[shyams]

 fromageGB, on 2020-March-11, 06:19, said:

Let me back Felicity. I am 70, I have a long-term lung condition, and now that I have stopped rock climbing, paragliding and skiing, all of which were likely to kill me, I am now most likely to die of pneumonia. Until then I will continue to enjoy living.

I don't know you but if I were you, I would take things a bit more cautiously for the next few weeks. Sometimes relaxing at home, talking to family and friends via phone/Skype and spending loads of time online are good enough ways to keep one occupied and energised. One doesn't have to do things that exposes one to higher risks, unless the benefits are significantly higher than the risks.

At this time, the disease is not adequately understood and the propagation rates are probably significantly high*. One may well discover that propagation rates drop off dramatically once the weather gets a bit hotter (obviously a guess but, fingers crossed, let's hope it is true). It is then possible to go back to doing the enjoyable things in life to the fullest.

All the best.

Edit:* In addition, given that the disease is contagious even before one shows signs of COVID-19, the actual number of infected people could be many times the numbers detected.

This post has been edited by shyams: 2020-March-11, 10:40

[kenberg]

 pescetom, on 2020-March-11, 09:42, said:

It seems to me that you are still in the initial stage of rejection, whereas Ken is in the intermediate stage of doubt. Those of us who are already in the third stage of acceptance (when if you find yourself on the street for some good reason you automatically cross the road to avoid another person) have been through the first two stages and can understand your reactions. We too were appalled at the idea of stopping playing bridge. Then we had doubts if it was a good idea, then we were relieved we had not played. Now we find the idea simply crazy and face bigger and harder questions. Felicity, you were a nurse. Yesterday according to the radio the medics were unable to tube up an 80 year old woman with severe bronchitis because all such equipment was already in use. She died after 5 hours. I think you can imagine how the medical staff must feel in such a situation and what pressure they are under. One in six is ill themselves. And the number of sick continue to double every three days, in Italy as in France and Spain which are basically just two weeks behind. The UK has more chance to avoid the same situation but will have to learn fast and take drastic measures, not play cards.

You have me figured about right. This afternoon I cancelled my Friday game at the club. I'm not totally hunkering down but some caution seems right.

[Cyberyeti]

I am next scheduled to play bridge a week Friday, and unless anything drastic happens will do so. I was however scheduled to go to some gigs this week and am not now going to do that.

I'm quite pleased I was not scheduled to play our county congress this weekend (my partner has an old partner who comes up for the weekend) so I didn't have to worry about whether I should play that.

[cherdano]

Read the news about Italy. Or pescetom's posts. Or the twitter thread above.
Then look up here how many days it will take until your country is in the same position:
https://theprepared....-2UCHmvD5Xc-Tf8
(Hint: not many.)

[fromageGB]

I think I said my approach will probably alter if the outbreak worsens. AT THE MOMENT I am happy to play bridge. As I write it seems the population of the UK is about 70M, and the number of known cases is 460. Correct me if I am wrong, but at a rate of one in 152K I am more likely to encounter an islamic terrorist and 20 youths wielding knives before I meet someone with the virus.

[cherdano]

 fromageGB, on 2020-March-12, 06:39, said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but at a rate of one in 152K I am more likely to encounter an islamic terrorist and 20 youths wielding knives before I meet someone with the virus.

You are wrong, but we've long given up on correcting you.

[FelicityR]

 FelicityR, on 2020-March-10, 09:25, said:

We are all being drawn in by mass media hysteria and really damaging journalism that is frankly obscene. I actually loathe the Independent newspaper at the moment and its negativity about covid-19.

I now appreciate the severity of this illness, and openly admit I was unaware of the aetiology of covid-19 and the impact it is having on all nations, however, I have just read this article and, yes, it is another sensationalised piece of hyped scaremongering that we are being fed with on a daily basis. Please bring back journalists who tell the truth!

