Should Schools and Universities Be Closed for 14 Days?

What are your thoughts on this?

" Scott Morrison says Australian schools should remain open for the time being, despite growing calls for them to shut to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
Speaking after a special national cabinet meeting today to decide what course of action the nation should take to slow the spread of the disease, Mr Morrison said shutting schools down would do more harm than good.
"People are naturally anxious about the issues of schools," he said.
"As the British chief medical officer observed over the last couple of days, the issue of wide scale closure of schools, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but the advice is this could be a very negative thing in terms of impacting on how these (epidemic) curves operate, for two reasons.
"When you take children out of school and put them back in the broader community, the ability for them to potentially engage with others increases that risk. That's the understanding we had.
"Also issues of herd immunity which relate to children. The other is the disruption impact that could have and put at great risk the availability of critical workers such as nurses, doctors and others who are essential in the community because they would have to remain home and look after their children.
"So while it may seem counterintuitive, there (are) very good reasons why you would not be moving to broadscale closures of schools. That could make the situation worse, not better.
"The states and territories are not moving in that direction."
The PM said the matter would be reassessed on Friday."

Poll Options

  • 588
    YES.. Let's stop the spread of COVID19
  • 243
    NO.. I agree with Scomo
  • 16
    I don't care

Comments

            • +5

              @DisabledUser88699:

              Just because some of the older generations behave thoughtlessly doesn't make the entire generation culpable.

              Yet the outcome of their in/actions will be felt by all younger people.

              • +1

                @stumo: So if an 16 year old does something like shoot up a school, should all young people be branded because of the widespread repercussions?

                If we are going to condone blatant discrimination, why not based on sex, race and religion.

                You're using the same generalization and rhetorics that is frowned upon elsewhere. Just because it is age based doesn't make your philosophy any less hateful and bigoted.

          • +4

            @stumo: Just ignore them. There are a bunch of people who have got their knickers in a twist about a kid’s passing remarks and blown them out of proportion. It is best if we just don’t make eye contact and back out of the room. They seem to have bypassed logic and perspective. I find it best just to ignore them and let them foam at the mouth, it seems to make them happy.

    • +2

      https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

      Boomers?? 100 companies are responsible for most of pollution. Unless 70% (covid death rate?) of the boomers today are running those companies, they are innocent!

      It's Murdoch's fault if you want to know who to blame for Australia.

      • You mean individuals choosing to buy unnecessary crap isn't to blame?

        Whew. I feel so much better already.

    • +5

      This is we don't let teenagers have an opinion, or at least be able to do much with it. It's perhaps the perfect example of why we should be raising the voting age, yet the Greens want to lower it because they know only hysteric children will be stupid enough to vote for them.

      I'm not sure if this teen you spoke to worded it the exact same way you did, or if you're just paraphrasing, but statements like this :

      The more boomers succumb to this virus , the less resistance there will be to taking real actions against climate change

      are a blatant sign of wanting to kill off your political opponents. Thats not how the world works. Again, this is why we don't let teenagers do much except post on Facebook. Here's hoping it stays that way.

      I wonder how understanding youd be if Christians were going around saying "the more gays that die from AIDS, the less resistance we have!"

      • +1

        Since there is a tone of excessive emotionality in your post, allow me to provoke you further.

        Of course we give teenagers a say. 18 and 19 and teens right? And not a negligible proportion of teens, I might add.

        • +1

          Granted - but our laws still deny most teenagers the right to an opinion. They only have a two year window.

          And don't mistake pointing out detestable and disgusting opinions as emotionality.

      • +1

        I can find plenty of non teens who say dumb things too….this is just an anecdote.

    • This is the mentality of it's bad but it does not affect me so I don't care, whatever the excuse is.

      Is it the teenage's opinion or yours ?

    • +1

      Distilled, your reasoning really comes down to justifying the deaths of the older generation for the agenda being pushed by the younger.

      It is convenient philosophy and the ultimate end game of convenient philosophy is justification of death.

      That is why I (and everyone else should) abhor this flimsy brand of righteousness.

      • +2

        Distilled, your reasoning really comes down to justifying the deaths of the older generation for the agenda being pushed by the younger.

        No. Distilled, my reasoning is the same as, I've no doubt, what yours would be: IF, we reach the point where we need to prioritise treatment, we save the young and the otherwise healthy first because they have the greatest chance of survival.

