LondonBristolian

Christ. Look after yourself. It must be a horrible thing to be going through.

Horrendous. Utterly horrendous.

Christ. That could be massive. Hope she - and everyone else diagnosed - makes a speedy recovery.

I think the flaw with your figure for number of infections in China is how enormous China is and how comparatively tiny the UK is. I think a fairer comparison would either be the % of cases in China relative to population v the number of cases in Europe relative to population or the number of cases in Hubei v the Uk . Otherwise it just is not a like for like comparison.

This may be true but a lot of people over 80 having potentially fatal illnesses at the same time puts a huge amount of pressure on hospitals and gp surgeries. Even if you take the human emotion out, the fact is that people like you and I - who have underlying medical conditions but are not at the extreme end of the “at risk” groups - may still find are health negatively impacted by an inability to get medical supplies, hospital appointments or GP appointments. There is medical equipment I am screwed without and GP services and hospitals being overwhelmed could create a lot of dangerous problems.

It is worth bearing in mind the average person with it infects 2 or 3 people. That is worse than flu but still suggests most infections will come from close personal contact with friends, colleagues or family rather than one person at a public event passing it onto hundreds of people. That is not to play down a need for concern as an infection that doubles or triplicates will still quite quickly infect large numbers but it is unlikely any single person or event will create hundreds of cases all in one go. However two or three taking it home to new parts of the country would still be a problem. If the figure is correct that 60% of people would get it if no action was taken, it should be possible to get that number down with action. But, if even a third of us got it and 1% died, that would still be 230 000 additional deaths. There were 616 000 deaths in the UK in 2018 total so that is a lot of extra deaths. (If it was 3% and over 50% of the population were infected, we are talking over a million deaths. Much over 50% and 3% and you get more deaths from coronavirus than all other causes combined) You are talking about massive, massive numbers of deaths whilst telling people they are overreacting. And anyone minimalising this because it will mostly hit elderly and disabled people ignores how many people have got elderly or disabled people in their lives they care about. The fact it mostly hits certain population segments does not make it any way okay, nor reassure anyone except the most self interested of people.

Thanks for this. Yeah, I realised I was massively over-simplifying in how I explained it!

Being reported he was at the game on Friday. If so, I would imagine our game is very, very much in doubt...

It's a frustrating one. I'm not in work today because I'm at the tail end of a cold and have got a few extra aches and pains and want to be on the safe side. And I know that, when the guidance comes into affect that people with colds have to stay at home and self-isolate for seven days, I will end up having to do that at some point. I'm also reasonably confident on what the symptoms of Coronavirus are and aren't so know full well that I don't have it now and, if the next cold I get is just a cold, I'd be 90% sure on that too. But it just isn't fair on others to take any risks. Maybe the whole thing is overblown, and maybe we are making a fuss about something that won't be as serious as people fear. But a week or two off work is nothing in the grand scheme of things so there is just no justification for taking the risk of being wrong.

Quick question, which there may well be nobody on Otib qualified to answer. Wuhan, where it first hit, and Italy, where it first hit in Europe, seem to have far higher mortality rate than anywhere else and there at least two cases - the doctor who died in China after contracting it from a patient said to have a "high viral load" and the first identified patient in Italy, who seem to have got it particularly badly despite not being in the age profile of people who get really hard by it. So my question is - do illnesses like this lose some of their lethality the more they spread? I.e. so the death rate of the first 100 people is higher than the first 1000 people and that in turn is higher than the first 10000 people and so forth? Or is there another reason why areas and people who contract the disease early seem to be horrifically affected in a way that doesn't (yet) seem to be affecting everywhere else?

Might be worth people being aware of so they can plan ahead. I'm not terribly worried about Coronavirus but seem to spend the entirety of October - April with a cold so guessing I am going to be self-isolating...

Germany are encouraging people to work from home and minimise travel and are recommending cancellation of any events of 1000 or more. Regardless of your views of the risk, I think it is sensible to brace yourself for the possibility of the same restrictions happening here. I'm massively starting to regret booking a train and hotel in Nottingham and a ticket for Ash at Rock City on the day of the Forest game...

This is true but the sad reality is sensible precautions against flu, norovirus etc. are always wise. At the moment, the consensus appears to be this is more severe than standard flu but very possibly less severe than Spanish Flu. It is also particularly frightening due to the inability to vaccinate vulnerable people against it. I very much think paying more attention to hygiene and sensible precautions is the way to go here.

Anecdotal remarks prove nothing but several people making the exact same remark about his commitment to the role are suggestive. Nobody implied he was home working, by the way. They implied he simply had no interest in the day to day activity of doing a job. I have no idea how many hours he puts in but I do know lots of people who do know all seem to indicate virtually the same thing. This thread should not be about politics, of course, so not going to go any further into this.

No offence taken at all. To be honest, it was less that I doubted myself and more than I am a lodger at the moment and had to ring 111 to reassure the people I lived with. Plus I work with some people who might be more vulnerable so felt a duty to check before turning up in work. In reality I felt pretty relaxed over the info I had found online...

I've spoken to people who worked for the Greater London Authority when Boris was Mayor. They tell me he had a tendency not to show up to work all that often and his duties were largely neglected as a result. I've seen and read others say the same.

