@Dezzy Indeed. Social gatherings need to be kept to a minimum. Or, if possible, only done in VERY small groups, and then these groups would indeed need to be of one household. You just can't risk spreading the virus. It really is that simple. As I tried to explain in my previous comment, there's not just black and white, black being total lock-down and white being "let's just completely ignore the danger and keep on going like we normally do". I'm just proposing a grey middle ground with people using their heads to apply some plain old common sense.
You don't want to get sick or land in an ICU, so in return, that means that you should also take care that nobody else does. And if that means not going to festivals, not going to the supermarket every damn day or staying and working from home, then so be it. Every little thing we do that works against those measures, will only make this situation last even longer than it already does, so nobody wins in that case.
If I take myself as an example: I am an independent contractor, currently unemployed because I can't get any new contracts or assignments, mainly due to the situation. But over here, we are supported by the government, and I still have some savings, so I'll be alright for many months to come, and truth be told, I'd rather be unemployed than ultimately having to find myself in an ICU, a place where I may not come back from. I'm not really THAT old, but I am almost 50, so I'm not the youngest either. The rule in general is that if you land on the ICU, and your situation worsens to a point where they have to put you in a medical coma, chances are VERY slim that you'll get out alive.
So, obviously, I'd like to prevent that from happening, and the way they are handling things here, seems to work just fine. It isn't the greatest thing in the world to experience, but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than the alternative...
@Dezzy Ummm California does have a big problem with the virus, if it didnt I wouldn't have been sitting home these past two months and it's looking like I will not be working till July the earliest. I do have some saving I can use but it's more the psychological toll it's taking on me and the fact that I enjoy working. Millions are in my shoes too so if this isn't a big problem to you I hate to see what is.
The per capita death toll in California is tiny. It's about 30th out of 50 states in terms of per capita risk.
If you look at the regional graph on here, it's also completely concentrated in the 2 or 3 main metropolitan areas. Look at the death count for all of that area above San Francisco. Pretty much close to zero deaths in the entire northern third of the state:
I just don't think that justified a full state lockdown, and I think the tiny numbers compared to places like NYC almost guarantees there's some other factor here. Probably the temperature.
Well that's an assumption that I'm very skeptical of. I mean California had a hell of a long time between when the virus first emerged (November/December), and when it officially locked down (March 19th).
I think the reason it didn't get as bad as NYC is probably due to the differences between these places. 3 massive differences that probably have a big effect:
-Population density (NYC has pop density 10 times as high as LA)
-Public transport usage (subway usage in NYC is more than 10 times as high than in LA)
-Temperature. Pretty much every study has confirmed the virus doesn't spread as much in higher temperatures.
My speculation is that in places like this, moderate social distancing with masks and hand washing, is probably enough to stop it becoming a big issue. That seems to pretty much be working in Sweden. They have a worse problem than neighbouring countries but it's not that much worse. And they won't have a "second spike" like all of the places that have locked down.
@Dezzy The temperature issue is more involved than just the dry temp, though. There's humidity and relative humidity, dew point and surface life, an individual's respiratory system and its adaptation to a humid or dry climate. Then there's the genomic mutations and strain variations. CoViD-19 has a longer half life at higher temperatures than previous coronavirus illnessess But also, Australia and Iran haven't seen climate effects on transmission. SARS and MERS weren't affected by seasonal differences or climate environments to any degree that gave a bit of bet-hedging.
There's enough study to say there's not a reason to assume seasonality or climate will make a difference.
#MudStrongs
Switch Friend Code: SW-7842-2075-5515 | My Nintendo: HobbitGamr
Where are you getting the Australia claim from? They've had a tiny number of deaths too, and the virus started during their summer. That would surely fit the idea that heat stops it?
Also, as far as I'm aware, Iran is quite cold in January/February as well. Which would fit the idea that colder places are more likely to see a problem.
@Dezzy This specific virus thrives in a human body; 37°C. Unless it's hot enough for the proteins to denature (50+°C), I don't see why warm weather alone would affect the virus. The concept that ''cold'' causes the flu for example is a myth. The reason why seasonal flu happens mainly during winter isn't entirely understood yet, but it also happens in warmer countries. Seasonal flu doesn't happen year-round in Iceland for example; despite the fact that the daily mean temperature in summer isn't higher than the daily mean temperature during winter in Italy for example.
In fact, in the tropics and subtropics near the equator, flu can hit several times more than once a year, or can have more complicated patterns of flu waves.
Current hypotheses very widely why it happens mainly in winter, but there are more variables than temperature or climate alone. General habits, like staying inside during winter may be responsible. The lack of vitamin-D may make us more susceptible; yet none of these tell the whole story.
It's complicated for sure; and I certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion that temperature kills the virus.
The reason the scientists give in this bbc article is that the virus encases itself in a layer of fat and proteins when outside the body, and those hold together longer in lower temperatures:
@Dezzy IMO, it just depends on what you read. Because as the article also highlights, it's complicated, and nobody knows for certain yet.
Pandemics often don’t follow the same seasonal patterns seen in more normal outbreaks. Spanish flu, for example, peaked during the summer months, while most flu outbreaks occur during the winter.
[...]
A study from the University of Maryland has shown that the virus has spread most in cities and regions of the world where average temperatures have been around 5-11C (41-52F) and relative humidity has been low.
