Coronavirus around the world

There are 1,097 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 150,285 times. The latest Post () was by Rice.

    Reading the real estate thread and the posts about people seeking places outside cities in which they could spend the endless quarantine, made me want to share an article I read yesterday. But could I find it? Nope. I thought it was in The Sunday Times, but a search didn’t turn it up.


    In any case, the article was by an anonymous man (? Seemed like a woman) somewhat gleefully writing about feelings of guilt over packing the family into the car and, the very day the lockdown was ordered, fleeing London for the family’s second home in Cornwall.

    The article itself wasn’t all that revelatory, but the many comments by readers gave an interesting glimpse into their reactions, mostly condemnatory of the family’s selfishness at chancing spreading the infection.


    Worth a read if you can find it.

    • Official Post

    It's possible that the man was an MP as many of them have second homes, so many people are pissed off about the 'one rule for them' etc

    On the other hand, the virus has produced and unhealthy curtain-twitching, nosy neighbour syndrome which always existed but now has been given justification.

    Is it really selfish and irresponsible to dash off to the country for a more pleasant quarantine experience? If you take all the precautions and don't come into contact with others on the way? I don't believe so.

    Exactly the point made in some of the reader comments, Splinter - “Let’s not be a nation of Curtain Twitchers!” While most of the comments centered on the cavalier attitude attitude of city folks who don’t seem to care whether they import contagion to their summer communities.


    The back & forth of the readers seems to be a microcosm of the national discussion about what British values are, in the 21st century.

    the way how Tinelli did it in Argentina was disgraceful....but hey, wasn't a surprise or.


    Personally I think it would be much more easy to track in small communities.........so with people leaving city to their summer houses would probably be for the better, (if the stayed there!!!!!)

    The problem is very obvious: by high density population, it's spreads much wilder. So in a smaller environment, it would die out much quicker, (remember the article from Rice some months ago, about the live virus and the dead virus).

    It can only be spread alive if it finds a new bearer..... otherwise it's only a dead virus.

    This is why I rant about the villa issue right now.....the virus have been going around there probably the longest of any place in Argentina.....

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rice

    Exactly the point made in some of the reader comments, Splinter - “Let’s not be a nation of Curtain Twitchers!” While most of the comments centered on the cavalier attitude attitude of city folks who don’t seem to care whether they import contagion to their summer communities.


    The back & forth of the readers seems to be a microcosm of the national discussion about what British values are, in the 21st century.

    The article about New Yorkers heading to the Hampton’s or nearby had also a paragraph on how the local residents were afraid of getting infected by them and tried to scare them away telling them there are no medical facilities like in New York - and less ventilators!
    Knowing the scare tactic was probably not going to be successful, they prayed to leave the ventilators for the locals.


    However, the spending power of those coming from The City is so much more, everybody knows that the locals don’t stand a chance.


    I was able to find the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…g-nyc-vacation-homes.html



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Very interesting. Our own niece and family were in the contraflow of traffic heading to the Hamptons, where they had spent the winter; as NYC emptied into the Hamptons, our family left there for Virginia, as soon as the Stay At Home order was lifted.


    I never found the article I referenced, about the family that went to Cornwall to spend the lockdown in their summer home, a tale more noteworthy because of the post-story comments than for the actual content. But I did find this earlier story written from the point of view of a villager, as city people were overrunning the town:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fa…riving-clean-land-rovers/

    Quote from JAN

    daniel .....I fully understand, and it's probably the most clever to do.


    A Finnish friend of mine visited me here in Tigre Sunday.........he is 74 year old and all in all ok fit. But, he had a few operations lasts years.....so he would be in risk group I think.

    He visited the dentist short before the quarantine, and 5 days later got most of the symptoms of coronavirus, including high fewer, 39c+......which he told me he never ever have, or for decades haven't had. He is medic/veterinarian himself, very knowledgeable about everything in this field. He told me he would bet he got the virus and got over it!

    So my point: it can really be it's better to self expose to the virus at a certain point, because it looks like we all gonna get it at some point!

    Sorry, I quote myself, to save the time to retell story......

    That friend of mine just got checked , (highest insurance group, best insurance).....the guy have already had the virus! Check, finish, that's it....

    The whole scaremongering is totally overdone: WE ARE NOT GONNA DIE!!!!


    Also now I encourage my German friend that was here in March, that had a small fever, 38c , during a day, to do the test in Germany.....


    We all already had it.....chill out......it was going around for much longer than people think.....not only from January 2020 or whatever......maybe a year before....

    • Official Post

    I wish were as simple as that, but it isn't. There isn't even any evidence that we are immune if we've had Covid already.

