Coronavirus.

[Grumpy Git]

No, it's a commercial decision to maximise box office takings. Most of the income of major films comes from the first three months after release. If the pandemic reduces cinema audiences (as a part of the general avoidance of crowded places), overall receipts for the enterprise will be less, and as a side effect, the epithets of 'greatest box office on release' and 'record gross earnings' etc., will be missing when the success of the film is recorded for history and any potential awards are considered. It would be a token respect for their potential customers' health.

100% correct.

 

[Bantamzen]

The likelihood of this becoming 'just another coronavirus we'll become accustomed to' was flagged at least a month ago. There's also potential for the coming warmer months to slow the spread, at least in the northern hemisphere. Remains to be seen if that will happen.

Experts envision two scenarios if the new coronavirus isn’t contained
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/

See also,

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
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vaccine/607000/

Some interesting reading there, thank you.

 

[jon0844]

Just because it isn’t necessarily something we want to hear doesn’t mean it’s not calm or rational. It’s an estimate, and allegedly a worst-case one at that.

No point in getting overly worked up about it, as short of taking the precautions most of us already there’s precious little else we can do but wait and see how things pan out.

Hopefully Boris summed things up well the other day when he said something along the lines of “for most people this will amount to little more than a mild illness”.

My concern is giving it to my elderly parents, not my own wellness. As such, I would quite like to avoid getting it as I'm sure many others are - for similar reasons.

I can of course take extra precautions to try and prevent infecting my parents, who could potentially stay indoors (but are unlikely to want to for what could be many weeks).

 

[433N]

Ebola had beed studied during the 2014-16 outbreak and much of the research and development of immunisation products was at an advance stage. The actual treatment was introduced in 2019 following use under a 'compassionate use protocol' to expedite a protection mechanism. Ebola has a 50% death outcome, so the need for an urgent mitigation was far more pressing than for a version of influenza with an estimated 1-5% death rate. However, an immunisation development programme is running on a global scale and there are already reports of a solution working at research lab levels. That (or any other solution) will need to be put through a full programme of tests even before human guinea pigs are given it, and then there is the need to start mass production before is gets any routine distribution.
The history of medicine is littered with dire unforseen consequences of drugs and other treatments rushed into general use by mass hysteria and political pressures.

Off the top of my head I can't remember where I read about Covoid 19, I'll see if I can dig it out.



The vaccine itself won't take that long, but this isn't Hollywood, you can't just test it on a couple of people and then distribute it. Even if it became available in the next few weeks, it needs trials & certification before any mass production can be considered. That process will likely take many months. And when it does go into mass production, it will have to be funded & prioritised, all of which takes time.

Well, this is my thinking too but I'm just wondering if there is some science that I am missing (you know, those pesky facts that might justify the current sky-is-falling narrative).

I am also of the same impression that a year delay is just a delay due to clinical trials. However, that is not mentioned in the reporting. The impression given is that the virus is so deadly and so complex that it is some superspecial virus. If the true reason for a delay is the (mundane) reason of clinical trials, it detracts from the hyperbole of their hysterical reporting. Of course, if covid-19 was so virulent and such a big threat then a similar protocol would be invoked to that used for ebola with regards to introduction.

@AM9. If an earlier study of ebola allowed the vaccine to be produced quickly, couldn't the same be said of previous corona viruses. After all, it is a corona virus and I suspect there are probably proven vaccines (and protocols for making them) already in production. A minor adaptation for the current strain of covid-19 would appear to be routine unless I am missing something. Again, this would detract from the general media hysteria.

I would have thought that there might also have been some discussion of the effectiveness of broad spectrum antiviral drugs in treatment by now.

There seems to be little rational discussion or reporting at the moment.

 

[DarloRich]

There seems to be little rational discussion or reporting at the moment.

i don't know where you get your news but BBC have been very good.

 

[433N]

i don't know where you get your news but BBC have been very good.

... in your humble opinion.

( I haven't read or seen anything addressing the important issues I have raised on there - but I have learnt to wash my hands now , so thanks for that Beeb )

 

[DarloRich]

... in your humble opinion.

No. In fact. I see no hysteria, just clear factual reporting, comment from experts and advice. Perhaps the news they are reporting doesn't suit your view?

 

[433N]

No. In fact. I see no hysteria, just clear factual reporting and advice. Perhaps the news they are reporting doesn't suit your view?

So if they have been so good, why don't you just answer the questions that I've raised.
(I don't know what you mean by 'suit my view' ... bit of a bizarre comment)

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. In fact. I see no hysteria, just clear factual reporting, comment from experts and advice. Perhaps the news they are reporting doesn't suit your view?

True. I've only noticed hysteria in the news where you normally get it, i.e. filthy gutter rags like the Scum, the Mail and the Express which thrive on outrage and hysteria. But that's always been the way, and the right thing to do with those is to tear them up and hang them on the nail, not read them.

