Corona-virus - How worried are you?

thriftylass

RomfordNavy said:

Can anyone find an accurate source for how many people have died from normal flu this flu-season?  Would alsoo be good to establish what number have suffered from the flu but as it is not a reportable disease I suspect those numbers are not available.

Sorry, I can't remember the source but looked it up a while ago too to put it into perspective. I remember that report saying an average of 17,000 people (varies from 3-27,000) a year die from flu (I guess also in conjunction with other health issues) in England alone and that represents about 1% of infections. And that is despite having a vaccine (although it doesn't always work depending on the strain going round)

Gers

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

I don't understand what you mean by 'this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen' - how do facilities happen??

Anyway latest headline

Coronavirus confirmed as pandemic

MoneySeeker1

Pollycat said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

If I had the choice it would be to live somewhere remote rather than in London or another big city.

Horses for courses on that one.

But we have to bear in mind we will have the rest of our lives to get through - after all this is over - and many of us do require not to have any lower level of facilities than we have had, as life has to be worth living.

MoneySeeker1

Gers said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

I don't understand what you mean by 'this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen' - how do facilities happen??

Anyway latest headline

Coronavirus confirmed as pandemic

Lower level of facilities comes from facilities shutting for the duration - and maybe not opening again afterwards as normal (ie because their finances got hit too hard to do so).

Thank goodness the Government does seem to understand that - and is giving a certain level of help to ensure we do retain our facilities - our businesses, etc - and "get back to normal" once this is over. But I do still have a concern some facilities may vanish for good - and with that "our Lives as we know them". An area has to be a pretty large town or a city to be "safe" for retaining enough facilities if the facilities it has get hit too hard by this illness.

cbrown372

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

I know its Wales you live in but its not that remote for heavens sake.

Pollycat

MoneySeeker1 said:

Pollycat said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

If I had the choice it would be to live somewhere remote rather than in London or another big city.

Horses for courses on that one.

But we have to bear in mind we will have the rest of our lives to get through - after all this is over - and many of us do require not to have any lower level of facilities than we have had, as life has to be worth living.

Not really.
Just my personal preference if I had to choose now.
But I live where I live.
I don't have to bear anything in mind.
End of.

Spoonie_Turtle

Just a quick PSA: soaps/detergents (amphiphilic surfactants such as sodium laureth sulphate, found in most handwash, shampoo, shower gel, bubble bath, etc.) really are effective against the virus. The surfactants react to the outer 'layer' (lipid membrane) that holds the virus together, pull it apart, and it falls apart = no more virus. Alcohol in hand sanitiser does the same job.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/11/21173187/coronavirus-covid-19-hand-washing-sanitizer-compared-soap-is-dope

So with all the panic-buying of handwash, antibacterial wipes, etc., just good old soap and water really is all you need as long as you can access it if handwash runs out, shower gel and shampoo are good alternatives (whereas washing-up liquid is probably too harsh for your hands).

Pollycat

Latest:

460 confirmed cases (out of 25,000 tested).

It comes as two more people with the virus died in the UK, bringing the total to eight.

One was in their 70s and had underlying health conditions in Dudley, while the other, in Nuneaton, was elderly and had a number of serious health conditions.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the peak of the UK outbreak was expected "in a matter of a couple of months".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51839106

Gers

MoneySeeker1 said:

Gers said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

I don't understand what you mean by 'this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen' - how do facilities happen??

Anyway latest headline

Coronavirus confirmed as pandemic

Lower level of facilities comes from facilities shutting for the duration - and maybe not opening again afterwards as normal (ie because their finances got hit too hard to do so).

Thank goodness the Government does seem to understand that - and is giving a certain level of help to ensure we do retain our facilities - our businesses, etc - and "get back to normal" once this is over. But I do still have a concern some facilities may vanish for good - and with that "our Lives as we know them". An area has to be a pretty large town or a city to be "safe" for retaining enough facilities if the facilities it has get hit too hard by this illness.

Ah! You mean 'businesses'. I can envisage some closing for the duration but not for ever. My nearest town, eight miles from my home, is lively and robust. 

Think you're being rather dramatic or scaremongering. Not sure which. 

Pollycat

Gers said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Gers said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

The dis-benefits of being remote, on the other hand, are the risk that this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen and then there simply wouldn't be enough facilities there. In a city it doesnt matter if a facility, or two or a dozen vanishes and the reason is because there are "plenty more where that came from". In a remote place, even a few facilities vanishing could mean the difference between "viable to live in" and "too small to live in".

I don't understand what you mean by 'this virus might cause a lower level of facilities to happen' - how do facilities happen??

Anyway latest headline

Coronavirus confirmed as pandemic

Lower level of facilities comes from facilities shutting for the duration - and maybe not opening again afterwards as normal (ie because their finances got hit too hard to do so).

Thank goodness the Government does seem to understand that - and is giving a certain level of help to ensure we do retain our facilities - our businesses, etc - and "get back to normal" once this is over. But I do still have a concern some facilities may vanish for good - and with that "our Lives as we know them". An area has to be a pretty large town or a city to be "safe" for retaining enough facilities if the facilities it has get hit too hard by this illness.

Ah! You mean 'businesses'. I can envisage some closing for the duration but not for ever. My nearest town, eight miles from my home, is lively and robust. 

Think you're being rather dramatic or scaremongering. Not sure which. 

An odd way to refer to businesses (imho).

I'd class 'facilities' as hospitals etc.

I think there's a lot of dramatics & scaremongering generally.

Not to mention panic.