in the wilds. BUT, as it does, then we can expect this virus to go through the obese sector of the populace like, to quote general Patton, sh*t through a goose. When this thing is finally over the U.S might have finally gotten rid of its obesity epidemic?