I didn't say it's not...but this also isn't 1918 and it's sure as hell not H1N1, which impacted all ages and healthy people. This from data we've seen isn't killing healthy people or young people.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple No Longer Plans to Debut New Apple TV+ Content at SXSW Due to Coronavirus Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The value of entertainment content (as in profits to the shareholders and producers) often depends highly on the amount of PR before and during the release of that content. The virus epidemic is currently absorbing tons of that potential news PR and PR opportunities.
It's unlikely that Covid-19 will "come back every year" like the flu does. Flu comes back because there are many different Flu viruses and new versions keep emerging every year.
Likewise, we keep catching "common cold" because there are hundreds of different viruses than can cause it (some of which are Coronaviruses!).
Of course, it's possible that different SARS-type coronaviruses could emerge just like different Flu viruses keep emerging, but it's likely that we'll build up some degree of community immunity to them.
Sorry, I misremembered the ship's name. I meant the Diamond Princess, not the Royal Princess. This is the cruise ship which was quarantined in Japan for several weeks. The 700+ cases number has been widely reported in the media.
Yes, I could be jumping to conclusions on this point. But in media reports on the quarantined ship (Diamond Princess), passengers who were seen in photos and videos did appear to generally be older (I'd say mostly 50+). Some quite elderly and in wheelchairs, etc.
Last I was on the Diamond Princess (several years ago), there were lots of families with kids as well as retirees. But on other Princess itinerary's, I heard from friends who retired long ago that they were among the youngest couples on their cruise.
So, you spent your holiday doing a careful census of the age and medical histories of your fellow passengers (including ones who you maybe didn't meet because they had different dining and entertainment tastes to you) and comparing it to the general population? Or do you mean that you just saw a bunch of 20-somethings and kids - which wouldn't prove a thing. "Skewed to retirees and elderly" doesn't mean "Visibly stuffed full of retirees and elderly".
You have a cruise ship - a type of holiday which appeals to the elderly and infirm who like a hotel where the scenery comes to them. You have a virus where the majority of fatalities are among the elderly and infirm. If that ship contains (say) 40% elderly and infirm people rather than the (say) 30% you'd expect in the general population that means that there is actually a near 30% increase in the potential fatalities on that ship.
Now, that's just a hypothesis - maybe someone has done an actual study of the ship in question which would confirm or refute it - but the media is only concerned with the drama and human interest, so good luck hearing about a boring statistical study especially if it reduces the headllne figure.
As I pointed out, that's simply my experience in 15+ years of cruising. I'm not claiming any sort of study but will say you get to see a broad cross section through out the day as well as talking with the crew about typical passenger breakdown. Given C19 seems to hit the 30+ harder a good percentage of passengers would fall in that range.
It also appeals to a lot of younger travelers, in my experience. A lot depends on the line, with more expensive cruises having older average/median ages, with Disney a possible exception. From what I can find the average age is around 45 or so, with about 19% 60 - 69 years old.
I agree. My point is that the ship's population is small enough to assume C19 has a much lower mortality rate because you did not see a 2-3% mortality rate is not a valid conclusion; any more than claiming it is higher because 6 died out of some 50 who've tested positive in a nursing home. Too small numbers in both cases.
[automerge]1583493630[/automerge]
Yes, a lot depends on itinerary and time of year. School and summer vacations probably see a larger percentage of younger travelers and others a higher percentage of older ones.
Last edited:
...based on studies that all admit that the figure is probably inflated because of the unknowable number of unreported mild infections. C.f. decades of data collection about flu. That's a typical example of panic inducement - headlining the worst-case fatality rate while omitting or burying the major caveats attached to that figure.
So will panic - or do you not think that global economic recessions, market crashes (wiping out people's pensions if they're unlucky in timing) or major food shortages have a body count? Or that locking (figuratively or otherwise) people in with known cases to contain the virus isn't - at the very least - a double-edged sword.
There are experts recommending sensible precautions like hand-washing (which should be repeated every flu season anyhow) screening people returning from known hot-spots, while also making sensible contingency plans for the future. There was a government briefing in the UK a couple of days ago in which the PM sensibly introduced a couple of bone fide health officials and then shut up, which gave 100% sensible advice and an outline of the ongoing plans about containment, delay and mitigation. People should absolutely pay attention to that. Newpaper headlines: "Nothing to stop virus sweeping Britain!!!", "80% may get coronavirus!!!"...
Trouble is, the modern media don't say "Here's an important story about coronavirus - we should report it so people can take informed precautions" they say "Today's big news is coronavirus - go and and scrape up as many sensational stories as you can". Here's a typical example (from the BBC who are among the more level-headed of the media):
Coronavirus: How do I get a food parcel?
At least 50,000 free weekly food parcels are to be sent out to clinically vulnerable people in England.
www.bbc.co.uk
To be fair, the further you read down the text the more balanced it gets (typical BBC), but just look at the headline and the photos of empty shelves* (one totally unattributed, the other marked 'Getty Images' so probably a stock photo). What do you think people who just skim the front page (and haven't heard of Betteridge's Law of headlines) are going to take away from that?
Edit - confession: just been to the supermarket and the toilet roll shelves are, indeed, barren, although everything else seems to be copious and, indeed, the only reason I was even thinking of toilet paper and walked down that aisle was because of the suspiciously specific news reports (history will never know whether I would have been hypocritical and bought a few extra packs...)
Last edited:
If you are referring to SXSW, then yes they should cancel it since a large number of the tourist that attend are from the West Coast and that is where the coronavirus has the worst numbers. I grew up in and around Austin. When I was still living there they started that stupid SXSW festival and it was a royal PITA every year to have to avoid those areas of town for a few weeks. I hated it. We had too many tourists already, and way too many out of staters moving in and driving up property rates. Once I retired I had to move away as it was too costly to live there any more. They ruined my home town and that entire part of the state by driving up the prices and causing overcrowding! Austin was a cool place until it morphed into the "Silicon Hills", now it is just another Bay Area,
Yes let’s call it a state of emergency where there isn’t even a single case within the county. Let’s call a state of emergency in regards to a virus that the overwhelming vast majority of those who are inflicted with it survive and without a hospital or doctor. Media over blowing everything as usual. Just saw a headline from the latest people magazine. It read “One mans story. How I survived the corona virus.” Oooooh, oh and awww. So did like 95 or 96 percent of the people that got it. Hate the media.
“So did like 95 or 96 percent of the people that got it”
Would you go to a party with, say, 20 of your friends and family if you knew that one of you was guaranteed to be killed there?
Depends on which friend or family member.
While the threat is real, the hysteria is not helping deal with it in a positive manner. Nor is the mixed messages coming from the US government.
People getting into fights over toilet paper? That a bunch of ...
The problem we have is that not enough is being done, not that too much is being done.
Every time anyone complains about “hysteria” they are on the side of getting people killed.
Obviously not but your example isn’t even on the same planet as the Texas convention.
the math is the same! “Hey, 95% of the people who get it live!” So that means 5 in a 100 don’t, which is the same as 1 in 20.
(The 95% is wrong, of course, but saying “don’t worry - 95% of people who get it will survive” is absolutely absurd innumeracy.)
I agree; however some of the public seems to overreacting by buying up masks, which aren’t really effective for preventing infection, toilet paper, water, etc. If we had more reliable information rather than the mess we have more could get done.
[automerge]1583710671[/automerge]
‘Actually, how it is said can change someones view of the risk, even if the actual numbers are the same.