    I haven't had a flu jab yet and I've had flu at least twice in the last three or four years, so we can't really let our guard down.

    nothing is sure, but it is the general understanding that u r immune for one or two years if u have had the virus.

    All the ones that got tested a second time infected was people that had used bad tests.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JAN

    nothing is sure, but it is the general understanding that u r immune for one or two years if u have had the virus.

    All the ones that got tested a second time infected was people that had used bad tests.

    Can you please provide a reference?


    I was left with the same news as Splinter - no evidence on the immune memory of this virus, nor if this immunity covers against multiple virus strains/variations observed worldwide (RNA virus mutates quickly, which is why it's especially hard to develop an effective vaccine - by the time the vaccine is ready and tested, the virus has already mutated). In Italy they have been using plasma transfusions from recovered patients to infected patients to help fight the disease, but there is no evidence if that will last forever.


    On La Nación there was an article on the cost of getting tested depending on the kind of test , but it also added that you need to have a doctor order to get a test because there are limited supplies. It would be interesting to know how many times have your friends been tested and with which method, as some seems to be a hit or miss.

    In other words, you cannot get testes simply because you feel like to.


    In Italy, they are starting mass testing by PCR on blood samples and they collect 2 blood samples 24 hours apart to avoid false negatives. They are checking IgG and IgM, although it is not yet hard rock science for how long they can be observed/detected.

    serafina ......as I said it's not 100% u can't get it two times, since its mutating.

    But by googling immunity+coronavirus, u get quite a load of medical articles explaining that.

    Until know I haven't heard of a proved case of a person infected two times.....

    By the flu it's the same, a flu shot does not guarantee u immunity against the flu....but they try to get as much of the strings of the current flu into the flu shot, to protect.....but nothing is 100%


    The test my friend got, was one of the best u can get, it's test the antibodies in the blood, (he sent me the screenshot, but I won't post!). He is a veterinarian veteran, with 40+ years medical experience from Finland, owner of several vet clinic branches.

    I always ask him med questions, not only for dog, but in general.


    If there was no immunity towards the virus, all the severe countries, like Italy, Spain, Germany, would be in a constant infection, which they are not..... actually they are now semi opening up the countries.....so that fact might suggest that the virus dies out or can't spread in an already immune population.

    Quote from Splinter

    Just because a percentage of infected have recovered doesn't mean that we have to lower our guard. A more sensible lockdown, yes.

    Maybe, but right now considering what has happened, what would be a more sensible lockdown? The only way I see a sensible lockdown is keeping vulnerable people isolated and opening the others. At the moment, that would mean focusing on the spread in poor communities and those in vulnerable risk groups. However, when something similar was attempted last month (telling old people to stay in), there was uproar and it was scrapped.


    Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you don't need it in this case. It was plainly obvious from day one that a sensible lockdown was required but the path was ignored by the government. In fairness, the government here simply followed the idea that was being pushed by other countries. But still, Argentina plunged into one of the most restrictive lockdowns in the world without even a single idea of how they were going to leave it.


    Being called racist for wanting to close off China in January/February doesn't look so bad now.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Semigoodlooking

    Maybe, but right now considering what has happened, what would be a more sensible lockdown? The only way I see a sensible lockdown is keeping vulnerable people isolated and opening the others. At the moment, that would mean focusing on the spread in poor communities and those in vulnerable risk groups. However, when something similar was attempted last month (telling old people to stay in), there was uproar and it was scrapped.

    I agree. the government makes their call based on their people... In Japan there was no lockdown and they went over it with just 850 deaths. Japanese simply had to follows the government instructions... and they did. But that's a nation that historically is very compliant to rules, so there was no need to display an army and force people inside.

    In Argentina, instead...


    I think the following: IF the people had really observed the strict quarantine/lock down rules enforced by the Argentinian Government as of March 19, this would already be over. Instead it's only getting worse.


    By worse, I don't mean critical, I am just reading at the graph and seeing the number of currently infected people is still growing (the light blue area is growing larger as time goes by). Of course, more infected people doesn't mean more people in ICUs, just more tests being performed. The ICU occupation rate is what I think we should be concerned, but that's just us from the Forum. There is no graph of no. of people in ICUs because... Argentina.




    Also, you can all observe by yourself that a lot of people going outside are not wearing their mask properly, but until it's merely a few, that is not an issue. When it's 10 millions going out at once...


    Remember that a PPE not correctly worn is no PPE!

    Sweden


    Stupid ignorant dumbass Sweden just proved again why they are such a looser country!

    They should learn from countries that have proven during history to always do stuff right! Idiots!