Wonder what effect this will have on ‘freedom of movement’ once the worst has passed particularly as virtually every country is now closing its borders.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Shut it, commie!
Print it out and stuff it inside Boris' mouth . Although it's probably too late anyway.
None, most EU countries have had their borders "closed" in the last years. What will most likely happen is that in the future we will have a EU response first instead of having localized ones.
If 50-75% of people never show symptoms this means that is way less deadlier then we believe but realistically impossible to stop the spread.
Should be a reminder for everyone how important borders are even if we all love freedom of movement.
I got a seat, getting on at London Bridge during rush hour. Could be a one off, but we'll see if it's the same again tomorrow.
There is absolutely no reason why we can't as a country foot the bill to cover this crisis. Not that it would be necessary but as a country i think people would be more than willing to accept an additional 1p on NI in the future to cover the cost.
We need big government right now.
We need big government right now.
To be fair, the alternative is for the Norgwegian economy to keel over and go into a deep recession. Well, we'll probably have a recession either way - but the effects won't be as crippling as they could have been.
I admire your faith. I reckon I have more chance of winning Euromillions than the EU being able to get its act together when it really matters.
At least the UK are doing a great job of getting their act together right now.
I could see the EU creating some sort of official protocol, but I don't see countries giving Brussels the power to close their schools, shut down their public life.
Absolutely not important in any way. Why should an arbitrary line on a map be the best place to stop movement? Without borders we could use containment based on actual science and logic instead. Border free doesn’t mean you can never curtail movement at all.
That's what should happen. What will happen is the 0.1% acquiring more and more property as more and more people go bankrupt and default on their loans and mortgages.
Bergamo is close to 3x the size of Lodi and has the third busiest international airport in Italy. The paper doesn't seem to take that into account at all, despite having a wide range of interesting stuff.
In fact one of the authors skirts back on what this might mean and agrees that they need more data:
Also:
Last edited:
I see, you are more interested in trolling.
When so many are sharing a room when really they need to be in their own isolated environment, the quality of care per patient falls like a rock. And fatality rates go up.
Then you know PPEs are in shortage too.
It's not a matter of Brussel power but a collective answer in the council. The EU isn't just the commission. It's best to not talk about it in here, I can already sense where it's going to go.
That’s fascinating. Especially the theory about asymptomatic spreaders increasing viral load and making already sick people have worse outcomes.
If 50-75% of cases are so mild they don’t have any symptoms it’s also reassuring in the context of the data that @11101 shared about 50% (ish) of positive tests ending up in hospital.
Any free market advocate will be in favour of the government giving money back to the people. Money it shouldn't have in the first place. Although protecting its citizens (and a global epidemic definitely falls into this category) is absolutely something the government should do. Even hardcore minarchists would agree with that.
I doubt that. I think it will split the EU even further. The UK has already left, and Italy is seriously pissed off at the lack of help from the EU.
There is already a fund/organisation that is designed to help move supplies, money, resources, whatever is needed in times of crisis. A country in need requests help, and other countries send what is needed. How many countries do you think helped Italy when they requested it in the early days of the outbreak? None. They ended up getting supplies from China because no other European country would give so much as a face mask. I'm pretty sure that won't be forgotten.
Fraking Seraphine in Kensigton Road will only reimburse 25% of my hotel reservation, arseholes
It's a shame that Labour are without leadership right now because these kind of proposals are what should be being put forward. I know we can't make it political or ideological but you do need opposition at times like this.
I genuinely think this is one of the only times in living memory where everyone would accept the need for future taxation increases.
My first thought was to check the relative population sizes of the two cities. Of course, that's not important to people with an agenda. It's insane how at this time people are trying to score points rather than work together.
There might some evidence that drugs such as ibuprofen might aggravate the infection
It is also unaware of exactly where in those provinces the cases occur, which makes it slightly redundant (not that i dont agree with it in general)
Lodi is a big area and only some of it was locked down from 23 February. The government has already said those areas have virtually no new cases now. Likewise, Bergamo is a big area and a big city, but the main outbreak is not in the city, it's in a valley to the North.
On the question of freedom of movement, it won't change a thing because at the end of the day money talks. Italy being upset is a different question and doesn't have an impact on the concept of FOM.
It's going to be quite a challenge here in South Africa (and the rest of Africa/developing world), when the spread of this virus hits peak. Our public services won't be able to keep up, i doubt we could expect much - if any sort of financial support from the State and if the virus gets to our informal settlements - the sickly (HIV, TB etc.) and the elderly will be at risk. Not to mention the economy isn't doing too well, as is. So people will also be financially impacted.
It’s definitely impossible to stop the spread. The point of the social isolation measures is to slow spread, not stop it. The only way this ends is when a massive proportion of the population has been infected. There won’t be a vaccine in time to stop this wave of infection.
Americans buying guns
Italians having heated arguments on balconies
British buying all the bog roll
In fairness, the original authors of the paper are engaging on Twitter and agreeing that a lot of simplified conclusions cannot be drawn. They don't even make those conclusions themselves in their paper! It's people who take their work in isolation and don't understand basic statistics who misrepresent it.
That said, the author of the South Korea vs Italy Medium article with those charts that was doing the rounds last night has now made his Twitter account private after getting scrutiny and challenge too.
Of course they need more data. Every scientist that ever published anything ever would concede that more data would strengthen their argument. Likewise we’re obviously not comparing two identical scenarios. Real life research can’t always be done with precisely matched cohorts.
Whatever, that data makes a decent (if not flawless) case for early, aggressive action. In the absence of any data that the Uk approach will save more lives (which I’d love to see someone share?) I think this is pretty fecking compelling about what is the right thing to do!
EDIT: and re Lodi being smaller than Bergamo, the fact it tracked Bergamo’s total cases early on shows just how serious an epidemic they were dealing it. Preventing that from going exponential was an impressive achievement.
When this virus hits India it will be like world war z
Fair play to them for keeping everything green.
Not that I want to turn this virus into a political debate but I suspect the Tories may have a major backlash after their response. Nothing short of incompetent so far.
@Grinner - this is a few days old but shows the mortality split by age in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...avirus-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers
Haven't bothered to find a newer one though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...avirus-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers
Haven't bothered to find a newer one though.
Bingo.
How long does the virus stay with people who are infected? Say you are a young person infected with it and you don't feel very sick, yet you stay inside for 2 weeks or so, until the virus is done it's business. The more people staying inside for the right amount of time, young people not feeling sick included, the less spread. If there is less spread there is less chance of people being infected when they go out. If you can quarantine people for the right amount of time very early, it should be manageable to control the spread that way and eventually stop it from reaching every guy and their grandmother?