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

Tx :)

30p a load

-----> Golf thread

On the bus today, most people wearing masks and bus driver handed one to someone who didn't.

It's not very busy yet, but a good start. Town is still very quiet...

Is it just me, or does this article contain statements of fact that aren't backed by research? Also seems quite Switzerland specific. I thought that most studies found that covid is only slightly inhibited by hot weather

One example:

So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viri do — which is what we’re observing globally right now. Flu viri mutate significantly more, by the way, and nobody would ever claim that a new flu virus strain was completely novel. Many veterinary doctors where therefore annoyed by this claim of novelty, as they have been vaccinating cats, dogs, pigs, and cows for years against coronaviri

And this doesn't seem like language I'd expect from a respected medic. Surely misses the point of wearing a mask.

Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.

I started to read that article and it sounded like Internet bollocks, so I stopped.

That paragraph is particularly jarring.

Not sure what to make of the rest, a lot of that has been said before, including the 'we should just protect those at risk' bit, which seems to have been marked down as ineffective as those most at risk are typically served by those who could spread it to them.

I stopped at the incorrect plural of virus that's probably designed to make the author sound cleverer than they are.

It's posted on medium.com. Therefore there's a very good chance it's rambling inane bollocks.

Quote from the Weldwoche article:

'The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter...'

Latest data on new cases in Switzerland from the FT.

1 Attachment

His point as far as I could make out amid the rambling & general rantiness, was that all the "asymptomatic" tests are just picking up virus residue from where the immune system is fighting it off (or has already fought it off). Maybe if that's true the increased numbers are just due to increased volume of tests.

The number of people on Twitter saying we should listen to him and none of the other scientists. The world is a depressing place.

Why now? Isn't it quite an old article?

To be fair I think that's down to the translation to English more than anything. The rest of it does sound like unsubstantiated bollocks though.

Reasonably old. It came to my attention because a bunch of people on Twitter are using it for proof that covid is a hoax and a professor from a swiss university says it's an overreaction so all the other scientists are wrong.

Now you know which people you should unfollow.

He's (I think) a retired professor and the "he's an important medical professional making an extremely important point" is not how science works.

Some people...

1 Attachment

Bound to happen

Now you know which people you should unfollow

I'd have to follow somebody first! Just tend to dip in a few times a month to look for various things relating to the research I'm contributing to at the moment. Twitter can be an alarming place.

At least it's not that godawful Tomas Pueyo specious horseshit that keeps being posted.

This is a shit thing to post for many boring reasons

I agree.

And lo, the NHS will be reorganize.

Not sure what to make of the rest, a lot of that has been said before, including the 'we should just protect those at risk' bit, which seems to have been marked down as ineffective as those most at risk are typically served by those who could spread it to them.

I was curious what people thought, because I read it when I was tired and I didn't really see how a lot of what he said prompted the "it's a hoax" in the comments section. It seemed like a set of niche points, but also not very clearly that we should have identified and protected the most at risk people in society early on.

Mainly because it's about the eleventeenth one of these 'denial to death in four steps' things I've seen.