Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
LetsBuild

Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Will! said:

An aerosol is droplets of liquid suspended in a gas.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-droplet-and-airborne-means-of-transmission

 Virus was thought to be droplet only.. ie you need to be standing close enough for an expelled droplet to reach you or touch things that droplets have landed on.

 

Now they say that it also spreads in small aerosol particles that will hang in the air, too.  Making it even harder to avoid infection as they will be much more widely dispersed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, rollover said:

And what about the content of the Amazon parcel?

You obviously missed my poor attempt at Gallows humour!

Hopefully after 3 weeks the virus will have lost its impact - or perhaps mutated into an even more dangerous Royal Mail strain when it infects other parcels superspreader style?

Edited by MARTINX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

Then again how often has the official advice been disastrous recently?

Would you stay put in a burning tower block?  This is what they were telling people.

There are no statistics on this.  Citing one anecdotal example as a reason to suddnely throw out all official advice is farcical.  Michael Fish was wrong in 1987 - does that mean we now need to ignore all weather forecasts forever?  Clearly no, as last weekend's storm arriving exactly as predicted shows.

48 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You need to put that into context against the number of people who have died in various incidents not following advice.

Indeed - and all those whose lives have been saved by following it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You need to put that into context against the number of people who have died in various incidents not following advice.

As far as the coronavirus goes, I'm not particularly worried. The odds of getting it here, and dying, so far don't look high enough to be rationally worried. But people do tend to get worried unduly about things - "well it can happen and has happened!", which isn't surprising when there are so many people around and so much news but leads to people overreacting to risks that are minimal, albeit not zero, to them. I'm surprised people aren't living in terror of tripping over their shoelaces to be honest.

The main risk is the likely knock on effects of an epidemic and the resulting effect on food supply chains (in extreme cases, possibly even power and water supply disruption).

 

And if you are unlucky enough to require hospitalisation (for any reason, not just the virus), good luck getting treatment in an overburdened system which will be no more effective than the one in Wuhan by that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-droplet-and-airborne-means-of-transmission

 Virus was thought to be droplet only.. ie you need to be standing close enough for an expelled droplet to reach you or touch things that droplets have landed on.

 

Now they say that it also spreads in small aerosol particles that will hang in the air, too.  Making it even harder to avoid infection as they will be much more widely dispersed.

Your aerosol 'particles' are droplets of liquid suspended in a gas.  All coronaviruses can be spread by aerosolisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

And if you are unlucky enough to require hospitalisation (for any reason, not just the virus), good luck getting treatment in an overburdened system which will be no more effective than the one in Wuhan by that stage.

The key point there about whether I'll worry or not is "if you are unlucky enough." If I've got to be very unlucky I'm not concerned. If I was to worry about anyone it'll be my sister, who lives in London and has been prone to every lung infection going since a bout of pneumonia a few years ago but at present we're not at that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Will! said:

Your aerosol 'particles' are droplets of liquid suspended in a gas.  All coronaviruses can be spread by aerosolisation.

There is a marked difference between droplet transmission and aerosolised transmission (ie airborne). They are not the same thing.

 

Flus were long thought to be droplet only, research in 2018 suggested they may also be aerosolised.

 

As far as I know, colds are droplet only.

 

Until the other day, nCov was not thought to be capable of aerosolised transmission. Now it has been stated that it is indeed 'airborne'.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The key point there about whether I'll worry or not is "if you are unlucky enough." If I've got to be very unlucky I'm not concerned. If I was to worry about anyone it'll be my sister, who lives in London and has been prone to every lung infection going since a bout of pneumonia a few years ago but at present we're not at that stage.

" I'm not worried about it because I'm pretty sure it won't happen to me ".

Can't fault that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

There is a marked difference between droplet transmission and aerosolised transmission (ie airborne). They are not the same thing.

They are the same thing.  I don't like appeals to authority, but I'm an intensive care doctor.  I've worked with all kinds of infectious diseases, including H1N1 influenza.  Droplets can be aerosolised, that's just a physical fact.

Some viruses can be spread by aerosol but are less likely to establish infection because they're fragile and aren't viable for long outside of the body (like 2019-nCoV, which has a lipid envelope) or they don't gain entry to the body though the respiratory tract (like norovirus).

Edited by Will!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

" I'm not worried about it because I'm pretty sure it won't happen to me ".

Can't fault that logic.

Well yes, of course. Yet you sound sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Will! said:

They are the same thing.  I don't like appeals to authority, but I'm an intensive care doctor.  I've worked with all kinds of infectious diseases, including H1N1 influenza.  Droplets can be aerosolised, that's just a physical fact.

