Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Eugenicist in a grand scale.

Not really, no. Eugenics is selective breeding, or selective culling, where humans selecting traits considered desirable or undesirable chose who breeds or dies. This would be more of a massive don't-give-a-fuckery, leaving it to a natural agent to decide who lives or who dies.

This would be more of a massive don't-give-a-fuckery, leaving it to a natural agent to decide who lives or who dies.

Wouldn't by choosing this very route to take, that it can be interpreted as eugenics? as it is selected culling of certains people by letting the rest die.

Why has the government not released the death figures for today? Too horrifying?

Mate volunteers for FareShare food bank in Greenwich. Co-op announced they were donating £1m of food at the weekend, and some cunts ram-raided them the next night to try to steal it. This Britain.

Its bugging me that these "respectable" institutions are falling over themselves to publish research in its infancy, and the news media is then running with it. Seems to me that a load of academics are seeing the chance to make a name for themselves, and grasping at it.

Imperial say "If left unfettered then 250,000 people could die"

Oxford say "It has been left unfettered and 50%+ have already had it"

If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die. (Actually more, since the 250K equates to how many will have died once herd immunity kicks in, not 100% of the population getting it). That hasn't happened, so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.

But I bring it up because it means even the experts are not willing to make a claim with regard to how long it has been here.

No, but I bet they are praying that Oxford are correct, that's one of the main reasons that they are touting the antibody test as a game changer. and one where they are 100% right to not start shipping the test until they are 100% sure its accurate.

It should also be noted that they seem to be behaving as if Imperial is correct, which is erring on the side of caution. It also seems that they might have managed to ramp up capacity to somewhere near giving the NHS a chance to cope.

Just released. Another 28 deaths in England. All had underlying issues except a 47 year old (Guardian)

Sadly I knew one of them. The last person she saw was her son 10 days ago.

57 U.K. wide

Just released. Another 28 deaths in England. All had underlying issues except a 47 year old (Guardian)

And a 21 year old with no underlying issues?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/london-woman-36-dies-of-suspected-covid-19-after-being-told-she-is-not-priority
I have no words

so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.

They're not mutually exclusive, both could still be correct. Neither necessarily contradicts the other.

For example, the 50% of the population that are suggested to be infected could be very heavily skewed towards the under 70s which would explain the current low number of deaths.

(Also, the death rate in the UK is doubling every 3 days. Since there were 57 deaths today then if that rate continues there will be ~1450 deaths in 14 days time, which would be from the currently infected group, and some ~6750 more will die between now and then. This is still a long way off 125,000 though.)

She's lived near me and is the same age, brings it home. Pretty awful having to decide who is a priority or not.

Why has the government not released the death figures for today? Too horrifying?

Apparently there was some heavy betting at a late stage in the day and there is an investigation as to whether or not a leak occurred.

I found this article very interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/new-virus-china-covid-19-food-markets

Horrible story. RIP Kayla Williams.

same here. an older man with underlying issues. very sad, I know his son well.

Hasn't been confirmed as far as I can tell.

It was her aunt saying no underlying health issues, which obviously isn't the same thing. I suspect the autopsy will reveal something.

Can they even see all possibly previously undetected health issues posthumously? I mean, say she had hypertension for some reason but never had it checked or diagnosed, would they be able to detect that necessarily?

Donald trying to get the shutdowns broken because his hotels and golf clubs are dying is so horribly obvious

@WornCleat. By heavy betting do you mean people are betting on the numbers in a bookies?

Hypertension damages tissue, so there's a few things that are strong indicators of a person having been hypertensive. The size and weight of heart, or damage to the capillaries of the kidney. She'd definitely be an outlier if she had hypertension at that age though.

Yeah that was just an example of one underlying condition, there are after all quite a few 'options'...

I think she died last week so wouldn't have been announced in today's numbers

It was her aunt saying no underlying health issues, which obviously isn't the same thing.

Agree, saying they don't have underlying health issues doesn't mean exactly that, as a lots of disabled people tend to have underlying health issues that either not detected or simply brushed aside.