Not at all. I was merely pointing out that attitude to death by coronavirus is totally different to death by any other illness or method, simply because selfish people are in fear of being a victim themselves.

I certainly don't recall a classified rundown of how many people die from,.say cancer, on a daily basis during the news bulletins in recent times?

Possibly because cancer isn't contagious, can be treated for the large part and won't kill you in a matter of days. Weird that all these countries and global medical experts are making such a fuss over nothing!??! This virus may end up not claiming a relatively large number of lives but clearly erring on the side of caution is needed....bulk buying, however, is the behaviour of selfish morons.

Cancer hits 1 in 2 of us. That's far more than this virus is likely to hit. It also kills a fair % of those 1 in 2, again probably a similar %, or more, compared to patients who will get covid 19.

I'm waiting for a death from cancer numbers update on the news bulletins - I won't be holding my breath for it tho...

It isnt the number of direct deaths that this virus and its impact should be measured in though....can you not see that?

Cancer hits 1 in 2 of us? Are you claiming that 50% of the population get cancer?
And as for this cov-19, 21 people have died since it hit the UK. Most of them with underlying health problems. I'll wager more than 21 people have died from accidents and road crashes since this disease sent our country into hysteria.

Its a virus not a disease. Why do people keep comparing numbers of other methods of death? Health services are already creaking with cancer, road deaths, seasonal flu etc etc so what the world doesnt need is a highly contagious virus romping across the world to which we have no immunity - which will kill likely 1-2% but hospitalise around 15% ON TOP OF all those other things people get ill with/die of.

The selfishness is not just in the bulk-buying but with the attidude 'well it wont kill me' but you may pass it on to someone who may become gravely ill/die.

This is the figure that is no widely used and it is believable. Cancer is stochastic i.e. there is no safe threshold for carcinogens whereby below a certain dose you are safe and above it you will get the disease. This is why some people can smoke all their lives without ill effect and then get run over by a bus in their 90's whilst other non-smokers get lung cancer. Of course if you do smoke you greatly increase the chance of getting cancer.

In short the longer you live the greater the chance of getting some form of cancer. For men, if you live long enough, you are very likely to get prostate cancer but, as the cancer is very slow to progress, you also have a good chance of dying of old age before it gets you.

As medicine progresses we eradicate the diseases that might previously have killed us but, to quote Benjamin Franklin, “There are only two certainties in life – death and taxes”. In other words – you’ve got to die of something and, as you reduce deaths from other causes., so the risk of cancer increases.

Goodness me, what a cheerful thread.

I'm suprised the onine equivalent of that bible bashing bloke on Fletcher St hasn't turned up on here to start quoting the book of revelations.

Right.
With the inevitable state of emergency, I've decided to go early.

I'M GOING LOOTING

I'm after a 4K 50" wide-screen
Laptop
Soundbar
Microwave
Oh, and the ubiquitous bog roll.

Anyone joining me?

Can you pick me up a couple of cases of Bristol Cream please, I'm down to my last 100 bottles.

Oh, and a Terry's Chocolate Orange please.

I can't remember what he used to shout? Must have had a few stock phrases based on sinning.

Be sure your sin will find you out!!!!

Everything but the bog roll is useless and worthless. All you’ll get is a state message telling you to stay indoors and make a safety den from doors and mattresses. In mono and repeating for the next 30 years.
The bog roll is worth £6b but inflation running at 6.1b%

He was never there [iafter[/i the match though. Odd that. I'm sure him shouting loudly that we were all going to hell when we'd just got done by a blatant forward pass would have been met with calm, considered objectivity.

Regrettably, the locusts beat me to it, miaw.
However, in the finest traditions of internet/delivery shopping, I've looted you the nearest equivalent, so that's 6 bottles of amaretto, an advocaat, a green chartreuse, vintage port, a cherry brandy, and a Watney's party 7.

and a box of Belgian praline seashells.

