Re: Corona Virus: is it the beginning of the end?
@372, I have to say, much of what you stated appears to be rooted in complacency similar to how I viewed this situation. That in noway is to be insulting to you, and I am not claiming to be the almighty leibylucw who only speaks of the truth and knows better than everyone else, but I do take several issues with statements similar to yours regarding comparing this pandemic with previous ones, particularly the one of 1918:
Hardly anyone on the planet was alive back in 1918, so I don't quite understand your point about COVID19 being precedent by pandemics of a time we simply cannot personally relate to. As far as I'm concerned, the Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague are of equal importance to us in 2020 concerning the COVID19 outbreak.
COVID19 is not all said and done. The Spanish flu of 1918 lasted from January of 1918 until the end of 1920. Comparing numbers now holds no real validity. Let's talk numbers in a year or two from now, and even then solely using simple numbers is not how we should be evaluating the severity of the situation.
There are
reasons
why that particular pandemic set in that particular time had far more of an impact, both in number of people infected and dead. We live in a much different time. This could be far worse, but the measures taken now are effecting change in spread to mitigate the severity, but not prevent. This is a reactive versus proactive type of approach, so the aim is to slow down the spread and contain it so we are not overwhelming the healthcare system.To wrap up the last two points, why does everything have to be the biggest, the baddest, the worst for it to matter? Do folks not trust the projections made by healthcare experts that say 40 to 70 percent of the world's population will be infected with the virus within the next year or so, and at a mortality rate of 2% (which is currently being very generous of an estimate given the present numbers)would equate to well into the tens of millions of deaths? For every infected person, they spread it to at minimum 2 or 3 others, upwards of 5 to 6. Remember, the measures we are taking do have a significant effect on the spread and therefore the number of people infected at any given time, though you are most likely going to come in contact with the virus in the future. The difference, though, is that we should be seeing a significant decrease in hospitalizations, and hopefully a working vaccine after some time, so we can aid those infected far better than we can presently. The less people infected, the better it's easier to manage. You can clearly see how the rapidity of the spread is affecting places like the US, Italy, and Spain. Why open everything up and let more people become infected and possibly die when we're already overwhelmed and at max capacity with resources as we remain isolated and closed down? I've heard some folks say we should just let everyone be infected in the next month and just get it over with. Terrible, f**king terrible idea! That'll just lead to more chaos, deaths, and overall loss for humans, and I'm not just talking about death. We've had to make life-altering changes, and that has had beyond significant effects on everyone.
Taiwan was
affected
by SARS pretty drastically, actually. It was precisely because of that outbreak that seems to have acted as a catalyst for preparing for another pandemic, namely COVID19.
I encourage everybody to do a bit more reading about these things. I've read/heard too many statements born of skepticism and not fact or the overall picture.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