I agree with this. I'm surprised that people are not being scanned at airports and that the threshold for self-isolation is set higher than I would expect but I don't know the science and, whilst it may be that we are failing to do things that would help restrict the spread, it may also be that some measures simply aren't as effective as they appear. For example, I don't know whether the screening is effective before people come symptomatic and, if not, the logic may be that it does not make sense to falsely reassure people they are not ill when they still could be. I had a bit of a scare last week - in short, it turned out I had been in a room with someone who may have been in the same workplace as someone who was confirmed to have Coronavirus. I rang the Public Health England line for guidance and was basically told that the risk of infection is very low unless you've had someone coughing and spluttering in your very direct vicinity for ten minutes or more, and I read earlier there is little evidence that people are transmitting the disease during the incubation period. Obviously expert opinions differ depending on where you read them but, even though this illness infects more people than flu, the average person is infecting around 2 other people. That is not a small number but, when you think how many people each of us come into contact with every day, it shows that even people with the illness are infecting a tiny fraction of the people they come into contact with. So vigilance is important but the chances of being infected on public transport or at an event are still very low and the vast majority of people will be infected by friends or family members.

I'd guess - though I don't know - that we are researching now but the "research" phase is finding out as much as we possibly can about what works and what doesn't work in terms of treating and preventing the disease once it is spread in the community. Because of the number of patients currently in the UK, I'd imagine most of the research is theoretical or based on overseas cases rather than directly observing and treating cases in the UK, which is what I would guess the research phase is.

Ah - with you! Yep, you'd obviously need to cancel then.

Are we talking about two different things here? I'd understood the logic behind cancelling matches was around cancelling large scale events to reduce the chance of it being passed on,. If we're actually saying 50-60 people cannot be in a stadium at the same for a closed doors game, wouldn't that only kick in at a point where any meeting or congregation of, say, 30 or more people was being cancelled? Otherwise what would be the logic of cancelling football matches but allowing work meetings, church services, school lessons etc to go ahead when it would involve a similar number of people being in the same place at the same time?

Surely there is more likelihood of games behind closed doors rather than all out cancellations, in any case?

The numbers are factual but only because - so far at least - far more people get flu. The evidence so far suggests cornoavirus is probably more infectious and more lethal than flu so the risk is higher. I think there is a balance to be struck. I understand why some are taking far greater precautions due to specific health risks but I don't personally yet think there is a good reason to cancel games or large scale events. I don't think it impossible that moment will come but I don't think we are there right now. On the other hand, I think avoiding non-essential international travel, washing hands regularly and self-isolating if you might have the illness are sensible moves for everyone and avoiding large scale events is a sensible precaution if you are especially vulnerable. In two weeks time I am meant to be going to Nottingham for the weekend for the Forest game and a gig. I have to admit I'm a bit apprehensive about either. I think I'll still go - because I personally don't want to put my life on hold out of fear - but I'm probably the lower end of the "at risk" groups and I get it is a personal decision. Unless by then it is taken out of my hands... What I find utterly perplexing is people stockpiling pasta and hand gel. Stockpiling pasta literally makes no sense - even if self-isolating you can still order shopping online and stockpiling handgel is based on massively counter-intuitive logic - depriving others of handgel is not a good plan for protecting yourself. There is a need to be sensible and cautious at the moment. But I think the amount of scaremongering in the reporting makes it hard to work out exactly what "sensible and cautious" behaviour is

I think so much of it is the reporting. Like yo and others, I am in the at risk group (underlying heart condition since birth plus high blood pressure, both generally under control) and my Mum is far more so. And I want clear information and advice to raise awareness and so I have the facts to keep myself safe. But the scaremongering nature of the headlines helps nobody. To deliberately take two examples from the same newspaper, I'd like to see more stories presented like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/coronavirus-reasons-to-be-reassured https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/coronavirus-symptoms-what-is-it-how-does-it-spread-should-i-see-a-doctor And far less presented like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/is-coronavirus-mutating-into-a-more-deadly-strain-face-masks-covid-19-myths-busted Clear factual information to encourage people to keep an eye out for any symptoms and take preventative steps is a really good thing. Asking scary questions in a newspaper headline to which the answer is basically "no" is the last thing we need and just fuels panic.

It mehr be depressing to cancel trips but certainly sensible. The disruption must be frustrating for your niece though.

I think the major problem with something like this is trying to separate the areas where we should realistically be watchful and take action from the areas where people are panicking or doing things that just don't work. I definitely think it is a real and serious problem and it is far better to be over-cautious than to minimise and dismiss the problem but I agree the media hype creates panic and hysteria beyond that which is helpful, to an extent that can actually be damaging and create a lot of fear. I saw someone making an interesting argument earlier, which is that it would be good if the newspapers and the media reported the survival rates, as well as the fatalities. People would still get the info they need but it would also reassure people that, even in the highest risk groups, the vast majority of people are surviving the illness. Don't get me wrong - the death rate is 15% for over-80s about 11% for all people with cardiovascular disease and that is a frighteningly high figure (especially given that I have a heart condition myself!) but, whilst you want people to prepare and take proportionate risks, you certainly don't want older people or people with pre-existing conditions becoming depressed or frightened that this is something they cannot possibly survive and I think the media could be better at reassuring those groups that most people are recovering.