Coronavirus - Is this the killer flu that will wipe us out?
Discussion
JagLover said:
schmalex said:
sherbertdip said:
Crumpet said:
It would seem logical to direct care to people with decades of potential tax paying ahead of them rather than saving 85 year olds who, bluntly, don’t.
I'm stunned at your callous approach to life's worth being how much tax you pay!This is also a very moral judgement as if you only had one ICU bed and you had a choice of two people to go into it. A young mother and an old dear with dementia then you don't have to be some Spock type to see there is only one correct moral decision.
It is all really did hit the fan, generally if you needed intensive care you would be left, as you’d tie up too much time and resource (and there are bugger all intensive care / high dependency unit beds anyway).
JagLover said:
schmalex said:
sherbertdip said:
Crumpet said:
It would seem logical to direct care to people with decades of potential tax paying ahead of them rather than saving 85 year olds who, bluntly, don’t.
I'm stunned at your callous approach to life's worth being how much tax you pay!This is also a very moral judgement as if you only had one ICU bed and you had a choice of two people to go into it. A young mother and an old dear with dementia then you don't have to be some Spock type to see there is only one correct moral decision.
If future tax is a criterion as per the post earlier this morning, then people with conditions that are going to prevent them from working on a permanent basis would be bottom of the list. That would be ridiculous. Nearby at that end would be all public sector workers, on the basis that their taxes will always involve giving back a bit of the private sector taxes they were originally paid with. That's equally unacceptable, and from the same daft criterion for deciding treatment priorities.
If you were just going to bring medical treatment down to sociatal survival pragmatism, you'd protect those who it needs most to function, of working and reproductive age, at the expense of those beyond those years.
Having to work on such a base level would be a big step for developed countries in particular, where the fundamentals of human rights and discrimination being forbidden are enshrined in both society's conscience and law.
As a worldwide society we're pretty fortunate not to have to make those choices on too stark a basis and I doubt this virus is going to make us, either.
Having to work on such a base level would be a big step for developed countries in particular, where the fundamentals of human rights and discrimination being forbidden are enshrined in both society's conscience and law.
As a worldwide society we're pretty fortunate not to have to make those choices on too stark a basis and I doubt this virus is going to make us, either.
A 29 year old female doctor in Wuhan has died.
- Admitted to hospital on 19th Jan
- Condition worsened on 7th Feb
- Died on 23rd Feb
5 weeks between admission and death, so getting on for 6 weeks between infection and death.
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4475145609577060
- Admitted to hospital on 19th Jan
- Condition worsened on 7th Feb
- Died on 23rd Feb
5 weeks between admission and death, so getting on for 6 weeks between infection and death.
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4475145609577060
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Latest figures above. The Italy, Iran and South Korea situations are very odd IMO. Japan seems to have slowed down and Singapore hasn't had any new cases. I don't know what to make of it currently.
Latest figures above. The Italy, Iran and South Korea situations are very odd IMO. Japan seems to have slowed down and Singapore hasn't had any new cases. I don't know what to make of it currently.
turbobloke said:
That's got nothing to do with tax however, whether it's tax past, present or future.
If future tax is a criterion as per the post earlier this morning, then people with conditions that are going to prevent them from working on a permanent basis would be bottom of the list. That would be ridiculous. Nearby at that end would be all public sector workers, on the basis that their taxes will always involve giving back a bit of the private sector taxes they were originally paid with. That's equally unacceptable, and from the same daft criterion for deciding treatment priorities.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used future tax as the example. You could equally bring it down to how useful to society that person is - clearly saving a nurse is much more beneficial in a major crisis than saving someone who sells Super-yachts for a living. In that example public sector workers would possibly be valued much more than high tax payers. If future tax is a criterion as per the post earlier this morning, then people with conditions that are going to prevent them from working on a permanent basis would be bottom of the list. That would be ridiculous. Nearby at that end would be all public sector workers, on the basis that their taxes will always involve giving back a bit of the private sector taxes they were originally paid with. That's equally unacceptable, and from the same daft criterion for deciding treatment priorities.
I should stress that my opinion isn’t that we should save the high tax payers or the nurses. I was simply wondering whether there was a protocol for who to save if there ever was a catastrophe.
nffcforever said:
A 29 year old female doctor in Wuhan has died.
- Admitted to hospital on 19th Jan
- Condition worsened on 7th Feb
- Died on 23rd Feb
5 weeks between admission and death, so getting on for 6 weeks between infection and death.
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4475145609577060
From information published to-date it may be helpful to be near or in a hospital with supplies of chloroquine and remdesivir plus the will to use them. Any GPs around?- Admitted to hospital on 19th Jan
- Condition worsened on 7th Feb
- Died on 23rd Feb
5 weeks between admission and death, so getting on for 6 weeks between infection and death.
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4475145609577060
There's also a new-ish kid on the block.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/chi...
Crumpet said:
turbobloke said:
That's got nothing to do with tax however, whether it's tax past, present or future.
If future tax is a criterion as per the post earlier this morning, then people with conditions that are going to prevent them from working on a permanent basis would be bottom of the list. That would be ridiculous. Nearby at that end would be all public sector workers, on the basis that their taxes will always involve giving back a bit of the private sector taxes they were originally paid with. That's equally unacceptable, and from the same daft criterion for deciding treatment priorities.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used future tax as the example. You could equally bring it down to how useful to society that person is - clearly saving a nurse is much more beneficial in a major crisis than saving someone who sells Super-yachts for a living. In that example public sector workers would possibly be valued much more than high tax payers. If future tax is a criterion as per the post earlier this morning, then people with conditions that are going to prevent them from working on a permanent basis would be bottom of the list. That would be ridiculous. Nearby at that end would be all public sector workers, on the basis that their taxes will always involve giving back a bit of the private sector taxes they were originally paid with. That's equally unacceptable, and from the same daft criterion for deciding treatment priorities.
