Coronavirus Thread

[Deleted member 2897]

Lets go ahead and approve drinking bleach. It hasn't been fully studied in double-blind randomized studies, so it is possible that it "may" be effective to treat COVID. Sure, there are definitely major side effect risks, and there are no credible studies showing that it is effective to treat COVID, but the risks of COVID are death. So, shouldn't we just go ahead and approve drinking bleach for patients faced with death. Really sad that denying approval for drinking bleach has gotten so political.

Are there any benefits to eating lead? It blocks radation doesn't it? Maybe we should get shot in the head to protect us from radiation before we get x-rays.

I'm not sure what your post is referring to. The drug in question has been widely used for a very long time by a very large group of people. Nobody has ever suggested drinking bleach (other than a few folks like Joe Biden in parody that he later had to clarify).

 

[Techster]

In more important Covid 19 news:

 

[MWBATL]

An interesting article on today's WSJ cites 4 different studies using the latest data on covid, ALL of which have concluded the costs of lockdowns FAR exceed the risks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-da...r-reopening-11592264199?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Since that site is likely behind a paywall, I will summarize its major findings. A study out of Cal-Berkeley has calculated that the lockdowns saved 74,000 lives, which translates to a cost benefit of around $250 billion. That implies the value of a life is around $3.5 million each, which is a figure used by military in valuing lives of combatants for things like deciding whether to spend $4 million per fighter jet on safety equipment or not. (One can argue that the value of an 80 year old's life to society as a whole is...a bit less.) Given the packages the Federal government has spent already, the costs to our society have far out-weighed the benefits.

An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.

That conclusion is actually quite similar to an earlier conclusion out of the UK.

An MIT study then found more lives would be saved by focusing on those most at risk rather than on society as whole.

By and large, the studies have found that social distancing and masks have done the trick and that lockdowns are not needed if those are observed.

I doubt you will hear ANY of this in MSM.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

An MIT study then found more lives would be saved by focusing on those most at risk rather than on society as whole.

By and large, the studies have found that social distancing and masks have done the trick and that lockdowns are not needed if those are observed.

And I've cut a few pieces out of your comment.

These 2 points have been what many on this thread have harped on and focused on for months. This is what the science and data tells us to do.

 

[MWBATL]

This graph, which is for the entire country, certainly suggests that .....the problem is not as bad as the vast majority of media make it out to be....

 

[RonJohn]

These 2 points have been what many on this thread have harped on and focused on for months. This is what the science and data tells us to do.

Unfortunately there are many people who are politically against social distancing and using masks. In my non-scientific observations, the number of people who are using masks has dropped drastically in the last few weeks. It seems that when I go to the grocery store, only about 1 out of 10 have a mask on.

 

[MWBATL]

Unfortunately there are many people who are politically against social distancing and using masks. In my non-scientific observations, the number of people who are using masks has dropped drastically in the last few weeks. It seems that when I go to the grocery store, only about 1 out of 10 have a mask on.

Wow. Where I live it still seems to be high usage. (Maybe 75%?) But, tbh, it is not like I have been taking surveys, but I have been to a bunch of Home Depot and grocery stores int he past few days and mask usage has remained high in my perception.

 

[WreckinGT]

An interesting article on today's WSJ cites 4 different studies using the latest data on covid, ALL of which have concluded the costs of lockdowns FAR exceed the risks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-da...r-reopening-11592264199?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Since that site is likely behind a paywall, I will summarize its major findings. A study out of Cal-Berkeley has calculated that the lockdowns saved 74,000 lives, which translates to a cost benefit of around $250 billion. That implies the value of a life is around $3.5 million each, which is a figure used by military in valuing lives of combatants for things like deciding whether to spend $4 million per fighter jet on safety equipment or not. (One can argue that the value of an 80 year old's life to society as a whole is...a bit less.) Given the packages the Federal government has spent already, the costs to our society have far out-weighed the benefits.

An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.

That conclusion is actually quite similar to an earlier conclusion out of the UK.

An MIT study then found more lives would be saved by focusing on those most at risk rather than on society as whole.

By and large, the studies have found that social distancing and masks have done the trick and that lockdowns are not needed if those are observed.

I doubt you will hear ANY of this in MSM.

You want the MSM to argue the value of a life?

 

[MWBATL]

You want the MSM to argue the value of a life?

Nope, I want them to report these findings.....accurately.

 

[Techster]

This graph, which is for the entire country, certainly suggests that .....the problem is not as bad as the vast majority of media make it out to be....

Just curious, where was this graph taken from?

