How big or small or not at all of a farce is coronavirus?

Watch
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#1
In other words, what do you think is the role of the media in common perceptions surrounding the virus?
0
reply
MrMusician95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 days ago
#2
The media aren't posting any good news. Of the almost 401,000 confirmed cases - globally - almost 104,000 have recovered. And this doesn't mention the people who weren't tested and recovered from the virus.
0
reply
Pigster
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 days ago
#3
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
In other words, what do you think is the role of the media in common perceptions surrounding the virus?
Try this: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

No media, no comment, no hype, just simple numbers which update on a regular basis.

Lots of lovely information for you, too.
0
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#4
(Original post by Pigster)
Try this: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

No media, no comment, no hype, just simple numbers which update on a regular basis.

Lots of lovely information for you, too.
Not to worry, I check this site multiple times everyday.

These are only confirmed cases but as MrMusician95 said here that this doesn't take into account those who weren't tested.

The death rate according to worldometers is 4% but the actual death rate could be somewhere around 1-2%. And UK government scientific advisers place it on 0.5-1%. Hence why I asked the question in order to know the real scale of things and put common perceptions in their right place based on data.
0
reply
David Getling
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 days ago
#5
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
In other words, what do you think is the role of the media in common perceptions surrounding the virus?
Well there are plenty of opportunities to play spot the idiot. The person cycling with mask, or the person who pulls their shirt over the face while passing you at a safe distance on a walk in the country.

But, hey, remember: a toilet roll a day keeps the doctor away.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 days ago
#6
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
Not to worry, I check this site multiple times everyday.

These are only confirmed cases but as MrMusician95 said here that this doesn't take into account those who weren't tested.

The death rate according to worldometers is 4% but the actual death rate could be somewhere around 1-2%. And UK government scientific advisers place it on 0.5-1%. Hence why I asked the question in order to know the real scale of things and put common perceptions in their right place based on data.
The issue isn't the death rate of the illness itself, but the knock on effects.

It's a more chronic illness than most, with a higher proportion of people suffering from it requiring hospitalisation. That overwhelms the healthcare setup of the countries, in turn causing more deaths because people can't be treated adequately.

Farce? No.
Last edited by Drewski; 3 days ago
1
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#7
(Original post by David Getling)
Well there are plenty of opportunities to play spot the idiot.
Lmfao. Made my day :rofl:
0
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#8
(Original post by Drewski)
The issue isn't the death rate of the illness itself, but the knock on effects.

It's a more chronic illness than most, with a higher proportion of people suffering from it requiring hospitalisation. That overwhelms the healthcare setup of the countries, in turn causing more deaths because people can't be treated adequately.

Farce? No.
This is exactly what's going on and why we're on lockdown.

Some people are comparing it to the common flu and although I could somehow see their point from a statistical point of view, I just don't think they're comparable at all! Especially after taking into consideration the drastic effects that coronavirus has on the elderly where the death rate increase dramatically. This is another kind of virus with a higher potential for hospitalisation.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 days ago
#9
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
This is exactly what's going on and why we're on lockdown.

Some people are comparing it to the common flu and although I could somehow see their point from a statistical point of view, I just don't think they're comparable at all! Especially after taking into consideration the drastic effects that coronavirus has on the elderly where the death rate increase dramatically. This is another kind of virus with a higher potential for hospitalisation.
But people, notably some on this site, just see the death rate and become blasé about the situation, and no longer take it seriously. And that's why we're in lockdown and will be for at least a month.
0
reply
MrMusician95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 days ago
#10
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
Not to worry, I check this site multiple times everyday.

These are only confirmed cases but as MrMusician95 said here that this doesn't take into account those who weren't tested.

