[OFF TOPIC] Coronavirus Pandemic

[heywoodu 16,004]

Dutch prime minister just had his historic speech (last time that happened was during the oil crisis in 1973), where the main thing was him clearly laying out three options.

 

1. 'Maximum control' of the spread of the virus. Meaning we accept a huge number of people will get it, but we basically try and protect the vulnerable people and try to mostly keep the spread within the healthy population, thus building 'group immunity' and in the end stop the virus from spreading towards the vulnerable. The main thing of this is to make sure it's spread out over a larger period of time and hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed.

 

2. 'No control', just let it go basically. Obviously this would mean an insane peak which might be way shorter, but would completely overload hospitals and in the end be way more damaging.

 

3. 'Total lockdown' to try and stop the virus from spreading at all. This is considered to be just so incredibly impractical and unrealistic that it's not really an option. Another bad side of this is that a total lockdown will most likely take months, if not at least a year, and in the end there is no form of 'immunity' whatsoever. Basically, a total lockdown is a pure recipe to postpone the problems described in scenario 2. No thanks to that.

 

He announced we're going full-force with option 1, and I'm glad with it. It seems way better than locking everything down, which in the end is probably going to be the way more damaging.

[heywoodu 16,004]

People singing sort of an Amsterdam 'folk song' out of their windows. The translation of this tweet: "Oh guys, this is so terrible. Pure misery. Like that coronavirus in itself isn't bad enough yet."  

 

 

 

And most comments are like these:

 

"Does someone have a pen for me to stab in my eye?" and "Can someone please come and cough in my face?"  

 

I agree with the comments. Cringe, cringe, cringe to the max.

[ChandlerMne 1,204]

Looks like Montenegro will be only country without virus. Even Somalia reported first case.

 

[hckošice 15,520]

1 hour ago, hckosice said:

9 more confirmed cases this afternoon in Slovakia

 

so 

 

72 Confirmed Cases in Slovakia (+11 Today !!!)

 

+5 Slovaks in Austria

+2 Slovaks in Bali

 

Wolkswagen Slovakia and PSA Peugeot closed their factories in Slovakia today.

 

From tomorrow Obligatory wearing of masks or other stuff covering mouths and noses in all public transport vehicles and stores that are still open (Groceries, Pharmacies, drugstores, gas stations, Animal feed stores, some banks and some insurances companies and funeral services. Everything else is closed for 14 days (Restaurants have exception during the lunch time but they are closed to the public, thr doors must be closed and people have to wait for food outside and take food with them home.) in Hospitals and all offices (All offices must works only 3 hours per day from 08:00 to 11:00).

 

Update:

 

+ one new regulation. Taxis are forbidden to transport people. from tomorrow the Taxis in the country will only be able to carry goods and other material. 

[rybak 3,303]

 is going to be totally lock down from tomorrow for at least 15 days, accoridng media after Macron's speech.

[heywoodu 16,004]

Impossible to say which of the two main takes is the best, but I'll be interesting to see in a few months: total lockdown vs more of an acceptance/group immunity kind of way...

 

I think they both have significant pros and cons, very happy I'm not the one who has to decide this stuff.

Edited March 16, 2020 by heywoodu

[LDOG 2,468]

hace 1 hora, heywoodu dijo:

Dutch prime minister just had his historic speech (last time that happened was during the oil crisis in 1973), where the main thing was him clearly laying out three options.

 

1. 'Maximum control' of the spread of the virus. Meaning we accept a huge number of people will get it, but we basically try and protect the vulnerable people and try to mostly keep the spread within the healthy population, thus building 'group immunity' and in the end stop the virus from spreading towards the vulnerable. The main thing of this is to make sure it's spread out over a larger period of time and hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed.

 

2. 'No control', just let it go basically. Obviously this would mean an insane peak which might be way shorter, but would completely overload hospitals and in the end be way more damaging.

 

3. 'Total lockdown' to try and stop the virus from spreading at all. This is considered to be just so incredibly impractical and unrealistic that it's not really an option. Another bad side of this is that a total lockdown will most likely take months, if not at least a year, and in the end there is no form of 'immunity' whatsoever. Basically, a total lockdown is a pure recipe to postpone the problems described in scenario 2. No thanks to that.

 

He announced we're going full-force with option 1, and I'm glad with it. It seems way better than locking everything down, which in the end is probably going to be the way more damaging.

 

Why is this speech "historic"?

 

What is "total lockdown"? nobody working + frontiers/airports closed? I suppose excluding police/hospitals.

[Agger 1,700]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

People singing sort of an Amsterdam 'folk song' out of their windows. The translation of this tweet: "Oh guys, this is so terrible. Pure misery. Like that coronavirus in itself isn't bad enough yet."  

 

 

 

And most comments are like these:

 

"Does someone have a pen for me to stab in my eye?" and "Can someone please come and cough in my face?"  

 

I agree with the comments. Cringe, cringe, cringe to the max.

 

Can't talk about the song or the singing, but personally I like the singing.

We're slowly starting in Denmark singing a one of the classic spring songs. So far I've only seen videos with a few singing, but it may grow. We did have something playing a recorded version with a pretty  strong speaker in our area meaning that you couldn't really hear anybody sing. But it did get some attention.

 

 

[heywoodu 16,004]

11 minutes ago, LDOG said:

 

Why is this speech "historic"?

 

What is "total lockdown"? nobody working + frontiers/airports closed? I suppose excluding police/hospitals.

The prime minister speaking to the people directly like this (not in some debate or something, but live on TV in this form) is something that hadn't happened since the oil crisis in 1973, excluding maybe something less 'critical' like the death of a member of the royal family or the abdication of the queen.

 

With total lockdown I meant what I'm reading about other countries: all non-essential shops closed, borders and airports largely or completely closed and so on. Personally I think it's about finding a balance between 'not enough' and 'too much', and that's a hard balance to find. 

[Vic Liu 1,691]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

Dutch prime minister just had his historic speech (last time that happened was during the oil crisis in 1973), where the main thing was him clearly laying out three options.

 

1. 'Maximum control' of the spread of the virus. Meaning we accept a huge number of people will get it, but we basically try and protect the vulnerable people and try to mostly keep the spread within the healthy population, thus building 'group immunity' and in the end stop the virus from spreading towards the vulnerable. The main thing of this is to make sure it's spread out over a larger period of time and hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed.

 

2. 'No control', just let it go basically. Obviously this would mean an insane peak which might be way shorter, but would completely overload hospitals and in the end be way more damaging.

 

3. 'Total lockdown' to try and stop the virus from spreading at all. This is considered to be just so incredibly impractical and unrealistic that it's not really an option. Another bad side of this is that a total lockdown will most likely take months, if not at least a year, and in the end there is no form of 'immunity' whatsoever. Basically, a total lockdown is a pure recipe to postpone the problems described in scenario 2. No thanks to that.

 

He announced we're going full-force with option 1, and I'm glad with it. It seems way better than locking everything down, which in the end is probably going to be the way more damaging.

 

The term "group immunity" is introduced by Boris in Chinese media. And the media interpret it as first 60%-70% people infected and then gradually stop spread by huge amounts of antibody. If I understand it correctly, those vulnerable are already dead during this process, only those strong enough are left, more like an evolution process. On the other hand, during this process say 50% people infected with 15% are in critical condition, that means 7.5% population or 5 million people in UK need beds and medics. It's obviously over capacity. Can't imagine the picture like that.

 

So based on the interpretation above, Chinese media criticize countries trying to adopt "group immunity” are irresponsible and cruel. I am sure if I am misled by media and also I am curious about foreigners' opinion on it.