        As for this teenager, he is repeatedly being told that those from his generation are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers. He knows that despite his best intentions, he could become an agent of death for some 'pas and nanas. He and his mates justify these possible deaths by choosing to look at the positives that could come out of this sad situation rather than be riddled with guilt.

        So long as both him and I are taking all the necessary precautions to avoid becoming a carrier , I don't see what is so reprehensible about what he said.

        • +1

          IF, we reach the point where we need to prioritise treatment, we save the young and the otherwise healthy first because they have the greatest chance of survival. Is my reasoning wrong?

          Your reasoning only fits one particular circumstance, a circumstance that requires priority.

          The original reasoning did not require the construct of limited supplies and priority.

          He and his mates justify these possible deaths by choosing to look at the positives that could come out of this sad situation rather than be riddled with guilt.

          The positives require the presupposition that climate change is man made and specifically contributed by those who died, and contributed more greatly than the teenagers themselves.

          There's a lot of assumptions to arrive at a conclusion to "see the positives" from the death of others.

          • +2

            @DisabledUser88699:

            Your reasoning only fits one particular circumstance, a circumstance that requires priority.

            Which is the current situation in Italy. So, not a far-fetched one.

            The original reasoning did not require the construct of limited supplies and priority.

            Which is why I said I "kind of agree" rather than I "whole-heartedly agree".

            presupposition that climate change is man made and specifically contributed by those who died, and contributed more greatly than the teenagers themselves

            Common presupposition among teenagers and young adults.

            There's a lot of assumptions to arrive at a conclusion to "see the positives" from the death of others.

            I should have taken more care when trying to condense a conversation into a couple of sentences, especially when teenagers tend to convey so much more with their body language rather than their words. I apologise . My excuse is that I was in a rush and didn't want to miss a much-awaited video call. I also forgot how much of a trigger the phrase "climate change" is on ozb.

            • +2

              @DisabledUser102420: I don't think anyone here thinks you are actually wicked.

              I think you came to a rash decision regarding a seemingly harmless philosophy.

              As per some of the comments above, that's why we don't let teenagers have any actual power. They believe they know stuff and I believe they actually think it is true.

              • @DisabledUser88699:

                I don't think anyone here thinks you are actually wicked.

                Oh, dear! This would have gone a lot differently if I had answered that question regarding the medical specialty I would be interested in. I would be getting crucified right now😧

                • @DisabledUser102420: Dermatology?

                  That's not a specialty, that's a paid vacation!

                  • @DisabledUser88699:

                    Dermatology?

                    People only do it for the money. Some of them grow to love it, but I question medical students motives if they say anything other than "it pays well and their is little stress" when they say they want to do derm.

                    • @serpserpserp: Haha. Honestly, I was just taking the piss.

                      It's an amazing speciality.

                      If someone with the intelligence to become a specialist wanted nothing but money, there are easier ways.

                  • @DisabledUser88699: Actually, I would have gone with the least sexy of all specialties.

          • +2

            @DisabledUser88699:

            The positives require the presupposition that climate change is man made and specifically contributed by those who died, and contributed more greatly than the teenagers themselves.

            Climate change is man made. Teenagers have contributed very, very little to climate change, and have no responsibility for it. Teenagers (mainly) can not vote. Teenagers have no positions of power or influence, in fact they barley have any agency at all over their own lives. How any of this can be up for any debate at all in 2020 I really have no idea.

            Personally, I think that the generation who held positions of power and voting majority for the last 30 years and have chosen to do nothing, deserve very little respect from the youth of today. Climate change could ravage the world, kill billions of people, cause mass migration, make whole continents uninhabitable, and force billions more into a much lower standard of living, health and productivity. They did this for overwhelmingly selfish reasons, not willing to make even the smallest of sacrifices for the following generations.

            Im not going to jump on a kid for finding the irony of being asked to make massive sacrifices for a group who, even still, refuse to make any for them.

    • +1

      Did you tell him he should seek help dealing with his narcissism?

    • -2

      Climate change isn't real, so no stupid kids are going to die of "weather".

    • I'm not in support of arguments which rely upon whataboutery. But what's good for the goose…

      I'm in my 30s and therefore don't care about kids or old people, but they don't care about me either so all is fair (/s).

    • Agree that you can understand his viewpoint, even though it's not necessarily a great viewpoint to have. I think it's just reflective on human nature that many only care about the things that directly affect them, and are happy to ignore issues that affect others

    • Climate scaremongering and "kung flu" hysteria have a lot in common; their goal is to frighten people into supporting bigger governments and more statist intervention, culminating in an all powerful one world government. Globalists created/engineered Coronavirus strain 19 in order to wipe out older conservative folk who don't support their totalitarian agenda. All GenZers are nanny state loving socialist statists.

      • +1

        Scientists have found that the RBD portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins had evolved to effectively target a molecular feature on the outside of human cells called ACE2, a receptor involved in regulating blood pressure. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was so effective at binding the human cells, in fact, that they concluded it was the result of natural selection and not the product of genetic engineering.

        This evidence for natural evolution was supported by data on SARS-CoV-2's backbone - its overall molecular structure. If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness. But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.

        These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2.

  • +7

    I've been in shutdown for schools since March 2nd, in Japan. Japan has had a slow rate of spreading as a result. Its up to the country to make that happen, and closing schools has slowed it down as a result. I don't believe Australia will achieve the same result, based on culture.
    As a teacher I'm still at school all day, because I'm getting paid. Students are working from home, yet still have limited social lives. I don't think we are 'stir crazy' from being in this situation, but we definitely miss the action of business as usual. We are achieving many things in place of teaching, such as cleaning and organising. It has become an opportunity, and our leadership (in the school) has been awesome to ensure our productivity shifts to what we can do, instead of absolutely nothing.

    Instead of debating whether to close or not, make a plan for what to do to keep active and stimulated in the case of school closure. Its a good opportunity to create new habits for learning, hygiene, exercising and organising.

    • +1

      What is Japan doing about the elderly, given they are the most likely people to succumb to the illness?

      • And they make up a large part of the population. Daytime TV has plenty of information for them, and they suggest to stay at home as much as possible. I've got concerns for my in-laws, who are cautious, but not so much.
        I think the Australian supermarket initiative for opening specially for the elderly is a great idea. I'm not in a city or busy area so I dont know how its handled. My area has plenty of elderly people, and awareness and isolation is the most they can do. We are encouraged to keep good contact, phone and message everyday.

        • +1

          Thanks for the answer.. I just find it odd people obsess about schools and Unis but don’t seem to be prioritising the practical aspects of isolating the group most likely to be affected. Keep healthy and safe

          • +1

            @try2bhelpful: Thanks mate, very true. And after potential isolation ends, another problem emerges for the elderly after being alone and restricted for a while. You too, keep healthy and safe thumbs up

    • +2

      I don't think students in Japan can be compared to those in Australia. West Australian schools put out annual reports on assaults, suspensions, violence against teachers. I'd love to be able to compare those to Japanese schools. Different social structures and standards.

      • Absolutely. I've been here almost 5 years, havent seen anything worth disciplining the whole time. I did more disciplinary action in a morning teaching in Australia than 5 years here.
        Japanese students are still very sociable though, like all students around the world. That's why closing schools wont help stop the spread.
        But those schools in Sydney where they got cases confirmed, its a good idea.
        I don't think closing all schools at the same time will be positive.

        • Not all schools necessary yet, but any school in a suburb with any community spread should be closed.

          We could have been implementing localised quarantines from the get go and maybe could have avoided the nationwide one which will be in effect in a few weeks at the rate we are going.

  • For many children the only meal they get is the breakfast club they have at school. Those kids don't have access to internet or computers. We like to forget we don't have a computer per class let alone student and definitely none at home. Who looks after them when the school is closed? They need that structure for their own safety and to keep them off the streets and out of harms way. From harming themselves, harming others, and from being harmed by others. The rent doesn't stop, the bills don't stop, so children frequently go to grandparents, aunts uncles, those most at risk for childcare. For physical and mental health keeping society as normal as possible while protecting.

  • +3

    western society is doomed they have failed to manage this from the get go.

    maybe they should take some advice from their experienced eastern countries.

    to be honest i would feel safer in Hong Kong or Taiwan than Australia right now.

    westerners have no idea about the concept of masks.

    it's time to mask up people. it's long past the time of only sick people wearing masks.

    they're called PPE for a reason

    i wore a mask to work today.

    it's so frustrating i have heaps of friends in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan telling me to wear a mask. and then the westerners at work tell me not to. i'm going to listen to someone who has experienced this before, not to someone from australia sorry.

    mask up and save yourself

    • +4

      The big problem with that is that getting masks at the moment is probably harder than getting toilet paper…

      • +3

        ye tbf I think everyone knows we should be masking up, but sadly we just don't have enough to go around, and if people were this hostile over toilet paper imagine how crazy they'd get over masks.

        The government and media are in a tight spot. Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't. They take a light stance -they get accused of not taking it seriously enough. They take a strong stance- they get accused of sparking panic. Can't win.

    • +3

      Watching this unfold over the last few months has essentially been the world sleepwalking into a pandemic.

      Cases popping up everywhere from travellers returning from infected countries while governments all around the world essentially did nothing other than scratch their heads and count up the infected.

      • They barely even did that, testing and contact tracing is the most important thing and up until a week ago or so it wasn't happening in reasonable numbers or time.

        • +1

          Properly screening arrivals and/or closing border to effected countries immediately would have been a good idea.

          We were still allowing flights as usual from Italy when they had the whole country locked-down over there. I mean what they hell did they expect to happen, seriously.

          • @trapper: Yep, amazes me how they close off Italy just prior to the Grand Prix. None of this has been handled correctly and we've had have perfect examples (Wuhan and Italy) of situations we can now look forward to.

            As a side note - the difference in discussion amongst colleagues now is much different to a week ago, where I was labelled crazy for even suggesting that Australia could face a lock-down.

            Why are people so bad at thinking about the future?

    • +1

      But wearing mask now is not a solution and will make things worst. If everyone were to wear mask now, we will not have masks left when it is vital. Health professionals will run out and that would make matters even worst.

      The reason why those countries can do that is because they stock up on masks for pollution, there was a constant demand for it. Its a completely different situation and Australia is just not ready. What we can do however is to not consume the masks before we need it.

      • +2

        Australia has 20 million masks in its national medical stockpile.

        More than enough assuming we quarantine asap before case numbers grow out of control.

        • +5

          That’s not even 1 per person for one day though.

    • +2

      Only use masks if necessary, for example if you need to go to hospital / doctors when you are sick. You don't need to wear mask when you are not sick as stocks are limited and its necessary for doctors and nurses.

      • +1

        it's past that stage. how often do you see westerners wearing masks if they're sick? you don't.

        we are past that stage. its time to wear a mask as the sick people arent wearing them.

        i really dont care about getting negged for this comment from anyone here.

        i have been taking advice from people who survived sars.

        to be honest i'd feel safer being in hong kong or taiwan than in australia

        aussie dont get the concept of wearing masks. and you will all pay

        • +1

          Bullshit.

          https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

          Wearing a mask everyday is of very little benefit and hugely wasteful. It's arguable the drain on face mask stocks meant for actually critical situations where people have covid-19 will lead to MORE cases.

          SARS peaked at 8-9k cases, as of today covid-19 is over 200k. They're different beasts, and healthy people not in contact with infected people wearing a mask everyday does (profanity) all.

          Attitudes like this are why we're dealing with hoarders.

          • +1

            @seabombs: ok believe what you want and post whatever links you want to back up your opinion. you are entitled to that.

            i dont get info from webpages

            i stay informed with information from my friends in china some are still locked down and from other friends in HK.

            these people survived sars first hand. i'll take advice from experienced people on the ground.

            not some misinformed keyboard warrior from australia.

            i'm not a hoarder. if hoarders had half a brain they would have masks instead of toilet paper.

            enjoy your cough loser

    • +1

      It's is funny how people are insisted on telling you how the mask is not working, I'll wear a mask if I want to, it is none of your concern.

  • +1

    A school my kids goes to has 1) No assemblies
    2) No excursions or trips/tours
    3) Hand sanitizes in every room ( yes I told him to get me some )

    • +2

      Hand sanitiser is pointless when you in a small classroom with 25 other kids. If one comes in infected it is spreading no matter how clean their hands are.

  • I mean they close for two weeks holidays in a few weeks. So what's the difference. Also these kids aren't going to stay home there going to be out doing stuff hence more risk of spreading and catching it, no?

    • +1

      Yeah if the average parents think they gonna start self-isolating from now til Term 2, I commend their willpower.

      Once the official Lock down comes they'll be complaining of claustrophobia and saying "WHY ARE WE LOCKED IN OUR HOMES!? I NEED TO GET OUT"

      At least during actual School Hols my siblings will do homework and probably spend majority of the time on computer playing Multiplayers with their friends, time would fly. (Of course we will get them to do other things around the house and backyard too)

      What the govt should do though is prepare schools to go Online and give parents the choice to do so. I just got a School email passed onto me basically saying they have noticed some parents aren't sending their kids to school because of CV, but they still are required to attend if not sick. DA-HEK?

  • +1

    I saw a stricter stance from Sydney Uni to my uni last week and was a bit envious.

    Last night UTS email stated classes will now be online. To not have to catch public transport an hour each way 4 times per week for a while, head into city, attend classes, rush to station or find places to wait in between classes honestly felt really relieving. Am youngish but have some risk factors, and my family does more than I, and also concerned re the oldies at work.

    When the stance in aust is sort of lax, and friends in healthcare are busy and see how relaxed people can be, anything to flatten the curve is a good thing. And for all that Aussie summers are twice as long as winters, a part of me wishes the warmer weather back for virus containment etc.

    Waaah D:

    • -1

      UwU

    • +1

      Yes, I wish my uni can come to a decision as well. I can totally empathise with your situation.

    • Usyd will be online from next week. But they haven’t given tutors or UoS coordinators any time to prepare.

  • +1

    Don't know why primary/high schools don't have online learning yet.

    • +2

      Because socialisation is important at a young age I guess, kids can't learn how to interact with people if they just stay home

      • its not a binary choice though. the biggest risk is that students could progress in some course much faster, which would disrupt our one year fits all approach to mass education.

  • Universities are just large public gatherings of adults in a school-like setting, they need to stop having classes in their physical locations.

    Schools appear to be debatable, but universities have adults who are more likely affected.

    • +2

      There's little reason to run lectures in person at all.

      The only reason I can come up with is that universities engage in a kind of "theatre" where it seems like they deliver an education for a fair price… But really why do we pay someone to read the same script as large year, while displaying PowerPoints from 2 years ago, without having time to take questions?

      Tutorials are important, group discussions are important, but turning up to a lecture that could have just been recorded… Nah.

      $6000 per semester to mark 8ish assessments and 4 exams, giving me access to 12-24 pre-recorded lectures seems a little steep. Seems like a better deal when you're walking around all the sandstone (at Sydney Uni anyway).

      • 110% agree with your assessment.

        Although I would say lectures are more engaging in person, I personally would stay home and watch at 1.5-2x speed instead and avoid the commute when uni was running normally anyway.

  • +11

    I don't get this whole "it's too early" logic… it's too late if anything.

    If we wait another week or two it's not going to be any easier or cheaper. We will we have 5000+ cases instead of 375, so it's going to be an order of magnitude harder and thousands of additional people will die.

    What is gained by waiting a couple weeks? We will still have schools closed, businesses closed, lockdown and general quarantine etc

    Look at Italy now - all they had was a head start.

    • +3

      Agreed. People are notoriously bad at understanding exponential growth. Lockdown at 200-300 cases is way more effective than lockdown at 20,000.

    • In 2 weeks, it's school holidays in Vic.

      • The lockdown is going to go a lot longer than two weeks anyway, so might as well start now.

        Look at the Hubei lockdown, 54 days so far and they still have 8k cases on going.

        • it's too late.

          the true effects of the bondi event on the weekend will be revealed in about 12 days from now.

  • +3

    Let me just address this BS about the "counterintutiveness":

    "When you take children out of school and put them back in the broader community, the ability for them to potentially engage with others increases that risk. That's the understanding we had.

    Do children not go out at weekends and before/after school on things like public transport? This reason is pure BS.

    "Also issues of herd immunity which relate to children. The other is the disruption impact that could have and put at great risk the availability of critical workers such as nurses, doctors and others who are essential in the community because they would have to remain home and look after their children.

    Do children of healthcare workers suddenly require someone to be at home to look after their children regardless of the kids age?
    Do helathcare workers not have partners or family who could look after the kids?
    Couldn't we just set up temporary childcare for the few healthcare workers kids who don't fit the above categories (there will be plenty of capacity due to the empty schools etc)?

    No. This is BS to mask the real reason they aren't closing schools. The real reason is that they want the kids to become infected so that the recovery happens quicker. Economy > people.

    • +1

      The real reason is that they want the kids to become infected so that the recovery happens quicker. Economy > people.

      From a public health perspective, I haven't heard any other endgame other than heard immunity once 60%ish have been infected. I guess it is better to let a greater portion of those be school-age kids given the minimal effects it has on them than older Australians whom it is far more serious for. I think the economy is a big reason why they haven't closed schools yet (it will likely have a significant impact on workforce participation for no real difference in controlling the spread yet), but if you think the economy is just about figures on paper, I suspect people living through a financial depression would disagree with you.

      • -2

        Heard immunity is one of two end-games to any epidemic/pandemic. It is either achieved through vaccination or the old-fashioned way , where at least 60% of the population develop their own anti-bodies.

        The other one is extinction.

  • +1

    Lol following the British as an example for corona is suicide. GG.

  • +2

    Schools are being closed, Public gatherings are banned, borders closed, everything is shut down in other countries. Are we waiting for more people to die before we do anything? Is Scott Morrison going to be personally held accountable if our grandparents die?

    • +2

      You are working from the flawed assumption is about stopping the spread, that's not going to happen, it's about flattening the curve.

      • +1

        So herd immunity is going to flatten the curve? How do you flatten the curve?

        • +2

          Slowing the spread flattens the curve, it's still the same area under it (ie amount of people getting it) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Covid-19-curves-grap... It is a widely held belief that it cannot be contained, it's about managing it, a widely available vaccine is still 18 months+ off, so barring a financial depression inducing style total lockdown for that period of time (in which time you probably have only further flattened the curve as opposed to substantially limited the infections)
          The only viable endgame at the moment is herd immunity from about 60% of people already having had it, then it's spread is severely limited due to not enough susceptible people for it to infect.

          • @tryagain: The issue is there is evidence of different strains of the Coronavirus. So people could get it more than once.

            • @Trioboy: Yes, but at the moment the issue is with COVID-19, and whilst that can potentially mutate and change in the future, that doesn't change the ways in which we can deal with the here and now. There always has and will likely be for a long time, the possibility of new viruses affecting us.

          • -2

            @tryagain: This 'slowing the spread' thing is a fantasy.

            Italy only had 10k cases and their health system was already collapsing.

            Still only 25k infected out of 60 million, so only 0.04% of the their way to 60% 'herd immunity'.

            They just need to do it all another 1440 times and they will reach 60% yay.

            • @trapper: There is some poor logic here, slowing the spread is about keeping it too a point where the health system can cope, this is something Italy obviously didn't do due to being slow to act. The case there is an argument for taking action ahead of the curve to slow the spread if anything, not an example of how slowing the spread to allow hospitals to cope hasn't worked.

              • -2

                @tryagain: The logic is sound.

                Italy already going too fast to 'slow the spread' - evidenced by their health system collapse.

                But Italy will need to repeat this 1440 times to reach 60% 'herd immunity' - ie it is a fantasy.

                There are only two outcomes here and herd immunity isn't one of them. Containment, or catastrophic disaster.

                • @trapper:

                  Italy already going too fast to 'slow the spread' - evidenced by their health system collapse.

                  As I said, this if anything, Italy is a case for getting ahead of the curve not that it can't be slowed, you have also said China has drastically slowed the infection rate, this contradicts this point.

                  But Italy will need to repeat this 1440 times to reach 60% 'herd immunity' - ie it is a fantasy.
                  There are only two outcomes here and herd immunity isn't one of them. Containment, or catastrophic disaster.

                  And yet the advice of most experts is that containment to the point of eradication isn't likely, although I think that is what we should be aiming for, China's latest results are encouraging though.

              • +1

                @tryagain: I hope this theory is correct, France had similar infection numbers to us maybe 8 days ago. I know because I was still planning to fly to Paris last week and was checking on the situation there (flight is scheduled on the 30th of March). Today I'm busy trying to cancel my holiday because France is in lockdown.

      • +2

        China managed to stop the spread, they had 80k cases. Now only 8k left and almost no new infections.

        • +2

          Substantially slowed, not stopped. Time will tell I guess if there are more outbreaks or not, but it is cause for encouragement and stepping up the shut down.

          • +2

            @tryagain: We should be going on lockdown right now to prevent further spreading.

            • @Trioboy: Given the 3-4 day delay in getting test results, an average 4-5 day incubation period, and an average doubling time of 4 days. Our real total is probably around 1750, I think greater restrictions are going to be happening sooner rather then later. If current measures don't slow it down it will be about 20,000 in two weeks.

              • @tryagain: Unfortunately you may be right, we don't know how many superspreaders are walking around unknowingly infecting others.
                We are at the same point where France was around ten days ago.

Login or Join to leave a comment