Anyone think this Coronavirus hysteria is ridiculous? - General Discussion Discussion

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I’m not sure, but I don’t plan on taking a cruise anytime soon.

reply

[–] 10200 (656) 5 years ago

I am a frequent traveler. I just returned from a cruise 2 weeks ago and last Wednesday I booked another one for June. I'm not sure I would trek off to Asia or Europe right now simply because I would't want to be quarantined for 14 days in my cabin that far from home, but right now I wouldn't hesitate to hop on a ship.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I’ve actually never been on a cruise and been wanting to go but when I mentioned it to my boyfriend he laughed at me and said hell no because of this virus. When you go is there a certain cruise line you use or would recommend?
I’ve been looking into railway trips recently and they sound amazing. They even have some trips that are half on rail, half on water. Have you done any railway traveling and would you recommend it?

reply

[–] 102000 (6253) 5 years ago

Cruising really depends on where you would like to go, what time of the year,and your budget.

I have used the train for day trips, but never anything overnight.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 5 years ago

My aunt and uncle have a cruise in Europe scheduled in a new weeks and they haven't decided what to do yet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think I’d be a little nervous to go. It would just be a shitty situation to be stuck on a ship like that. Hopefully they have the option to refund their ticket to make the decision easier either way.

reply

[–] 102000 (6253) 5 years ago

Unless the cruise line cancels the cruise or they have "cancel for any reason" insurance, they will not be reimbursed just because they don't want to go.

When is their cruise? Where does it start and end?

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 5 years ago

I'm not sure on the details except that its in about a month and goes for 28 days through Europe. Luckily they do have insurance, so they can cancel if they want.

reply

[–] 102000 (6253) 5 years ago

Just be aware that unless they have cancel for any reason and or bought their insurance before mid January that insurance companies do not cover pandemics. Not saying they aren't covered, but please have them read their policy carefully before they just assume they are covered because they bought insurance.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11097) 5 years ago

It's nothing. I personally think it was released on purpose to test how viral it is and track the contagion factor. This is just the delivery system for the real virus that's gonna cull the human race.

As for the hysteria, the media is doing that on purpose to crash the economy and take away Trump's main platform for re-election: the strong economy.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 5 years ago

The media are petulant children and our enemy.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

They're acting like it's the start of a zombie apocalypse.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

☝️

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

*raises hand*

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 5 years ago

I'm so sick of hearing/reading about the Coronavirus illness, but apparently it is serious especially in China and other countries. There are a few people in the USA who have come down with it. At first I thought it was a distraction from the news about politics, but it is serious now. I hope a cure is found soon. Face masks are sold out all over.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Face masks don't do nothing. The virus can get in through the eyes.

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 5 years ago

The more the Government and the Media try to reassure us, the worse it gets. They're just fanning the flames of panic. 🙄

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Goverment says nothing to worry, people: the goverment is covering up something fishy, big calamity is going to happen.

Government takes precautions, people: this is extremely extremely serious, if it was not the government would simply cover it up.

reply

[–] nyctc7 (43609) 5 years ago

On Friday I bought 50 shares of General Electric for $10.30/share.

This week we'll see if that was right or if I should have waited.

reply

[–] 102000 (6253) 5 years ago

GE closed at $10.88 + .49% Good luck.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

1-3% mortality rate is no joke.

Some of the media coverage has been a bit much perhaps, but I think the efforts to quarantine people and contain it are totally justified.

reply

[–] nyctc7 (43609) 5 years ago

I live in Northern Nevada, close to California, so the cases appearing there and the Pacific Northwest are a little too close for comfort!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

We only have one here in Wisconsin so far, but it's one too many.

I have a compromised immune system because of medications I take for my transplanted kidney, so it's extra scary for me.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

It is surely no joke, but quarantine seems doing nothing. China quarantine like crazy yet virus is still spreading anyway.

