back to article Amazon staffer based just a stone's throw away from Seattle HQ tests positive for COVID-19 coronavirus

An Amazon staffer based a couple of blocks from its Seattle nerve-center has tested positive for the novel coronavirus. The employee worked at the web giant's SEA53, aka Brazil, building on 9th Avenue in the US Pacific Northwest city, close to Google's new downtown offices, and not far from Amazon's 7th Avenue headquarters. …

  1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

    Work from home

    Remember that time when Yahoo! and IBM banning "work from home"?

    Doesn't sound like a good idea now, eh?

    1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

      Re: Work from home

      I work from home all the time. Sometimes I take a break to go out and panic buy things, though. I find the exercise is good for me.

      1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: Work from home

        @Hubert

        I used to work from home too, but stupidly, I was preparing for a Zombie Apocalypse, not a virus outbreak. Silly me.

        1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

          Re: Work from home

          To be fair, the preparations for both are similar, barring the hoarding of brain-destroying weapons and the materials to barricade the windows and doors. I like to keep a stock of both, just in case. After all, we don't yet know that this won't mutate into a zombie-causing virus.

          1. Imhotep

            Re: Work from home

            Mine is a loin cloth, spear and the How To Serve Man cook book.

  2. Joe W Silver badge

    Doesn't check out

    "Seattle and Washington state are at the heart of the COVID-19 outbreak in America: nine people have died from the disease among 27 cases reported in region"

    That would be a mortality rate of 33% - which is way higher than all reasonable estimates, which point more towards 1%. So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region. Let's face it: it is out there, it is unlikely to be contained any more, and it will probably establish itself along with the flu as a seasonal infection.

    No, I don't think this virus is really as scary as people make it, the main problems are that it seems to spread easier and quicker than an influenza and that there is no vaccine. Those two factors combined mean that it is far more likely to reach people that really should not catch it. No, I'm not a medical doctor, but I have enough of those (and pharmacists and biologists) around me that are still quite relaxed... and one should also consider that nobody makes such a fuss about influenza (unless it is a new virus type, then "OMG swine flu!!one!"). Mortality seems to be comparable, so maybe we are overreacting a tad?

    1. really_adf

      Re: Doesn't check out

      No, I don't think this virus is really as scary as people make it, the main problems are that it seems to spread easier and quicker than an influenza and that there is no vaccine.

      ...

      Mortality seems to be comparable, so maybe we are overreacting a tad?

      More infectious and no vaccine with the same mortality means more people dying, no?

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

      Sure, doesn't change the fact that at time of writing, there have been 27 confirmed reported cases in Washington state.

      C.

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

        there have been 27 confirmed reported cases in Washington state

        NOTE: No offense to them.

        The anti-vaxers movement must be watching/monitoring this virus very hard.

      2. Ordinary Donkey

        Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

        The phillipines have also reported a 33% mortality rate, with one dead out of 3 total infectees.

        I suspect the numbers will become less outlandish as the denominator grows.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

          "The phillipines have also reported a 33% mortality rate, with one dead out of 3 total infectees."

          If we had reliable numbers about the true number of infected people, I suspect this percentage would be closer to the W.H.O.'s ~3%.

          But there's a lot to be said about being in a place that has a better medical system. I was in the P.I. a couple of times when I was in the Navy. When you have a river of sewage separating the Navy base from Olongopo, it says something about lack of public sanitation. And I suppose it gets worse from there.

          "3rd world" vs "1st world". Worth pointing out.

          1. Ordinary Donkey

            Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

            Indeed. My point was that Washington State wasn't the only outlier.

            Probably different reasons for under-reporting the mild cases, but probably that's what's happenning in both places.

      3. prinz

        Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

        That is a small sample size, which includes a cluster located in or associated with a single nursing home - which was housing people that were already weak and old - the very category most likely to die from any illness.

        We need to be careful throwing around statistics as the values change based upon the definition of key terms.

        For example, what is the definition of a "case" of illness "X"?

        When the person presents in a doctor's office? Or arrives in the hospital? Or, when they simply have symptoms that look like a illness "X"?

        For a US example using the common flu in 2018-2019 :

        https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

        If "case" = "presenting to the hospital for care due to symptoms" then death rate = 7%.

