ChippenhamRed

It’s not illogical at all. You want to delay the virus where you can while balancing the economic risks of doing so. In the case of football, the risk of spread outweighs the economic damage. In the case of public transport, the risk of economic damage outweighs the risk of spread. It may reach a point where there is justification for shutting down everything - and we might even be at that point now - but that doesn’t make the argument illogical. An economic disaster can itself become a health disaster, so it is entirely reasonable to attempt to strike that balance.

Football is still on as of right now. Anfield was full last night. If the mass gathering ban comes in it will apply to racing too. Not really sure what your point is.

I’m not convinced it’s double standards in this case. It’s a ban on mass gatherings, and it happens to be that football gatherings are generally the biggest, most frequent and therefore attract the most attention in this scenario. Of course you could get it on the tube, but it’s about balancing the economic risks v the health risks. If you shut down transport systems, your whole economy suffers and businesses cease to function. Cancelling sports events has a much less widespread economic impact. Your ski trip comment is also flawed; that’s just one travelling demographic. English football fans were still travelling to away matches in Europe at the same time. I am sympathetic to the argument that football supporters are treated like second class citizens. But I’m not entirely convinced that’s really what’s going on in this situation.

It's not about the absolute figure right now, it's about the potential for a worsening, out-of-control situation that overwhelms healthcare services and kills much larger numbers of vulnerable people. China shut down an entire city to prevent spread. Italy has put itself into lockdown. Italian healthcare services are already being overwhelmed by a relatively small percentage of infection in the context of their entire population (https://www.ft.com/content/34f25036-62f4-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68). Have you considered why the authorities in those countries decided to take such drastic measures? It wasn't the media that made those decisions. Preventing the spread is not simply about the risk to the individual, which is thankfully very small for most of us; it's about keeping the load on healthcare services to a manageable level. It's about avoiding a hugely disruptive large peak of illness where huge numbers of people are all ill at the same time - as well as protecting vulnerable members of society who (unlike flu) don't have the protection of a vaccine.

“While the viruses that cause both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza are transmitted from person-to-person and may cause similar symptoms, the two viruses are very different and do not behave in the same way. ECDC estimates that between 15 000 and 75 000 people die prematurely due to causes associated with seasonal influenza each year in the EU, the UK, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. This is approximately 1 in every 1 000 people who are infected. By comparison, the current estimated mortality rate for COVID-19 is 20-30 per 1 000 people.” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/novel-coronavirus-china/questions-answers How much longer before the “it’s just flu” brigade finally grasp the potential threat of an infection with a far higher fatality rate and no vaccine?

I guess the 4,378 people who have so far died just weren’t made of stern enough stuff.

Yes, I think an uncontrolled outbreak of an infection with a fatality rate statistically far higher than flu, without the protection of a vaccine, DOES have the potential to overwhelm healthcare services and kill a lot more people than flu. Hence the drastic measures being taken in some countries. Given that we’re currently on a very similar trajectory to Italy, which is now in the midst of an unprecedented national shut-down, I don’t actually think the “panic buying” is that hard to understand. Rightly or wrongly - and I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do - it’s a response to a potential repeat situation here, rather than the threat of the virus itself.

I’m just going to copy and paste precisely the same reply I gave you yesterday:- These constant attempts by people to dismiss Coronavirus as “just like flu” are getting tiresome. There are good reasons why the world is reacting very differently. “While the viruses that cause both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza are transmitted from person-to-person and may cause similar symptoms, the two viruses are very different and do not behave in the same way. ECDC estimates that between 15 000 and 75 000 people die prematurely due to causes associated with seasonal influenza each year in the EU, the UK, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. This is approximately 1 in every 1 000 people who are infected. By comparison, the current estimated mortality rate for COVID-19 is 20-30 per 1 000 people. Despite the relatively low mortality rate for seasonal influenza, many people die from the disease due to the large number of people who contract it each year. The concern about COVID-19 is that, unlike influenza, there is no vaccine and no specific treatment for the disease. It also appears to be as transmissible as influenza if not more so. As it is a new virus, nobody has prior immunity which in theory means that the entire human population is potentially susceptible to COVID-19 infection.“ https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/novel-coronavirus-china/questions-answers

The health minister no less. Elite level irony.

I agree it seems unlikely we will end up with that many deaths. However, the “people” you refer to are the UK chief medical officer - and it’s not a forecast as such, it’s a reasonable worst-case scenario and one he said was unlikely. That’s not “scaremongering”, that’s one of the most qualified medical experts in the country making a statement based on considered analysis. https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/80-people-uk-catch-coronavirus-worst-case-scenario-12339867/amp/

While I share your concern about the economic damage, I can’t get behind your simple maths. The problem is they’re too simple, and don’t account for a huge number of variables, and the broadly unpredictable nature of the spread of the virus itself. A few things off the top of my head: - The virus in China was predominantly centred around Wuhan, rather than evenly distributed across the country. - China is geographically huge, and far less densely populated than the UK (365 people per square mile in China, 671 in the UK). - China took drastic measures, shutting down an entire city. We’ve responded with a few posters on washing your hands. - Travel patterns in a country are linked to the culture, demographic and wealth of its people; the way people move around China may not be directly comparable to Western Europe. - The nature of reporting itself has a large margin of error. It’s possible many more died who weren’t reported or whose deaths weren’t attributed to Coronavirus. I’m sure there are other variables, but these are just a few examples that spring to mind.

