BS: New rules for the coming pandemic

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 09:42 AM

From RT so it must be false news
https://www.rt.com/news/481542-milan-zombie-apocalypse-coronavirus/

but
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/animals/supermarket-shelves-stripped-bare-as-coronavirus-fears-grip-milan/vp-BB10kd4x

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a briefing for diplomats in Geneva:

    Using the word pandemic carelessly has no tangible benefit, but it does have significant risk in terms of amplifying unnecessary and unjustified fear and stigma, and paralyzing systems. It may also signal that we can no longer contain the virus, which is not true. We are in a fight that can be won if we do the right things.

He obviously views the glass as being half full. Let us hope he is right.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 09:13 AM

There is an internal debate that fatality rates may be as low as 1% due to under reporting and an unreliable demoninator. :^/
Stock up if you can BEFORE the supply chains are effected.
It will be like camping. ;~)

See ya

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 07:31 AM

"The only remaining question is when"
quote yesterday Dr. Fauci

Dr. Fauci

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 07:21 AM

Iains with all due respect you are full of crap

There are no questions about containment. There is none.
The only question is when

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 06:55 AM

I think I'd prefer to cough rather than shit myself to death..

But both at the same time would be most unendurable...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 06:47 AM

Something I read a few years ago: the rate of spread of flu pandemics was the same in the age of jet travel as it had been in the age of sail.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 05:26 AM

It is still too soon to predict how this will all pan out. It will either be contained or not. From decades of frequent long distance flying I can vouch for the fact that aircraft and airports are guaranteed hot spots of infection.(even if it is just the common cold).I am sure it all accelerated when smoking on aircraft was banned. No need to change the air so much so saving fuel. Plus modern aircraft recirculate 50% of the air so infection is spread everywhere.
Plenty of links available from a general search of cabin air quality for the non believers to pursue.
For me flying is a no no until the epidemiology of this particular horseman is better understood and quantified.
Studies of TB transmissability on aircraft show a very low incidence but the data quality is not the greatest.(according to the Eurosurveillance journal) THe European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control quotes
"The transmission of influenza viruses, for example, is facilitated in closed/semi-closed settings through direct person-to-person contact or from contaminated surfaces. At the beginning of the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic in 2009, air travel was the cause of the introduction of this new virus into countries not primarily affected, and aeroplanes are likely to be a major vector when the next pandemic occurs. The outbreak of SARS in 2003, and influenza A(H1N1) in 2009, illustrated how infectious diseases can suddenly appear, spread and even threaten the health, economy and social lives of citizens in countries that are not or not yet directly affected by the epidemic itself." They issue a series of guidelines for specific threats.

I find it surprising that many studies just track passengers 5 rows either side of a carrier instead of everyone. What is the difference between recirulating air and circulating people? That 5 row cut off seems inexplicable to me. There seems little point in carrying out a survey if most of the passenger manifest is ignored. It skews the derived data set and makes it totally erroneus, and potentially seriously understates the risk.
But the WHO says there is lttle risk because in most aircraft The recirculated air is usually passed through high-efficiency particulate air filters, of the type used in hospital operating theatres and intensive care units, which trap dust particles, bacteria, fungi and viruses.
Once again who to believe? My belief is the WHO is massaging the feel good factor. I do not believe a word of it. Flying poses a risk that has yet to be quantified as far as airbourne pathogens are concerned.
The containment does not seem too successful thus far.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 05:24 AM

Your plans are your own. While taking precautions I would rather get sick at home. Odds are I get better and will not get a reinfection except for a mutation of Covid.

Today NIH and CDC officially announced that people should prepare for the virus now. The government basicly says everything is fine, thinking they are protecting the stock market.

To better understand where I am coming from, my Phd wife works for Dr. Fauci. So my early and continued concern has been vicarious at best.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 05:16 AM

I have a trip already booked and paid for and I won't be cancelling. Death is going to get me in the end - if I am going to die of something, I would rather it not be of boredom.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 04:50 AM

I'm not that bothered about catching the thing (though I'd rather not) but we're hanging back on booking holidays for the time being. It isn't always clear under what circumstances you'll get your money back if you can't go/if the trip gets cancelled, or if there are some curtailments apropos of itineraries, etc. I can well live without protracted fiscal complications and wranglings...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: mg
Date: 26 Feb 20 - 12:08 AM

i don't know. i just cancelled my ireland and spain trip. by may we will know more. i was planning to do a lot of train travel..trains have been stopped between austria and italy and not stopping at some stations. airplanes..i would take gloves and mask and wipe stuff down with clorox wipes. i am taking them on buses now and asking driver if i can wipe down some of the handles etc. told priest at church no more shaking hands. if i went some place i would stay in that place and not travel all over as i was planning to do..plus i was going to stay in hostels with all those backpackers. be prepared on flights with your own food and water and portable toilet.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 10:16 PM

I was stationed in Berlin in 1972-73, and I've always wanted to go back and spend a significant amount of time there. I'd like to do it this May, but this coronavirus makes me worry. Should I take the risk and go to Berlin, or am I better off staying away from international flights right now?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 05:33 PM

Oustanding. a
choo   
Gesundhiet

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 05:15 PM

From The Atlantic:

You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus

"Most cases are not life-threatening, which is also what makes the virus a historic challenge to contain."

