new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

tuxy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Warning I cannot confirm the source so it could be AI generated or from a different outbreak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czTONW70IX0

While that is better than most who post no source at all, it is an official press conference so it should available on official news source. I had a quick look and could not find it yet.
I would be worried if the WHO were to contradict their official written statements during a press conference.

tuxy

givyjoe wrote: »

That is complete and utter nonsense. The airborne theory was literally reported in mainstream media new broadcasts, as was the original theory of transmission from the asymptomatic patient in Germany. Commenting on those reports is clearly not panicking, its ridiculous to even infer that. Again, no posts I have seen could remotely be construed as panicking.

Source?
The WHO still say it is not airborne, are there other health organisations contradicting this?

pc7

Bloody hell what’s happened in here? Is everyone hangry over lunchtime? I haven’t seen anyone scaremongering or panicking. It’s been a fairly well discussed topic (it is a discussion board after all) with both sides ‘nothing to see here’ to ‘throw a few bits in the press’ Incase we need to stay in for a bit. I’ve found it a mostly interesting thread with lots of good sources and info (and some that looks fake so I make my own call on it) of a potential threat not just physically but even economically for the world. Absolutely no need for the agro being posted at all, can we just get back to as we were and be thankful we aren’t in Wuhan/Hubei!

tuxy

pc7 wrote: »

Absolutely no need for the agro being posted at all, can we just get back to as we were and be thankful we aren’t in Wuhan/Hubei!

Is it ago to ask for a source when someone is posting information that can not be found easily on google?

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

I would also take the same stance on my house burning down. There is a negligible risk that this will happen any given year, less so as neither myself nor my wife smoke (or even drink much) therefore we are by default less likely to have moments of being negligent or not sober to be careful. But I have house insurance to rebuild my house if it does burn down, a smoke alarm as an early warning device and a small fire extinguisher under my sink in the Kitchen that may hopefully help me prevent a potential fire from going out of control. Is that me panicking or just taking some measures that in the highly unlikely chance of a fire in my house I have some safety nets to help reduce the impact?

Yes but the real question is 'are you more likely to die of a normal flu than a house fire?' If yes then sure you may throw out your fire alarm!

Sorry couldn't resist!

4068ac1elhodqr

Somedaythefire wrote: »

That's not airborne. Airborne means the virus can survive through air circulation. If it was airborne you'd get infected just by being in the same area as someone who has it. With this, and pretty much all coronaviruses, you need direct contact with the droplets from an infected person, or to touch and transfer those droplets off surface to your nose or mouth.

Point was that aerosols can be 'temporarly suspended' in the air, unlike droplets which won't be suspended for very long as they're larger/heavier.

If you spray air freshener in a room, leave the room, then come back after 20mins chances are you can still smell the flowers as the aerosol is still suspended. After 3hrs, not so much if at all.

SeaBreezes

Somedaythefire wrote: »

It has absolutely not been confirmed that it's airborne. It is said to spread through respiratory droplets.

There's a good discussion on it here:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/unmasked-experts-explain-necessary-respiratory-protection-covid-19P

Milton cautions that the difference between aerosol and droplet transmission is largely in name only. Respiratory droplets, emitted with a sneeze or a cough, are commonly thought to land within 6 feet of patients and are too large to be buoyant on air currents. Respiratory aerosols are droplets too, Milton said, but smaller and light enough to travel farther.

"You cannot tell the difference epidemiologically between something aerosol transmitted by weak sources and large droplet spray," said Milton. "They behave so similar, it's very hard to pick up the difference."

He said he suspects the capability of long-distance transmission with COVID-19 will be connected to source strength, or how symptomatic a person is.

What I found interesting in that rte q&a was this quote:

"It's possible we will get a small number of cases, but if we believe the figures it looks like the Chinese authorities have done a good job containing the virus," he said.

"If we believe the figures". Interesting wording. I understand of course that the figures can change with retrospect after the event. Not to mention errors can be made and so on but to use the words 'if' and 'believe' suggests (to me) that maybe this expert doesn't believe the Chinese and if he doesn't believe it then does that undermine him saying we'll only get "a small number of cases".

I don't know, the wording just stood out to me. If he'd said "if the figures are correct" it wouldn't have.

saabsaab

Saw a headline today stating that the two flown back from the cruise ship here were 'not screened'. I know that they are supposed to be in 'self quarantine' but that seems mad.

givyjoe

tuxy wrote: »

Source?

Oh for gods sake. From now on I'm going to demand a source for every single post of yours :rolleyes:.

TV news, ITV for the airborne piece (hang on til i trawl through my TV recordings of the last 2 weeks broadcasts to find which one of these reported it).. as for the asymptomatic patient, there's multiple sources if you google it. I am not the one writing these reports or TV pieces for Christ Sake!

Again, seen as you keep missing the point I made.. no evidence anywhere to back up a ludicrous claim that it isn't easily transmissible, when the situation on the ground clearly contradicts this.

Please provide us with a source, quoting scientific research that confirms this is NOT easily transmissible. I look forward to it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Aerosols can also behave differently to droplets, depending on atmospheric conditions.

A hot fart in a cold room, with air-con moving cold air into ground level (cold air sinks) and the said flatulance will may 'linger' about longer savourly - at head height.
(best not to visualise such).

A hot breath on a winter's night will rise upwards, not fall like a cooler heavier, faster-velocity sneeze droplet.

Anwyay, the big ship may be using low quality air filters and very high volume of circulation.

Fr_Dougal

Nijmegen wrote: »

Oh here we are back at "Ahh is it really serious." Government agencies have a job to preserve public order, which allows them to more effectively deal with the problem. So look at what they do rather than simply listening to their soothing words.

There's nothing to worry about, but:

• We've cut out 90% of international air travel capacity to China
• 10% of the worlds population is on lockdown
• They're spraying the streets with disinfectant
• Many countries have banned travel, rather than simply advised against it
• Citizens are being flown to the likes of military bases for quarantine when evacuated
• Factories and businesses have been so affected that production lines are shutting down and companies are warning of shortages for all sorts
• The public aspect of the Tokyo marathon, in a country with relatively few cases, has been cancelled and less than 1% of participants will now run

Like, sit back and say "It'll all be grand yeah", but maybe let people who think they might be wise to buy in a few provisions away with themselves just in case. The actions of government officials are not actions of people sitting in their offices saying "This? This is nothing."

Would you expect anything else from the HSE?

Zero accountability, they don’t give a toss.

tuxy

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh for gods sake. From now on I'm going to demand a source for every single post of yours :rolleyes:.

TV news, ITV for the airborne piece (hang on til i trawl through my TV recordings of the last 2 weeks broadcasts to find which one of these reported it).. as for the asymptomatic patient, there's multiple sources if you google it. I am not the one writing these reports or TV pieces for Christ Sake!

Again, seen as you keep missing the point I made.. no evidence anywhere to back up a ludicrous claim that it isn't easily transmissible, when the situation on the ground clearly contradicts this.

Please provide us with a source, quoting scientific research that confirms this is NOT easily transmissible. I look forward to it.

Ok fair enough so not confirmed officially to be airborne yet.
If you have other confirms about how it is transmitter that is understandable just don't say something is confirmed when it has not been. I don't need sources for everything it would just be nice to have them for things that deviate from official information, I'm aware official info is not always correct but there is also lots of inaccurate unofficial info. That's why I find having a source for it to be beneficial

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/coronavirus-airborne-what-symptoms-cure-3855267

“For the new coronavirus, we still need to see the data and understand how transmission has been assessed.”

You can see why posts such as this can be considered inaccurate and scaremongering.

givyjoe wrote: »

It's been previously confirmed to be airborne,

givyjoe

tuxy wrote: »

Ok fair enough so not confirmed officially to be airborne yet.
If you have other confirms about how it is transmitter that is understandable just don't say something is confirmed when it has not been.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/coronavirus-airborne-what-symptoms-cure-3855267


You can see why posts such as this can be considered inaccurate and scaremongering.

No, I can't. Perhaps you're just very very easily scared. Interesting you quoted an earlier post, which i then clearly stated as being incorrect. Genuinely not sure what your game is. Continue to stick your head in the sand/misconstrue what people have said all you wish, but do me a favour and put my posts on ignore. I have foolishly engaged with you in good faith, I wont bother any more. I've asked you three times to answer a fairly simply question, and you either can't or won't.

Lastly, don't tell me what to post.

tuxy

givyjoe wrote: »

No, I can't. Perhaps you're just very very easily scared. Interesting you quoted an earlier post, which i then clearly stated as being incorrect. Genuinely not sure what your game is. Continue to stick your head in the sand/misconstrue what people have said all you wish, but do me a favour and put my posts on ignore. I have foolishly engaged with you in good faith, I wont bother any more. I've asked you three times to answer a fairly simply question, and you either can't or won't.

Lastly, don't tell me what to post.

The inaccurate post is still there and has yet to be amended.
I just don't understand the compulsion to even make such claims.

givyjoe

tuxy wrote: »

The inaccurate post is still there and has yet to be amended.

:eek: And?! Why on earth would/should I bother changing it, considering the post that followed?! This is boards, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Bizarre stuff.
For the love of god, stop wholesale changing your posts after the fact. Seriously poor form.

There is no compulsion to do anything. What is with your bizarre compulsion/posting style?

tuxy

givyjoe wrote: »

:eek: And?! Why on earth would/should I bother changing it, considering the post that followed?! This is boards, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Bizarre stuff.
For the love of god, stop wholesale changing your posts after the fact. Seriously poor form.

There is no compulsion to do anything. What is with your bizarre compulsion/posting style?

givyjoe wrote: »

Lastly, don't tell me what to post.

:mad::mad::mad:

.

cnocbui

https://www.reddit.com/r/corovirusdata/comments/f5w2r6/bbc_china_wrote_an_article_stating_china_has/

At a press conference held in Shanghai, health and epidemic prevention experts confirmed that in addition to direct transmission and contact transmission, the transmission route of new crown pneumonia also includes "aerosol transmission".

Aerosol is a colloidal dispersion system formed by solid or liquid small particles dispersed and suspended in a gaseous medium. In simple terms, aerosols are small liquid or solid particles that are stably dispersed and suspended in the air and cannot be seen by the naked eye.

The so-called "aerosol transmission" means that the droplets are mixed in the air to form an "aerosol", which causes infection after inhalation.

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=2&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/amp/world-51427216%3F__twitter_impression%3Dtrue&xid=17259,15700022,15700043,15700186,15700191,15700259,15700271,15700302

Why would anyone doubt it's airborne?

BlackEdelweiss

I posted this in the diabetes forum but just found this place and thought I would see what the thinking on here is.


My 19 year old son is a Type 1 diabetic, he recently got the flu while in Paris and had a bad DKA incident which left him in ICU for 5 days and took him a few weeks to get over it all.

Him and his New Zealand girlfriend are planning on going back to NZ in May. The problem is that due to the corna virus, flights on Chinese Airlines are at rock bottom price for long haul flights. They want to book a ticket from Dublin to Taiwan to Auckland.

Given his diabetes I am quite worried about this virus anyway but I think he is putting himself in harms way by flying this route with a Chinese Airline. For the sake of a few hundred euros he could fly with another carrier to the middle east or USA routes.

I do a lot of risk assessments for work, my analysis is as follows: Liklihood of catching the corona virus from a Chinese Airlines plane or while in Taiwan airport = low (but probably higher than with another carrier and route). Severity of catching the virus as a Type 1 diabetic with an already weakened immune system = high. Risk rating = Medium.

For a medium risk level I would review my current proposal and additional control measures or identify and remove elements that are considered as posing the greatest risk. We cant remove the diabetes so the only changeable factor is the travel route.

Am I getting caught up in the mass hysteria surrounding the virus or would this be considered an unacceptable level of risk for a type 1 diabetic to take. It is getting to the point now where we are arguing about it and this is not how we want them leaving.

Call Me Jimmy

tuxy wrote: »

The inaccurate post is still there and has yet to be amended.
I just don't understand the compulsion to even make such claims.

The WHO chief said it was airborne. Why did none of his colleagues correct him there or can you find a written statement where they corrected him after? They are so concerned about panic and misinformation, wouldn't they be like 'woops, better put out a statement about his mistake'. Should be a quick google for you.

They say they don't have enough evidence, and the head of the organisation also said it is airborne. Two pieces of information, which together without a correction is reasonable for people to think it may be airborne.

Apparently the sliding scale between droplets and smaller droplets is hard to really quantify? I don't know if it is or isn't 'airborne' but the WHO chief obviously thought it was.

givyjoe

tuxy wrote: »

:mad::mad::mad:

.

???? Care to elaborate. Hardly an unreasonable request to stop making massive changes to your post after the fact. Telling someone as to the content of what they should/shouldn't post is fairly obviously not your place. Wouldn't have thought such a thing would need explaining. Again, bizarre stuff.

tuxy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

They say they don't have enough evidence, and the head of the organisation also said it is airborne. Two pieces of information, which together without a correction is reasonable for people to think it may be airborne.

Yes if that video is a recent press conference then it is confusing conflicting information.

timmyntc

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

I posted this in the diabetes forum but just found this place and thought I would see what the thinking on here is.


My 19 year old son is a Type 1 diabetic, he recently got the flu while in Paris and had a bad DKA incident which left him in ICU for 5 days and took him a few weeks to get over it all.

Him and his New Zealand girlfriend are planning on going back to NZ in May. The problem is that due to the corna virus, flights on Chinese Airlines are at rock bottom price for long haul flights. They want to book a ticket from Dublin to Taiwan to Auckland.

Given his diabetes I am quite worried about this virus anyway but I think he is putting himself in harms way by flying this route with a Chinese Airline. For the sake of a few hundred euros he could fly with another carrier to the middle east or USA routes.

I do a lot of risk assessments for work, my analysis is as follows: Liklihood of catching the corona virus from a Chinese Airlines plane or while in Taiwan airport = low (but probably higher than with another carrier and route). Severity of catching the virus as a Type 1 diabetic with an already weakened immune system = high. Risk rating = Medium.

For a medium risk level I would review my current proposal and additional control measures or identify and remove elements that are considered as posing the greatest risk. We cant remove the diabetes so the only changeable factor is the travel route.

Am I getting caught up in the mass hysteria surrounding the virus or would this be considered an unacceptable level of risk for a type 1 diabetic to take. It is getting to the point now where we are arguing about it and this is not how we want them leaving.

Flying through Taiwan is not risky, I wouldnt worry about it

cnocbui

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

I posted this in the diabetes forum but just found this place and thought I would see what the thinking on here is.


My 19 year old son is a Type 1 diabetic, he recently got the flu while in Paris and had a bad DKA incident which left him in ICU for 5 days and took him a few weeks to get over it all.

Him and his New Zealand girlfriend are planning on going back to NZ in May. The problem is that due to the corna virus, flights on Chinese Airlines are at rock bottom price for long haul flights. They want to book a ticket from Dublin to Taiwan to Auckland.

Given his diabetes I am quite worried about this virus anyway but I think he is putting himself in harms way by flying this route with a Chinese Airline. For the sake of a few hundred euros he could fly with another carrier to the middle east or USA routes.

I do a lot of risk assessments for work, my analysis is as follows: Liklihood of catching the corona virus from a Chinese Airlines plane or while in Taiwan airport = low (but probably higher than with another carrier and route). Severity of catching the virus as a Type 1 diabetic with an already weakened immune system = high. Risk rating = Medium.

For a medium risk level I would review my current proposal and additional control measures or identify and remove elements that are considered as posing the greatest risk. We cant remove the diabetes so the only changeable factor is the travel route.

Am I getting caught up in the mass hysteria surrounding the virus or would this be considered an unacceptable level of risk for a type 1 diabetic to take. It is getting to the point now where we are arguing about it and this is not how we want them leaving.

Offer to pay for the flights if they take the route you choose.

Snow Garden

Drumpot wrote: »

Is this the only way you can converse on this topic? When a person reverts to insulting somebody to perhaps avoid meaningful engagement, one has to wonder if they lack the capacity for objective reasoning. Can you discuss this without reverting to insults please ?

Objective reasoning? You are comparing having a fire extinguisher in your house to being adequately prepared for the corona virus to somehow validate that it's perfectly reasonable for Irish people to stockpile food and medical supplies when there is a negligible chance of it ever becoming a major issue here. It's loose lips like this thread that causes a panic and a run on the shops for no reason.

Drumpot

Snow Garden wrote: »

Objective reasoning? You are comparing having a fire extinguisher in your house to being adequately prepared for the corona virus to somehow validate that it's perfectly reasonable for Irish people to stockpile food and medical supplies when there is a negligible chance of it ever becoming a major issue here. It's loose lips like this thread that causes a panic and a run on the shops for no reason.

Where did I say people (or even I was) should stockpile food and medical supplies? Please quote exactly where I said that or correct yourself.

dublin99

Not sure how accurate this is, but it looks like the Coronavirus is racist!

https://www.eturbonews.com/542533/coronavirus-risk-for-asians-africans-caucasians-revealed/

If the report is true, Irish /Caucasians are low risk :-)

dublin99

dublin99 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is, but it looks like the Coronavirus is racist!

https://www.eturbonews.com/542533/coronavirus-risk-for-asians-africans-caucasians-revealed/

If the report is true, Irish /Caucasians are low risk :-)

Jesus H Christ. This again. That same 8 person study being knocked around. What a load of sh!te.

tuxy

dublin99 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is, but it looks like the Coronavirus is racist!

https://www.eturbonews.com/542533/coronavirus-risk-for-asians-africans-caucasians-revealed/

If the report is true, Irish /Caucasians are low risk :-)

Although different races look very different to us the genetics are so close it's unlikely that a virus would have a preference.
Perhaps other factors at play or not enough info to get an accurate picture on this.

I think this is wishful thinking by some to find some reassurances amongst the bad news.

Sigma101

dublin99 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is, but it looks like the Coronavirus is racist!

https://www.eturbonews.com/542533/coronavirus-risk-for-asians-africans-caucasians-revealed/

If the report is true, Irish /Caucasians are low risk :-)

A lot of dodgy 'preliminary reports' out there at the moment...... Meanwhile, in Indonesia there's strong evidence of the effectiveness of the power of prayer!!
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3051068/we-owe-it-god-indonesia-prays-how-it-keeping