Thread: CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

This site shows some interesting data!

NextStrain.org

e.g.



Screenshot_2020-04-01 Nextstrain ncov.jpg

Genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus

Screenshot_2020-04-01 Nextstrain ncov(1).jpg

edit - visually it obvious the USA is about to be whacked by several mutations, all simultaneously.

VERY interesting stuff!!!!!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

At Western Sydney Uni it seems to definitely be wfh - the campus was closed yesterday, but the eLearning crowd have been wfh for a week and a half. Not sure about Macquarie Uni, but I think it's the same. Lola is wfh for both Unis, and for one of them (Mac) that means teaching face to face screen to screen. The other job is online content development anyway, so wfh hardly matters. They have lots of Zoom meetings.

UTas has gone largely online from start of semester. All lectures have been videoed for years, so technology in place.

Tutorials also online via skype, or similar.

Lab and practical classes "where essential" still continuing with smaller groups, enhanced hygeine and social distancing "wherever practical".

Online learning extends to a few thousand continuing students still in China - went home for Christmas holidays and became trapped.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Online learning extends to a few thousand continuing students still in China - went home for Christmas holidays and became trapped.

I wonder if their parents still think they are getting their money's worth?

We continue to be bombarded by these big numbers. In the news this morning I learned that 240,000 are probably going to die of Coronavirus in the US alone (though that number was reported by the ABC so you'd have to take it with a grain of salt). That sounds pretty scary till you do a little digging and find that about twice that many will die from smoking related illnesses in the same period. In fact 240,000 is less than the number of men alone that will die from smoking related diseases. When you factor in the old age and likelihood of other existing conditions in the victims of CV then the number looks a lot less threatening...

Originally Posted by ian

.....
However, I wouldn't be too unhappy if the AUS Government decided to take a controlling equity position in the company.

Its present market capitalisation is around $600 mill and the government injects $1,400 million .... Government would then own around 70% of equity. That is very close to nationalisation of the business.

But the vast majority of existing shares are owned by airline companies that, in turn, are owned by their governments. Virgin Airlines is already effectively government owned. Can you nationalise a government owned entity?

Why should the Australian taxpayer subsidise the investments of the governments in Abu Dhabi, Singapore and China?

Originally Posted by Tccp123

We continue to be bombarded by these big numbers. In the news this morning I learned that 240,000 are probably going to die of Coronavirus in the US alone (though that number was reported by the ABC so you'd have to take it with a grain of salt). That sounds pretty scary till you do a little digging and find that about twice that many will die from smoking related illnesses in the same period. In fact 240,000 is less than the number of men alone that will die from smoking related diseases. When you factor in the old age and likelihood of other existing conditions in the victims of CV then the number looks a lot less threatening...

Id normally disagree with you... but....

I had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek maths session with SWMBO last night. 7.5 billion people, all living to 100 years old, still means 205k die each day.

One of my "favourite" statistics is that 30k children die each day of starvation... yet we dont do anything about that.

So one has to wonder, how many people are SHOT DEAD in the USA each day compared to CV.

The huge initial number, 7.5B, sure makes all the other numbers look very big too.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Its present market capitalisation is around $600 mill and the government injects $1,400 million .... Government would then own around 70% of equity. That is very close to nationalisation of the business.

But the vast majority of existing shares are owned by airline companies that, in turn, are owned by their governments. Virgin Airlines is already effectively government owned. Can you nationalise a government owned entity?

Why should the Australian taxpayer subsidise the investments of the governments in Abu Dhabi, Singapore and China?

It would be cheaper to pay every employee $50k to go home for a year, pay the $600M to own everything.... wait a year and presto, fire it back up... 100% ours.

Much cheaper.

Bugger the foreign owners. If they want their asset to survive, they bail it in. But, they dont.

Priviatise the profits, socialise the losses.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

As a group we have been extremely critical of the reluctance to act. Should Australia begin to be proactive?
For example there is now some controversy over the public/private hospital systems particularly following the cancellation of elective surgery. I noticed in the following report that a field hospital has been built in Central Park. Now I am not suggesting for one moment that the Australian situation is anywhere near that of New York, but I would expect that such arrangements should be ready to go at the click of fingers if it became necessary.