Here's the first part of the article, in case you hit the paywall:

In May 1997, a 3-year-old boy developed what at first seemed like the common cold. When his symptoms—sore throat, fever, and cough—persisted for six days, he was taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Hong Kong. There his cough worsened, and he began gasping for air. Despite intensive care, the boy died.

Puzzled by his rapid deterioration, doctors sent a sample of the boy’s sputum to China’s Department of Health. But the standard testing protocol couldn’t fully identify the virus that had caused the disease. The chief virologist decided to ship some of the sample to colleagues in other countries.

At the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the boy’s sputum sat for a month, waiting for its turn in a slow process of antibody-matching analysis. The results eventually confirmed that this was a variant of influenza, the virus that has killed more people than any in history. But this type had never before been seen in humans. It was H5N1, or “avian flu,” discovered two decades prior, but known only to infect birds.

By then, it was August. Scientists sent distress signals around the world. The Chinese government swiftly killed 1.5 million chickens (over the protests of chicken farmers). Further cases were closely monitored and isolated. By the end of the year there were 18 known cases in humans. Six people died.

This was seen as a successful global response, and the virus was not seen again for years. In part, containment was possible because the disease was so severe: Those who got it became manifestly, extremely ill. H5N1 has a fatality rate of around 60 percent—if you get it, you’re likely to die. Yet since 2003, the virus has killed only 455 people. The much “milder” flu viruses, by contrast, kill fewer than 0.1 percent of people they infect, on average, but are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year.

Severe illness caused by viruses such as H5N1 also means that infected people can be identified and isolated, or that they died quickly. They do not walk around feeling just a little under the weather, seeding the virus. The new coronavirus (known technically as SARS-CoV-2) that has been spreading around the world can cause a respiratory illness that can be severe. The disease (known as COVID-19) seems to have a fatality rate of less than 2 percent—exponentially lower than most outbreaks that make global news. The virus has raised alarm not despite that low fatality rate, but because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 02:23 PM

Whew. (deep breath) We can relax, Covid 19 is just a hoax to hurt Trump

It is just a common cold afterall, according to Rush Limbaugh.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/rush-limbaugh-coronavirus-trump

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 10:28 AM

How private medicine could make the epidemic very much worse:

get tested and go bankrupt

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 10:06 AM

Shocking but funny. Broiled PETA with honey and ketchup sounds good for carnivores. Vegans may have an edge.

I hope we can laugh our way through this.
He who laughs last laughs best.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 09:40 AM

"Make of that what you will."

Herbivorous veggie animals can get all smug and sanctimonious as they like about carnivorous predators,
until they become lunch...

PETA are also edible...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 09:24 AM

necrotizing fasciitis?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 07:56 AM

I heard on the radio yesterday:
Members of PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) have pointed out that 'corona virus' is an anagram of 'carnivorous'.

Make of that what you will.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 06:19 AM

They call it the infodemic. Wlll this thread become infected?
Will people blame a labor party or US candidates.

Will stupidity take over. Its up to you.

It doesn't matter to the virus.

An ounce if prevention

is worth a pound

of cure

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 25 Feb 20 - 03:20 AM

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-information-for-the-public

and here is some meta cod science for mr shaw
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3108006?seq=1

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 09:05 PM

Not until Liverpool get twelve more points in the bag they bloody won't.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 06:02 PM

This was going to be Manchester United's year. Like in Italy, football games will be suspended.

Fox news fake blonde employee McCaughey was promoted to chairwoman of infectious disease by Trump and is telling people on FOX not to go to hospitals because that is where there is the most transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 11:49 AM

Covid can last 2 hours on a dry surface. Disinfectants can be found in your own area for a time. Even simple hydrogen peroxide is better than nothing. I do not favor one disinfectant over another so there is no link.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 10:11 AM

Here is a superior link to new information .

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-covid-19-is-spread-67143

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 07:05 AM

I have maintained WHO is not to be trusted in comparison to CDC usa.
There is a point it won't matter.

Investors are making bets in favor of the virus. The futures market is betting on a 800 point decline in the DOW.

