CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Using in your figures, Canada’s infection rate, as a percentage of population, is 0.00000606 and Australia’s is 0.00000758.

Where is this “1.5 times” coming from?

---

Population of Canada -- 37.6 million (source: Canada, Demographic Indicators
-
Google Public Data Explorer )
population of Australia -- 25.2 million (source: 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2019 )

37.6/25.2 = 1.49 (close enough to 1.5 ??)

I'll accept your figures for infection rates because
1. the number of Canadians testing positive has increased very materially in the last 24 hours, and
2. I haven't seen the latest figures for Australia as it's still early Sunday morning in Perth, and
3. currently there's a PLUS 17 hour time difference between Sydney and where I live in Alberta meaning that with the rapid change in the number of confirmed COVID-19 infections comparison of infection rates are more than a bit rubbery.


The point I was trying to convey was that in Canada the restrictions on travel (essentially don't travel outside the country) and limits on venue size (maximum of 250 people) compare less than favourably with those currently in place for Australia (venue size limit of 500 doesn't start till Monday) and overseas travel is still mostly OK.


I was at my local nordic centre this morning (Saturday) and while the place was fully staffed and the maintenance staff were working outside, the place was fully taped off because it can accommodate more than 250 people. although the corridors, toilets and cafeteria (limit to 3 people at a time) were still functioning the centre looked like a ghost town.

Anyone seen the ads? The ones I’ve seen are about as attention grabbing as a blank hospital ward wall, Too little, too late, too slow, too confusing, too much political backside covering, too selfish, too self serving, etc
i guess it’s business as usual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Too little, too late, too slow, too confusing, too much political covering, too selfish, too self serving, etc

---

it's just too depressing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

i guess it’s business as usual?

---

That's the really sad part.
Once again Australians look across the ditch and think "why can't we be more like ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Too little, too late, too slow, too confusing, too much political covering, too selfish, too self serving, etc
i guess it’s business as usual?

---

Bob,
Has put it put perfectly,

The real problem is investment,
If we all just sit inside for a few weeks take a breather extra.

But all I hear on the news is sports are cancelled($)
This is canceled($)
Extra

As for Scotty,well he showed his true marketing colours during the fires.
Sorry Rant over,

Cheers Matt.

As an isolated nation with a small population and only small pockets of population densities, you would like to think we have a better scenario than most countries to deal with the situation

Lets hope our fearless leaders are up to the challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

As an isolated nation with a small population and only small pockets of population densities, you would like to think we have a better scenario than most countries to deal with the situation .

---

Sure, but look at NZ - they are far smaller and less densely populated but appear to be ahead of us.

WA being far enough away from the east coast and with relatively few cases could well stay out of a full lockdown for some time lockout but I hope not.

BTW for those that not aware, if anyone thinks I'm paranoid I'm 65 with a 4 co-morbidities. If excrement hits the ventilator I won't even get close to one..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Population of Canada -- 37.6 million (source: Canada, Demographic Indicators
-
Google Public Data Explorer )
population of Australia -- 25.2 million (source: 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2019 )

37.6/25.2 = 1.49 (close enough to 1.5 ??)

.

---

Now your talking population numbers.

The statement of yours I questioned was “Say 1.5 times the number of confirmed cases in Canada. “

On that basis 218/197 = 1.1 not 1.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

how to solve the TP shortage by Rob Cosman

YouTube

---

Top comment: “Never wipe against the grain” :U

I regret to say I misled you folks with an earlier post (#194, p13) regarding the shortage of loo roll in Millmerran. The visitation by brisbane people buying up our supplies has now been debunked (we spoke to an employee in one of the supermarkets). New supplies arrive each day (but are bought up fairly quickly) and we are out of supplies at the moment because it is the weekend.

So apologies for that. I should have double checked the source: It would have been a good story if it were true :- !

Just to climb back onto the main issues of why the corona virus is more insidious than some of it's related ancestors (sars, bird flu, swine flu etc). A recent example on one of the cruise ships concerned a couple where she was hospitalised for three weeks and was as sick as a dog. her husband was later tested positive also (not surprising really), but he displayed no symptoms and was not ill in any way whatsoever. Nevertheless he was a carrier! Much more worrying. Following on from that the woman was tested clear and then became ill again and re-tested positive. The disease appears to be biphasic: Another disturbing aspect.

Coronavirus symptoms — Australian couple from Diamond Princess explain what it's like to have COVID-19 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Clearly there are disturbing aspects of corona virus that were not there for other flues.

Why are we more concerned about corona virus than climate change? A couple of things come to mind: Sickness is a tangible state that we can see with our eyes and it attacks something very personal: Our body. CO2 and the consequences towards the climate on an every day basis are largely invisible. Possibly the most significant difference however is that the wealthy are not immune to corona virus and as well as the possibility of becoming sick their wealth may also be king hit if the share markets continue to decline.

Regards
Paul

Its not just the wealthy. How about those retired and on superannuation? Hopefully they can ride it out.

"Possibly the most significant difference however is that the wealthy are not immune to corona virus and as well as the possibility of becoming sick their wealth may also be king hit if the share markets continue to decline."

It's not just the wealthy who will be king hit if the share market continues to decline, it's anyone who has any investments (or savings) at all. This includes most Australians, who have super. Already we have seen major commercial effects from the fallout from the current situation (Flight Centre to close 100 stores) and that's just the beginning. If thousands of people are put out of work by this situation it's not going to recover overnight.

By way of redeeming myself (from my failure to check a source as above) you may like to view this piece by "thejuicemedia," who are infamous for pointing out the lies and misinformation propagated by the government on a wide range of topics in the most irreverent manner:

YouTube

Thejuicemedia had a particularly good year in 2019 and this clip explains both the philosophy behind it and the production methods. Wonderful stuff to my mind: Just be sure not to get in their bad books.

YouTube

Sanctioned by the Ministry for Satire. Enjoy. :wink:

Regards
Paul

PS: Language warning. I would add that if you are offended at the beginning but manage to view the complete clips you won't be by the end.

Based on the experiences of the husband and wife on the cruise, a two week lockdown wouldn’t work. Maybe a month or more would be required if this biphase is happening. No economy could withstand the effects of a total shutdown for a month or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

By way of redeeming myself (from my failure to check a source as above).

---

I don't think the source was too bad but it highlights the problem with referencing any source consisting of one person.
The same applies to any reporter, journalist commentator who throws thing in our of left field.

The most reliable sources we are going to have to learn to trust are those that come out of a consensus groups of suitably qualified persons. Like CDC or WHO or our own net of health. None of these will be perfect either, but in groups like these the over cautious members of the group tend to be mitigated by the other members.

I worked on an international science panel for chemistry for about 20 years and it was most reassuring to see how they operated. The group I was in has been going for 120 years and included such luminaries as Marie Curie back in the 1920s. (BTW I don't consider myself anywhere near a luminary - more like a "burnt out candle") The most reassuring thing about this group is that in 120 years of operation it has never been found to be wrong. This shows the extreme caution taking with reviewing published work and handling measurement tolerances. BTW we had a number chinese and russian scientists on the panel and found them to about as right and wrong as anyone else on the panel.

I have no doubt that epidemiology is MUCH more difficult than what I was involved with but these people are way ahead of anyone else (especially an unqualified person) which is why we (and governments) should take notice of them.

I have serious concerns regarding the WHO President. He was more concerned about offending the Chinese by countries blocking entry to Chinese travellers ( pointed the finger at Australia) that he was about controlling the disease by imposing these restrictions. He actually inferred it was racist.