Jump to content
BANGKOK
Scott

SURVEY: Coronavirus -- danger or false alarm?

SURVEY: Coronavirus -- danger or false alarm?  

105 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

2 hours ago, Inepto Cracy said:

Quick follow up, I have only pneumonia and flu, but with my medical history it will be drug resistant. Way too many applications of anti biotics, used in the past.

So yes, this new virus has the potential to take out quite a few people.

Antibiotics have nothing to do with viruses. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Had to stick "initially" in there, didn't you? Why? Because subsequently and quite quickly the US dealt with it extremely effectively. So, you really didn't make much of a point, did you?

You must be joking " quite quickly?"

 

From 1981 to 1985 the president never mentioned the disease publicly. And even after the death toll rose dramatically and there were mass protests at the CDC the money allocated for research was only being considered. 

 

 

1985

  1. September 17: President Ronald Reagan mentions AIDS publicly for the first time, calling it “a top priority” and defending his administration against criticisms that funding for AIDS research is inadequate.
  1. October 2: Rock Hudson dies of AIDS-related illness at age 59. In his will, Hudson leaves $250,000 to help set up the American Foundation for AIDS Research(amfAR). Actress Elizabeth Taylor serves as the organization’s founding National Chairman.
  2. October 2: The U.S. Congress allocates nearly $190 million for AIDS research—an increase of $70 million over the Reagan Administration’s budget request. The House Appropriations Committee also urges President Reagan to appoint an “AIDS czar.”

 

 

 

660,000 Americans diagnosed with AIDS related diseases died as of several years ago. That's only Americans and only those with documented diagnoses. The delay in anything remotely adequate being done was shameful and the cause of deaths that might have been prevented.

 

How anyone can say the government response was quick or adequate is mind boggling.

Edited by Suradit69
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably be similar to previous SARS and MERS outbreaks. Experts now suggest there is likely some human to human transmission and a 1000+ cases.

 

But there is a small chance it could be far worse. The Spanish flu needed a perfect storm to spread and better adapt to humans resulting in a second wave that killed most of its nearly 50 million victims.

 

In a few days, 100s of millions of Chinese will begin travelling home for holiday and back again, mostly by train. Many will travel through China's massive centrally located Railway Hub in Wuhan.

 

Also, Tamiflu and most anti-viral drugs developed for the flu are not effective against SARS like viruses. There are currently no vaccines available.

 

But probably not. Any way, Thai officials said there is no problem.

Edited by rabas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

You must be joking " quite quickly?"

 

From 1981 to 1985 the president never mentioned the disease publicly. And even after the death toll rose dramatically and there were mass protests at the CDC the money allocated for research was only being considered. 

 

 

1985

  1. September 17: President Ronald Reagan mentions AIDS publicly for the first time, calling it “a top priority” and defending his administration against criticisms that funding for AIDS research is inadequate.
  1. October 2: Rock Hudson dies of AIDS-related illness at age 59. In his will, Hudson leaves $250,000 to help set up the American Foundation for AIDS Research(amfAR). Actress Elizabeth Taylor serves as the organization’s founding National Chairman.
  2. October 2: The U.S. Congress allocates nearly $190 million for AIDS research—an increase of $70 million over the Reagan Administration’s budget request. The House Appropriations Committee also urges President Reagan to appoint an “AIDS czar.”

 

 

 

660,000 Americans diagnosed with AIDS related diseases died as of several years ago. That's only Americans and only those with documented diagnoses. The delay in anything remotely adequate being done was shameful and the cause of deaths that might have been prevented.

 

How anyone can say the government response was quick or adequate is mind boggling.

Complete and utter hysteria, paired with selective memory.  

Quote

The trend can be attributed to a couple of factors, said Kates. While the political well plays a role, there are 2 factors that really account for the rise in spending: the increasing number of people living with HIV in the US, which has led to increasing expenditures on care and treatment; the other is the increasing recognition of the importance of combatting the global epidemic.

The current federal budget for HIV funding is $32.9 billion. Accounting for the largest proportion of the total cost is care and treatment (60%); global funding accounts for 20%, cash and housing assistance accounts for 9%, research accounts for 8%, and prevention accounts for 3%.

“This breakdown has changed over time,” said Kates. “If I showed you 1981, all of the money was spent on research because there were no treatments and there was little to no effort on prevention in the very beginning.”  https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/the-past-present-and-future-of-hiv-funding

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

Maybe they could replicate the UK's stellar handling of Mad Cow disease (where the PM ate a hamburger on TV to reassure the public that all was well while herds of cows were being culled).

mad cow ... lol

 

you know they fed cows, the brains of sick sheep, right ...

 

they are not supposed to eat other animal parts

 

but that is how the world is ruled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Antibiotics cannot treat virus, so your previous use won't matter. 

 

But still, get well soon.

I'm currently blocked up with a cold, messed up one of my ear tubes, but getting better now.

Was in Vietnam last week where it started.

Oh my god maybe I've got it!

If only doctors realized that antibiotics don’t treat viruses!!

The problem I have been told is that many patients feel short changed unless prescribed some form of medication or in the alternative often a secondary bacterial infection can occur so better to get in early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's said to essentially be SARS. That's serious.

 

Anyone see the news story - it's already in Thailand.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Inepto Cracy said:

Quick follow up, I have only pneumonia and flu, but with my medical history it will be drug resistant. Way too many applications of anti biotics, used in the past.

So yes, this new virus has the potential to take out quite a few people.

astutely chosen forum nick !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ToddinChonburi said:

Just had it and now I'm fine. Drive on old warrior's.

how do you know you had it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are not being screened leaving China

Share this post


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

Long as it's coming out of China and not Busan I'm ok

Eventually 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Swimfan said:

Antibiotics have nothing to do with viruses. 

My idiot Oz friend if he coughs he runs to get antibiotics, this is a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Inepto Cracy said:

Ha ha. Come to bangkok hospital and see all the sick people.

I speak from experience, as I am going through the screening process as I write this.

I bet you got sick just by reading about it.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...