For the wrong reasons, US Border Troops are sent to northern US cities.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 04:21 AM

Don't bother, pfr. They are all links to meta-cod-science-tiny-samples shite. The sort of stuff that poor Iains THINKS is science (see any of his "geological" posts...) but wot is more like the "science" that Guido the Shitbag might espouse...

A spiffing example of trolling.

I wonder if it will be deleted. But as it is posted by the hard left no doubt this post will be deleted instead.

I am sure the respected sources linked to would be delighted to know that an opinionated exteacher delares their content cod science.
The arrogance of the idiuot knows no bounds

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Feb 20 - 01:47 AM

For the benefit of misinformed Americans, here is the latest information from the UK government. I prefer to take information from people who actually know what’s going on, rather than trust Twitter and YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 07:29 PM

Mad as a box o' frogs, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 07:11 PM

what is happening in clinics in england now is that people concerned about disease are walking into the clinics or emergency rooms and bogging down the clinics..staff have to be sent home, places have to be sanitized...it is a nightmare.

it is a serious problem. just saw a video of a medical person in england I think..don't think i can find it again..saying this exact same thing. don't go the hospitals. call and get instructions.

Where are you getting this deranged crap? Fox or QAnon?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 06:48 PM

Don't bother, pfr. They are all links to meta-cod-science-tiny-samples shite. The sort of stuff that poor Iains THINKS is science (see any of his "geological" posts...) but wot is more like the "science" that Guido the Shitbag might espouse...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 02:40 PM

I'm cooking dinner, no time to read any of that yet..

So brief summary.. is now time for a sensible decision to stop or start smoking...???

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 02:16 PM

Pfr

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(19)30254-3/fulltext

https://www.in.gov/isdh/tpc/files/Smoking_and_Flu_7_18_11.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/28/1/150/4108100

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 12:51 PM

I'm curious, and it might be of wider scientific interest..

How much of a factor is smoking & vaping
in death rates and survivor rates of the new potential pandemic...???

I doubt there was any meaningful research on this factor in 1918,
when even toddlers in their cribs smoked like chimbleys.....???

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Mossback
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 10:30 AM

Where are you getting your information from?

BWM, mg explained where she gets her "facts" from a few posts back - Twatter!

Now, on to that magic wand and those assential oils......

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 07:25 AM

As Steve briefly mentioned the suspicious nature of people can be an even greater threat than the challenges of a bad cold. Hating the homeless like zombies and placing the blame on them leads to a horror of self destruction.

Never forget a King or a pauper are equal in this in vulnerability and falsely blaming others.

There is a real immune response known to actual virologists and on the other hand there is the imagined behavioral response by fearful masses.

Panic, in this case, is the fight we wage against each other.

Do not Panic.
The oods of your survival are VASTLY in your favor.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 07:18 AM

Steve, in 2006 I needed my gall-bladder removed and a pancreatic pseudo-cyst drained by open surgery. It too three weeks from my first consultation with the specialist who diagnosed the condition, to the operation being carried out. It now takes me four weeks to get to see my doctor or my diabetic nurse-practitioner.

There’s something wrong when this situation exists yet we can afford £100,000,000,000 for a high-speed railway line that hardly any of us will ever use.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 06:44 AM

Mr Red. For both rhe Spanish flu and corona virus it would seem the lungs are compromised. Yes we have antibiotics for secondary infections but the fact remains that intensive care is required when oxygenation of the blood is inadaquate. That requires resources and personnel in limited supply. Should rates of infection spiral, those most at risk will invevitably be triaged, just like any disaster when resources are inadaquate for the job in hand. A pandemic would be a repetition of the Titanic. The lifeboats are there but the numbers inadquate.

There are many contingency plans but at the end of the day resources are limited, and the UK is reckoned to be better prepared than most.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/78988/E93006.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 06:37 AM

There's a fairly substantial threat of a flu epidemic in any winter in this country. I expect my government to have plans in place for that eventuality, just as I expect it to provide funding to mend potholes and empty the bins. What I don't expect is the blame for overflowing hospitals to be laid on the shoulders of the elderly who have nowhere to go from hospital or people seen sneezing on buses. If we have money for superduper railway lines, we have money for the NHS.

In early 2013, before the Tories had had long enough to wreck the NHS, I was initially seen by a consultant and had my back operation all within three months. A couple of years before that, my wife had a series of operations on an eye. The 18-week time limit was faithfully adhered to, or bettered, every time. I know an elderly man who desperately needs a knee replacement (he's currently almost completely immobile). He was told last week that he can have his operation in 16 months' time. Early last week I made an appointment to see my GP about my painful shoulder. I still have another five weeks to wait for that appointment.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 06:09 AM

The great flu pandemic was reckoned to be a 10% mortality

If you are referring to Spanish 'flu - times were different, medical care was different. And attitudes were.

