Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are valid questions about China data, which is why I said it would be interesting to see if pattern holds in other countries. However I also don’t automatically dismiss everything that comes out of there, at least in raising questions on base assumptions, particularly as we have very limited data set of countries that have passed through the bulk of their first wave. I’d love to see the same analysis on South Korea data for instance.

And just because a hypothesis seems “common sense” doesn’t mean it is necessarily correct or even if correct it is not overwhelmed by other factors - you test it against data.

Why is every country social distancing if it isn't common sense that the experts agree on?

Even Sweden are social distancing. China's experts know something everyone else doesn't?
 
Why is every country social distancing if it isn't common sense that the experts agree on?

Even Sweden are social distancing. China's experts know something everyone else doesn't?
Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

In an uncontrolled environment when no-one knows about the it agree that how a virus spread means that high population places would be hit harder and indeed I expected that to play out throughout the outbreak myself

But once a country knows about it that doesn’t necessarily mean the same still applies and that was what the World Bank was exploring. In theory it might still be the same - after all even with social distancing you’d probably see more people going out to a grocery store in an urban area than a rural one. But it might be that there was better testing rates available in a rich, high density area compared to a lower density one that enabled earlier quarantine. Or better compliance with lockdown because of being able to work from home with better internet access or getting deliveries of food or other factors like mask wearing or even obeying lockdown orders.

San Francisco for instance is up there as one of the most dense population cities US.
Yet despite being very close ties Santa Clara where the first US deaths were and an outbreak likely spread for quite a while undetected it has a very low number of deaths - 25 in a city of over 800,000

In comparison Boston has less population, spread out over a bigger area and yet a significantly worse death toll of 340

There are undoubtably many different variables - SF put in lockdown about a week before Boston, weather, how recording deaths, % of vulnerable people may be different factors that are at play.

But overall there so far seems to be pretty weak correlation between population density and outbreak which I find intriguing and which is why I was interested in the China data that seemed to further raise questions if populatiom density was a significant factor.
 
Last edited:
Only the mentally unhinged would believe that statement.
So deaths, hospital admissions etc. aren’t going down? We aren’t closer to the end of lockdown than the start of it?

As all your posts in this thread have been apocalyptic in nature I’d love to hear your reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top