        If "case"= "visit primary care provider for care due to symptoms" then death rate is 0.2% (very different).

        If "case" = "anyone with flu-like symptoms" then the death rate = 0.1% (half of the prior).

        Then you have to take into account age groups. The vast majority of the population might get sick and annoyed, but won't die, but the normal flu is lethal to people 65 and older - they are more likely to seek hospitalization and far more likely to die (they account for 75% of the deaths in 2018-2019).

        For the Wuhan/COVID-19 virus, we need more data before an accurate statistical picture can be created - the data from China is not reliable as they changed their definitions multiple times and seem to have not counted all people that would likely have been infected early on.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

          Then you have to take into account age groups

          There is a pretty clear link between mortality and age - the very young seem to shake it off with little effect but old people (or people with compromised immune systems like me) seem to have much higher levels of mortality.

      4. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: "So there is a high number of undiagnosed cases in that region"

        at least it's not 27,000

        To the afflicted: keep warm, take vitamins, have some chicken soup, cold medicine of your favorite most effective type, and some adult beverages!

        And viruses HATE capcaicin. Spicy foods like "chips and salsa", in a hot steamy bath, with some "corona" (beer). Get over that cold!

        icon, because, part of the solution, heh

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doesn't check out

      Personally I think the the worry should come from three things and whether they will cause a pandemic is yet to be seen.

      1. Nobody has immunity.

      2. People are getting reinfected.

      3. There are many people in our society who just can't afford to be sick or they will lose their house or starve meaning they will go to work. Most of those people just for that added extra icing on the cake are mostly in customer facing roles such as retail and the gig economy.

      Time will tell however I'm not stocking up on toilet paper just yet. As for the 1% mortality rate we just don't know yet because everyone's numbers are different and there will be people that get it but don't get confirmed.

      1. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: Doesn't check out

        You've also forgotten the idiot bosses who insist on "Seeing people at a desk" instead of allowing them to work from home when they can.

      2. Annihilator

        Re: Doesn't check out

        "As for the 1% mortality rate we just don't know yet because everyone's numbers are different and there will be people that get it but don't get confirmed."

        That's the same for every virus, including flu. Statisticians have methods for taking that into account.

      3. Imhotep

        Re: Doesn't check out

        "People are getting reinfected"

        Which leads to this question: If that is the case, is an effective vaccine possible?

        1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

          Re: Doesn't check out

          We first have to understand the nature of the reinfection. I believe that strep has three sections in the binding protein. The outer one frequently mutates, the middle occasionally. As someone is repeatedly infected, their immune system eventually learns the inner section, and they don't get sick any more.

          If this virus behaves in this fashion, then a vaccine that trains against an inner, non-changing section will be the fix. If not... well, I'm not an immunologist.

          1. Twanky Silver badge

            Re: Doesn't check out

            Strep is a bacteria and lives between the cells of the host body - not within them. Totally different type of infection to Covid-19. To combat viral infections you have to stop the hosts' cells transporting the virus inside or disrupt the manufacture of new virus once it's in. There are many broad-spectrum anti-bacterials but I'm not aware of any broad-spectrum anti-virals. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Unenlightened Self-Interest" called... apparently he's due to bite you in the ass sometime soon?

        > There are many people in our society who just can't afford to be sick [and most are] in customer facing roles such as retail and the gig economy.

        Bingo. Don't know specifically which country you have in mind here, but it applies particularly to the US. Their piss-poor worker protections- most obviously sick pay- and obscenely broken healthcare system already encourage (and in some cases force) people to come to work when they're ill and not to go see a doctor. Anyone who does so is effectively penalising themselves for erring on the side of caution- or even not behaving recklessly- for the sake of everyone else.

        If US society isn't going to behave in its own enlightened self-interest, if it's more interested in screwing low-paid workers like them over because it can... well, why the fuck should they care or look out for anyone other than themselves either?

        So, yeah. You can bet there are a lot of people that aren't going to throw themselves on their swords even during the upcoming epidemic, and it'll be hard to have any sympathy for the people that forced them into that position then get exposed to the consequences.

