Jump to content
paddyfool

Coronavirus death toll 2020

Coronavirus death toll 2020  

44 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Lard Bazaar said:

Are you for real? So what about the hundred other members of the public that have been in and out of the hospital bog that day that may or may not be infected, we can’t catch it off them, no? You’re batshit mate.

 

There is a real issue with wearing gloves that may not have been made clear.

 

Bare skin has defences againat viral carriage that plastic gloves do not. The oil your skin secretes has evolved to be hostile to viruses, and contains RNAse enzymes designed to attack viral genetic material.

 

Also, hands can be washed with soap and water which is great at getting rid of viral carriage, or treated with high strength alcohol sanitiser. 

 

Furthermore, wearing gloves may lead someone to have a false sense of security, and fewer concerns about what they touch etc. 

 

So someone wearing gloves around a hospital is more likely to spread infectious particles around to everything they touch than someone not wearing gloves.  There's a reason why disposable gloves are exactly that - used clean for an interaction with a single patient, then junked. The only way someone visiting a hospital would gain any real benefit from wearing them would be if they used them the same way - using a disposable pair for a specific interaction with one specific healthcare practitioner or patient, and then throwing them away and washing their hands. And who does that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be moving up to the next level in the poll at some point today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paddyfool said:

 

There is a real issue with wearing gloves that may not have been made clear.

 

Bare skin has defences againat viral carriage that plastic gloves do not. The oil your skin secretes has evolved to be hostile to viruses, and contains RNAse enzymes designed to attack viral genetic material.

 

Also, hands can be washed with soap and water which is great at getting rid of viral carriage, or treated with high strength alcohol sanitiser. 

 

Furthermore, wearing gloves may lead someone to have a false sense of security, and fewer concerns about what they touch etc. 

 

So someone wearing gloves around a hospital is more likely to spread infectious particles around to everything they touch than someone not wearing gloves.  There's a reason why disposable gloves are exactly that - used clean for an interaction with a single patient, then junked. The only way someone visiting a hospital would gain any real benefit from wearing them would be if they used them the same way - using a disposable pair for a specific interaction with one specific healthcare practitioner or patient, and then throwing them away and washing their hands. And who does that?

 

He wasn't "wearing gloves around a hospital" in the sense implied. 

He was there for an appointment, ie  "a specific interaction with one specific healthcare practitioner".  

I'm sure that, like me at the supermarket, he would have discarded them as soon as he left the danger zone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paddyfool said:

 

There is a real issue with wearing gloves that may not have been made clear.

 

Bare skin has defences againat viral carriage that plastic gloves do not. The oil your skin secretes has evolved to be hostile to viruses, and contains RNAse enzymes designed to attack viral genetic material.

 

Also, hands can be washed with soap and water which is great at getting rid of viral carriage, or treated with high strength alcohol sanitiser. 

 

Furthermore, wearing gloves may lead someone to have a false sense of security, and fewer concerns about what they touch etc. 

 

So someone wearing gloves around a hospital is more likely to spread infectious particles around to everything they touch than someone not wearing gloves.  There's a reason why disposable gloves are exactly that - used clean for an interaction with a single patient, then junked. The only way someone visiting a hospital would gain any real benefit from wearing them would be if they used them the same way - using a disposable pair for a specific interaction with one specific healthcare practitioner or patient, and then throwing them away and washing their hands. And who does that?

I do respect your articulate and clear post however I still don’t buy it.  Even if washing hands is better than gloves, how many patients are going to wash their hands after every single instance of touching something whilst going about their hospital business - open a door, wash your hands, open the next door, wash your hands, touch the checking in desk, wash your hands, bog wash your hands, cup of tea wash your hands, it’s simply not going to happen - wear gloves and they haven’t touched anything with their skin and they can chuck them away when they leave.  Nothing is going to completely eliminate the risk of infection but a physical barrier has got to be better than relying on people to wash it away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lard Bazaar said:

I do respect your articulate and clear post however I still don’t buy it.  Even if washing hands is better than gloves, how many patients are going to wash their hands after every single instance of touching something whilst going about their hospital business - open a door, wash your hands, open the next door, wash your hands, touch the checking in desk, wash your hands, bog wash your hands, cup of tea wash your hands, it’s simply not going to happen - wear gloves and they haven’t touched anything with their skin and they can chuck them away when they leave.  Nothing is going to completely eliminate the risk of infection but a physical barrier has got to be better than relying on people to wash it away.

