Coronavirus Thread

[GoldZ]

If health experts advocate social distancing and lawmakers limit maximum gatherings, but then they all endorse exceptions to it, then it shows they really don’t believe in it in the first place. It’s like Al Gote saying our planet is dying and we need to change our lifestyle, but you find out his mansion burns the electricity of 40 homes and he flies in private jets everywhere. The only logical conclusion is they can’t actually believe what they’re putting forth as science-based or else they wouldn’t ignore it.

It doesn't mean this at all. What it does mean, is the health experts know, as they have said many times, that being outside and young is far less risky. As for the lawmakers (politicians), they simply and purely, want to be re-elected.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It doesn't mean this at all. What it does mean, is the health experts know, as they have said many times, that being outside and young is far less risky. As for the lawmakers (politicians), they simply and purely, want to be re-elected.

I didn't read a single thing in what the 1,000+ health experts published that said anything about that.

 

[GoldZ]

I didn't read a single thing in what the 1,000+ health experts published that said anything about that.

Not responding to the article, but the science angle where they have said repeatedly that being outside and young reduces the risk considerably, protest or not.

 

[awbuzz]

"... being outside and young reduces the risk considerably..."

Need to break that down.
- Being outside is less risky for all due to air flow, etc.

- Being young reduces the probability of getting severely sick, it doesn't mean you won't get SARS-COV-2.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Also, and not to get political, but maybe this cause for the demonstrators goes beyond their concern for getting infected.

well, not to get political, but hasn’t the motto this whole time been “think of other people”? You may not be in danger but your elder friends and family are. Your friends and family with pre-existing conditions are. Isn’t that what has been the narrative this whole time? How does that change? If a young person goes to a protest and then infects their mother, wouldn’t that young person be saying they are willing to risk anyone they come in contact with’s life for their cause? How is that all of a sudden OK? You can make the choice to put your own health at risk for your beliefs, but not other’s health. I mean, this has been the narrative the whole time, right?

It is hypocritical. There’s no two ways about it. I say that as someone who has gotten in arguments on this forum defending the seriousness of this virus. These people are going to get more people killed.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

"... being outside and young reduces the risk considerably..."

Need to break that down.
- Being outside is less risky for all due to air flow, etc.

- Being young reduces the probability of getting severely sick, it doesn't mean you won't get SARS-COV-2.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

It also doesn't mean that someone who was exposed to it won't give it to someone when they go home, or wherever they go.

 

[Techster]

 

[GoldZ]

It also doesn't mean that someone who was exposed to it won't give it to someone when they go home, or wherever they go.

True nuff.

 

[Techster]

well, not to get political, but hasn’t the motto this whole time been “think of other people”? You may not be in danger but your elder friends and family are. Your friends and family with pre-existing conditions are. Isn’t that what has been the narrative this whole time? How does that change? If a young person goes to a protest and then infects their mother, wouldn’t that young person be saying they are willing to risk anyone they come in contact with’s life for their cause? How is that all of a sudden OK? You can make the choice to put your own health at risk for your beliefs, but not other’s health. I mean, this has been the narrative the whole time, right?

It is hypocritical. There’s no two ways about it. I say that as someone who has gotten in arguments on this forum defending the seriousness of this virus. These people are going to get more people killed.

Who's changing the narrative? It's STILL is something we need to be cognizant of.

The problem is some people are watching the protest and saying "Hyprocrites...I guess the virus wasn't really a threat if all these people are gathering and demonstrating!" The threat never left, but many are willing to risk infection, and it seems the infection of others, to make their voices heard.

I"m not sure why people want to say acts by the protesters = acceptance by the medical experts. People can demonstrate (against medical advice), and medical experts can still disapprove because it will increases infection vectors. It's not one and the same.

 

[GoldZ]

Not responding to the article, but the science angle where they have said repeatedly that being outside and young reduces the risk considerably, protest or not.

"... being outside and young reduces the risk considerably..."

Need to break that down.
- Being outside is less risky for all due to air flow, etc.

- Being young reduces the probability of getting severely sick, it doesn't mean you won't get SARS-COV-2.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Not getting severely sick = reduced risk(for them). Sure they can get infected, but even that angle is less so than the vulnerable groups.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Who's changing the narrative? It's STILL is something we need to be cognizant of.