But there have been considerable numbers of cases in tropical regions, too. A recent analysis of the spread of the virus in Asia by researchers at Harvard Medical School suggests that this pandemic coronavirus will be less sensitive to the weather than many hope.
They conclude that the rapid growth of cases in cold and dry provinces of China, such as Jilin and Heilongjiang, alongside the rate of transmission in tropical locations, such as Guangxi and Singapore, suggest increases in temperature and humidity in the spring and summer will not lead to a decline in cases. They say it underlines the need for extensive public health interventions to control the disease.
This is because the spread of a virus depends on far more than simply its ability to survive in the environment. And this is where understanding the seasonality of diseases becomes complicated. For a disease like Covid-19, it is people who are now spreading the virus, and so seasonal changes in human behaviour can also lead to shifts in infection rates.
Yes I agree no-one knows for sure yet. But the correlation between temperature and death count is incredibly high when you look at the global data (obligatory 'correlation does not imply causation' siren), so it seems fairly plausible when you combine it with these various studies, and the behaviour of other similar viruses.
@Dezzy Where are you getting the numbers from though? I haven't looked into it, but I see equally as many sources saying that ''increases in temperature and humidity in the spring and summer will not lead to a decline in cases'' or along similar lines in that article you linked. Additionally, I think correlation-causation are very important here. Maybe it's indirectly caused by warmth, and the fact that people are more outside during summer. If the lock-down is still in place, how much of that still applies? There are too many variables, and the way we act might cause it to behave completely opposite of what we expect a virus to behave like under normal circumstances.
Which numbers? I haven't done a regression analysis or anything. I'm just looking at all of the places that have high death counts and noting that they're pretty much all in temperate climates. Even within countries that holds true. In Italy, like 90% of the deaths are in the colder north, and not the warmer south. In the US, about 80% of deaths are in the north-east.
Obviously other factors are gonna be at work too, that's why I listed other things like population density. But this seems fairly plausible to me.
@Dezzy It's currently warmer in Milan than in Naples. And the temperature in both cities was comparable in March as well. Between 15 and 20°C for both. Some days one was higher, and some days the other, but I don't see any big difference.
Population density plays a big role. New York is one of the biggest cities and gets more foreign traffic than other US cities. Same is true for Milan, also a big city with a lot of foreign travel. And of course it's not a pure numbers game. Chance also plays a role, but bigger cities tend to be hit the hardest, because of their population density.
Also, comparing countries 1-to-1 isn't the best measure. Countries near the equator also tend to be more poorer. How many people are tested in South Sudan for example? Are deaths even reported in the first place? Relatively speaking, the death toll is higher in Italy than in Norway for example. So that would suggest it thrives in warmer environments (note: I'm not actually saying that, it just depends on the data you cherry pick). It also depends on where the virus is introduced first, and when the lock-down went in place, as that does a lot to hamper the spread as well. So if Milan got hit first, and then they put the lock-down in place, then it's only logical that the south doesn't get as bad as the north, where it was allowed to spread for days or even weeks before the country was locked down.
Well the spread in northern Italy happened in Feb, and the google NOAA data suggests Milan was about 5 degrees colder in Feb. I take your point though, that that difference probably isn't big enough to explain much. But both of those places in February are still quite cold, so do fit the more general temperature trend I'm suggesting.
Obviously there are other factors though. I'm saying temperature might be a necessary condition. But it's definitely not a sufficient condition.
That wouldn't mean much for quite a lot of places, but it would mean that places like LA are likely to be ok, if it's true.
Mere days before our city (and state) reopens, there's a huge spike in confirmed cases here (we went from under 30 to over 300 this one week, nearly all connected to an outbreak at a meat packing plant), but the city council/mayor decided they're going to go through with reopening anyways.
This means I'll have to go into work next week (I've been working from home since mid-March & would gladly do so all summer if necessary), and while I'm not worried about the office per se (it's still going to be closed to the public next week), I am worried about the cab rides I have to take to get there.
In IL our stay-at-home order has extended to include pretty much all of May as well, though they're slightly relaxing a few restrictions. I expect to work from home for this month as well. There aren't a ton of cases in my immediate area - most local outbreaks have unfortunately been in long-term care facilities - but Chicago and its surrounding counties are getting hit pretty hard. Numbers are getting higher by the day, though a lot of that is due to an increase in testing availability.
Overall I'm not against them still being cautious, but I feel like they should have relaxed restrictions a bit more than what they're doing in some instances. I'm not saying they should stop social distancing by any means and do believe masks should still be worn in indoor public areas like supermarkets, but some people are sorely in need of a paycheck. Many are dealing with the mess that is the unemployment system right now. Some companies are even complicating that for their employees.
The thing is, you know if they relax things TOO much, too many people will become careless.....
That looks like diarrhea on the left and plasma on the right.
Where do I get one?
with diarrhea?
i hate to say, however
theres plenty of that to go around
the_shpydar wrote:
As @ogo79 said, the SNS-RZ-USA is a prime giveaway that it's not a legit retail cart.
And yes, he is (usually) always right, and he is (almost) the sexiest gamer out there (not counting me) ;)
Ugh my mum's aunty just died from this. I might now go conveniently quiet in defending some of the people flouting the lockdown.
She was in her 80s and in hospital already, but still it really brings home how real it is.
Forums
Topic: Coronavirus outbreak
Posts 841 to 860 of 1,532
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic