OT - coronavirus

[darb72]

Government needs to be competent, especially during a global pandemic when tens of thousands of people are dying. If they aren’t competent in responding to that crisis, then they should be fired and replaced with someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So DeBlasio should be kicked out. Sounds good.

[owknows]

Government needs to be competent, especially during a global pandemic when tens of thousands of people are dying. If they aren’t competent in responding to that crisis, then they should be fired and replaced with someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to have purposely evaded my question.

You suggested that government should do whatever it can to save the lives of people that didn't need to die.

And when shown that for just a little more effort, government could save at least ten times the lives that it is currently saving.

But that perhaps you might consider those efforts Draconian.

So it would seem (I'm inferring from your intentional avoidance) that you would concede that there is some point that government's actions to save lives are not worth the lives saved.

That government wrapping us in bubble wrap and taping us to a wall, and feeding us a prescribed diet... wouldn't be worth it... even if it meant eliminating all firearms deaths, and vehicular accident deaths... and hypertension deaths.... and vascular disease deaths... in addition to eliminating all Covid19 deaths.

Do you concede this point? That there are government actions that are unjustifiable even if they save ten times the lives of these Covid actions?

[Captain Silver]

You seem to have purposely evaded my question.

You suggested that government should do whatever it can to save the lives of people that didn't need to die.

And when shown that for just a little more effort, government could save at least ten times the lives that it is currently saving.

But that perhaps you might consider those efforts Draconian.

So it would seem (I'm inferring from your intentional avoidance) that you would concede that there is some point that government's actions to save lives are not worth the lives saved.

That government wrapping us in bubble wrap and taping us to a wall, and feeding us a prescribed diet... wouldn't be worth it... even if it meant eliminating all firearms deaths, and vehicular accident deaths... and hypertension deaths.... and vascular disease deaths... in addition to eliminating all Covid19 deaths.

Do you concede this point? That there are government actions that are unjustifiable even if they save ten times the lives of these Covid actions?

Even Governor Hair Gel here in California is opening up the state. You know why? $$$. Even his backers are telling him we need cash.

[owknows]

Even Governor Hair Gel here in California is opening up the state. You know why? $$$. Even his backers are telling him we need cash.

Neither government or business run on Gumdrops and Unicorn Farts.

People gotta eat... pay bills... and so do governments.

You can only borrow so much from your grandchildren before the whole thing comes crashing down. Then nobody eats... no health programs get administered... no vaccines get distributed... nothing.

It's funny that some people think we can and should just all sit around until whenever.

Because someone might risk dying.

Unmindful of the fact that nearly everyone will die if we continue to just sit around.

[Gjennings85]

I went to the beach Sunday and folks were out swimming and playing volleyball. Many were at the parks, nobody was social distancing. I heard someone mention to one group that they aren’t social distancing and they said they don’t care. Many people are getting together now I see on Facebook.

[owknows]

I went to the beach Sunday and folks were out swimming and playing volleyball. Many were at the parks, nobody was social distancing. I heard someone mention to one group that they aren’t social distancing and they said they don’t care. Many people are getting together now I see on Facebook.

I suspect that some of those people will pay a price for that hubris.

And that others will attempt to exploit those who were willfully careless to say "toldya so"...

I expect to be back working in the office in the next couple weeks.. but my ass will be wearing a mask.. and keeping my distance.

[arnie_uk]

seriously... 3.5%

What do you mean by this?

As in only 3.5 percent, who cares?

Or something else

[RavensPPark]

In case you don’t have the info and they only sent you the talking points.

About 130,000 people work in meat packing plants. About 4K tested positive (about 2%). 20 died. About .0002%

I would bet more workers died in car crashes

You would be wrong. Wikipedia says that there have been 69 deaths in meat packing plants thus far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact..._United_States. That's a rate of 49 per 100,000. And that number is only going to go up.

This website - https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-ve...ths-and-rates/ - says vehicle deaths are currently around 12 per 100,000.

[RavensPPark]

You don't say? Lol. I'm a magnet for this today.

I am 100% comfortable sending my kids to live on campus. It's the least of my worries for them being away at school this semester. I would probably not feel that way if my kids had underlying conditions i.e. asthma, diabetes, auto-immune disease etc.. and might want them staying home this fall to take classes remotely.

However, I don't believe there is an imminent vaccine. That's something I've heard this administration say that I think is pie in the sky nonsense.

Based on that fact I don't think we have any choice but to try to get back as close to normal as possible. Paying people not to work and ending life as we know it in the US indefinitely just seems like the wrong choice to me. Especially with this virus. It's not that bad. The Hong Kong flu in 1968 is believed to have killed 100K Americans. I think we may be be at 150K by the end of the year with this.

The standard bearer for "modern" age pandemics, Spanish Flu, killed 675,000 in the US and 50 million world wide. Also, unlike CV19, the Spanish Flu killed a disproportionate amount of young and healthy people in the age group between 18 and 45. The curve was inverted from what you normally see with young, old and unhealthy dying in greater numbers.

I just spent the weekend with 3 people that were sick last month and are all CV antibody positive. They presented with milder symptoms than I had when I was sick in January. The 21 year old was barely symptomatic and for my sister in law it just felt like a knock you on you ass flu.

