Coronavirus, a threat or media hype?

[justducky0]

Do you think having an NCAA tournament with college kids and no fans will cause people to die?

College students may not get severely affected but they would be carriers of the disease back to their homes and campuses. The point of these cancellations isn't to entirely stop deaths; it's to slow the virus' progression to give the government and medical professionals time to get things in place to help when and/or things get worse.

I get that, I totally do, at first I thought keeping fans out was ridiculous then as I researched more I found to find the logic in that, I understand wanting to slow it. But honestly, this idea of cancelling the tournament all together honestly feels excessive to me. There are plenty of other precautions to take, don't let anyone with a fever play, things like that. Sure it would suck if say Sabrina or Pritchard can't play, but better than just cancelling the entire thing. I don't see how cancelling the NCAA tournament will save any lives.

If you did some research and changed your stance with new information we got no issue and your recent points have been measured and without hyperbole. It does suck for eveyone, nobody wants this but the sooner we can slow the spread solve it the quicker we go back to normalcy.

[Duck07]

Quick question, does the Corona virus have a “season” similar to the flu? The “flu season”. In other words, will it fizzle when summer comes?

It is not a seasonal flu strain.

[Tray Dub]

Quick question, does the Corona virus have a “season” similar to the flu? The “flu season”. In other words, will it fizzle when summer comes?

It is not a seasonal flu strain.

It isn't, but it might be sensitive to temperature. There is some evidence to that effect. Still uncertain though.

[UOducksTK1]

Quick question, does the Corona virus have a “season” similar to the flu? The “flu season”. In other words, will it fizzle when summer comes?

It is not a seasonal flu strain.

We actually don't know that yet. Summer could slow it down.

[justducky0]

There is some thinking that the disease will not do well when overall temperatures heat up

[greenyellow]

Viruses like this typically grow when the temperatures are down because people's own body temperatures are down and they relocate to building/confined spaces with limited ventilation and humidity. The thought process is to cut down on the amount of person-to-person contact so that virus eventually dies out through no new hosts and increased health levels as people go outdoors to get warmer, moister air and UV light.

[lukeyrid13]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

[Duck07]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

[UOducksTK1]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Well considering Italy doesn't even want to hospitalize the elderly, I don't think they care about the elderly. Because their notion is that they are dying anyway.

So the Italian mindset, it shouldn't matter and we should continue with sports because if the elderly get sick we will just let them die and not burden our system.

[UOducksTK1]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

+1. Plus China and South Korea contained in less than 2 months. Flu kills 600+k a year. That's over 50k a month. We have 4.9k deaths in two months worldwide.

Swine flu was bad, but we did nothing like this.

[Tray Dub]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Well considering Italy doesn't even want to hospitalize the elderly, I don't think they care about the elderly. Because their notion is that they are dying anyway.

So the Italian mindset, it shouldn't matter and we should continue with sports because if the elderly get sick we will just let them die and not burden our system.

Good god is this mistaken. They're not hospitalizing the elderly because they HAVE NO MORE BEDS, because people are dying faster than they can treat and they have to decide who they can save. It has nothing to do with their mindset. Talk about blaming the victims.

[GrandpaDuck]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Well considering Italy doesn't even want to hospitalize the elderly, I don't think they care about the elderly. Because their notion is that they are dying anyway.

So the Italian mindset, it shouldn't matter and we should continue with sports because if the elderly get sick we will just let them die and not burden our system.

I think you may be mistaken there in terms of "want". My understanding is their ICU capacity has become overwhelmed and they are making treatment choices similar to deciding who gets in a limited number of lifeboats.

[UOducksTK1]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Well considering Italy doesn't even want to hospitalize the elderly, I don't think they care about the elderly. Because their notion is that they are dying anyway.

So the Italian mindset, it shouldn't matter and we should continue with sports because if the elderly get sick we will just let them die and not burden our system.

Good god is this mistaken. They're not hospitalizing the elderly because they HAVE NO MORE BEDS, because people are dying faster than they can treat and they have to decide who they can save. It has nothing to do with their mindset. Talk about blaming the victims.

I know that lol. But most cases that are non-elderly can just stay at home and be fine, they don't need to be in ICU. They just need to be quarantined. The people who need the beds are the elderly.

[UOducksTK1]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Well considering Italy doesn't even want to hospitalize the elderly, I don't think they care about the elderly. Because their notion is that they are dying anyway.

So the Italian mindset, it shouldn't matter and we should continue with sports because if the elderly get sick we will just let them die and not burden our system.

I think you may be mistaken there in terms of "want". My understanding is their ICU capacity has become overwhelmed and they are making treatment choices similar to deciding who gets in a limited number of lifeboats.

Again. Death rate for 10-50 is almost non-existent. So let's give those people beds, but not the elderly who need it. That makes no sense...

[lukeyrid13]

I hope that I am proven right and that I'm not wrong, but as of right now, while I respect the precaution, I think this is the biggest overreaction that I've seen.

Can you save lives by trying to curb large social events, sure, but the overall economic impact and widespread paranoia don't seem to fall in line with the actual impact of this virus. The mortality rate in those under 50 is like 0.3%. I don't want anyone to get sick or have illness but I'm not sure that the virus dictates the response.

The mortality for older folks is startling, but I am not sure the whole world should stop as opposed to trying to make sure those in higher risk demographics just being aware and taking precautions.

So how many dead older people is okay for just business as usual? This notion that "only" the elderly are dying so whatever approach is awfully telling. Btw, that is still a higher mortality rate than the flu too.

Again, do I like the mortality rate being around 20% for those 80+ no, that's a startling number. On the flip side, the mass hysteria when the mortality rate for those that are not 'elderly' rivals that of the yearly flu but with far fewer (for now) infected and it's just interesting the response. As a VERY cautious and over bearing parent, I can relate, but (my opinion) this just doesn't appear to be the outbreak that should cause the global and national pandemic that is instilling this incredibly rare caution.