The only other place I've noticed relative hysteria is on social media, mostly among those people who, for some reason, seem to spend their lives living in fear (the same people who fear going to London because of the very occasional small-scale terrorist attack, or who think there's a paedophile on every street corner lying in wait for their kids, or who think there are daemons lurking in Milton Keynes' underpasses yet will walk across a 70mph dual carriageway on the level and get run over).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if they have been so good, why don't you just answer the questions that I've raised.
(I don't know what you mean by 'suit my view' ... bit of a bizarre comment)

I can't remember where I've specifically read it, but I did read in some news media or other that clinical trials for a vaccine will indeed take many months to ensure it is safe before it is used (and that it works), because an unsafe vaccine could kill far more than what is a relatively mild virus.

When it is released it'll also go to medical professionals before it gets anywhere near other individuals.

 

[DarloRich]

So if they have been so good, why don't you just answer the questions that I've raised.
(I don't know what you mean by 'suit my view' ... bit of a bizarre comment)

I don't have the information to answer your questions. I am not a virologist or epidemiologist and to offer an opinion opens the door to the very hysteria you seem to see everywhere! It is that ill educated wibbling that causes problems!

I can only rely on the advice given by the government experts issued via a sensible media outlet.

Like I said, there has been no hysteria just sensible reporting, at least on the BBC.

 

[nlogax]

The only other place I've noticed relative hysteria is on social media

Social media is the last place I'd want to be poking around at times like these. It's even worse than the gutter press, with added hysterical frootloops who possess a love of the caps lock key and panic-buying.

(sorry, I may be generalizing a tad)

 

[DarloRich]

True. I've only noticed hysteria in the news where you normally get it, i.e. filthy gutter rags like the Scum, the Mail and the Express which thrive on outrage and hysteria. But that's always been the way, and the right thing to do with those is to tear them up and hang them on the nail, not read them.

The only other place I've noticed relative hysteria is on social media, mostly among those people who, for some reason, seem to spend their lives living in fear (the same people who fear going to London because of the very occasional small-scale terrorist attack, or who think there's a paedophile on every street corner lying in wait for their kids, or who think there are daemons lurking in Milton Keynes' underpasses yet will walk across a 70mph dual carriageway on the level and get run over).

Spot on. it seems many people ( left and right) cant get away from their hatred of the BBC and refuse to recognise quality when they (dont!) see it

 

[433N]

I think we might then be disagreeing about what is proportionate reporting.

There is a rule of thumb in journalism that 'dog bites man' is not news whereas 'man bites dog' is.

The question arises as to whether the spreading of a virus which may or may not have a greater mortality rate than seasonal flu is worthy of the blanket coverage (around 50% of the News at Ten) it is receiving on the BBC. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I sought in my original post) it still seems to be a 'dog bites man' story.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question arises as to whether the spreading of a virus which may or may not have a greater mortality rate than seasonal flu is worthy of the blanket coverage (around 50% of the News at Ten) it is receiving on the BBC. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I sought in my original post) it still seems to be a 'dog bites man' story.

I think you only need to look at the measures other countries are taking to see why it is much more reportable than the seasonal flu.

 

[83A]

Spot on. it seems many people ( left and right) cant get away from their hatred of the BBC and refuse to recognise quality when they (dont!) see it

You are correct, I have been a broadcast engineer for 20 years, and while I'm technical you do pick up a thing or two about TV production.

I have visited a smorgasbord of news stations all over the globe and I can tell you the BBC output is still some of the highest quality and least biased that I have witnessed, for those BBC haters be very careful what you wish for!

 

[DarloRich]

I think we might then be disagreeing about what is proportionate reporting.

There is a rule of thumb in journalism that 'dog bites man' is not news whereas 'man bites dog' is.

The question arises as to whether the spreading of a virus which may or may not have a greater mortality rate than seasonal flu is worthy of the blanket coverage (around 50% of the News at Ten) it is receiving on the BBC. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I sought in my original post) it still seems to be a 'dog bites man' story.

You have just proved the point I made above ( which you questioned) You think this isnt worthy of such coverage and therefore because the news editors disagree they are acting hysterically!

As I have said previously, I don't think we will all die. I do think there is a higher than normal chance many us might get ill and be off work because there is a virulent virus doing the rounds that we don't have any "herd" immunity to or have a vaccine available for at this stage. The risk to certain groups in society seems higher than normal and it seems sensible to report this AND offer advice how you can look after yourself. I think the BBC have done this well so far. If you get your news from other outlets you may have a different view. In that case perhaps give the BBC a go.

 

[AM9]

Well, this is my thinking too but I'm just wondering if there is some science that I am missing (you know, those pesky facts that might justify the current sky-is-falling narrative).

I am also of the same impression that a year delay is just a delay due to clinical trials. However, that is not mentioned in the reporting. The impression given is that the virus is so deadly and so complex that it is some superspecial virus. If the true reason for a delay is the (mundane) reason of clinical trials, it detracts from the hyperbole of their hysterical reporting. Of course, if covid-19 was so virulent and such a big threat then a similar protocol would be invoked to that used for ebola with regards to introduction.

@AM9. If an earlier study of ebola allowed the vaccine to be produced quickly, couldn't the same be said of previous corona viruses. After all, it is a corona virus and I suspect there are probably proven vaccines (and protocols for making them) already in production. A minor adaptation for the current strain of covid-19 would appear to be routine unless I am missing something. Again, this would detract from the general media hysteria.

I would have thought that there might also have been some discussion of the effectiveness of broad spectrum antiviral drugs in treatment by now.

There seems to be little rational discussion or reporting at the moment.

Ebola is a far more serious threat in areas where it is endemic. With a 50% death rate, the relative risk of a treatment that hadn't been through all the formal testing and approvals was a fair punt. Especially as the drug had been in development for several years (see my post). COVID19 is a totally different proposition. It has a far lower death rate (so far) and pitching a that against a risk of (say) 10% dangerous side-effects of a rushed-through cure, I would guess, doesn't look like a worthwhile risk, (from an experts point of view). I wouldn't take that sort of risk and I'm glad that those who are paid to care for us won't either. They have enough problems dealing with infections that might soon be untreatable because so many ignorant patients have demanded antibiotics for inappropriate ailments - despite being repeatedly told that they won't work. Irresponsible doctors have unfortunately caved in when confronted. Maybe they need to develop some placebo injections for those clamouring for 'anything'.

 

[433N]

You have just proved the point I made above ( which you questioned) You think this isnt worthy of such coverage and therefore because the news editors disagree they are acting hysterically!

You didn't make a point above. What you said was ' Perhaps the news they are reporting doesn't suit your view? '.

If I think that the reporting of the coronavirus is disproportionate with regard to the threat it poses, that is nothing to do with the 'news they are reporting' - so your comment still stands as bizarre, sorry about that.

Once again, you have conflated what has been said and I really can't be bothered to point out the nuances you have missed.

 

[The Ham]

But that's always been the way, and the right thing to do with those is to tear them up and hang them on the nail, not read them.

Best go and panic buy newspapers then given the lack of loo rolls then!!!

 

[Temple Meads]

The question arises as to whether the spreading of a virus which may or may not have a greater mortality rate than seasonal flu is worthy of the blanket coverage (around 50% of the News at Ten) it is receiving on the BBC. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I sought in my original post) it still seems to be a 'dog bites man' story.

Very well put, and sums up my thoughts exactly!

 

[DarloRich]

BBC report that the government is to move slowly to phase 2 (delay) of its 4 stage plan in combating the coronavirus outbreak. The not obviously hysterical chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, indicated that "Community transmission was highly likely".

The rest of the report contains clear reporting and sensible advice. Sadly I am unable to detect the much vaunted hysteria in this report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51749352

Coronavirus: UK moving towards 'delay' phase of virus plan as cases hit 90

 

[bramling]

Best go and panic buy newspapers then given the lack of loo rolls then!!!

The Sainsbury's just near here (central London) toilet roll section completely bare shelves. WHY???!!! I really don't get this one.

 

[DarloRich]

The Sainsbury's just near here (central London) toilet roll section completely bare shelves. WHY???!!! I really don't get this one.

I think I get the hand gel thing but not bog roll! How much can people get through in 14 days? The BBC indicate that the government have said receiving deliveries of supplies during quarantine is perfectly acceptable.

Personally, I am worried about having no milk for my tea!

 

[bramling]

I think I get the hand gel thing but not bog roll! How much can people get through in 14 days? The BBC indicate that the government have said receiving deliveries of supplies during quarantine is perfectly acceptable.

Personally, I am worried about having no milk for my tea!

Just seen it suggested that panic buying gives people a sense of reassurance that they're in control of the situation.

Am I missing something?!

 

[Cowley]

I think I get the hand gel thing but not bog roll! How much can people get through in 14 days?

I’ll send some of our teenagers to live with you if you’re not careful. Then you’ll see.

 

[DarloRich]

Just seen it suggested that panic buying gives people a sense of reassurance that they're in control of the situation.

Am I missing something?!

there could be something in that. It will offer an illusion of controlling something ( or at least part of something) that is uncontrollable. I am just glad I did my panic buying early

 

[bramling]

there could be something in that. It will offer an illusion of controlling something ( or at least part of something) that is uncontrollable. I am just glad I did my panic buying early

I might go and panic-buy some books from Ian Allan's. Win-win, as it puts me back in control of the situation - allegedly - and gives me a lasting asset (and something I can read to pass the time if isolated!). At least more fruitful than toilet rolls!

 

[RichT54]

If you thought that people panic buying bog rolls is weird...

Commuters are putting storage boxes and plastic bags on their heads as coronavirus panic spreads

https://www.indy100.com/article/coronavirus-commuters-plastic-bag-boxes-on-heads-9376961

 

[krus_aragon]

I hope that all train operators that have toilets on their trains are ensuring they are well stocked with water, handwash, paper towels etc and that all handryers are operational.

My workplace have replaced the usual soap in the dispensers with an antibacterial variey, I can smell the alcohol-based difference. The hand dryers are still as paltry and athsmatic as they've been for decades, though.