The 65+ demographic is pretty big in this country....

47 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

FI organisers have said if any team is prevented from racing they'll cancel the Grand Prix.  That is a huge amount of tourist dollars lost to the Vic economy if it is cancelled.  imv the government is playing a high risk game in putting $ before health, especially as Ferrari's location and perhaps it's major fan base is in northern Italy. 

Wouldn't be at all surprised if a ban on travellers from Italy is activated as soon as the race is finished.

Agree

Vietnam banned Italians from their short term visa exemption yesterday. How it will impact their fist GP due in April is interesting

34 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

So true. 
An 85 year old died from Coronavirus last night. 
let’s talk about it all day on the news

Sell all shares and empty Supermarkets..

Dumb Humans....

1 hour ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Was going on 1% of the 7b population, as you correctly pointed out, if the mortality rate is at 1%. Looks like it might be higher.

Regardless of the math, it could still be a serious pandemic.

no, no. you are assuming everyone gets infected. will never happen.

i mentioned 2% fatality rate but that was just to illustrate that even at that rate your prediction would be excessive

as pointed out by dee watcher the fatality rate should be lower for the average age.  majority of world in high population areas is quite young.

70mill would be very very pessimistic

18 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Outside of Asia I believe the mortality rate is far less, around 1 or 1.5 per cent.

There's no biological reason why Chinese people should be more susceptible to the virus, given that health care in China is generally quite good. I'd hazard an extremely uneducated guess that the reported mortality rate may be lower outside of China because many of those people would have been infected while travelling - you'd expect this demographic to be skewed towards the young and fit. WHO's ~3.4% figure may well be pretty close to the mark. 

 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

no, no. you are assuming everyone gets infected. will never happen.

i mentioned 2% fatality rate but that was just to illustrate that even at that rate your prediction would be excessive

as pointed out by dee watcher the fatality rate should be lower for the average age.  majority of world in high population areas is quite young.

70mill would be very very pessimistic

 

Obviously not everyone will be infected, but there's at least some chance that a substantial proportion of the world's population will be. The Spanish Flu showed that it's entirely possible (reputedly about 1/3 of the population infected) - all in the days before widespread overseas travel (although primitive quarantine measures as well). I agree that 70 million would be a very pessimistic outlook, but I don't think tens of millions is entirely out of the question. I doubt that things get that bad personally, but like most of us, I really have no idea. 

Given the age demographic of those at risk, think what it could do to our membership base!

28 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

There's no biological reason why Chinese people should be more susceptible to the virus, given that health care in China is generally quite good. I'd hazard an extremely uneducated guess that the reported mortality rate may be lower outside of China because many of those people would have been infected while travelling - you'd expect this demographic to be skewed towards the young and fit. WHO's ~3.4% figure may well be pretty close to the mark. 

 

Though I don't like to generalise, cruise ships are full of older folk 70+, like the guy who died in Perth

32 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

 

Given the age demographic of those at risk, think what it could do to our membership base!

Now that wins the MFCSS award of the week.

at this stage it is virtually impossible to say what the average fatality rate overall would be across all age groups and cultures

as shown in  a previous post it is very age dependent. The age demographics across continents and countries varies greatly. The developed countries have a greater aged % than the less developed countries (where more people live). Additionally there is varying health facilities and practices across countries. So, whilst under developed countries have a lower average age they also have lower health standards and support, consequently their fatality rate in the younger might be higher than the average for that age. Finally the virus is more virulent in cold weather so those countries close to the equator may be much better  off

so to talk of an average fatality rate across the board or even an average by age is very difficult and potentially prone to great differences depending where in the world we are referring to.

fortunately however, the figures so far indicate a relatively low fatality rate (cf other deadly pandemics)

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Now that wins the MFCSS award of the week.

What do I win - a role of collingwood-printed toilet paper? Actually, Hawthorn would probs be a better fit. 

It’s actually impossible to say what the current infection rate is. I’m in Taiwan at the moment and have been watching CNN news reporting on this. In Japan “experts” are saying that in reality there are probably thousands infected, but who just haven’t reported the illness. Also, the Ayatollah in Iran made the point that the reason they have such a high number is that they are being open and transparent in their reporting of figures, whereas many countries are probably not. I get the feeling that because of the cost of health care in the US, their figures are most likely extremely inaccurate as there would be many who could not afford to be treated and so they keep quiet.

Agree Hardtack about the numbers. Was on another forum where an epidemiologist made the following valid point: ( he was talking about Italy)

everyone should keep in mind that the number isn't increasing because the virus is spreading fast. The number is increasing because more people are being tested and THE DISEASE WAS ALREADY PRESENT in the population. Expect countries like the US who only test persons with symptoms to have an explosion in numbers. Thousands have it already, but since their symptoms aren't bad, they just let it slide. The only way to confirm the disease is spreading fast is to have good random sample testing of people over a period of time. That's not what's happening...