        Of course, there's also the fact that Donald Trump fired the US pandemic response team in 2018. Some scaremongerers warned at the time was "setting up the US to botch a pandemic response", but that's not definitely going to happen, and if it does it'll be a small price for his voters stigginit to the libs and experts. Especially as they'll find some way to blame them anyway- never themselves.

    4. Dinanziame Silver badge

      Re: Doesn't check out

      I would expect a lot of cases won't get reported until later in the United States due to their unique health care system: Because going to the doctor can be so expensive, people tend to wait until they are very sick to do it.

      1. Uncle Slacky

        Re: Doesn't check out

        The best advice I've seen for poor people in the US is to cough on a rich person and let them get tested...

      2. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Doesn't check out

        I would expect a lot of cases won't get reported until later in the United States due to their unique health care system

        And there will always be someone who's going to "challenge" the law or policy about the 14-day isolation.

        Fun times ahead!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doesn't check out

        Nearly $3000 for the test I read. These viruses just don't respect capitalism do they.

        1. Chemist

          Re: Doesn't check out

          "Nearly $3000 for the test I read."

          I believe in Switzerland it's ~ 200CHF so $3000 would be a huge margin.

          "The cost of a test (CHF180) will be reimbursed by basic health insurance as of Wednesday March 4, the health office announced."

          https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/covid-19_coronavirus--the-situation-in-switzerland/45592192

          Incidentally the information from China is little or no reinfection., little evidence for transmission before symptoms.

        2. JetSetJim
          Thumb Down

          Re: Doesn't check out

          The $3K+ bill claim ($3,270) has been debunked as the subject was admitted to ER, so they did lots of other things to him and didn't actually administer a COVID-19 test

          1. RM Myers
            FAIL

            Re: Doesn't check out

            There you go again, quoting facts from generally reliable sources. This is the internet - we don't need no stinkin' facts; we don't need no stinkin' reliable sources! Give us a random tweet, a random Facebook post, or a random comment from a commentard - as long as it agrees with our preconceived ideas, we know it is right. And if it doesn't agree with our preconceived ideas? Well, that is the definition of bias - the thing other people have that causes them to disagree with us!

            Now I need a lay down. You people with your facts are enough to make anyone sick.

          2. eldakka Silver badge

            Re: Doesn't check out

            Just because the test itself costs, say, $100, is irrelevant if the entire experience of going to the hospital to get tested for COVID-19 costs $3k - travel, admissions, testing for other things, taking up a bed for a few hours, etc. In that case, the cost of being tested for COVID-19 is the $3k (or more) cost of the total hospital visit.

            1. JetSetJim

              Re: Doesn't check out

              Except that person was admitted to the emergency room, and want tested for covid19 at all. Going to a clinic for a test will not cost $3k.

    5. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Doesn't check out

      "No, I don't think this virus is really as scary as people make it, the main problems are that it seems to spread easier and quicker than an influenza and that there is no vaccine."

      It's spread rate is estimated as just over 2 (ie 2 other people infected from anyone who already has it). Influenza, in comparison has a rate of around 1.3, which is much less AND can be vaccinated against. Given the incubation of around 2 weeks, one could estimate that the 'doubling' of COVID-19 infections would happen around every week. That rate is convenient for calculations as all of us here are well versed in powers of 2.

      Given the outbreak was reported in late December it's probable that the first case occurred in the beginning of December, 13-14 weeks ago. So total infections based on this rate would be around 2^14 - 2^15, ie 16-32k people. The actual estimate as of this morning was 92k people (probably because initially the virus was spreading much faster than X2 because it wasn't known and being paid attention to). What IS scary is that the X2 per week increase has continued even after primary precautions have been well established, and left unchecked at current rates could reach around 1.5 million in a few weeks. It seems like to be contained it will require more drastic measures than simply asking people to sneeze into a tissue and wash their hands regularly.

      The other thing of course, is that Flu mortality is about 1/1000 and COVID-19 is estimated to be 10 times higher, about 1/100.

      So, yes, I think it is as scary as being made out

      1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Doesn't check out

        If it is doubling every week then the entire world will have been infected in 6-8 months, and then we'll know just how bad it's been. If it kills 1% that's about 80 million dead; half a million in the UK, 3 million in America, 14 million in China and India.

