People’s reactions to this crisis

Newlymarried

Hi I’m interested to know peoples experience of those close to thems reactions to this crisis

My boss has completely left me dumbfounded

She basically is disgusted at our government for shutting down our economy in the hopes of saving people who are already at the end of their lives her words exactly

She thinks we should let this virus run rampant and let the fittest people survive

I have to admit I was taken aback by her response is their any compassion for the old sick and vulnerable ? Apparently not if it’s your pocket that’s being hit?

What’s your opinion on this

Should we try to save the sick the vulnerable and bear the consequence?

I for one think we should

Your Face

Newlymarried wrote: »

She basically is disgusted at our government for shutting down our economy in the hopes of saving people who are already at the end of their lives her words exactly

She thinks we should let this virus run rampant and let the fittest people survive

Is your boss's second name Hitler?

I would suspect that her business is not cash rich.

I must be fortunate, as I have been promised a years salary and received a month salary bonus in this month's one.

C^nts will be C^nts.

auspicious

As chances are this danger is liable to be with us for a long while how many have quit smoking or
seriously begun cutting back? You really really should.

SAXA

Has your boss parents over 70 or friends with underlining medical conditions.. If not she is in the minority .

auspicious

auspicious wrote: »

As chances are this danger is liable to be with us for a long while how many have quit smoking or
seriously begun cutting back? You really really should.

Very few, I would imagine.

hot buttered scones

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean what people think it means. It doesn't mean the strongest. It means to most suitable for the environment i.e. the best fit. So those who stay and home and practice good hand and respiratory hygiene have a better chance of survival than those with your bosses attitude.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Very few, I would imagine.

I'd say people are smoking more now.

Wibbs

auspicious wrote: »

As chances are this danger is liable to be with us for a long while how many have quit smoking or
seriously begun cutting back? You really really should.

Oddly enough if you look at the data from Wuhan, the percentage of smokers admitting to hospital with serious symptoms was well below the background percentage of overall smokers. IIRC it was around 20% of male smokers needing hospital treatment, but 60% of men in the region smoke. If smoking was such a factor in comorbidity you'd expect to see the percentage of smokers presenting for treatment to be much higher. Smokers did have higher fatalities if they progressed to serious illness. Which you would expect in lung disease, but it looks like in Wuhan at least they were more likely to have mild or no symptoms in the first place.

Newlymarried

SAXA wrote: »

Has your boss parents over 70 or friends with underlining medical conditions.. If not she is in the minority .

Yes that’s what’s so hard to comprehend .. all that matters is money to some

Newlymarried

Wibbs wrote: »

Oddly enough if you look at the data from Wuhan, the percentage of smokers admitting to hospital with serious symptoms was well below the background percentage of overall smokers. IIRC it was around 20% of male smokers needing hospital treatment, but 60% of men in the region smoke. If smoking was such a factor in comorbidity you'd expect to see the percentage of smokers presenting for treatment to be much higher. Smokers did have higher fatalities if they progressed to serious illness. Which you would expect in lung disease, but it looks like in Wuhan at least they were more likely to have mild or no symptoms in the first place.

This is probably wildly wrong but I read somewhere that of the lungs are very badly damaged the virus can have trouble attaching its self

Wibbs

Newlymarried wrote: »

This is probably wildly wrong but I read somewhere that of the lungs are very badly damaged the virus can have trouble attaching its self

I dunno about that NM. Though tobacco smoke is toxic, so maybe it's toxic to viruses, or enough to reduce the number? Or smokers produce thicker mucus so that traps more viruses in the upper airways so they don't infect the deeper tissues? Or they cough more anyway so clear more viruses? I do recall reading ages ago, from where I can't remember, that nicotine as a compound reduces or interferes with some process in cytokine production, so maybe it may reduce the inflammation which can kill? Though smoking increases inflammation overall. Or none of the above and the stats aren't clear in such small sample groups.

The main factors other than bloody bad luck still seem to be age >65, gender, more men get and die from it than women, diabetes, cardiovascular illness, lung health, anything that reduces immune response like cancer treatments and the like. One factor more in play in western societies may be excess weight. Background air pollution may well be in play, as hotspots seem to overlay to some degree on areas of bad pollution.

Being a frontline health worker is also extremely risky. Far more likely to be exposed and exposed to higher viral loads and long stressful working days leading to exhaustion. And we need to remember and treasure and support those people risking their lives every day.

auspicious

Wibbs wrote: »

Oddly enough if you look at the data from Wuhan, the percentage of smokers admitting to hospital with serious symptoms was well below the background percentage of overall smokers. IIRC it was around 20% of male smokers needing hospital treatment, but 60% of men in the region smoke. If smoking was such a factor in comorbidity you'd expect to see the percentage of smokers presenting for treatment to be much higher. Smokers did have higher fatalities if they progressed to serious illness. Which you would expect in lung disease, but it looks like in Wuhan at least they were more likely to have mild or no symptoms in the first place.

Ah wibbs. You just encouraged some addicts to think less seriously about quitting.
I wonder would a doctor's advice be contrary to yours?

Wibbs

auspicious wrote: »

Ah wibbs. You just encouraged some addicts to think less seriously about quitting.
I wonder would a doctor's advice be contrary to yours?

Of course it would and I'd agree with them. Giving up smoking, or better yet never starting in the first place, is one of the single best things someone can do for their health.

You could add losing weight, or never putting it on in the first place another of the single best things someone can do for their health.

I never said it wasn't a very good plan. I just pointed out the link with this virus is not nearly so clear. In the comorbidity index(I'll try and get a link) where IIRC they score out of 12, 12 being bad, current smoking adds 3 to a zero "score", ex smokers add 2. Not a huge difference, though I'd wonder how they measured that. You'd think someone who gave up twenty years ago at 25 is going to be much less risk than someone who have up two years ago at 45.