 

Thank you for your very polite and clear reply. I can see why you'd see gloves as a barrier between the skin of the hands and the outside world, but they really are also a surface that puts everyone at risk... including the wearer, if they aren't 100% meticulous about never touching their face with their own hands, and/or don't change them often. 

 

There's a reason why medical personnel going between wards or between patients will never wear gloves. They carry diseases much more effectively than skin even before you get into handwashing.

 

And regarding your example... many / most hospital doors can be opened with an elbow. And if you really do plan to wear gloves while going to hospital, how many pairs do you plan to get through if you're changing them at each juncture you describe? And if you're not planning to change them, what do you do if you go to the bog? Surely you wouldn't keep wearing a dirty pair you were wearing there around the hospital?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

 

Thank you for your very polite and clear reply. I can see why you'd see gloves as a barrier between the skin of the hands and the outside world, but they really are also a surface that puts everyone at risk... including the wearer, if they aren't 100% meticulous about never touching their face with their own hands, and/or don't change them often. 

 

There's a reason why medical personnel going between wards or between patients will never wear gloves. They carry diseases much more effectively than skin even before you get into handwashing.

 

And regarding your example... many / most hospital doors can be opened with an elbow. And if you really do plan to wear gloves while going to hospital, how many pairs do you plan to get through if you're changing them at each juncture you describe? And if you're not planning to change them, what do you do if you go to the bog? Surely you wouldn't keep wearing a dirty pair you were wearing there around the hospital?

….but too many of the fuckers are going off of wards still wearing their (potentially) contaminated scrubs, meeting up in quiet rooms, tea rooms and areas they should not be congregating together, let alone raising the possibility of spreading disease.

That is why norovirus is so prevalent in hospitals, It is not just Joe Public walking in with it and sharing it, it is staff that are the biggest spreaders, the Doctors are the worlds worst for that.

In perspective, a pair of sodding gloves really is small potatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

 

Thank you for your very polite and clear reply. I can see why you'd see gloves as a barrier between the skin of the hands and the outside world, but they really are also a surface that puts everyone at risk... including the wearer, if they aren't 100% meticulous about never touching their face with their own hands, and/or don't change them often. 

 

There's a reason why medical personnel going between wards or between patients will never wear gloves. They carry diseases much more effectively than skin even before you get into handwashing.

 

And regarding your example... many / most hospital doors can be opened with an elbow. And if you really do plan to wear gloves while going to hospital, how many pairs do you plan to get through if you're changing them at each juncture you describe? And if you're not planning to change them, what do you do if you go to the bog? Surely you wouldn't keep wearing a dirty pair you were wearing there around the hospital?

:Dwe have all of a sudden become very British and polite, we’ll be getting a warning off the mods soon :D we will need to agree to disagree - thankfully at present I have no need to go anywhere, apart from a supermarket every ten days or so - let’s just hope that we can all avoid this and keep well as much as possible and we can all get back to arguing with each other about how stupid the committee were for leaving that minor folk singer from Latvia off the list :old:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

 

I can actually remember when he used to be as funny as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

I can actually remember when he used to be as funny as fuck.

I bloody love Frankie Boyle. His suits always look too big for him though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lard Bazaar said:

I bloody love Frankie Boyle. His suits always look too big for him though. 

I used to like him a lot.

Not in that way, obviously, his beard would have irritated my thighs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

 

Thank you for your very polite and clear reply. I can see why you'd see gloves as a barrier between the skin of the hands and the outside world, but they really are also a surface that puts everyone at risk... including the wearer, if they aren't 100% meticulous about never touching their face with their own hands, and/or don't change them often. 

 

There's a reason why medical personnel going between wards or between patients will never wear gloves. They carry diseases much more effectively than skin even before you get into handwashing.

 

And regarding your example... many / most hospital doors can be opened with an elbow. And if you really do plan to wear gloves while going to hospital, how many pairs do you plan to get through if you're changing them at each juncture you describe? And if you're not planning to change them, what do you do if you go to the bog? Surely you wouldn't keep wearing a dirty pair you were wearing there around the hospital? 