        Maybe we should organise 'coughing parties'; get it over and done with sooner rather than later?

        Some might say it's not all bad news - As it seems old folk and the ill are most at risk it will lighten the load on government budgets for the non-contributing and could even free some much needed housing stock.

        And, as our countries will no longer be "full", we'll have more space for refugees, migrants, and others who have been displaced, who have survived.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doesn't check out

          "As it seems old folk and the ill are most at risk..."

          As part of The Register commentard demographic, this is not very comforting.

        2. fandom

          Re: Doesn't check out

          Any 'savings' will be offset by the cost of caring for the people that get sick, whether they recover or not.

          And that's not even counting all the economic damage being done.

          So, don't start spending the savings just yet.

        3. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Doesn't check out

          "If it is doubling every week..."

          It HAS been around doubling every week, but the numbers are still too low to give a clearer picture. More likely it has been spreading at something like 10X rates in first few weeks when no-one knew about it and around doubling in the initial period of lesser concern. With increased precautionary measures in place the rate should be greatly reduced.

          "the entire world will have been infected in 6-8 months"

          Yes, indeed, it's quite likely that, if no precautionary measures are / were taken, that everyone in the world would have been at least exposed to the virus within 6-8 months. Which is why public health authorities are freaking out.

          I don't want to sound over-alarmist, I would just avoid crowds for a while.

        4. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip

        Re: Doesn't check out

        Point of note, flu is imperfectly vaccinated against. Health professionals look at the strains circulating, find a few of the most probable ones to spread, and create a vaccine from them.

        If they're correct about the most virulent strains then the vaccine works and there are minimal infections, but if they're wrong the vaccine has no effect.

        1. fandom

          Re: Doesn't check out

          I know but I still get the shot every year, that way I get the flu every three or four years instead of every year.

          Even when it's mild it is still worth avoiding.

          1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip

            Re: Doesn't check out

            Absolutely, I just wanted to counter flu being a solved issue - it isn't, we've just managed to reduce its seriousness most years.

          2. Claptrap314 Silver badge

            Re: Doesn't check out

            Dude, just what do you do? I stopped getting the vaccine decades ago because I was sick as a dog for three days after. Since, I catch it about one year in five, and EVERY time it has been when the vaccine was ineffective anyway.

            Flu every year? Yikes!

          3. Twanky Silver badge
            Coffee/keyboard

            Re: Doesn't check out

            I ... get the shot every year, that way I get the flu every three or four years instead of every year

            I find this surprising but perhaps you are more susceptible than me/others - which is very unfortunate.

            I last had flu about 25 years ago - despite daily rush-'hour' commuting on the London tube where I would have thought I'd be exposed to anything that's doing the rounds. I do always try to follow good hygiene and wash my hands and face after the journey. I too now get the vaccination - but only in the past 5 years (since getting 'old').

            icon: keep your keyboards clean too --->

          4. jmch Silver badge

            Re: Doesn't check out

            "I know but I still get the shot every year"

            I never got the flu shot, and I got flu 1 year in the last 20-ish. I get that some people working in healthcare, exposed to large numbers of people at close quarters, or with more delicate immune systems will benefit from it. I also know that last year a co-worker, after a flu shot, fainted, continued to have dizzy spells, and was unable to work for 3 weeks. In other words, everyone's situation is unique.

    6. jmch Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Doesn't check out

      "Mortality seems to be comparable, so maybe we are overreacting a tad?"

      Actually 10X as much as flu, so no biggie right?

    7. JetSetJim

      Re: Doesn't check out

      > No, I don't think this virus is really as scary as people make it, the main problems are that it seems to spread easier and quicker than an influenza and that there is no vaccine.

      ...

      > Mortality seems to be comparable, so maybe we are overreacting a tad?

      On the face of it, mortality seems to be reported as in the 1-2% range, whereas 'flu is in the 0.1% range. So only an order of magnitude more fatal.

      However, not sure if this initial estimate of mortality is now falling due to people actually getting treated rather than just attempting to shrug off a nasty cold/flu, or more cases getting diagnosed due to increased awareness of the issue..