Does a member of London Zoo use the words "even worse" when speaking with The Independent. Not from what I can see. But the journalist from The Independent puts that into the header. That, for me, is why I get so livid with some sections of the press.

https://www.msn.com/...ocid=spartandhp

[Winstonm]

 FelicityR, on 2020-March-12, 15:19, said:

I now appreciate the severity of this illness, and openly admit I was unaware of the aetiology of covid-19 and the impact it is having on all nations, however, I have just read this article and, yes, it is another sensationalised piece of hyped scaremongering that we are being fed with on a daily basis. Please bring back journalists who tell the truth!

Does a member of London Zoo use the words "even worse" when speaking with The Independent. Not from what I can see. But the journalist from The Independent puts that into the header. That, for me, is why I get so livid with some sections of the press.

https://www.msn.com/...ocid=spartandhp

Felicity, I think you misrepresent news as compared to other stories. The article you link is more like a human interest story - it isn't news, IMO.

[cherdano]

 FelicityR, on 2020-March-12, 15:19, said:

Does a member of London Zoo use the words "even worse" when speaking with The Independent. Not from what I can see. But the journalist from The Independent puts that into the header. That, for me, is why I get so livid with some sections of the press.

https://www.msn.com/...ocid=spartandhp

I am happy to bet 100 GBP that you are wrong.
It's in the headline, and in the first sentence of the article. And I am 100% sure the scientists said it. Why? Because
(a) journalists normally don't make up quotes, and
(b) it's obviously true (with the qualifier "could"). [Why obvious? Scientists have warned for a while like a pandemic like this one could happen. And how could they possibly know that nCov-19 is the worst possible one? Impossible to know, hence it's normal to say that there "could be" a worse one.]

Obviously I wouldn't bet since that would just be taking money off you for no good reason. Instead, you can just google and quickly find the original press release on which this is based:
https://www.zsl.org/...uture-pandemics

Quote

The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future - possibly even worse - global pandemics like COVID-19.

If you think everyone else if full of *****, then maybe you are genius. Or...

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2020-March-12, 17:03, said:

I am happy to bet 100 GBP that you are wrong.
It's in the headline, and in the first sentence of the article. And I am 100% sure the scientists said it. Why? Because
(a) journalists normally don't make up quotes, and
(b) it's obviously true (with the qualifier "could"). [Why obvious? Scientists have warned for a while like a pandemic like this one could happen. And how could they possibly know that nCov-19 is the worst possible one? Impossible to know, hence it's normal to say that there "could be" a worse one.]

Obviously I wouldn't bet since that would just be taking money off you for no good reason. Instead, you can just google and quickly find the original press release on which this is based:
https://www.zsl.org/...uture-pandemics


If you think everyone else if full of *****, then maybe you are genius. Or...

I think the problem is the word "like", make it "than" and it would make a much more cogent case. I don't see this as worse than Ebola due to the much lower death rate.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-12, 17:12, said:

I think the problem is the word "like", make it "than" and it would make a much more cogent case. I don't see this as worse than Ebola due to the much lower death rate.

I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Let me rephrase. Common sense would tell you that a virus of the sort that 2019-ncov is could happen again- if something can happen once or twice, it can happen three times or four times. Common sense would also tell you that it might be worse, or it might not be. Hence the article doesn't say anything surprising.

But I guess if you start reading it with an irrational bias that all news media are sensationalising everything, then you are able to confirm that bias.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2020-March-12, 17:31, said:

I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Let me rephrase. Common sense would tell you that a virus of the sort that 2019-ncov is could happen again- if something can happen once or twice, it can happen three times or four times. Common sense would also tell you that it might be worse, or it might not be. Hence the article doesn't say anything surprising.

But I guess if you start reading it with an irrational bias that all news media are sensationalising everything, then you are able to confirm that bias.

Please stop patronising me, I am a trained scientist of sorts

"The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future - possibly even worse - global pandemics like COVID-19." it's the "like" in there that I feel should be a "than" and that's what the article that uses it has amended it to.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-12, 17:42, said:

Please stop patronising me, I am a trained scientist of sorts

"The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future - possibly even worse - global pandemics like COVID-19." it's the "like" in there that I feel should be a "than" and that's what the article that uses it has amended it to.