If the media is going to insist on banging on 24/7 about Coronavirus they could at least make it interesting.

Dave Channel could do "Which 6 people would you most like to share your underground bunker with?" hosted by that little fella who does Tenable. Me first.

1. Darcy Bussel
2. Liz Hurley
3. Nigella Lawson
4. That blonde professional dancer off Strictly with the russian sounding name
5. Jo Blythe off the granada weather
6. Gemma Atkinson

Granted, conversation might be a little dull, but if the virus really does herald the end of mankind, thats how I'd like to arrive at the Pearly Gates - grinning and in need of a cup of tea.

No Lucy Alexander, miaw?
You've changed your tune.
At least you've chosen the vertically changed bloke as host, and not Romesh Ranganathan . He gets everywhere else.

In these times if panic buying, isn't 6 celebrities a little greedy?

I'll just go for a Susanna Reid, circa 2008, and no need for hand sanitizer

Was a close call but Gemma Atkinson got the nod on account of the dream I had last weekend with her on a space hopper.

Of course Coronavirus is dominating the media, that’s because it’s new.
Seasonal Flu, car crashes, cancer are well known occurrences, are quantifiable, and mitigated in society.
Coronavirus is a killer, has already mutated into at least two aggressive strains, is very contagious, and no vaccine available, a world pandemic and threat to life and economies, certainly it’s big news.

Regarding people’s reactions, I don’t think its An attitude to differing death comparison we are seeing, but an attitude to life, because they see coronavirus as a direct threat to theirs and their loved ones lives. Fear takes over.

However if there was a sudden spike in say breast cancer deaths or pancreatic cancer deaths say, I would expect that would also dominate the media.

If it continues to spread do you think our glorious leader will stop us going work...

The big difference between the other serious illnesses, accidents and so on that claim lives is that a pandemic of a new virus will grow at an exponential rate, and those others won't.

We've adjusted to the background risk of the others, their numbers won't vary much over time.

The history of previous pandemics shows that when a new virus comes around that nobody has immunity to, the growth rate will be very fast, the studies of past pandemics show a doubling rate every 6 days.

Last week the Chief scientific advisor said there were probably between 5,000 and 10,000 actual cases in the UK. Say its 5,000, then that means 20,000 by the end of March. 640,000 by the end of April. 2 million by the end of May. 8 million by mid June.

By this point you would have many hundreds of thousands of deaths, so the comparisons with annual accident rates or seasonal flu will look pointless.

All this lockdown action isn't because of what the numbers are now, but what they will become unless the growth rate is checked rapidly through action to stop its spread.

^ And the pandemic model curve indicates the second wave to be more devastating than the first ,

Yes, but, in most cases, people won't get paid, which is why a long term lockdown won't work, because people simply won't allow themselves to slip into poverty & the government similarly won't want, or allow the economy to crumble into third world standards, which is what would happen.

I think the government are paying statuary sick pay from day 1. And for 80% of people that get the virus a week is probably the length of time they will be out. If the government succeeds in flattening the infection curve as well........

People might want to go back to work, but in many sectors the demand won't be there and so there won't be jobs for them. Like after the financial crisis. If you're worried about your own income (never mind catching a virus) you cut down on stuff that aren't necessities.

One thing that will be exposed is the weakness of the social safety net now especially as Universal Credit is such a shambles. Over most of the past decade we have had very high employment levels, so Osborne was able to slash and slash at the safety net and enjoy political popularity for it, because it was seen as just hitting "dossers on the dole" who don't want to work.

When people lose their jobs and fall in to hardship through no fault of their own, eg through something like this virus, they fall back on the state and suddenly it shines a light on how much it has been chopped away.

Crises like this are exactly why you need a functioning government and a safety net, which is what the war generation understood when they rebuilt Britain in the 40s/50s. Unfortunately over the past few decades its been chopped away in favour of an attitude of "me first" capitalism, to justify slashing social protections back.