      A possible problem for the nation, however, is the rate at which people require hospitalisation for the bit of the virus that causes breathing difficulties. There are only just over 100K hospital beds available for General/Acute patients (source), and they're usually over 90% occupied. That leaves fewer than 10K beds available for such patients (assuming they can be suitably quarantined away from other patients, and that the bed availabilty matches the spread of the virus).

      As a healthy(ish) person, I have no significant concern about the virus, but I *do* have a concern as to the ability of our health service to cope with the numbers of those that might be affected

    8. Imhotep

      Re: Doesn't check out

      The mortality rate has been upped to 3.4% now, but that is still a guess. We can be pretty sure it is much higher than for the flu.

      As for the number of reported cases: for all intents and purposes almost no testing is being done in the US, so we can be pretty sure that the number of actual cases is much higher than reported. As we are relying on people to "self quarantine", we can expect those numbers to explode.

      FWIW: My son-in-law is an ER doc in Seattle who is sick, but they won't test him because he doesn't meet the criteria.

      1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

        Re: Doesn't check out

        Apparently, the NIH has JUST gotten the FDA to waive some 5 to 10 year old regulation limited the deployment of tests. Hopefully, we'll be testing for this as aggressively as we should soon.

        Of course, delaying knowledge about just how bad this problem is makes it a whole lot worse...

  3. TrevorH

    Plus mortality rate at present is being estimated assuming that we have a functional health care system. If 20% of the population go down with this at once and 4% of those fall into the "critical" category then we're talking about more than 500,000 people in the UK needing ICU treatment at any one time. That still leaves the 15% with "severe" symptoms to fend for themselves at home. Better hope that you're one of the 81% with only "mild" (whatever those are!) symptoms.

    1. Imhotep

      What we are seeing in China demonstrates just what can happen to a health system being overwhelmed - and crematoriums.

    2. eldakka Silver badge

      Better hope that you're one of the 81% with only "mild" (whatever those are!) symptoms.

      Rumack: Extremely serious. It starts with a slight fever and dryness of the throat. When the virus penetrates the red blood cells, the victim becomes dizzy, begins to experience an itchy rash, then the poison goes to work on the central nervous system, severe muscle spasms followed by the inevitable drooling.

      [Oveur does all of the above as Rumack describes each one]

      Rumack: At this point, the entire digestive system collapses accompanied by uncontrollable flatulence

      [Oveur begins to fart uncontrollably]

      Rumack: Until finally, the poor bastard is reduced to a quivering wasted piece of jelly.

  4. Chairman of the Bored

    Respirators

    Talked to a neighbor who spent his life in public medicine, retired o disability after one too many bouts of weird stuff suffered far from home

    His take is that we should take comfort in the fact that ~80pct of cases will be minor. Assuming this coronavirus behaves like most, we can expect a significant drop in transmission and mortality in the summer months, and then US and Europe will get slammed hard in the fall. Similar to the 1918 pandemic's two waves.

    At 1pct mortality, basically most people will personally know of one victim who ends up taking a dirt nap.

    This virus seems to kill through a viral pneumonia, and the usual supportive measures (oxygen and steroids) do not seem particularly effective. None of the usual antivirals seem to do much. Mechanical respirators are needed to recover victims. These cost as much as a small car, take months to order, and require trained respiratory techs to set up and operate. He said that until we get a vaccine, respirator availability becomes a limiting factor.

    Asked him for his advice, and he said "people should get their flu and other shots and avoid doing stupid things that consume medical resources."

    1. Anonymous Cowerd
      Flame

      Re: Respirators

      "we should take comfort in the fact that ~80pct of cases will be minor"

      As someone who is an a vulnerable group, that sounds very much like :

      "F*** you, I'm all right Jack"

      1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip

        Re: Respirators

        There's definitely a degree of that, but we all know vulnerable people, our parents and grandparents at least. The health service is likely to take a hammering, but if most people can last without medical assistance, then there's more resource for the vulnerable and badly affected. It could be much worse.

      2. Chairman of the Bored

        Re: Respirators

        I know! I'm definitely not of sound mind and body. Definite dirt nap material, and my doctor friend is already completely wasted about away from whatever crud he's been screwing around with through his career.

        It's morbid, but sometimes we've got to look in the mirror and admit that were not 20 anymore :(

        I think I need a large, unhealthy, and totally satisfying drink. To your health, eh?