Paul, I believe that the AUS Government has already "taken over" the private hospital system -- increasing the ICU bed supply by around 50%

posted in the thread about elective surgery being cancelled

Originally Posted by ian

Greg Hunt announces private hospital partnership to fight coronavirus - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Private Hospitals to stay open providing a 50% boost to available ICU beds.
It think this story was posted on Monday March 30, bit it's a bit hard for me in Canada to tell what the actual date was.

I suppose this would count as innovation

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Id normally disagree with you... but....

I had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek maths session with SWMBO last night. 7.5 billion people, all living to 100 years old, still means 205k die each day.

One of my "favourite" statistics is that 30k children die each day of starvation... yet we dont do anything about that.

So one has to wonder, how many people are SHOT DEAD in the USA each day compared to CV.

The huge initial number, 7.5B, sure makes all the other numbers look very big too.

Evan

In some ways I see a parallel with climate change in the way numbers are tossed around. The point that appears to be missed is not that the numbers are similar but that they are in addition to. We have not exclusively substituted the usual number of deaths for death by CV-19. We have multiplied them and more worrying is that unchecked they will accelerate exponentially.

Whilst we talk of world wide deaths we are all here on the Forum very much planted in the developed world. It is the developed world that is afraid, challenged and panicked into buying up toilet rolls. The emerging world has little in the way of toilet rolls, sanitary napkins etc and is primarily focused on existing from day to day.

It is the fear of what could happen more than what is happening.

Just on the subject of statistics I don't fully understand how isolation is already having an effect on figures. Surely that cannot happen for about two weeks as the gestation period (if that is the correct term) of the virus is up to two weeks it is thought. Again, I should mention that details are still uncertain. Almost nothing is proven.

One further troubling issue is the potential for the virus to mutate. It did that to permit the jump from animals to humans and I think it may already have had a few more mutations: I will need the more knowledgeable among you to either bck that up or dispute it.

One development for me is that I can see I will now have to reluctantly embrace paywave to minimise hard surface contact. Until this point I have inserted my credit/debit card in the true Luddite tradition: That is if a true Luddite can have a credit card.

Regards
Paul

PS: A few years ago on a quiet March dogwatch we looked up shooting deaths in the US: Yeah, just for something to do. That year (say three, maybe four years ago) there had been nearly 2500 in the first quarter. But they are not concerned. Rationing of ammo continues!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

In some ways I see a parallel with climate change in the way numbers are tossed around. It is the fear of what could happen more than what is happening.

Thank you! Two pearls of wisdom in the one post!

Originally Posted by Tccp123

We continue to be bombarded by these big numbers. In the news this morning I learned that 240,000 are probably going to die of Coronavirus in the US alone (though that number was reported by the ABC so you'd have to take it with a grain of salt). That sounds pretty scary till you do a little digging and find that about twice that many will die from smoking related illnesses in the same period. In fact 240,000 is less than the number of men alone that will die from smoking related diseases. When you factor in the old age and likelihood of other existing conditions in the victims of CV then the number looks a lot less threatening...

You keep saying things like this as though that's actually relevant. What is relevant is that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is going to overwhelm whatever resources the medicos have. This is NEW and UNPLANNED; you could argue that all the other deaths are known (I'd never say "planned") but the expected mortality rate in a population body is reasonably static. But this is a spike of proportions unseen. That's all that is important.

Originally Posted by poundy

You keep saying things like this as though that's actually relevant. What is relevant is that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is going to overwhelm whatever resources the medicos have. This is NEW and UNPLANNED; you could argue that all the other deaths are known (I'd never say "planned") but the expected mortality rate in a population body is reasonably static. But this is a spike of proportions unseen. That's all that is important.

My point is that it makes no sense bringing the whole world economy to its knees, creating an economic desert that might take decades to recover from and ruining the futures of countless numbers of young people because you are frightened by some numbers which in comparison to the total number of deaths are an insignificant fraction. We are still talking numbers well below the effects of the 'normal' flu. No one is saying it's good that people die but trying to hide that fact helps no one.

In the words of a previous poster "It is the fear of what could happen more than what is happening."

yes exactly, because the actions that are being taken are having a positive effect on controlling the rampant spread.

Originally Posted by poundy

yes exactly, because the actions that are being taken are having a positive effect on controlling the rampant spread.

You can make that claim and I won't argue with you, the important fact is it's "having a positive effect on controlling the rampant spread"