I should stress that my opinion isn’t that we should save the high tax payers or the nurses. I was simply wondering whether there was a protocol for who to save if there ever was a catastrophe.
Paramedic
-the patient has a history of angina and is complaining of chest pains with difficulty breathing, here's an ECG
A&E Doc
-whoa, what's their age and where's their tax return history?
Strangely no more cases in the uk, which is odd considering the amount of chinese people in London. Good (for us) but odd, especially when random towns in Italy are getting it.
You would like to think that the containment of people with it is working, but there must be so many more undetected. Almost by default.
My main worry is still my 21 week pregnant wife
She does 3 days a week in London and we have a 4yr old at school. That does concern me.
You would like to think that the containment of people with it is working, but there must be so many more undetected. Almost by default.
My main worry is still my 21 week pregnant wife
She does 3 days a week in London and we have a 4yr old at school. That does concern me. Crumpet said:
jimPH said:
People who want the predicted death rate increased, are actively trying to increase the seriousness, thereby improving the response and saving lives (hopefully).
By playing down the statistics, we open ourselves up to complacency.
The exact opposite of what some posters appear to be suggesting.
A fair point but, as has been mentioned before, playing up the statistics could needlessly harm the global economy at a time when its fragile enough as it is. It’s a tough balance to get right and I wouldn’t want to be the one making decisions.By playing down the statistics, we open ourselves up to complacency.
The exact opposite of what some posters appear to be suggesting.
People would wake up the next day alive, and pick up the pieces.
Or they’d wake up dead.
Decisions decisions.
So I’ve seen quite a few people saying stuff like there is nothing we can really do besides basics like wash our hands more and just have to wait and see what happens.
Well this is quite interesting on this, and also more generally.
https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-th...
Well this is quite interesting on this, and also more generally.
https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-th...
I’m off to hunt out my tin foil hat. I am starting to think that this isn’t a bug that has jumped species but is the result of CCP failing to contain a bio-weapon.
Countries’ reaction to cases is unprecedented, with other countries (Italy) shutting down large areas at the slightest outbreak.
Why did the repatriation flight land at Boscombe Down (of which Porton is in the same complex) yesterday and then pax transferred to the Wirral? There are closer military airstrips to Liverpool that can handle a 747. Why did the plane have a police escort on the military airfield?
The fudging of figures from CCP doesn’t nothing to ease people’s concerns
The media aren’t overplaying it (like they do with ever other bloody story!). Almost as if they are being directed to downplay it
Notwithstanding that, I still maintain that, currently, the chance of catching it is vanishingly small and the chance of succumbing to it smaller again and will not allow it to, currently, impact my actions. I travel a lot to many dodgy places and am used to taking precautions to reduce risk of infection. I will continue to take prudent health & sanitisation decisions to minimise my risk of exposure
Countries’ reaction to cases is unprecedented, with other countries (Italy) shutting down large areas at the slightest outbreak.
Why did the repatriation flight land at Boscombe Down (of which Porton is in the same complex) yesterday and then pax transferred to the Wirral? There are closer military airstrips to Liverpool that can handle a 747. Why did the plane have a police escort on the military airfield?
The fudging of figures from CCP doesn’t nothing to ease people’s concerns
The media aren’t overplaying it (like they do with ever other bloody story!). Almost as if they are being directed to downplay it
Notwithstanding that, I still maintain that, currently, the chance of catching it is vanishingly small and the chance of succumbing to it smaller again and will not allow it to, currently, impact my actions. I travel a lot to many dodgy places and am used to taking precautions to reduce risk of infection. I will continue to take prudent health & sanitisation decisions to minimise my risk of exposure
Edited by schmalex on Sunday 23 February 09:15
croyde said:
So if the fatality figure is 2% and 2 have died in Italy, there must be 98 that are alive and infected.
112 confirmed cases as of the last hour. One thing to note is that they are testing with tampons and not just by measuring the body temperature. I expect figures to expand globally if the same method is applied.
t, CCP really are the scum of the earth.Figures from the John Hopkins tracker WITHOUT Hubei Province:
Confirmed cases: 14,733
Deaths: 116
Recovered: 7,908
In comparison to yesterday, 525 more confirmed cases, 6 more deaths and an increase of 448 in recovered patients.
As others have noted, it's strange how some countries had an outbreak and then infection stops? Hopefully that's due to the expected mild nature of the illness for most. However Dr Campbell (Youtube links noted a few times on this thread) has contacts he trusts in Iran, who states cases are much higher than noted officially.
Confirmed cases: 14,733
Deaths: 116
Recovered: 7,908
In comparison to yesterday, 525 more confirmed cases, 6 more deaths and an increase of 448 in recovered patients.
As others have noted, it's strange how some countries had an outbreak and then infection stops? Hopefully that's due to the expected mild nature of the illness for most. However Dr Campbell (Youtube links noted a few times on this thread) has contacts he trusts in Iran, who states cases are much higher than noted officially.
Crumpet said:
I should stress that my opinion isn’t that we should save the high tax payers or the nurses. I was simply wondering whether there was a protocol for who to save if there ever was a catastrophe.
Clinicians have a strong code of ethics. I suspect they would push back against anything not based on clinical need.Also, rather interesting and perhaps food for thought for the tin foil hat community is the outbreak in Iran. According to Wiki pages Iran has a very small Chinese population - only a few thousand. Not only is there an outbreak in various cities there seems to be high death proportionaly to cases.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff