How worried are you about COVID-19?

  • 1 - Not at all, everyone is freaking out over nothing at all.

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • 2 - Not at all, it will not over and not be a big deal in the long run.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3 - Not really, but it could get worse if we don't take precautions

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • 4 - kind of, and it could get worse if we aren't careful

    Votes: 6 11.3%
  • 5 - yes, it could end up being really bad. We need to do something.

    Votes: 6 11.3%
  • 6 - yes, it's getting worse, we all need to step up

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • 7 - yes, it's going to cause a lot of damage that will take a long time to fix

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • 8 - it is a crisis, the government needs to get involved, businesses need to step up

    Votes: 9 17.0%
  • 9 - it is a full crisis. It will be devastating to the world in many ways.

    Votes: 8 15.1%
  • 10 - the most imaginable crisis we have seen in decades. It will cause permanent damage.

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Total voters


Well-Known Member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
Probably too early to ask, especially on this forum, but from a purely economic point of view, what is worse:
1. Letting 1.5 million to 6.5 million old people (and at risk people) die and letting the economy continue as usual
2. Doing what we're doing now (i.e. quarantine, making businesses suffer, letting the stock mark tank) to save the old
Well I'm not even seeing how number 2 saves the old anyways......

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Jack Strop

Well-Known Member
I'm high risk: type-2 diabetes. So it's been nice knowing you all. Too bad the Jazz couldn't win one in my lifetime..


Well-Known Member
Being calm and rational is now ignorant? Also, loud? Not hardly, just responding to fellow Jazz fans quoting me. I'd expect you would do the same.

You are being calm and irrational. This triggered a global recession. Hundreds of millions of people are effected economically and otherwise. Yet you callously shrug.


Well-Known Member
What percentage of those with it are 70 and older?

I was watching the belgian news today and there was a doctor who said that they are actuallu surprised by the amount of young people who need to be hospitalized. I read another day that in Netherlands and Spain half of people in intensive care are under 50..


Well-Known Member
What percentage of those with it are 70 and older?

I saw a breakdown of the stats somewhere today in all I was reading, and it surprised me that the middle-age bracket had bigger numbers.... I'll look for it again and post it here.

So I found the place again. It is a gross enumeration of new cases, day by day, sorted by age in decadal groups. The 40s, 50s, and 60s are the larger numbers, but that's also the larger groups numerically to begin with, the working, mobile peeps....

There's some folks out there arguing the final mortality rate will be 3% overall.....

Looks me like an illness that runs its course in 3 wks whichever way it goes, and that less than 10% are serious illnesses, and that less than 10% of the serious cases will be fatal. It looks like a mean start to death time is 14 days. If it hits hard it gets you quick.

So far, doctors have not used antibiotics on the serious pneumonia cases that produce death via secondary infections. Dumbass Doctors still just using oxygen and hoping your immune system clears everything.

Damn sure we can do better. Gonna write Trump.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member

A startling new report from Imperial College London warns that 2.2 million Americans and 510,000 Britons could die from coronavirus if extreme action isn't taken to change the course of the outbreak.

Why it matters: The report's dire warnings prompted a quick course correction from both the American and British governments on their strategies, but its strict recommendations and long timeline — 18 months — to stem the tide could have far-reaching implications for both populations and economies.

What they found: The report states the effectiveness of "mitigation," which includes isolating only the sick and those linked to them while advocating social distancing for at-risk groups, is limited. It instead recommends "suppression," a much more wide-ranging tactic to curb coronavirus' spread.

  • The researchers say that suppression "will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members." It also recommends school closures.
  • The report notes that this strategy could have to be in place until a vaccine is developed, which could take 18 months — saying it is "the only viable strategy at the current time."
Worth noting: While China and South Korea have managed to suppress the outbreak using similarly draconian strategies, the report admits that it's not yet clear if suppression's successes can last in the long-term.

The state of play: The findings caused a messaging shift on both sides of the Atlantic.

The big picture: The New York Times reported that the Imperial College researchers "had shared their projections with the White House task force about a week ago and that an early copy of the report was sent over the weekend."

  • The BBC called the report the "crucial piece of evidence" that spurred Downing Street to act, saying the researchers "first realized the scale of the problem in China" and noting their "advice is heavily influential in government."
The bottom line: The report admits that "no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time."

"How populations and societies will respond remains unclear," it concludes.


Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
that sucks man ... awful

between a rock and a hard place really, could loan him some money unsecured with no expectation of getting it back anytime soon, or I could buy into his business but I hate his business partners and they hate me.

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
How is this acceptable to anyone?

How dare he now claim that he always took this virus seriously?

clearly he didn’t and now we’re all paying for it. No, he isn’t responsible for this virus. But he’s responsible for our country’s response to it. A response that has been among the worst in the entire world. As shown here:



Well-Known Member
No, he isn’t responsible for this virus. But he’s responsible for our country’s response to it

Somehow, over the entire course of his presidency, he has established the "norm" that he cannot be held responsible, or accountable, for anything he does not want to be held accountable for. And part of the strategy he uses to drum this in, is to rewrite his personal history.

Since he dismissed the coronavirus's seriousness for quite a while, yesterday he had the gall to say he knew it was a pandemic before many others did. Of course, that is a bald face lie. It's him rewriting his personal history.

But, these countless lies are in service to his creation of a president who can not, must not, be held accountable or responsible. And I see, in a recent survey, that 45% approve of his handling of the coronavirus response. Man, that is one tight, tight cult he has created.

Anybody who dares to criticise him, anybody who demands he be held to account, is visciously attacked by him as an enemy. The governor of Washington asks for a better federal response, and Trump calls him "a snake". This is totally unacceptable.

Harry Truman: "The buck stops here". With Trump, the buck will never stop at his desk if he feels it hurts his image. This is absurd!!!