Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, CaaC (John) said:

Coronavirus: 'Missing link' species may never be found

An "intermediate host" animal passed the coronavirus from wild bats to humans, evidence suggests.

But while the World Health Organization says that the research points to the virus's "natural origin", some scientists say it might never be known how the first person was infected.

It remains unclear whether this host animal was sold in the now infamous Wuhan wildlife market in China.

But the wildlife trade is seen as a potential source of this "spillover".

FULL REPORT

 

 

 

Dustin Hoffman would find it.

[Stan]

288 UK deaths. Steadily coming down.

Promising.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Apparently there were far more cases in Germany than were reported, according to BBC. However, it had not been fully verified at the time. 

Not sure how true that actually is when considering how countries have reported, that could be possible. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

2 hours ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Apparently there were far more cases in Germany than were reported, according to BBC. However, it had not been fully verified at the time. 

Not sure how true that actually is when considering how countries have reported, that could be possible. 

Not only in Germany, as the study you're referring to is saying that about 50% of the cases in a territory wouldn't be recognized because the infested persons wouldn't show or feel any symptoms.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Rucksackfranzose

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Not only in Germany, as the study you're referring to is saying that about 50% of the cases in a territory wouldn't be recognized because the infested persons wouldn't show or feel any symptoms.

What's the deal with schools over there? Is the plan to go back with all the kids in class at once? The current thought over here seems to be some sort of rotation with smaller class sizes, not all kids in school at once.

[Danny]

5 hours ago, Stan said:

Today's idiots

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-52532267

200 miles for fish and chips, not even decent food

[Devil-Dick Willie]

8 hours ago, Stan said:

Today's idiots

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-52532267

So they broke the law. Absolutely, and thus they deserve the fine, due to consistency.

But what makes them idiots? Two people get on a motorcycle each, never even occupying the same vehicle, go on a hour and a half ride to get takeaway fish and chips, and probably petrol I assume, and then go home. Obviously they're not about to catch the fucking virus under those conditions. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

7 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

What's the deal with schools over there? Is the plan to go back with all the kids in class at once? The current thought over here seems to be some sort of rotation with smaller class sizes, not all kids in school at once.

Depends on the Bundesland (federal country) we're talking about, as school policy is country matter. In my country only parts of the students, the the younger one's up to 13 and those taking their final exams this year have returned, classes are reduced to a maximum size of 15. How they want social distancing remaining protected, when all the other students attend school as well is a question yet to be decided, one idea is some sort of rotation.

[Stan]

7 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

So they broke the law. Absolutely, and thus they deserve the fine, due to consistency.

But what makes them idiots? Two people get on a motorcycle each, never even occupying the same vehicle, go on a hour and a half ride to get takeaway fish and chips, and probably petrol I assume, and then go home. Obviously they're not about to catch the fucking virus under those conditions. 

Idiots for breaking the law? 

Didn't think I'd be having to explain this one tbh.

When you're only meant to travel for 'essential reasons' this is not it. 

Kind of takes the piss. What makes them so special that they're allowed to drive an hour and a half while everyone else (mostly) abides by the rules? 

They might not catch the virus but that's not the point is it? It's the potential for passing it on. What about when they get to the chippy? What if they have a crash or cause an accident? Taking NHS services away from where they're predominantly needed. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

Idiots for breaking the law? 

Didn't think I'd be having to explain this one tbh.

When you're only meant to travel for 'essential reasons' this is not it. 

Kind of takes the piss. What makes them so special that they're allowed to drive an hour and a half while everyone else (mostly) abides by the rules? 

They might not catch the virus but that's not the point is it? It's the potential for passing it on. What about when they get to the chippy? What if they have a crash or cause an accident? Taking NHS services away from where they're predominantly needed. 

 

Your last paragraph is dumb. Strange what ifs and butts. Anyone can have an accident at any time and those outcomes aren't predetermined by the legality or distance of their commutes. 