My comment about irrational bias was not about you.
But I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you replace "like" in the above sentence with "than", you get a sentence that in my understanding of the English language is grammatically incorrect. And also in my understanding, the sentence you quote there says that a future pandemic could possibly be even worse. Which is what the article said that got Felicity upset.

[kenberg]

Listening to NPR while driving home, I learned that Maryland will be closing K-12 schools after this week through Mar 27. Next week was already a spring break, so that's only a week of scheduled classes that, as of now, will be missed. Partly this is to give time for thorough cleaning but I at least believe it is also a pause to wait and see.

I'll try to relate this to the topic of bridge club closings.

Let's say fifteen year old Stevie goes to school tomorrow. The chance of Stevie getting the virus is indeed small. Let's now say all of the kids in Maryland continue going to school as if there were no problem. The chance that some of them probably a fair size number, getting the virus seems to be pretty large (I made Stevie 15 because I understand that young children seem to be spared by the virus).

So a bunch of teens get the virus. Buy, for quite a while, they won't know they have it. They will be spreading it.

Same with bridge clubs. I'm 81 and I have some medical issues so I suppose if I get this it will kill me. That's reason enough to watch out, even if my odds of getting it playing at one game are low. But that's just me. My odds of getting it are, for the moment at least, probably pretty small (Imo anyone who confidently gives a purported number for just what the odds are is naive). A bridge club is sort of like a classroom, except usually there is about three times as many people and they are all handling the same cards. Ok All Souths are handling the same cards, all Easts are handling the same cards and so on.

So I would rather not die, and believe it or not there are some other people who would prefer that I don't die, but to the extent it's all about me then why not let me judge? The answer is that it is not all about me. There is a substantial danger of this overwhelming our resources. If I need to do something, I do it. But many things are optional, and I can think some about whether. Stevie might well not get this by going to school, I might well not get this by playing bridge but with many students some will get it, with many bridge players some will get it, and then they will pass it on.

The idea that this is just all something whipped up by the media to sell papers is just not so. Of course one can find examples of sensationalism. But I don't read that stuff. I read about health care experts, professionals that say this will get substantially worse before it gets better, who say that, contrary to assurances from the White House, we do not have nearly enough testing equipment, the danger of not having enough beds nurses or doctors is real.

Here is an illustration of the testing problem in the US. It's also something I heard while driving home (long drive). There is this guy who plays basketball for the Utah Jazz (I don't follow the sport so I don't know who). He was, om another day, giving an interview and joking/smirking about the virus, then he rubbed his hands over various microphones held by reporters. Soon after that he was diagnosed with the virus. So right away they tested the other Jazz players, one of them also had it. But on the NPR program I was listening to they were talking to one of the reporters who had a mic that was smeared. Did he get tested? No, he wanted to be tested but he had no symptoms so he did not qualify for testing. Besides being a thoroughly repulsive story, it seems to settle the issue of whether we have, as our president keeps telling us, a great testing program. Having to confront this problem when we have a president who lies, there is no way it can be an honest mistake it is a lie, about the the testing program and other basic facts concerning this life-threatening disease is a serious problem for Americans. But the virus is a problem for everyone.

[FelicityR]

 cherdano, on 2020-March-12, 17:03, said:

I am happy to bet 100 GBP that you are wrong.

Obviously I wouldn't bet since that would just be taking money off you for no good reason. Instead, you can just google and quickly find the original press release on which this is based:
https://www.zsl.org/...uture-pandemics

If you think everyone else if full of *****, then maybe you are genius. Or...

Thank you for that, cherdano. I am neither a genius or experienced in zoology, but I do think the press purposely 'sex up' - an expression used about certain aspects of the evidence of the Iraq War - articles to make them more controversial, therefore more likely to be read by the general public.

Nowhere in that article does it state something along the lines "A scientist (who wishes not to named) who works for ZSL says that the next pandemic could or will be 'even worse'." Actually, the reply by the Director General of ZSL, is an even-handed factual statement about 'zoonotic diseases' and the possibility of further pandemics. The word 'possibly (even worse)' is used in the text of the original ZSL article, and that's how the Independent should have reported it, in my opinion.