 

I agree with Lardy.  We are talking about people going into a possibly contaminated environment for a limited time.  It's not difficult to avoid touching your face for that limited time.  If you discard the gloves on leaving that place, and use hand sanitiser before getting into the car, plus wash hands immediately you get home, I can't see how wearing gloves has put you more at risk than not wearing them.  Or anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surpassed 100.000 deaths worldwide now according to Worldometer.

 

In reality, it's much more likely we got passed that 'milestone' several days if not weeks ago.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the one person who voted for 1m-10m in the poll will probably have got it right, when this is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italian 101-year old man who beat coronavirus dead at, well, 101.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross Kemp went into an ICU ward to do a documentary I assume.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ladyfiona said:

Ross Kemp went into an ICU ward to do a documentary I assume.

 

 

 

As dumb as his EE character then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priti Patel makes an appearance:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a geography lesson for online readers of yesterday’s BBC.  

 

910713ED-C075-411E-A76D-3D33789E862B.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sir Creep said:

Below is a geography lesson for online readers of yesterday’s BBC.  

 

910713ED-C075-411E-A76D-3D33789E862B.png

Geography is a bad comparison though. That would make Canada a shining light in this situation (even more than they already are, I guess.). To compare cases, one should look at cases per population.

 

USA is doing okay-ish there right now, between France and Germany. But the growth rate of cases numbers means that it's rising to the top fast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect on Italy and The Vatican. The Pope right now is holding Easter mass in an empty St. Peter's Basillica. It's very eerie:

 

image.png.6ad323cca8ed142a6a9d51ee4c4ea73d.png

 

Edit - The subtitled text is very appropriate, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy admits deaths in the country are widely underestimated. I guess it's the same almost everywhere. Italy should be at least 30000 deaths, China at very least 50000, Iran at least 20000 and so on. The ultimate toll will be completely unreliable, this has probably already killed half a million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, drol said:

Italy admits deaths in the country are widely underestimated. I guess it's the same almost everywhere. Italy should be at least 30000 deaths, China at very least 50000, Iran at least 20000 and so on. The ultimate toll will be completely unreliable, this has probably already killed half a million people.

yes but it was the wrong half a million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2020 at 06:50, gcreptile said:

Geography is a bad comparison though. That would make Canada a shining light in this situation (even more than they already are, I guess.). To compare cases, one should look at cases per population.

 

USA is doing okay-ish there right now, between France and Germany. But the growth rate of cases numbers means that it's rising to the top fast.

 

You can rank different countries in the world by cases per capita or deaths per capita on worldometer if you want to (being wary of drawing too many conclusions since there are significant differences in testing and reporting etc, of course). The USA is currently ranked 15th in the world in reported Covid deaths per capita. Based on the daily mortality figures it's in an earlier phase of the epidemic than many countries above it and of course it locked down later, so it may yet climb to a higher position; but there are worse places than 15th.

 

There are, as you might expect, major differences between states, however. If the worst affected state, New York State, were ranked as an individual country it would be 2nd only to San Marino in Covid deaths per capita; it seems to have been worse hit than even Spain or Italy overall.  Some other states have also been hit hard, such as New Jersey and Louisiana. Whereas the least affected states (Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana, Hawaii...) have barely been touched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paddyfool said:

 

You can rank different countries in the world by cases per capita or deaths per capita on worldometer if you want to (being wary of drawing too many conclusions since there are significant differences in testing and reporting etc, of course). The USA is currently ranked 15th in the world in reported Covid deaths per capita. Based on the daily mortality figures it's in an earlier phase of the epidemic than many countries above it and of course it locked down later, so it may yet climb to a higher position; but there are worse places than 15th.

 

There are, as you might expect, major differences between states, however. If the worst affected state, New York State, were ranked as an individual country it would be 2nd only to San Marino in Covid deaths per capita; it seems to have been worse hit than even Spain or Italy overall.  Some other states have also been hit hard, such as New Jersey and Louisiana. Whereas the least affected states (Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana, Hawaii...) have barely been touched. 

Hawail is a suprise being it is a popular tourist area and with strong links to Asia. Perhaps proof that much of the world's spread does come via Italy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use