I saw an article today about how a "famous" researcher says this could be the tip of the iceberg.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/75990561.cms

I'm not a hyperventilating conspiracy monger and understand that could be complete bullshit so take that with a grain of salt. I just wanted to put that forward as a what if.

What if we have a CV19 every 2 years and they are all different? All about the same lethality, same profile of who is affected. How would you feel about being forced to stay in your homes waiting for the government to pay and feed and direct your movements then? You might not like it I suspect. You might also want to just get things back to some semblance of normal, take the sensible precautions you can, and roll the dice.

So if you would not be okay with this sort of stifling, life altering restrictions based on our current threat level if it happened every 2 years, why are you okay with it now?

Point I'm trying to make-> It's okay to question what we are doing and want us to err on the side of ending the lockdowns and getting back to normal.

First of all, I was responding to the last sentence of your prior post, which read: "Politics is the only explanation that would make sense to me." There are a ton of different reasons why any school would not re-open at this point, many of which I listed. I don't know what prompted the rest of your post.

That being said, the entire rest of the post seems based on the premise that CV is "not that bad" (you specifically say, "Especially with this virus. It's not that bad."). You compare the death rate to the flu pandemic in 1968. I should note that I often compare it to the flu pandemic in 1957, which also caused more than 100K deaths. However, in both cases, the authorities were content to let the flu strains rip through our society.

I'll say this one more time. Do people realize how many people would be dead in this world if we didn't take unprecedented (in our lifetimes) measures to lockdown billions of people? Do people realize what the IFR of CV is without these life-altering measures virtually every country in the world has taken? If we had just let this rip through our country like we did in 1957 and 1968, I suspect our deaths would be doubled or tripled or more.

Look, I fully understand the dilemma involved in our current situation and no, we can't remain under total lockdown for years. And I've said before in this thread, we are just beginning to learn about CV and truly don't know enough. But here's one thing that is true - as time goes by, we start to get better at dealing with CV, which is going to help everyone. We'll have better understanding on how to stop it from spreading; better understanding on how to treat it; and hopefully, over the long-run; pharmaceutical interventions to help treat it (or a vaccine).

But until that time, I'm in the exact opposite of you - let's err on the side of saving lives as much as possible until we really know more. YMMV.

[owknows]

What do you mean by this?

As in only 3.5 percent, who cares?

Or something else

I mean that at least in my mind.... that as horrifying as all of this has been to the world, and that as particularly bad as it has been in the United States, it has only accounted for 3.5% more deaths than there would have been under ordinary circumstances.

I find that a little surprising. And I believe it brings a little perspective to the magnitude of the event.

By contrast there were 103,208,000 in the US in 1918 and the Spanish Flu Killed 675,000 of them.

If we assume the same normal death rate in 1917 prior to the Spanish flu, The Spanish Flu increased the normal death rate by 65.6% at that time.

[darb72]

First of all, I was responding to the last sentence of your prior post, which read: "Politics is the only explanation that would make sense to me." There are a ton of different reasons why any school would not re-open at this point, many of which I listed. I don't know what prompted the rest of your post.

That being said, the entire rest of the post seems based on the premise that CV is "not that bad" (you specifically say, "Especially with this virus. It's not that bad."). You compare the death rate to the flu pandemic in 1968. I should note that I often compare it to the flu pandemic in 1957, which also caused more than 100K deaths. However, in both cases, the authorities were content to let the flu strains rip through our society.

I'll say this one more time. Do people realize how many people would be dead in this world if we didn't take unprecedented (in our lifetimes) measures to lockdown billions of people? Do people realize what the IFR of CV is without these life-altering measures virtually every country in the world has taken? If we had just let this rip through our country like we did in 1957 and 1968, I suspect our deaths would be doubled or tripled or more.

Look, I fully understand the dilemma involved in our current situation and no, we can't remain under total lockdown for years. And I've said before in this thread, we are just beginning to learn about CV and truly don't know enough. But here's one thing that is true - as time goes by, we start to get better at dealing with CV, which is going to help everyone. We'll have better understanding on how to stop it from spreading; better understanding on how to treat it; and hopefully, over the long-run; pharmaceutical interventions to help treat it (or a vaccine).

But until that time, I'm in the exact opposite of you - let's err on the side of saving lives as much as possible until we really know more. YMMV.

The CDC has said the Wuhan flu has an expected mortality rate of .26%. The regular flu has an expected mortality rate of .1%. I'm not a medical doctor but would be willing to bet that the fact humans haven't had a chance to deal with this virus yet explains the difference in mortality rates.

[arnie_uk]

I mean that at least in my mind.... that as horrifying as all of this has been to the world, and that as particularly bad as it has been in the United States, it has only accounted for 3.5% more deaths than there would have been under ordinary circumstances.

I find that a little surprising. And I believe it brings a little perspective to the magnitude of the event.

By contrast there were 103,208,000 in the US in 1918 and the Spanish Flu Killed 675,000 of them.

If we assume the same normal death rate in 1917 prior to the Spanish flu, The Spanish Flu increased the normal death rate by 65.6% at that time.

Ok i get that, its not as bas as feared.

Wouldnt you concede that the social distancing measures have played a significant role in that though?