Some viruses can be spread by aerosol but are less likely to establish infection because they're fragile and aren't viable for long outside of the body (like 2019-nCoV, which has a lipid envelope) or they don't gain entry to the body though the respiratory tract (like norovirus).

http://ata-medical.com/2017/04/03/what-is-airborne-transmission/

Seems to make it pretty clear that there is a difference between airborne and droplet transmission but it seems pointless to keep arguing.


No doubt if you're in an ICU environment there isn't much of a practical difference.

I wish you the best as if this thing takes off like it looks it could, you'll be on the front lines.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rollover said:

And what about the content of the Amazon parcel?

I've got an isopropanol spray.  Electronic gadgets seem to survive a light spraying with isopropanol.  I've done phones and TV remotes with it and they worked afterwards (however this is your own choice whether to trust this experience or not).

Don't smoke whilst doing this or do it near the fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2020 at 17:43, markyh said:

Before the 1st world war. Gun laws were first introduced after the end of ww1 because the elite worried about the hundreds of thousands of demoralised working class men coming home with a rifle and ammunition, which was often reported lost and not handed back in. 
 

Having seen what had was happening to Royalty / upper class is Russia due to the armed poor, they needed laws to get people to give up their guns. 
 

I believe they where strengthened after the end of WW2 for the same reasons. Dad at home no job, no money, no work, angry at the government with a bren gun in the cupboard and 300 rounds of .303 ammo.!

Yes, I believe more weapons would have found their way back after WW1 and definitely by the end of WW2 a large number of men combat trained and able to organise very effectively due to their war experience were considered a political threat, hence the large house-building program at the end of WW2, and the tightening of gun laws as well maybe, but were the masses ever ready or willing to overthrow the ruling elites, very unlikely IMO, most people were just glad to have survived and be home and happy to slot back into the well ordered top down rule that kept things ticking over, and men who had seen exceptional bravery or leadership skills from some of the officer class would likely have more, not less respect for the "Ruling Class" than they did before mixing with them in the war as they would never have done in civilian life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder what would have happened during the migrant crisis of 2015 if this had been kicking off then and infections were happening in the Middle East and North Africa.

Also I wonder how large the percentage of people is who secretly welcome the zombie apocalypse scenario,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jolly Roger said:

I can't help but wonder what would have happened during the migrant crisis of 2015 if this had been kicking off then and infections were happening in the Middle East and North Africa.

Also I wonder how large the percentage of people is who secretly welcome the zombie apocalypse scenario,

Judging by the content of posts on this thread so far.....I'd say about 50%!  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Fake Coronavirus Cures

Treatments billed as miracle cures have cropped up across the internet. Online posts have claimed to reveal various “cures” for the new coronavirus. Some are benign, like eating boiled garlic, while others are potentially dangerous, like drinking chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach. None of these will treat or cure the virus.

There are no vaccines or antiviral treatments that are recommended to prevent or treat the new coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients, however, can receive supportive care to treat their symptoms.

factcheck

 

Some people just believe in whoever are simply naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

 

Coronavirus: expert warns infection could reach 60% of world's population

Exclusive: Hong Kong’s leading public health epidemiologist says other countries should consider adopting China-style containment measures

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/11/coronavirus-expert-warns-infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population

Yeah, maybe a month ago. Moronic UK gov preferred to wait until we had infected people in the wild.

Councillor on Brighton council is claiming the government is covering up what is really going on:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18225378.brighton-coronavirus-it-spiralling-control/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MancTom said:

Councillor on Brighton council is claiming the government is covering up what is really going on

So many people on HPC have said things like "it's the fear and panic that will do more damage than the virus itself"... to me it reads like they're trying to tread the fine line between trying to control the spread of the infection whilst not creating a mass panic.

There's no point saying "please could all 230,000 residents of Brighton come forward to be tested please" since there isn't capacity to test that many people.  So they intentionally limit the pool of people they ask to be tested to the very highest risk groups to maximise the chance of finding any more infected people.

Put another way...what would YOU do when faced with the situation that you have capacity to test 200 people (say) in a city where 230,000 people might have come into contact with the infection?  Spread mass panic by saying "we have no clue who has been infected" or just quietly ask the most likely 200 candidates to come forward for tests...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

Sounds pretty science-fiction-y.

This being 2020, do we have a cool avatar/logo for it too?  (in line with computer viruses and bugs)

 

☠️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

.what would YOU do when faced with the situation that you have capacity to test 200 people (say) in a city where 230,000 people might have come into contact with the infection? 

UK can currently test 1000 per day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 314 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.