@rogespeed wrote:
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
@springyzone wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:With all the precautions being developed to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 just wondering whether a flow on effect will be less hospitalisations for influenza and severe common cold
I think it's a really interesting theory. I hope someone does the stats at the end of this year.
Yes, they are transmitted in a similar way, but with all the extra precautions we are seeing-large gatherings shut down, people being more cautious about washing hands, schools maybe shut for extra time etc, there could be a drop in normal flu numbers.
I have been chatting to a distant rellie in Canada and she was saying schools there have shut down now and people are being encouraged to stay home, not let their children out to mix at all. The adults are still working, i take it and their government assured everyone there will be no problems with food so not to worry, so there hasn't been the same run on shops as there has been here.
But it is starting.
I think numbers with the virus are similar in both our countries but I don't think anyone here took as much notice of political assurances so we seem to be about a week ahead of them in the panic department.
The stats will be meaningless. The numbers of people who get the flu would vary enormously and how do they even know how many have had it? They'd only know about the people who've gone to a doctor and many would just go to bed until it's over.
I'd be inclined to think that people who have got the flu don't go to social gatherings, yet they stagger along to work because they feel obliged to or can't afford to stay home, and they spread their germs to everyone at work as well as on buses and trains. That means you're much less likely to catch it at a social function than you are anywhere else, so banning large functions is going to have no effect on the number of flu cases.
I can't see the point of banning large functions when trains are jam-packed with people going to work and you're in much closer contact than you would be at almost any other function. If you're going to do something, do it properly or not at all.
I agree for the need to quickly implement enhanced sanitising support as a suggested definition of " properly" - start with trains , no standing , everyone seated , UVC air tubular scrubbers installed - all to wear a musk while in transit.. Wardens to look for the clammy and removed at the next station , straight to the clinic
Employers to be wage compensated for any employees suddenly in quarantine - pending a replacement worker ( this is to encourage diligent support for compliance )
Those being a confirmed case , in quarantine, have access to means tested mortgage and rent assistance until returned to work ( to encourage compliance )
Those in quarantine have computer monitored tracker bracelets to ensure compliance , property perimeter monitored to ensure no unauthorised visitors , properties marked with Q signage to ensure no social visitation mistakes
Public toilets to have slow release water disenfectant cistern devices installed ( to killl any virus in the water for the sake of the next person that flushes said and gets v-fortified mist in the face )
I have no idea what you're agreeing to but I certainly never said anything remotely like what you're saying. What you're saying is completely ridiculous. If it gets that bad I think most people wouldn't risk going out anyway, and if people are infectious before they even start getting symptoms then all of your proposed measures would be a complete waste of time - and money!
Italy is trying to control (stop) it by confining everyone to their homes so it can't spread at all. They're not allowed to outside their homes at all unless they have a very good reason to be. Several people from the worst affected regions in Italy have commented in facebook groups I'm in.
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
@springyzone wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:With all the precautions being developed to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 just wondering whether a flow on effect will be less hospitalisations for influenza and severe common cold
I think it's a really interesting theory. I hope someone does the stats at the end of this year.
Yes, they are transmitted in a similar way, but with all the extra precautions we are seeing-large gatherings shut down, people being more cautious about washing hands, schools maybe shut for extra time etc, there could be a drop in normal flu numbers.
I have been chatting to a distant rellie in Canada and she was saying schools there have shut down now and people are being encouraged to stay home, not let their children out to mix at all. The adults are still working, i take it and their government assured everyone there will be no problems with food so not to worry, so there hasn't been the same run on shops as there has been here.
But it is starting.
I think numbers with the virus are similar in both our countries but I don't think anyone here took as much notice of political assurances so we seem to be about a week ahead of them in the panic department.
The stats will be meaningless. The numbers of people who get the flu would vary enormously and how do they even know how many have had it? They'd only know about the people who've gone to a doctor and many would just go to bed until it's over.
I'd be inclined to think that people who have got the flu don't go to social gatherings, yet they stagger along to work because they feel obliged to or can't afford to stay home, and they spread their germs to everyone at work as well as on buses and trains. That means you're much less likely to catch it at a social function than you are anywhere else, so banning large functions is going to have no effect on the number of flu cases.
I can't see the point of banning large functions when trains are jam-packed with people going to work and you're in much closer contact than you would be at almost any other function. If you're going to do something, do it properly or not at all.
-----------------------------------------------------
They do bring out flu stats every year though, don't they. How many confirmed cases, how many confirmed deaths etc
Of course, there will be other cases in the community that they don't know about. People who never went to a doctor.
But I imagine we'll still see the flu stats for confirmed cases later this year.
I also suspect the covid19 stats we are seeing are only confirmed cases and there could well be others in the community. People who for one reason or another never go to the doctor about it. Maybe milder cases.
I also think it is possible trains etc could stop running for a few days if things did go into lockdown but at the moment, with work and school still open, they need to provide the service. And yes, there is a risk in that people at peak hours are squashed in like sardines. I think there is a slight risk anywhere-shops, planes, parties, anywhere. Life is a risk, we just have to pick the level we are willing to accept and I think that is changing every day at the moment. Benefits versus risk.
Also think there is less likelihood of people going to work with flu this year-soldiering on. Won't be as socially acceptable.