The most confusing law of this outbreak has to be the restricted travel. If you drive directly from your home to your destination then the outcome is the exact same no matter the distance. You left your home, got in a vehicle, arrived at your destination. I understand the restrictions on WHY you can travel (only for essential purposes) but distance? Very odd. 

Everyone breaks the law all the time. When was the last time you J walked, trespassed, took drugs, streamed something illegally, ect.  

[Stan]

As much as my last paragraph is dumb, so is yours in the context of this conversation

You really think travelling 1.5hrs to get fish and chips can be classed as essential because the one who travelling gets to decide? What a weird take on it. Not even sure there's any point discussing it if that's your angle on it all. 

I don't think it's that strange to question it all considering it's not that unrealistic for a motorcyclist to have/cause an accident. 

Even if distance wasn't the question, how on earth is it essential to have fish and chips

[DeadLinesman]

4 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

 

Your last paragraph is dumb. Strange what ifs and butts. Anyone can have an accident at any time and those outcomes aren't predetermined by the legality or distance of their commutes. 

The most confusing law of this outbreak has to be the restricted travel. If you drive directly from your home to your destination then the outcome is the exact same no matter the distance. You left your home, got in a vehicle, arrived at your destination. I understand the restrictions on WHY you can travel (only for essential purposes) but distance? Very odd. 

Everyone breaks the law all the time. When was the last time you J walked, trespassed, took drugs, streamed something illegally, ect.  

But if EVERYONE thinks ‘fuck it, I’m going out’, traffic is busier, accidents increase, NHS resources become further stretched etc.

I’m a massive advocate for mental health having worked in the specialty, but in this case, travel is a factor. You’re at more risk travelling 200 miles for a chippy than within a 5/10 miles radius for groceries. That’s an absolute fact. It’s about the risk factors taken into account during the travel and if everyone thinks fuck it, the risks increase tenfold.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

30 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

But if EVERYONE thinks ‘fuck it, I’m going out’, traffic is busier, accidents increase, NHS resources become further stretched etc.

I’m a massive advocate for mental health having worked in the specialty, but in this case, travel is a factor. You’re at more risk travelling 200 miles for a chippy than within a 5/10 miles radius for groceries. That’s an absolute fact. It’s about the risk factors taken into account during the travel and if everyone thinks fuck it, the risks increase tenfold.

They travelled 100 miles. It's a there and back 200. 

Unless you stop at a petrol station the outcomes are exactly the same. 

[Stan]

11 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

They travelled 100 miles. It's a there and back 200. 

Unless you stop at a petrol station the outcomes are exactly the same. 

Outcomes might be the same. The risk factor isn't, though?

You make it sound like 200 miles is small-fry. It might be in somewhere like Australia but in UK it's definitely not. I don't know anywhere on their route where they wouldn't come across some urban/metropolitan areas where the risk is increased. In a 5-10mile journey then yeah you're less likely to have an accident.

In a longer journey, you're more likely to. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Sure, statistically you're more likely to have an accident, purely because you're physically spending more time on the road. Never mind that a huge portion of accidents happen within 10 minutes of a persons home, and that most people won't have an accident at all in a year. You're chances of an accident go from under 1/3rd of a percent to another, larger number at under 1/3rd of a percent. Very good. Then on top of that to need the NHS it needs to be a serious accident. I don't know how you fuckers drive in England, but I've been in 2 car accidents in 27 years of life, both were very minor as a child. As a motorist I've had none. Most people I've ever met/known have never had an accident that needed a paramedic. 

Thought exercise. 2 identical Stans. Both get in the car at 9 am and go to Tesco. One goes to his local, it's a 10 minute commute. The other goes to one 30 miles away because he feels like going for a cruise. Both arrive at Tescos, spend 15 minutes purchasing groceries and drive home. Both were exposed to the public for the exact same amount of time. You could make that 100 miles if you wanted, I only didn't because you'd be restricted in what you can purchase and bring home before it spoiled.
That's my issue with the travel bans. The only argument against it (other than shite about accidents, fuck me) is that you'd use more petrol and therefore be more exposed to the public at petrol stations unnecessarily. But social distancing and good hygiene are factors there too. 