8 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Touching that is probably more dangerous than coming into contact with the coronavirus!

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

no, no. you are assuming everyone gets infected. will never happen.

i mentioned 2% fatality rate but that was just to illustrate that even at that rate your prediction would be excessive

as pointed out by dee watcher the fatality rate should be lower for the average age.  majority of world in high population areas is quite young.

70mill would be very very pessimistic

Look it was just a light hearted mathematical example. 1% of 7b = 70m. Ok? I was merely replying to a post that said 1% was nothing. I was implying if.....

15 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Gold?

No toilet paper at my local supermarket.

The hive mind is unreal.

2 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

No toilet paper at my local supermarket.

The hive mind is unreal.

Absolutely ridiculous! 

I’ve had family members from overseas have their flights cancelled due to the virus so they can’t make my wedding. 

The biggest joke is that corona virus is no more contagious or deadly than any other normal flu strain. People need to calm down. The panic is more dangerous than the disease itself! 

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Absolutely ridiculous! 

I’ve had family members from overseas have their flights cancelled due to the virus so they can’t make my wedding. 

The biggest joke is that corona virus is no more contagious or deadly than any other normal flu strain. People need to calm down. The panic is more dangerous than the disease itself! 

I agree that the panicing is ridiculous.  But it is more deadly than the flu. Numbers are still uncertain, but is seems it may be 20 times as bad.

Just now, sue said:

I agree that the panicing is ridiculous.  But it is more deadly than the flu. Numbers are still uncertain, but is seems it may be 20 times as bad.

The death rate amongst healthy young people is currently less than healthy young people who die from multitudes of other diseases. 

19 minutes ago, sue said:

I agree that the panicing is ridiculous.  But it is more deadly than the flu. Numbers are still uncertain, but is seems it may be 20 times as bad.

Might be 20 times more contagious not so sure about the mortality rate

15 minutes ago, Jaded said:

The death rate amongst healthy young people is currently less than healthy young people who die from multitudes of other diseases. 

True. But novel viruses are notoriously unpredictable - major pandemics that have killed millions of people have occurred several times throughout human history. It would be the height of naivety to assume that it couldn't happen again. Coronavirus may or may not be the next one - but at this point, the best available medical advice seems to be that it very much has the potential. It may very well eventuate to nothing - but I think that dismissing the virus as a non-event is just as foolish as mindless panic (not suggesting that you are Jaded, but many people are very quick to downplay it).  PS congrats on the wedding.

50 minutes ago, loges said:

Might be 20 times more contagious not so sure about the mortality rate

No, the 20 times figure is indeed mortality.  Current flu's are around 0.1%, this seems to be 2% but this is uncertain at this stage (and cetrainly age dependednt as if the flu).

I believe the Flu has a death rate of something like 0.2% overall. This is sitting at around 2-3% as an average across age ranges. By no means a very 'deadly' illness, but yes, it is much more deadly and serious than the Flu, depending on which strain you get (there is a mild and a severe, most of the 'spread' cases outside of China are the mild version). 

The panicking is only ridiculous if you don't understand multiplicity.

Yes, based on the infected/death rates we are seeing TODAY, panicking would appear a disproportionate reaction.

However, if it takes off and follows an exponential path as any uncontained virus does, we reach significant numbers very quickly. It's that scenario a smart planner prepares for.

An estimate of 50m infected globally is not unreasonable if that is to occur. The worry with Australia now is that it could very well be circulating, sitting dormant in many of us now in the general population, before the incubation period passes and all of a sudden we get a huge spike in diagnosed infections. That's what happened in Italy. In the time it was sitting and incubating, we've inadvertently passed it to others - and so on and so on.

It's very reasonable to expect a mass quarantine of some form at some stage, if nothing else than to buy those in charge some extra time to respond. I expect the F1 will probably be cancelled (truthfully, it should be anyway but clearly they will do everything they can to keep it going) and some AFL games may be behind closed doors or cancelled entirely. Other public events may suffer a similar fate. 

Jaded it is very unfortunate that you have had family who cannot travel for your wedding but it is for good reason. I would be talking to your venue and other suppliers about what your options are in the event of cancellation and/or rescheduling.

I'm one of the many who has lost money and had stuffed travel plans because of this - it sucks but I don't think the reactions we're seeing are unreasonable. The only thing I think is weird is the quantum of toilet paper being bought - I suspect 2 packets probably lasts most households through 2 weeks unless you have either a very large family or very sensitive guts. But instead, people are buying 4, 5, 10 packets like we are going to be in lockdown for 6 months. If that happens, we will have far bigger problems than toilet paper. 

Nonetheless, you don't respond and react to something like this based on how it looks today.

You respond it based on how bad it could get. When it comes to public health, any other approach is negligent.

Hey i am overseas, travelling around

it is a huge overreaction 

But Hopefully it will cull a large chunk of the uneducated swill