These constant attempts by people to dismiss Coronavirus as “just like flu” are getting tiresome. There are good reasons why the world is reacting very differently. “While the viruses that cause both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza are transmitted from person-to-person and may cause similar symptoms, the two viruses are very different and do not behave in the same way. ECDC estimates that between 15 000 and 75 000 people die prematurely due to causes associated with seasonal influenza each year in the EU, the UK, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. This is approximately 1 in every 1 000 people who are infected. By comparison, the current estimated mortality rate for COVID-19 is 20-30 per 1 000 people. Despite the relatively low mortality rate for seasonal influenza, many people die from the disease due to the large number of people who contract it each year. The concern about COVID-19 is that, unlike influenza, there is no vaccine and no specific treatment for the disease. It also appears to be as transmissible as influenza if not more so. As it is a new virus, nobody has prior immunity which in theory means that the entire human population is potentially susceptible to COVID-19 infection.“ https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/novel-coronavirus-china/questions-answers

I’ve read some expert comments on twitter saying that the escalation in Italy isn’t directly comparable to the UK because they have a different population demographic (very broadly, older), a different healthcare setup (I don’t understand what difference that makes to spread), and most pertinently there was a hot spot of spread in one particular area that went undetected by the authorities until it was too late. I personally find the economic impact almost as concerning as the health risks (with due respect to those most at risk). I can’t begin to imagine what a shutdown might do to some businesses.

What a mind-numbingly pointless comment.

Italy just quarantined 16,000,000 people and you’re still trying to portray this as a media-driven storm in a tea cup?

Exactly - I genuinely don’t understand how we can expect the situation not to get as bad here as it is in Italy if we’re not taking proactive steps to prevent it doing so.

The thing I don’t understand is this. Yes, the situation is not as bad here currently. But Italy have taken drastic measures - first shutting down specific towns, and now a whole region. Given our tactics are currently limited to advice on basic hygiene, what reason do we have to believe there won’t be a similar escalation in cases here?

It’s about the balance of risk versus economic and societal impact. Cancelling sport is relatively inconsequential and is an easy way to reduce spread. Closing down transport systems brings society grinding to a halt and creates a whole host of knock-on problems and economic damage. Choosing to cancel sport whilst keeping transport systems running is a pragmatic attempt to strike that balance. It’s not the same as saying it’s OK. If the situation became truly dire, then it could become necessary to take more drastic steps like closing down the tube.

That’s not the same thing as the chance of getting it as some point though is it. When the chief medical officer talks about a worst-case scenario of 80% population infection and 20% of the workforce off sick, clearly the threat is greater than that - even if the outbreak eventually proves to be far less widespread than the worst-case projection. Clearly based on the current infection rate there wouldn’t be any need to cancel the season or take other drastic measures. It’s the potential evolution of the scenario that could prompt such steps - and we simply don’t know yet how it will pan out.

Panic buying yes, but I think that’s a response to the prospect of self-isolation, rather than panic about the virus itself. A society truly “panicking” would amount to a lot more than a shortage of loo roll at Tesco. I think the overwhelming majority of us appreciate the risk is small and are continuing to go about our daily business.

I keep hearing people claiming that “people are panicking”. Where is this apparent panic? Strikes me that more people are claiming there’s a panic, than there are people actually panicking! What I’ve seen in the main - much like this thread - is sensible discussion, an appreciation that the fatality rate is low, but equally an understanding that it does represent a threat to some members of our society, that it does have the potential to become a bigger problem, and that there are measures we can take to help prevent the spread. Meanwhile everyone is still going about their business unless they have a specific reason not to do so. None of the above constitutes a “panic”.

Odd how making a calm, considered, factually accurate point prompts people to say things like “get a grip” and “hysteria is beyond a joke”. It is a fact that the fatality rate is substantially higher than flu, and it is also a fact that we can all take simple measures to help prevent the spread to vulnerable people who would otherwise survive. And it’s not hysteria to state that.

My 3% is based on the following from the WHO: “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.“ https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 I appreciate “reported” is a significant word there, but nonetheless it’s a clear statement from the WHO that the risk is substantially greater than ordinary flu.

This sort of thoughtless ambivalence and disregard for the vulnerable is more dangerous than any “overreaction”. Just getting on with our lives and making no adjustments for a virus with a 3% fatality rate will literally kill people.