Travel bans only exist so the cops can judge the nature of your trip by looking at the home address on your license. 

[DeadLinesman]

32 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

They travelled 100 miles. It's a there and back 200. 

Unless you stop at a petrol station the outcomes are exactly the same. 

If I run across the road in traffic and so does my 2 year old daughter and we both make it, the outcome is the same. Doesn’t mean the risk was. Again, this is about overall risk, not just risk of transmission. It’s the wider effects that need to be looked at. You’re dismissing accidents simply because it fits the rhetoric of the argument. You’re statistically more likely to have an accident the further you travel and with length of time travelled. If we’re bringing it down to absolutes and statistics, then you’re statistically highly unlikely to die from Coronavirus. So fuck it, let’s all carry on as completely normal because it’s probably not going to happen to us.

[Harry]

18 hours ago, Stan said:

Didn't Trump say he had been treated worse than Lincoln. 

The same Lincoln who got assassinated. 

And said it, in front of Lincoln's memorial. 

Yeah it's just typical ignorance and narcissistic bombast from a person that can't ever accept losing an argument.

I'm more X than person Y.

Nobodies ever done more for CAUSE X than I have.

Textbook trump.

 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52540266

Fuck sake. 

[Stan]

The important thing is the distance from window to floor for each person. Regardless of this, for the first 2 the outcome is the same. 

 

In all seriousness, this is fucked up if true. 

 

[Carnivore Chris]

55 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

If I run across the road in traffic and so does my 2 year old daughter and we both make it, the outcome is the same. Doesn’t mean the risk was. Again, this is about overall risk, not just risk of transmission. It’s the wider effects that need to be looked at. You’re dismissing accidents simply because it fits the rhetoric of the argument. You’re statistically more likely to have an accident the further you travel and with length of time travelled. If we’re bringing it down to absolutes and statistics, then you’re statistically highly unlikely to die from Coronavirus. So fuck it, let’s all carry on as completely normal because it’s probably not going to happen to us.

This is why building sites should be shut as there are risks of injury, not to mention risk of spread as it's impossible to follow these daft social distancing measures in such an environment and you can tell these politician gimps have never lived in the real world. 

Option is go in and make money or sit at home and make nothing so I'll probably go back next week. But what I don't understand is how that's ok, but not the following:-

1. Going fishing in the middle of nowhere where there are no people.

2. Having a get together of 3-5 people.

3. Meeting and banging a bird off a dating site.

I wouldn't say any of those were putting yourself or anyone else at risk more than working on a site where people aren't going to practice social distancing even if they could.

It's all about the money and that's it. Guinea pigs. 

Anyway the virus is here to stay unless they find a vaccine and there is no guarantee they will even develop one for years and years so we are fucked either way. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Carnivore Chris

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

Option is go in and make money or sit at home and make nothing so I'll probably go back next week. But what I don't understand is how that's ok, but not the following:-

1. Going fishing in the middle of nowhere where there are no people.

2. Having a get together of 3-5 people.

3. Meeting and banging a bird off a dating site.

I wouldn't say any of those were putting yourself or anyone else at risk more than working on a site where people aren't going to practice social distancing even if they could.

It's all about the money and that's it. Guinea pigs. 

Surely 2 and 3 are risky given you're still going to work (I appreciate your circumstances mean you have to).

2. If one of you have the virus, you go back to work the next day and pass it on to all or most of the people on that building site given you yourself say you can't follow the social distancing measures as it's impossible. They all go home. They pass it on to their relatives and anyone who they want to meet, even if it is another 5 people. And the cycle continues. The reason that has been stopped for now is to eliminate the risk of spreading it, which is what the main aim is, surely?

