RugbyRebels

Tigger wrote:Slightly off topic but what happens if the Italy England game gets called off due to the coronavirus? Osprey and Ulster games have been called off on 29th Feb and we play over there two weeks later.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51615577

If the RWC was a precedent, points shared?

Would that be Parisse's retirement party put off until the summer/autumn?

Mikey Brown wrote:Would that be Parisse's retirement party put off until the summer/autumn?

Will Scotland be placed in isolation for 14 days to spare rugby fans watching them again?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51626709

Both Italy games against Ireland and England "under threat".

If games need to be called off in Italy then really they need to be called off everywhere, and if that's the case lots more travel generally should be deemed off limits

Digby wrote:If games need to be called off in Italy then really they need to be called off everywhere, and if that's the case lots more travel generally should be deemed off limits

How come called off everywhere? There's significant numbers of infections in Italy which makes it a risk, but none in any of the other 6N countries.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If games need to be called off in Italy then really they need to be called off everywhere, and if that's the case lots more travel generally should be deemed off limits

How come called off everywhere? There's significant numbers of infections in Italy which makes it a risk, but none in any of the other 6N countries.

Puja

It's just a matter of time

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If games need to be called off in Italy then really they need to be called off everywhere, and if that's the case lots more travel generally should be deemed off limits

How come called off everywhere? There's significant numbers of infections in Italy which makes it a risk, but none in any of the other 6N countries.

Puja

Just read an article that claims controlling the 'speed of spread' is the only defence. It recommends suspending all tourism immediately.

Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

Stom wrote:Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

This. The panic being generated is imo disproportionate. Until I'm proved wrong.

Stom wrote:Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

Added to that is that it's 3% of the people confirmed to have coronavirus die. Given the symptoms are akin to a very bad cold or a flu (depending on the person), I'd be amazed if even a tenth of the actual infections are picked up.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

Added to that is that it's 3% of the people confirmed to have coronavirus die. Given the symptoms are akin to a very bad cold or a flu (depending on the person), I'd be amazed if even a tenth of the actual infections are picked up.

Puja

3% is roughly 30x more than Flu. And it's thought to be about twice as infectious. Worse still, it's seeming likely that a large portion can be asymptomatic, meaning they can spread the illness not even knowing they're ill.

I'm fairly sure that specialists in the field are probably taking into account for the fact that not everyone is going to notice their ill, or get confirmed, and have figured that into their calculations.

Flu doesn't spread much, is easily recognised, and well vaccinated for. This is a different kettle of fish.

Wilson and Watson added to the squad with Earl dropping out. Too many number 8s?

Stom wrote:Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

Infectious disease is not my forte - but let's put that 1.7-2.8% figure into some context (rather than just repeating Trump's denialism)
Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 had a mortality rate of 2.5%
Swine Flu panic of 2009 had a mortlaity rate of 0.026%
Unlike Flu - it appears you can be infected and spreading, but entirely assymptommatic for a week or two before anyone would notice being ill.

Oh, and it's not just the old and unwell dying; 0.9% mortality rate amongst those with no pre-existing condition
1.3% mortality rate in those aged 50-59; 0.4% death rate in those aged 40-49; 0.2% mortality rate in those aged 10-39
Yeah, the old and infirm have a higher mortality rate - no shit, they have a higher mortality rate for anything - very much including influenza

Whilst I'm not too worried about it for the UK at this point in time, one very good think it has done, is raise the standard of basic hygeine in people - actually covering their mouths when they cough/sneeze, typically washing their hand soon after; sometimes even using a tissue!

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Look, of people who get Coronavirus, 3% die.

And wait, there's more, pretty much all the deaths are of people who have existing medical conditions or who are old.

It's like the flu. We don't suspend tourism because of the flu.

It's not a very dangerous virus. 29 million people in the US have got flu this winter. 16,000 have died of it. 280,000 have been hospitalised. Yet we don't suspend travel to the US.

16,000 have died of flu in the US alone this winter.
60 people have died of Coronavirus outside of China.

Added to that is that it's 3% of the people confirmed to have coronavirus die. Given the symptoms are akin to a very bad cold or a flu (depending on the person), I'd be amazed if even a tenth of the actual infections are picked up.

Puja

3% is roughly 30x more than Flu. And it's thought to be about twice as infectious. Worse still, it's seeming likely that a large portion can be asymptomatic, meaning they can spread the illness not even knowing they're ill.

I'm fairly sure that specialists in the field are probably taking into account for the fact that not everyone is going to notice their ill, or get confirmed, and have figured that into their calculations.

Flu doesn't spread much, is easily recognised, and well vaccinated for. This is a different kettle of fish.

But Coronavirus has infected in total less than 80,000 people. While in the US alone, 29 million got the flu.

All I'm saying is: we don't limit travel for the flu, and that is far more infectious and impacts kids a lot harder than coronavirus seems to (I saw a table showing cases and deaths per age band, and pretty much anyone under 40 who got Coronavirus had less than 0.3% chance of death.

The Italian health ministry said literally everyone who died had an existing condition.

Old people are at risk, yes, and should be warned.

But to cancel sport and stop travel? That seems excessive.

Ah. I see your game.

Kill the olds.

Mikey Brown wrote:Ah. I see your game.

Kill the olds.

Then hold a new referrendum?

Stom wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:
Added to that is that it's 3% of the people confirmed to have coronavirus die. Given the symptoms are akin to a very bad cold or a flu (depending on the person), I'd be amazed if even a tenth of the actual infections are picked up.

Puja

3% is roughly 30x more than Flu. And it's thought to be about twice as infectious. Worse still, it's seeming likely that a large portion can be asymptomatic, meaning they can spread the illness not even knowing they're ill.

I'm fairly sure that specialists in the field are probably taking into account for the fact that not everyone is going to notice their ill, or get confirmed, and have figured that into their calculations.

Flu doesn't spread much, is easily recognised, and well vaccinated for. This is a different kettle of fish.

But Coronavirus has infected in total less than 80,000 people. While in the US alone, 29 million got the flu.

All I'm saying is: we don't limit travel for the flu, and that is far more infectious and impacts kids a lot harder than coronavirus seems to (I saw a table showing cases and deaths per age band, and pretty much anyone under 40 who got Coronavirus had less than 0.3% chance of death.

The Italian health ministry said literally everyone who died had an existing condition.

Old people are at risk, yes, and should be warned.

But to cancel sport and stop travel? That seems excessive.

80000 is what is currently confirmed to be infected. 30000 more have already had the illness and recovered (or died).

You think China, with it's amazing human rights records, is building 10s of new hospitals to deal with this for no reason?

And as has been said, people can be asymptomatic, or just consider they have something else. A stadium is a highly packed environment, especially when adding in bars/pubs etc that the crowds will go to after, then everyone on the plane here and there.

Public transport to and from airports, departure lounges and planes themselves must create circumstances/environments that jack up the infection rate substantially, I'd have thought.

Ireland vs Italy has been postponed.....

Like hurricane Katrina but in Rome. A stadium full of sick attractive women, exspresso, and actual tasty food.

Stom wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:
Added to that is that it's 3% of the people confirmed to have coronavirus die. Given the symptoms are akin to a very bad cold or a flu (depending on the person), I'd be amazed if even a tenth of the actual infections are picked up.

Puja

3% is roughly 30x more than Flu. And it's thought to be about twice as infectious. Worse still, it's seeming likely that a large portion can be asymptomatic, meaning they can spread the illness not even knowing they're ill.

I'm fairly sure that specialists in the field are probably taking into account for the fact that not everyone is going to notice their ill, or get confirmed, and have figured that into their calculations.

Flu doesn't spread much, is easily recognised, and well vaccinated for. This is a different kettle of fish.

But Coronavirus has infected in total less than 80,000 people. While in the US alone, 29 million got the flu.

All I'm saying is: we don't limit travel for the flu, and that is far more infectious and impacts kids a lot harder than coronavirus seems to (I saw a table showing cases and deaths per age band, and pretty much anyone under 40 who got Coronavirus had less than 0.3% chance of death.

The Italian health ministry said literally everyone who died had an existing condition.

Old people are at risk, yes, and should be warned.

But to cancel sport and stop travel? That seems excessive.

Not being an expert, I'd only add a couple of things:

- it's not fair to compare flu in the US which has been there a long time with Coronovirus which has only just arrived - experts (and Puja above) seem to be saying that it is far more infectious than flu

- 0.3% for under 40s seems quite high (though guessing some were I'll already)

- the best way to stop it killing old people is to stop younger people getting it and spreading it - just old people taking precautions is far less effective

Can we call this year's Six Nations a draw and share the title please?

I'm impressed he knows which country the USA is

Raggs wrote:

Stom wrote:

Raggs wrote:
3% is roughly 30x more than Flu. And it's thought to be about twice as infectious. Worse still, it's seeming likely that a large portion can be asymptomatic, meaning they can spread the illness not even knowing they're ill.

I'm fairly sure that specialists in the field are probably taking into account for the fact that not everyone is going to notice their ill, or get confirmed, and have figured that into their calculations.

Flu doesn't spread much, is easily recognised, and well vaccinated for. This is a different kettle of fish.

But Coronavirus has infected in total less than 80,000 people. While in the US alone, 29 million got the flu.

All I'm saying is: we don't limit travel for the flu, and that is far more infectious and impacts kids a lot harder than coronavirus seems to (I saw a table showing cases and deaths per age band, and pretty much anyone under 40 who got Coronavirus had less than 0.3% chance of death.

The Italian health ministry said literally everyone who died had an existing condition.

Old people are at risk, yes, and should be warned.

But to cancel sport and stop travel? That seems excessive.

80000 is what is currently confirmed to be infected. 30000 more have already had the illness and recovered (or died).

You think China, with it's amazing human rights records, is building 10s of new hospitals to deal with this for no reason?

And as has been said, people can be asymptomatic, or just consider they have something else. A stadium is a highly packed environment, especially when adding in bars/pubs etc that the crowds will go to after, then everyone on the plane here and there.

Plenty of people walking around with no symptoms is obviously bad for limiting the spread, but also means the mortality rate must be quite a bit lower than the reported 3%.

The panic and reaction seems over the top to me, considering it’s a marginally more aggressive version of the flu.