We really need to stop every single flight, ships, trains, factories, churches, schools, markets, zoos, everything. In all places throughout the world. Is this even possible? How many lives would suffer and probably die because of these measures?

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

China lost the battle in Wuhan, but it has controlled the virus in other provinces.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

1-3% mortality rate is no joke.

The mortality rate is likely to be much lower. There's an unknown amount of cases that didn't go to the hospital and weren't been detected. People with mild symptoms or no symptoms at all don't use to go the doctor.

That's a common problem in respiratory diseases, which makes difficult to calculate their mortality rate. The flu has been widely studied, and even in that case the real number of cases is approximated.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"There's an unknown amount of cases that didn't go to the hospital and weren't been detected. People with mild symptoms or no symptoms at all don't use to go the doctor."

Of course it's approximated. Which is why it's a range of 1-3% instead of an exact number. Yes, it's possible that the number of undiagnosed cases is even higher than what they used to get the low end of the estimate. It's something new.

At any rate, it's pretty dangerous.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Of course it's approximated. Which is why it's a range of 1-3% instead of an exact number.

Nope. That range comes from the different papers, ALL OF THEM based in confirmed cases. That range doesn't take into account undetected cases.

The real number is unknown. It could be 1%, 0.5% or 0.05%.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Can you link to a source for that info?

I find it hard to believe that the reports of confirmed cases and deaths varies so much that some reports are giving us a mortality rate that is THREE TIMES what other reports are telling us. That would mean there's a really wide range in the numbers in these reports you're talking about, which you say all use hard numbers for confirmed cases.

No one has mentioned anything about big inconsistencies between reports of confirmed cases in the news stories I've seen on this. I would think if they were having so much trouble with getting hard numbers that are consistent, there'd be something about it. Every story I've seen has numbers similar to this one, though, and none mention big differences in the number of confirmed cases you're telling me about.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-map-confirmed-cases-2020-n1120686

Interesting.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Can you link to a source for that info?

Read your own sources. The papers are using confirmed cases.

I find it hard to believe that the reports of confirmed cases and deaths varies so much that some reports are giving us a mortality rate that is THREE TIMES [...] That would mean there's a really wide range in the numbers between these reports you're talking about, which you say all use hard numbers for confirmed cases, not approximations.

Papers that used cases in Huabei show a higher mortality rate than the later ones using cases in mainland China. It seems that you find that 'hard of believe'. So what?

Quick calculation: in Huabei there has been about 2800 deaths from around 67000 confirmed cases, which is about 3%. In mainland China (except Huabei), there has been around 100 deaths in 13000 confirmed cases, which is about 0.7%. As you can see, there's a wide range in the numbers using confirmed cases, not approximations.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

You find those numbers 'hard to believe'. So what? Why should anybody care about your beliefs?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ah, you're talking about the different mortality rates being reported between countries. Now you are, anyway. Of course the rates going to be different from country to country. There's a huge difference in the number of cases in each country, for one thing. Different healthcare systems, etc. You didn't say anything different countries in your first couple of replies to me, though...

I thought I was pretty clear that I was talking about the mortality rate overall. The numbers of all confirmed cases and deaths worldwide. I saw an estimate somewhere giving a possible mortality rate between 1%-3% of cases.

Why would you think when I wrote that the mortality rate was between 1-3% that I was talking about the range of mortality rates in different countries? I didn't say anything like that about different countries, just that this was the mortality rate for the virus. You know, generally. Also, the numbers I gave don't match what you were writing about. The country with the lowest mortality rate isn't 1% and the location with the highest mortality rate isn't 3%. And even when I said I was giving an estimate you still didn't realize I was talking about the worldwide rate?

"You find those numbers 'hard to believe'. So what? Why should I care about your belief?"

Pretty rude. Maybe you realized that when I wrote "1-3% mortality rate is no joke." I meant overall and are just trolling? I mean, in your first reply to me you seemed to know what I meant.

reply