Something to consider about the hospitalizations: Early on, hospitalizations were concentrated in several hotspots (NY, Washington, New Orleans, etc.) and now they are spiking again in but in more places like Texas, California (never really went away), Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, etc. and more worrisome, spiking in rural areas where treatment and mitigation is harder.

Also, if you look at when shelter place and shutdowns occurred, it would trend in line with that hospitalization graph...which points to the shutdown doing its job (although at a heavy economic price).

 

[Techster]

Wow. Where I live it still seems to be high usage. (Maybe 75%?) But, tbh, it is not like I have been taking surveys, but I have been to a bunch of Home Depot and grocery stores int he past few days and mask usage has remained high in my perception.

We live in the same area, you must be going to different stores than I do. I can tell you from experience the Home Depot/Kroger/Whole Foods off Ponce most certainly does NOT have a face mask rate of 75%. I would generously list it at 30-40%.

The Beltline has become a joke and I don't even go anywhere near it these days.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Unfortunately there are many people who are politically against social distancing and using masks. In my non-scientific observations, the number of people who are using masks has dropped drastically in the last few weeks. It seems that when I go to the grocery store, only about 1 out of 10 have a mask on.

Where I live (SC) I would guess (total total guess) 80%+ mask usage at the grocery store. 20% mask usage at hardware store and pretty much anywhere else inside I've been. Many restaurants don't even have their staff wearing masks. (!!!)

 

[WreckinGT]

Nope, I want them to report these findings.....accurately.

I have no idea if the media has reported on any of the studies cited in that article but the overall article is an opinion piece giving their personal spin on data they have found to promote their agenda. Theres about a million of those out there. Its not a particularly enlightening news story.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I have no idea if the media has reported on any of the studies cited in that article but the overall article is an opinion piece giving their personal spin on data they have found to promote their agenda. Theres about a million of those out there. Its not a particularly enlightening news story.

Cal-Berkeley and Germany's Department of Labor and MIT and others that conducted studies you're calling opinion pieces? I mean, it could be indeed that their own internal biases colored their studies. But that's a pretty bold assertion about highly regarded institutions - I'd be interested to hear in specific detail what you find opinion and devoid of science.

 

[Jim Prather]

We live in the same area, you must be going to different stores than I do. I can tell you from experience the Home Depot/Kroger/Whole Foods off Ponce most certainly does NOT have a face mask rate of 75%. I would generously list it at 30-40%.

The Beltline has become a joke and I don't even go anywhere near it these days.

I'm in Sandy Springs and the mask usage around here is probably around 75% in the stores.

 

[Techster]

I'm in Sandy Springs and the mask usage around here is probably around 75% in the stores.

I must go to the worst areas!

If I have time, and if I remember today, I'm going to take some random group photos of people in stores and around town...maybe I'm just hyper focused on the people not wearing masks that I don't pay attention to the ones being smart about it.

 

[WreckinGT]

Cal-Berkeley and Germany's Department of Labor and MIT and others that conducted studies you're calling opinion pieces? I mean, it could be indeed that their own internal biases colored their studies. But that's a pretty bold assertion about highly regarded institutions - I'd be interested to hear in specific detail what you find opinion and devoid of science.

The article he referenced is an opinion article on the opinion page of the WSJ. It references multiple studies but is in and of itself an opinion piece which is why you won't find it anywhere on their website except the opinion section. Its not really any different than anyone here using whatever data they want to prove their point about something. Which is fine, but not exactly news worthy.

 

[Jim Prather]

I must go to the worst areas!

If I have time, and if I remember today, I'm going to take some random group photos of people in stores and around town...maybe I'm just hyper focused on the people not wearing masks that I don't pay attention to the ones being smart about it.

You probably live in a younger area of town. It's been my observation that mask usage increases proportionally with age.

 

[wrmathis]

I went to Sea-Tac to pick up my stepdaughter on saturday and the only people that werent really wearing masks were people that worked at the airport. they have signs as you drive up to the airport that masks are required but employees arent even wearing them. almost all passengers and visitors to the airport had them on with a few here and there not having them. but like i said, airport employees were the biggest offenders of not wearing them

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The article he referenced is an opinion article on the opinion page of the WSJ. It references multiple studies but is in and of itself an opinion piece which is why you won't find it anywhere on their website except the opinion section. Its not really any different than anyone here using whatever data they want to prove their point about something. Which is fine, but not exactly news worthy.

Well okay fine, you don’t like the authors who referenced the studies. Fair enough. What did they say, cite, or infer from the studies which you find false or misleading? Or is this just “shoot the messenger”?