Why are people still so fearful of the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

[Bletchleyite]

Measles, like Covid-19, is caused by a virus.

Rubella (German measles) isn't measles or indeed related to it. However it too is indeed a virus.

 

[AdamWW]

Rubella (German measles) isn't measles or indeed related to it. However it too is indeed a virus.

Ah. We started off with measles. I didn't notice it changed in to german measles. Which indeed is something different completely. Though both are viruses and can both be serious.

 

[brad465]

Presumably the primary reason parties for various measles/chicken pox illnesses exist is the consensus/belief that complications are rare and/or easily treated. As things stand this isn't anywhere is as low risk with Covid as not enough treatments exist.

 

[Cowley]

Let’s try and keep to the subject of why people are scared of this virus if possible rather than disappearing off into a discussion about measles/chickenpox etc.
I know that the discussion is slightly relevant but we could end up getting lost in it somewhat.

 

[yorkie]

Can we stay on topic please, thanks

Edit: @Cowley snap!

 

[Cowley]

 

[Yew]

There's the old adage of "What gets measured gets done" and I think we're seeing the same effect here.

 

[LAX54]

For as long as we all have been breathing we have been potentially spreading disease to other people that may put them at risk. Literally every minute we spend time with other people, we might be putting them at risk. So what's different about this particular virus? Why do we suddenly have to walk around with masks and treat everyone else like am unacceptable risk factor? Its time we started accepting that we won't eliminate the virus by hiding behind the sofa.

Because the World panicked ! China locked down, then Italy followed and then parts of Europe, the rest of the Worls thought they 'must' do something, and followed, and are now stuck in quick setting cement ! Did not Italy say a few weeks ago they over-reacted, and many that died, would have anyway, and I think places like France have admitted the same, but will the UK ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2020 ==

the common cold is a corona virus. they have been looking for a vaccine for that for decades. I think you could have a long wait for an effective vaccine.

I think they will find ways to treat COVID over time to reduce its death risk. Maybe Hydroxychloroquine, maybe something else

but it will be here for ever, along side SARS, Ebola and flu. You can hide at home, or take life by the balls....

I said that a while ago, and boy did I get my head bitten off by a poster! lol

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2020 ==

I wonder how we would have responded to this situation years ago for example in the 1950s/60s.

There were many other contagious and dangerous diseases (such as polio, measles etc) going around but we didn’t shut down the country and enforce social distancing, shielding etc.

There wasn't FB or Twitter or even 24/7 news channels with hours and hours to fill.....so we would have got one with life, and been none the wiser, but maybe a lot better off !

 

[Bantamzen]

Because the World panicked ! China locked down, then Italy followed and then parts of Europe, the rest of the Worls thought they 'must' do something, and followed, and are now stuck in quick setting cement ! Did not Italy say a few weeks ago they over-reacted, and many that died, would have anyway, and I think places like France have admitted the same, but will the UK ?

I haven't seen that about Italy, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least. But you are correct, much of the world panicked themselves into a "China syndrome" (i.e. uncontrolled meltdown), and many countries now are terrified of reversing measures for fear they will be berated.

 

[Yew]

To be fair, when this was just "Whutan Flu" locking it down to try and prevent it spreading was okay. However once it's in general circulation there is no scientific evidence that this can be controlled by lockdown alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, when this was just "Whutan Flu" locking it down to try and prevent it spreading was okay. However once it's in general circulation there is no scientific evidence that this can be controlled by lockdown alone.

Apart from the fact that it is being controlled by social distancing measures?

 

[Richard Scott]

Apart from the fact that it is being controlled by social distancing measures?

No it isn't, if we were controlling bit we'd be able to get it to zero. At the moment it's controlling us in an indirect way, until we can accept it's around and we need to just get in with life as the virus isn't going away any time soon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it isn't, if we were controlling bit we'd be able to get it to zero. At the moment it's controlling us in an indirect way, until we can accept it's around and we need to just get in with life as the virus isn't going away any time soon.

Simply not going to happen, however many times you post it. There is no way society and Government will accept the level of deaths it will cause to do that.

Living with/controlling the virus by definition means living with a level of restrictions.

The other option is to eliminate it, then no restrictions are required.

 

[Richard Scott]

Simply not going to happen, however many times you post it. There is no way society and Government will accept the level of deaths it will cause to do that.

Living with/controlling the virus by definition means living with a level of restrictions.

The other option is to eliminate it, then no restrictions are required.

