Coronavirus Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GoldZ said:
Switching deaths now instead of hospitilizations ? The near 40% rate stands. What are we gonna do---lock up all the fat people now? They and the elderly are millions, ok?
Who is suggesting sheltering until a vaccine is in place? Not me.
Click to expand...

Wow more hyperbole. Who said we should lock people up? If you're morbidly obese or elderly and so on, you are at significant risk of adverse health conditions if you catch the virus (deaths AND hospitalizations are both in that same camp). If I were in that group, I would continue to isolate and stay at home. For everybody else, no there is no point in acting the same way.
 
GoldZ

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
886
MWBATL said:
OK, I am confused. What I hear is folks arguing that people should be allowed to choose about some of these activities, not be restricted by government. You seem to be saying they should be confined....but then you agree that necessary risks must be taken...so, what exactly are you advocating for?

I do have to agree that folks who make provocative statements and arguments seem to get away with it and those who respond get warned.....or at least, it seems that way ....
Click to expand...
Sorry for the confusion. Must be my stuttering. I was trying to say that imo we are at a point of having to take risk to open back up--gradually. I don't think my NIMBY point is confusing to anybody.
 
GoldZ

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
886
bwelbo said:
Wow more hyperbole. Who said we should lock people up? If you're morbidly obese or elderly and so on, you are at significant risk of adverse health conditions if you catch the virus (deaths AND hospitalizations are both in that same camp). If I were in that group, I would continue to isolate and stay at home. For everybody else, no there is no point in acting the same way.
Click to expand...
isolate and stay home = locked up, and isn't hyperbole. It's also not hyperbole, to say that isolating tens of millions of people is not so straightforward, especially in the casual off handed way it's been suggested here many times.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GoldZ said:
isolate and stay home = locked up, and isn't hyperbole. It's also not hyperbole, to say that isolating tens of millions of people is not so straightforward, especially in the casual off handed way it's been suggested here many times.
Click to expand...

Well its what we're currently doing. If you're stating that all those people should not continue to stay at home, I'd like to hear what you think they should do.

My in-laws are elderly and the father has pre-existing conditions. If he gets hit with the Coronavirus, it would likely make quick work of him. They're staying at home, only venturing out to go to the grocery store and the smallest of essentials (and at early hours when its for senior citizens only). They wear masks, don't touch their face, wash hands frequently, and so on. We continue to advocate for this approach for them and they are all in agreement on it too. They intend to do this for a long time.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
bobongo said:
Indeed. They probably look with envy to New Zealand. The Kiwis had one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, and now are returning to normal:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/f...-bubble-beat-coronavirus-200511174534088.html
Click to expand...

New Zealand is not too different from Antarctica. 2 months ago they banned flights into and out of the country. They still have extremely strict limitations on them. No business or vacation travelers. All citizens and people arriving for an extended period (the only ones allowed in) are required by law to self-isolate/quarantine for 14 days. That isolation/quarantine regulation has actually been in place for 3 months. They are about the population of South Carolina. Folks with that level of population on 3x the land mass on an island in the ocean were dealt pocket rockets.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
A new study out of Germany looked at the deaths from the virus. They found the overwhelming majority of men who have died had significantly lower testosterone. I will let you guys all take it from here. :D
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,914
Feel like doing your own analysis of “herd immunity”? See:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/without-a-vaccine-herd-immunity-wont-save-us/

This comes complete with a handy internal app to do simulations and a lot of useful information on the basic epidemiology of the virus (and viruses in general, for that matter). The big takeaway: if we let the thing run its course without attempts to bring it under control, we will probably need ~ 70% of the population to get SARS-Cov-2 to get it under control. If the infection fatality rate (IFR) is .5, that means 1.1 million deaths. (The formula is: (Population at risk * infection rate) * IFR = Total deaths.) Iow, nobody who is making decisions about the disease is going to approve letting it run its way through the population; the cost is too high
 
GoldZ

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
886
bwelbo said:
Well its what we're currently doing. If you're stating that all those people should not continue to stay at home, I'd like to hear what you think they should do.

My in-laws are elderly and the father has pre-existing conditions. If he gets hit with the Coronavirus, it would likely make quick work of him. They're staying at home, only venturing out to go to the grocery store and the smallest of essentials (and at early hours when its for senior citizens only). They wear masks, don't touch their face, wash hands frequently, and so on. We continue to advocate for this approach for them and they are all in agreement on it too. They intend to do this for a long time.
Click to expand...
Good for them. They are being smart. However, millions of people similar to them need more help in order to be isolated to the degree that many on here so cavalierly suggest they be, as if it's no problem to do so, in order of course for their young arses to go to ball games, dine out like before, go clubbing, and go to their workplaces, and then......go to the elderly and or vulnerable to help them stay isolated! What's wrong with this picture, huh?
It's like I've posted before, we are at a point where the economic angle is severe enough to take risks on opening up gradually. I also think we have done the right thing in terms of flattening the curve. Now, let's not fk the goose by putting the pedal to the metal, and that IS what some are suggesting whether or not they want to admit it. They also suggest that well...... all you have to do is hide the vulnerable---riiight. Slow go is the right move. If we blow it, the pedal to the the metal crowd can wallow in the misery that will follow. Prob is.....so will the rest of us.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,914
MWBATL said:
I think the larger unspoken problem here is the damage that mitigation is doing to our society and to large numbers of people within it.