Maybe the one thing I have become is cynical in my later years because I know that advertising space and enabling cookies are connected to articles read online, and by making articles more controversial that they actually are will generate more 'hits' thus generating more income to the source provider.

That's why I have an ad-blocker on my computer - though that doesn't stop the functionality of the 'cookies' - so that I am not bombarded with lots more dross online, from selling me funeral plans to organic cat food and everything in between.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2020-March-12, 18:29, said:

My comment about irrational bias was not about you.
But I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you replace "like" in the above sentence with "than", you get a sentence that in my understanding of the English language is grammatically incorrect. And also in my understanding, the sentence you quote there says that a future pandemic could possibly be even worse. Which is what the article said that got Felicity upset.

"The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future - possibly even worse - global pandemics LIKE COVID-19."

The phrasing of this is really poor, ambiguous and gramatically incorrect. What I think they are trying to say is that there may be a pandemic worse than COVID-19 in the future by this transmission route, and that is accomplished by using the word THAN in English, not like. You can also read the sentence as written because of the word like to say that COVID-19 IS already the much worse case.

And if you didn't intend "But I guess if you start reading it with an irrational bias that all news media are sensationalising everything, then you are able to confirm that bias." to be about me, then don't put it into a direct reply to my post.

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-13, 04:27, said:

"The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future - possibly even worse - global pandemics LIKE COVID-19."

The phrasing of this is really poor, ambiguous and gramatically incorrect. What I think they are trying to say is that there may be a pandemic worse than COVID-19 in the future by this transmission route, and that is accomplished by using the word THAN in English, not like. You can also read the sentence as written because of the word like to say that COVID-19 IS already the much worse case.

And if you didn't intend "But I guess if you start reading it with an irrational bias that all news media are sensationalising everything, then you are able to confirm that bias." to be about me, then don't put it into a direct reply to my post.

Grammatically, I think you are wrong. The phrase "possibly even worse" is separated by dashes, which act the same as commas, setting that phrase aside from the main sentence. The understanding of the sentence is: The UK should invest in better understanding of diseases in wildlife populations, and the routes to these becoming human diseases to drastically reduce the risk of future global pandemics like Covid-19, and some possibly worse.

"future global pandemics like Covid-19" is accurate. The sentence structure could be improved, but it is accurate and grammatically correct IMO.

[barmar]

 FelicityR, on 2020-March-12, 22:24, said:

Nowhere in that article does it state something along the lines "A scientist (who wishes not to named) who works for ZSL says that the next pandemic could or will be 'even worse'." Actually, the reply by the Director General of ZSL, is an even-handed factual statement about 'zoonotic diseases' and the possibility of further pandemics. The word 'possibly (even worse)' is used in the text of the original ZSL article, and that's how the Independent should have reported it, in my opinion.

True, the "clickbait" environment the news media lives in causes them to use sensationalized wording in headlines. Headlines often make things seem more extreme than the actual articles.

Which means you need to read the whole thing, not just the headline, to get the real story.

[euclidz]

 fromageGB, on 2020-March-12, 06:39, said:

As I write it seems the population of the UK is about 70M, and the number of known cases is 460. Correct me if I am wrong, but at a rate of one in 152K I am more likely to encounter an islamic terrorist and 20 youths wielding knives before I meet someone with the virus.

460 . . . . That was two days ago, two days earlier it was 300 and two days later it is 798. At that rate of growth calculate how many days before someone in your Bridge Club with the virus is sat next to you?

[hrothgar]

Economists have long lamented that we aren't able to run realistic large scale experiments. "In this world we'll follow a policy of strictly setting the growth of the money supply at 1.3% regardless of what happens while in this other identical world, we'll use discretionary fiscal policy". And of course, you can't do anything like that with epidemiology, well up until now...

Looks like the Brits have volunteered to try a radically different approach to coronavirus... "Let's promote Herd Immunity!" which, as far as I can tell is a sophisticated branding campaign for "The virus will run wild, but eventually the weak will all be dead and, in the mean time, we can still go off and see football matches and drink down at the pub."