Ok you carry on but rest of us have had enough. Just because Government has backed itself into a corner doesn't mean we have to agree with them. In the end people will just stop obeying the restrictions as they will get fed up but you feel free to carry on whilst rest of us get on with life. We've assessed the situation using our brains and come up with conclusion that there is a small risk but that's not worth ruining our lives pandering to it.

 

[Yew]

The other option is to eliminate it, then no restrictions are required.

The only historically proven way to do this is through herd immunity. Elimination of a virus that is this widespread has NEVER happened without it.

 

[nlogax]

We've assessed the situation using our brains and come up with conclusion that there is a small risk but that's not worth ruining our lives pandering to it.

Until the government comes around to your way of thinking and decides to hell with the risk, I'm not sure what options you have other than tiny acts of personal rebellion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only historically proven way to do this is through herd immunity. Elimination of a virus that is this widespread has NEVER happened without it.

And the only way to do that without masses of deaths is a vaccine. In the meantime...

 

[Yew]

And the only way to do that without masses of deaths is a vaccine. In the meantime...

I can't work out if you just can't comprehend the damage this causes, or if you just enjoy making people suffer in the name of your delusional emimination fantasy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't work out if you just can't comprehend the damage this causes, or if you just enjoy making people suffer in the name of your delusional emimination fantasy.

I can comprehend it, but I see no viable alternative. Economic damage vs. hundreds of thousands of deaths or more. It's rather a Hobson's choice, but I think I'd pick economic damage.

 

[Yew]

I can comprehend it, but I see no viable alternative. Economic damage vs. hundreds of thousands of deaths or more. It's rather a Hobson's choice, but I think I'd pick economic damage.

You forgot to multiply the results by the "Ferguson number" (his average over-prediction rate)

 

[Bantamzen]

I can comprehend it, but I see no viable alternative. Economic damage vs. hundreds of thousands of deaths or more. It's rather a Hobson's choice, but I think I'd pick economic damage.

And if economic damage meant hundreds of thousands of deaths...???

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if economic damage meant hundreds of thousands of deaths...???

It won't mean that many unless we accept defeat and fail to adapt.

 

[Bantamzen]

It won't mean that many unless we accept defeat and fail to adapt.

We are adapting, we are learning how to test for it, how to treat it, how to reduce mortality rates, and most importantly how our own bodies are adapting. Just like pretty much every other disease in the history of mankind. The biggest difference with this one is that the dramatic types have a new medium to play with.

 

[Richard Scott]

I can comprehend it, but I see no viable alternative. Economic damage vs. hundreds of thousands of deaths or more. It's rather a Hobson's choice, but I think I'd pick economic damage.

But there are not hundreds of thousands of deaths (unless taking worldwide figure and a number of those are not in economically developed countries), I'll go with getting economy going so there is something of the NHS left. The damage done due to a poor economy will result in many deaths. You sit tight, rest of us need to get on in the real world.

 

[LAX54]

Simply not going to happen, however many times you post it. There is no way society and Government will accept the level of deaths it will cause to do that.

Living with/controlling the virus by definition means living with a level of restrictions.

The other option is to eliminate it, then no restrictions are required.

But although it sounds high, the level of deaths is not that high, we still have 10,000 to go to catch up with 2018 yet, and no one batted an eyelid then !

as for the Italy interview, it was on the NGK News Channel, and CNN too I believe

 

[DB]

It won't mean that many unless we accept defeat and fail to adapt.

It won't mean anything like that anyway - the figures being banded about are fantasy.

There is actually little to no evidence that the ongoing theatre of petty rules and restrictions is making much difference at all - especially as some of them are now being widely ignored.

 

[Richard Scott]

It won't mean that many unless we accept defeat and fail to adapt.

My white flag is already up.

 

[43066]

And if economic damage meant hundreds of thousands of deaths...???

200,000 “excess deaths” predicted by the ONS (I think it was) a couple of weeks back due to the lockdown.

But that’s ok, because the only deaths that matter are those related to Covid.

 

[jtuk]

I wonder how we would have responded to this situation years ago for example in the 1950s/60s.

We wouldn't have noticed it was something new, thought it was a bad flu season and just got on with listening to pirate radio

 

[43066]

I can comprehend it, but I see no viable alternative. Economic damage vs. hundreds of thousands of deaths or more. It's rather a Hobson's choice, but I think I'd pick economic damage.

Economic devastation causing hundreds of thousands of deaths of all sorts of people, to (in the case of many Covid deaths), prolong the lives of those who may only have a few months to live anyway. I know which I’d rather prevent.

We need to grow up a bit, shelter the vulnerable as best we can, open up the economy and accept there will sadly be more deaths. I suspect this will become more politically acceptable as the economic impact really kicks in as it will over the next few months.