    2. Twanky Silver badge

      Re: Respirators

      None of the usual antivirals seem to do much.

      What usual antivirals? That's an absolutely genuine question. As far as I am aware there are no effective antivirals for respiratory infections.

      Are you thinking of Tamiflu? I understood that to be useless.

      1. Chairman of the Bored

        Re: Respirators

        Not Tamiflu. Some researchers are apparently working with cocktails of the HIV drugs to see if they can get some response. I am not qualified to discuss whether that makes sense or is just wishful thinking.

        Discussion on a National Public Radio broadcast a couple of days ago included a statement that struck me as very interesting. Children seem to be somewhat immune to the novel coronavirus. That's not too surprising because usually the aged get hammered by respiratory stuff more than young, non-smoking, and generally healthy people. But the doctor who was being interviewed said there's a body of thought that children are constantly exposed to all types of coronaviruses in school settings, and generally have a low level of permanent infection. Something about a total lack of social distancing and questionable personal hygiene. So it raises the question- if this theory is correct then closing schools may be precisely the wrong answer... There may be a benefit to zero social distancing.

        But gooooood luck getting a controlled test for THAT experiment approved by a Medical Review Board!

        1. Twanky Silver badge

          Re: Respirators

          cocktails of the HIV drugs to see if they can get some response

          Hmm, HIV is a retrovirus - meaning it permanently inserts modifications into the host cells' DNA. If Covid-19 does that then it's going to be really interesting* getting rid of it.

          * Where interesting means effing difficult.

          1. Chairman of the Bored

            Re: Respirators

            I don't think COVID-19 or any of the other coronaviruses have reverse transcriptase; so no DNA modification to host. Thank $deity.

            I'm not sure what it is about the AIDS drugs that makes them interesting for this problem.

          2. jmch Silver badge

            Re: Respirators

            "If Covid-19 does that..."

            No, coronaviruses do not work that way at all...

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Respirators

          "children are constantly exposed to all types of coronaviruses in school settings, and generally have a low level of permanent infection. Something about a total lack of social distancing and questionable personal hygiene."

          Not sure if it applies specifically to coronavirus, but it's certainly good for the development of a strong immune system to allow kids to get dirty. Might sound counterintuitive but some mess and dirt is healthier than hospital-like hygiene, for most people in their domestic environment at least

          1. Twanky Silver badge
            Gimp

            Re: Respirators

            hospital-like hygiene

            Have you had the misfortune to attend A&E (ER) on a Friday night recently? Not a good place to hang out if you have a weak/compromised immune system.

            icon: What? They told me to self-isolate.

    3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Respirators

      people should get their flu and other shots

      T'missus is currently getting her pneumonia vacceine - I had mine 3-4 years ago when I started on the current arthritis injections (a TNF inhibitor)

      1. Chairman of the Bored

        Re: Respirators

        Shots, aye! What scares me are the anti-vaxxers kids in my kids school. nothing like knowing your son is sitting next to Marco Polio.

        1. Jaap Aap

          Re: Respirators

          Anti-vaxxers? What did that poor Vax ever do to them?

  5. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Work from home

    and consider working from home until this blows over. ®

    Would love to, but core IT cannot, since core IT need to be on-premises to make sure fans are fanning, CPU's are CPU'ing, swap out fawlty HDD's, restart stuck servers and services, keep an eye on the genny and allsorts of other things that cannot be done remotely.

    1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

      Re: Work from home

      Yes, but if all the l<bs>users are at home instead of coughing at each other in the cafeteria and at you in the hall, life is better, no?

      Try to keep the big picture in mind.

  6. 89724102172714182892114I7551670349743096734346773478647892349863592355648544996312855148587659264921
    FAIL

    Al ur parints ur ded

    >until this blows over.

    According to this Epidemiologist, it'll be widespread within a year or two with 40 to 70% of humanity affected and it'll evolve and return with a vengeance in the winter year after year to claim more and more old folk in particular... the new seasonal reaper flu:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vaccine/607000/

    ...new vaccine needed every year formulated from previous year's virus variations

    Age death risk chart:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So can I get it Friday if I order in the next two hours?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like