3. Similar principle as point 2 applies - how do you know you or that person you meet doesn't have the virus? Don't forget people can be asymptomatic. It's not everyone that has it immediately shows virus or immediately needs intensive care in a hospital.

So no, it's not all about the money although I admit that probably plays a big part. And so it should. Wanting to keep people healthy and also not wanting the economy to get fucked over more than it's ever been (or even more than that as time passes) are not mutually exclusive. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, DeadLinesman said:

If I run across the road in traffic and so does my 2 year old daughter and we both make it, the outcome is the same. Doesn’t mean the risk was. Again, this is about overall risk, not just risk of transmission. It’s the wider effects that need to be looked at. You’re dismissing accidents simply because it fits the rhetoric of the argument. You’re statistically more likely to have an accident the further you travel and with length of time travelled. If we’re bringing it down to absolutes and statistics, then you’re statistically highly unlikely to die from Coronavirus. So fuck it, let’s all carry on as completely normal because it’s probably not going to happen to us.

I didn't dismiss anything. Accidents happen. You're being dumb again. Almost 29000 people have died of C19 in the last few months in the uk compared to 1700 people dying on English roads in accidents per year. They're incomparable.

The idea of "You should drive short distances to reduce the risk of traffic accidents to reduce the stress on the NHS" is fucking bonkers convoluted garbage. 

[Carnivore Chris]

58 minutes ago, Stan said:

Surely 2 and 3 are risky given you're still going to work (I appreciate your circumstances mean you have to).

2. If one of you have the virus, you go back to work the next day and pass it on to all or most of the people on that building site given you yourself say you can't follow the social distancing measures as it's impossible. They all go home. They pass it on to their relatives and anyone who they want to meet, even if it is another 5 people. And the cycle continues. The reason that has been stopped for now is to eliminate the risk of spreading it, which is what the main aim is, surely?

3. Similar principle as point 2 applies - how do you know you or that person you meet doesn't have the virus? Don't forget people can be asymptomatic. It's not everyone that has it immediately shows virus or immediately needs intensive care in a hospital.

So no, it's not all about the money although I admit that probably plays a big part. And so it should. Wanting to keep people healthy and also not wanting the economy to get fucked over more than it's ever been (or even more than that as time passes) are not mutually exclusive. 

But every time I get a cold or flu, it's off someone at work. You can't social distance and even if you do, it just seems to circulate easier in a dusty environment for me. An example was the week in Jan after Christmas, my mate from Cumbria was ill, he passed it to a Scouser, who passed it to me when having my dinners in his van. I went to a new job the week after, felt ill as fuck, the next minute, 3 lads from Blackburn, 2 from Hull and 2 from Stoke had it and everyone were coughing for 2 weeks. Now, all these then take it back to the cities or towns they come from and there's another example in how an illness is spread. 

My old man's 56 and getting overweight as you do at that age. He'll have to travel all the way down South as of next week and stay down there doing non essential work, leaving my mother at home alone where she will be panicking 24/7. 

I don't give a shit about myself(other than principal) as it'll actually be nice to keep busy and be out in the fresh air more, but people I care about will be at high risk doing a job that isn't essential right now. 

Another is, if you received an injury at work now, you're then putting yourself at risk of contracting the virus by going to the hospital. Not to mention wasting NHS time and they don't need that right now.

I'll go back myself mind as it's only 0.75 miles away. Closest site I've ever worked on to home and if you save now, then when boarders are back open and everyone returns to some kind of normality, that's when you have time off and go away. I do see that as being far off however when you consider how many countries it has affected. It's going to take some form of miracle to get out of this one anytime soon.

 

3 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

 

 

Everyone breaks the law all the time. When was the last time you J walked, trespassed, took drugs, streamed something illegally, ect.

In your case, snuff porn  

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Interesting article here and has made me think a little as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52526554

[Devil-Dick Willie]

3 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

 

 

In your case, snuff porn  

Look, it's not my fault I've been single so long I can't get off without seeing a woman get decapitated mid orgasm as a minimum mate.