If attempts to confine the virus fail the aftermath will be untidy eg

I was told that in 1918 - returnees to NZ were anchored off-shore as a quarantine measure, only for Prime Minster Massey to take priority and ignore quarantine. NZ thought they had it sussed! Complacency & nobless oblige! He personally caused too many unnecessary deaths.

History has a habit of repeating itself, it has to, nobody is listening!

Just think, we haven't licked HIV yet, just learned to cope, badly.

But maybe, just maybe - scares like this will result in a reduction of air travel (for a while) and help with that other Sword of Damocles hanging over the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 05:44 AM

Rumour suggests is by way of acknowledging that as yet no accurate data exists.
coronavirus case
78,880
view by country
Deaths:
2,466
Recovered:
23,335
Fatality rate 3.1%
I have deliberately understated mortality in order to avoid accusations of "weasel words" by the usual.
It is a fact of life that as the number of cases increase beyond a certain level the emergency services are swamped. Nominally 350,000 victims at any one time would fill all intensive care beds.
As the number of cases increase, the quality of care becomes compromised. Creating emergency beds is easy - to have them kitted out for intensive care is not. When the lungs need help beyond simple oxygen, you will find ventilators and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation equipment are in short supply. As a result, at the height of infectious cases the mortality tate could be expected to increase markedly.
That unfortiunately is a fact.
It is still too early to be precise about how lethal this infection is. The great flu pandemic was reckoned to be a 10% mortality of the 1/3 of world population who were infected.
If attempts to confine the virus fail the aftermath will be untidy.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 05:04 AM

mg, the only ‘abusive’ posts here are from you abusing me. You made an incorrect statement, I gave you facts, and asked a question - you responded with abuse (twice now). I don’t PM people to argue with them, I’m upfront and keep it on-thread.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 04:57 AM

If you get ill and have to be treated in hospital you are not "clogging up," "swamping" or "bogging down" anything. That's what hospitals are there for. A decent government in a wealthy country such as ours should ensure that contingency plans are in place in case of major outbreaks of illness, and that includes spare capacity. Instead, we have a government that lets both the health service and care sector rot while it contemplates the next hundred billion vanity project. Of course, it's far easier to blame an innocent holidaymaker or a homeless bloke on a bus...

By the way, "rumour suggests ...." is classic weasel words which entirely destroys the validity of anything that follows.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: mg
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 04:34 AM

my answer is that you are abusive and i will not continue any conversation with you as that is my policy about abusive people. if there is a way to not see your messages, and i doubt that there is, i will take advantage of it. do not pm me.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 04:08 AM

Hmmmmm. No answer then?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: mg
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 04:04 AM

oh ffs you are too rude for me to deal with

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 03:56 AM

Semantics. How is ‘bogging down’ different to ‘swamping’?

I live in the UK, of which the ‘England’ you keep referring to is one part of four. There’s no panic. People are not ‘bogging down’ A&E departments in hospitals.

Where are you getting your information from? Here Is the latest advice issued by the UK Government.

The only ‘panic’ I’ve become aware of is here on Mudcat, in certain near-hysterical rants.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 03:49 AM

I heard someone at a shop saying they think they heard someone at church saying they think
they heard a man on a bus
say he thought he read on twitter that the virus came from the moon.. I think...


What "I think" does not matter if I thought wrong...!!!

..and everyone else with any sense
can see I didn't do any proper research or preparation
before committing my thoughts to a public forum post...

misinformation is best friends with panic...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for the coming pandemic
From: Iains
Date: 23 Feb 20 - 03:43 AM

Rumour suggests 2% of patients with the corona virus would require intensive care. The UK has around 6000 intensive care beds, of which 30% are for children. It would only require 1/2% of the population to suffer from the virus to swamp the intensive care facilities. The great flu pandemic of 1918 is thought to have infected 25% of the UK population. If not contained the implications are profound.
The critical ingrdeients for most antibiotics are now made in India and China. Most of the world's face masks are made in China and Taiwan.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/12/c_138777213.htm

Perhaps going forward the subject of what constitutes "strategic supplies" may need to be revisited.

As an aside:(New York Post)
"China’s only Level 4 microbiology lab that is equipped to handle deadly coronaviruses, called the National Biosafety Laboratory, is part of the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
"The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology recently released a new directive entitled: “Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.”

Does 2+2=5 in this case?
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-officials-discuss-novel-coronavirus-recently-emerged-china
A lot of jumping going on around the place. The fickle finger of fate or a helping hand?
With places like the Wuhan institute of virology, Fort Detrick and Porton Down can anyone be trusted?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-the-british-government-subjected-thousands-of-people-to-chemical-and-biologic