The death rate according to worldometers is 4% but the actual death rate could be somewhere around 1-2%. And UK government scientific advisers place it on 0.5-1%. Hence why I asked the question in order to know the real scale of things and put common perceptions in their right place based on data.
Source for the 0.5%-1%?
0
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#11
(Original post by MrMusician95)
Source for the 0.5%-1%?
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743
1
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#12
(Original post by Drewski)
But people, notably some on this site, just see the death rate and become blasé about the situation, and no longer take it seriously. And that's why we're in lockdown and will be for at least a month.
It's definitely a serious situation and fits all the criteria for being labeled as a full on pandemic but I would also be cautious of taking it TOO seriously. There's a balance to be achieved here.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 days ago
#13
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
It's definitely a serious situation and fits all the criteria for being labeled as a full on pandemic but I would also be cautious of taking it TOO seriously. There's a balance to be achieved here.
Better take it too seriously than not seriously enough. That's what's been happening the last few weeks and it's why we're in the situation we're in.
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 days ago
#14
The media have been... OK, largely. But given the behaviour of so many idiots, I want them to start deliberately scaring us.

Start referring to it as SARS-CoV-2 instead of 'Coronavirus'. A nice scary illness name at the front might help the 'iTz JuSt fLU' brigade understand it's far more serious.
0
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#15
(Original post by Drewski)
Better take it too seriously than not seriously enough. That's what's been happening the last few weeks and it's why we're in the situation we're in.
There are repercussions to taking too seriously as well. We were late in locking down which took us to a higher level of seriousness and now we got what was waiting for us but with time I think the government should start dealing with this better by relaxing a few constrictions and constricting a few relaxations.
(Original post by Neilos)
The media have been... OK, largely. But given the behaviour of so many idiots, I want them to start deliberately scaring us.

Start referring to it as SARS-CoV-2 instead of 'Coronavirus'. A nice scary illness name at the front might help the 'iTz JuSt fLU' brigade understand it's far more serious.
The media can't even get it right at the moment because there's a lot of uncertainty concerning SARS-CoV-2. There are definitely idiots on both sides of the spectrum which is why we need to start balancing our view of what exactly this is that we're dealing with.
0
reply
NonIndigenous
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 days ago
#16
It spreads like wildfire through the population. It is pretty serious, and I think fundamentally undermines developed countries probably a lot more than developing ones.

Many developing ones already suffer high death rates, overwhelmed healthcare systems, etc. I imagine this is business as usual to them, just a little worse than normal.

Developed ones have far more complex pre-existing systems that are easily upset by disruptions like this. It's more an economic and political threat than healthcare one I think. To subsidize all the measures rolled out by the UK government recently, we are probably borrowing a lot of money from elsewhere. That will need to be paid back, or our credit rating gets hit. That will cause further waves, possibly more political fanaticism etc.
0
reply
Pigster
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 days ago
#17
(Original post by orpheuswolfgang9)
Not to worry, I check this site multiple times everyday.

These are only confirmed cases but as MrMusician95 said here that this doesn't take into account those who weren't tested.

The death rate according to worldometers is 4% but the actual death rate could be somewhere around 1-2%. And UK government scientific advisers place it on 0.5-1%. Hence why I asked the question in order to know the real scale of things and put common perceptions in their right place based on data.
Russian Roulette - a 1 in 6 chance of dying (at first) with the chance of earning cash. People do it. Mostly desperate people.

If it were 1 in 100 chance of dying with the chance of earning cash, would you do it? Probably now more people would.

But what if it were a 1 in a 100 chance of dying with no chance of earning cash? Or in fact of any reward whatsoever? How many people would be stupid enough to take that risk? Well... the answer it seems is lots of people!
0
reply
orpheuswolfgang9
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#18
(Original post by Pigster)
Russian Roulette - a 1 in 6 chance of dying (at first) with the chance of earning cash. People do it. Mostly desperate people.

If it were 1 in 100 chance of dying with the chance of earning cash, would you do it? Probably now more people would.

But what if it were a 1 in a 100 chance of dying with no chance of earning cash? Or in fact of any reward whatsoever? How many people would be stupid enough to take that risk? Well... the answer it seems is lots of people!
How is this argument related to anything I said or the current situation of reality in general?
Last edited by orpheuswolfgang9; 3 days ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (39)
58.21%
No (28)
41.79%

Watched Threads

View All