The problem is some people are watching the protest and saying "Hyprocrites...I guess the virus wasn't really a threat if all these people are gathering and demonstrating!" The threat never left, but many are willing to risk infection, and it seems the infection of others, to make their voices heard.

I"m not sure why people want to say acts by the protesters = acceptance by the medical experts. People can demonstrate (against medical advice), and medical experts can still disapprove because it will increases infection vectors. It's not one and the same.

Nobody is calling them hypocrites - at least not that I’ve seen. The health experts and local governments are who are being called hypocrites, as they have expressly said that mass gatherings can indeed be okay depending on the purpose.

 

[takethepoints]

Been wondering what the different COVID-19 model say about projected deaths? If so, see:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/covid-forecasts/?cid=rrpromo

This has the waterfront covered. These predictions are not fun to read, but they could have been a lot worse.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Who's changing the narrative? It's STILL is something we need to be cognizant of.

The problem is some people are watching the protest and saying "Hyprocrites...I guess the virus wasn't really a threat if all these people are gathering and demonstrating!" The threat never left, but many are willing to risk infection, and it seems the infection of others, to make their voices heard.

I"m not sure why people want to say acts by the protesters = acceptance by the medical experts. People can demonstrate (against medical advice), and medical experts can still disapprove because it will increases infection vectors. It's not one and the same.

These are the same people who complained that the president didn’t do enough and called our governor a mass murderer and now they are going to be the ones responsible for a spike. That is indeed a hypocrite. For some of us, it’s not a Red or Blue issue. I was arguing against the people who didn’t take the virus seriously( if you don’t believe me, you can look back in my post history. I got in trouble on this very site for unkind posts about Kemp). I’m now arguing against the people who vilified the other side who are now doing the very thing they were vilifying because it fits their agenda. That’s a hypocrite. I call it both ways.

They should label this behavior reckless in the same way they labeled the other side’s behavior reckless, but they won’t because it fits their agenda. It’s not unethical to denounce large gatherings during a GLOBAL PANDEMIC regardless of what social issues may be at play.

 

[awbuzz]

It also doesn't mean that someone who was exposed to it won't give it to someone when they go home, or wherever they go.

Correct 100%. That is why I mentioned that they can contract the virus. They just may not show symptoms oh, i e not have covid-19, yet, be a spreader.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

[awbuzz]

Not getting severely sick = reduced risk(for them). Sure they can get infected, but even that angle is less so than the vulnerable groups.

I just wanted to point out that reduced risk did not necessarily mean not being sick. Some people may read that reduce risk meant catching the virus.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 2897]

South Carolina is in the middle of an explosion.

After months of 75-175 new cases per day, we broke 300 a week ago, then 400, then 500. After months of having less than a 5% positive test result rate, we've spent the last couple weeks at 8% and 9%+. All the signs are there of a full-on outbreak.

And today we hit 542 new cases statewide.

 

[dtm1997]

And today we hit 542 new cases statewide.

Just saw that via Stewart Mandel...

 

[Milwaukee]

Just saw that via Stewart Mandel...

No need to worry. They are young men, you can’t continue to have them living in a bubble. They are more likely to be killed from a freak gun accident by their own hand inside their own home than they are from the China virus.

Open up everything, 100% capacity. If you’re sick, stay home. Ya know kinda like you’ve been doing for the past 100 yrs. Common sense is no longer common.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Just saw that via Stewart Mandel...

Greenville has about the same population of Charleston. We hit a new daily record today of 39 cases. Greenville had 116.

My nurse friend who does test callbacks said the vast majority are young people who have been out protesting (they ask what they’ve been doing for contact tracing purposes). If that’s true, hospitalization rates shouldn’t change. They haven’t even blipped yet so far.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

From a nursing friend. Pretty ironic who demanded the shutdown, lectured people about behavior, and who is messing up the reopening.

“We had a telehealth meeting tonight. A huge contingent of the positive testing over the last three days have been protesters - they were asked to be tested… Many of them only had mild URI symptoms. Runny nose scratchy throat slight cough… Not the typical terrible cough or shortness of breath. Probably because they were asked to get tested before they would have otherwise. Watch the hospitalization rate later this week.”