Getting sick is not that big a deal. There, I said it. Dying is a big deal. But getting sick really isn't. The idea hat a young person might get sick shouldn't frighten everyone. The fact that they become a carrier and might infect the few people who are seriously at risk is, but that can be successfully mitigated without disrupting (or destroying) whole swaths of existing society.

The media make money off of sowing fear and disinformation so in some respects I cannot blame them. The folks who believe that and unwaveringly peddle the same fear, unbalanced by the consequences, are the ones who do more harm than good.

Too many people will die because of depression and suicide when mental health services are shut down. Too many people are putting off medical procedures that should not be put off and in years ot come we will be reading about spikes in cancer deaths because of this pandemics scare tactics that are keeping people from even visiting hospitals.

Think about *that* for minute. Or two.
Click to expand...
This is both true and false.

It is true that the virus can be mitigated without disrupting society greatly. But only if a) there have been effective efforts to bring the transmission rate down and b) there has been a plan with infrastructure put in place to run a regime of contact tracing and isolation after the infection rate is lowered. We did a; we've failed completely at b. We essentially wasted two whole months without putting the necessary resources in place to make a stab - it would always be difficult in a country this large with such a large population - at beating the thing down.

It is certainly true that many will suffer or die as a result of a prolonged shutdown (though not, I think, as many as will die in the near future). But that is largely because of a completely disorganized national effort to take on the virus. Both governors and the national administration seemed to think that an initial mitigation effort would do the job. Why, I do not know; the public health people have been consistent on a mitigate/trace/isolate strategy from the first. Some governors took that seriously - Inslee, Newsome, Cuomo - largely because they either had large outbreaks or paid attention to expert advice. Others have not (I'm looking at you, Brian Kemp). We'll see the results for those states in a few weeks.

What it comes down to is that we had a chance to not just mitigate the virus, but to beat it down to the point that we could return to something like normal activity. We've probably (there's always hope) blown that chance. We'll pay a substantial price, both economically and in term of lost lives, for our folly in this.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
GoldZ said:
Good for them. They are being smart. However, millions of people similar to them need more help in order to be isolated to the degree that many on here so cavalierly suggest they be, as if it's no problem to do so, in order of course for their young arses to go to ball games, dine out like before, go clubbing, and go to their workplaces, and then......go to the elderly and or vulnerable to help them stay isolated! What's wrong with this picture, huh?
It's like I've posted before, we are at a point where the economic angle is severe enough to take risks on opening up gradually. I also think we have done the right thing in terms of flattening the curve. Now, let's not fk the goose by putting the pedal to the metal, and that IS what some are suggesting whether or not they want to admit it. They also suggest that well...... all you have to do is hide the vulnerable---riiight. Slow go is the right move. If we blow it, the pedal to the the metal crowd can wallow in the misery that will follow. Prob is.....so will the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I admit I am unable to keep up with what you're saying. What of anything did I just say that was cavalier? And where anywhere did I say I was out doing all those sorts of things and then violating my in-laws social distancing/quarantine? None of this makes any sense. All I'm saying is that the vulnerable people need to do what they are currently doing. We all need to protect them. You don't agree? And for those of us on the other end of the spectrum who have close to a zero risk of adverse health effects from the virus - there is no need for us to isolate and quarantine, especially if our local cities and states' hospitals are way way way under capacity. We do need to continue to socially distance, practice good hygiene, and so on. That means we don't need to be going clubbing or to ballgames and things that nobody here or anywhere that I've seen is advocating for anyway. I just don't understand why people put opposite words in other people's mouths around here and throw around red herrings and straw men like printed money at the Treasury.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,071
bwelbo said:
Uh oh, someone’s trying to argue with our CDC. Our entire states infection rate is 0.0017. The death rate for anybody under the age of 40 is 0.0000.
Click to expand...

Excuse you. Below is your post that I called false:

"No elderly or immuno-compromised or morbidly obese people should attend. Those are really the only people at any material risk of adverse health ramifications of catching the virus."

And that statement is false. That no one under 40 has died from the disease in Georgia does not change your post from false to true. It still remains false. And I did not argue with the CDC's statistics. That also is a false statement. Oh for two in the truth category, bwelbo.
 
Last edited:
GoldZ

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
886
bwelbo said:
I admit I am unable to keep up with what you're saying. What of anything did I just say that was cavalier? And where anywhere did I say I was out doing all those sorts of things and then violating my in-laws social distancing/quarantine? None of this makes any sense. All I'm saying is that the vulnerable people need to do what they are currently doing. We all need to protect them. You don't agree? And for those of us on the other end of the spectrum who have close to a zero risk of adverse health effects from the virus - there is no need for us to isolate and quarantine, especially if our local cities and states' hospitals are way way way under capacity. We do need to continue to socially distance, practice good hygiene, and so on. That means we don't need to be going clubbing or to ballgames and things that nobody here or anywhere that I've seen is advocating for anyway. I just don't understand why people put opposite words in other people's mouths around here and throw around red herrings and straw men like printed money at the Treasury.
Click to expand...
Not you per se, but the board here in a number of cases is in fact cavalier about: just hide the old folks. You actually don't see post after post about going to Tech football games? If not, read some mo. If you for example, do any of what opening up too fast means, you can not possibly protect your in-laws. Btw bwelbo, there are no straw men in my earlier post.
If this isn't clear, I'll send ya a pm. Z
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top