OT: Coronavirus 3 - wait but Covid 19 is SARS-CoV-2

Status
Not open for further replies.

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
12,027
36,990
I'm not sure at this point which group of FB friends posts are getting more annoying:
a) the folks who just want to open everything up fully because they're not in a susceptible group and the mortality rate is acceptable
b) the folks who could care less if the economy tanks because 1 person dying from COVID is unacceptable while the loss jobs and life from a crashing economy is then the governments fault and acceptable

I'm actually really glad we have this board and can have discussions...even if we don't all agree on how things are being handled here or elsewhere, or have different opinions on moving forward, everyone's been a pretty level-headed. I haven't seen anyone on here bickering and name calling and slamming each other for thinking slightly differently.
 

MinJaBen

Canes Sharks Boy
Sponsor
Dec 14, 2015
20,671
79,609
Durm
I'm not sure at this point which group of FB friends posts are getting more annoying:
a) the folks who just want to open everything up fully because they're not in a susceptible group and the mortality rate is acceptable
b) the folks who could care less if the economy tanks because 1 person dying from COVID is unacceptable while the loss jobs and life from a crashing economy is then the governments fault and acceptable

I'm actually really glad we have this board and can have discussions...even if we don't all agree on how things are being handled here or elsewhere, or have different opinions on moving forward, everyone's been a pretty level-headed. I haven't seen anyone on here bickering and name calling and slamming each other for thinking slightly differently.

upload_2020-4-29_10-14-8.png
 

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
12,027
36,990
Exactly!! It seems on social media if you're scared of the economic impacts, you CLEARLY don't care about anyone getting sick or value people's lives. And if you're in favor of shutdown, then you definitely don't care about the economic ramifications and impact on quality of life. And then you have the people who ARE on one of those extremes and you just want to slap the **** out of them for being ignorant and blind to anything beyond their narrow vision. What's worse is when they use bad information, fake anecdotes, and false equivalencies to support their viewpoint...and if you call them out on it "you're missing the point"
 
Last edited:

Anton Dubinchuk

aho
Sponsor
Jul 18, 2010
25,982
54,307
Atlanta, GA
Exactly!! It seems on social media if you're scared of the economic impacts, you CLEARLY don't care about anyone getting sick or value people's lives. And if you're in favor of shutdown, then you definitely don't care about the economic ramifications and impact on quality of life. And then you have the people who ARE on one of those extremes and you just want to slap the **** out of them for being ignorant and blind to anything beyond their narrow vision.

I think 90% of people are actually all three. It's just that if something happens that you form a certain opinion on (let's be honest, there's been about 1,400 things in the last month and a half related to this that you can reasonably form an opinion on), even the 90% are infighting. Being in the middle might mean occasionally thinking a certain social distancing/stay at home policy is excessive. It might mean thinking it's not enough. It could mean a whole bunch of things. It doesn't mean you aren't in the center if you take a stance on one thing or another.

If you're trying to keep a marble in the center of a plate, you're occasionally going to have to tilt the plate in one direction or the other - not because you want the marble to fall off but because you don't want it to fall off.

The issue is that in this time where none of us really know a damn thing (not just us on the boards, but even like world governments "us"), any stance anyone is opposed to is being treated like every other hot button political topic, when in the end we're all just as blind as each other trying to make heads or tails of this thing.

I'll be honest, I'm intrigued by what Sweden is doing. I'm intrigued by what my own state of Georgia is doing. And it has nothing to do with "caring about the economy over lives". I just think that the notion of just quarantining everyone indiscriminately vs. actually social distancing is a nuanced bit of math and modeling that probably hasn't seen its fair share. I'm interested in exploring every avenue that makes the notion of "people's livelihoods vs. their lives" a false choice, and these places (prudent or not, happy to discuss it) are exploring this. But if I state even the slightest interest in seeing how it works out without 4 paragraphs of apologetic context, in most cases I'd get put through the ringer. Agreed these boards have been (mostly) civil in that regard, so well done all.


My stupid, naive hope in this is that we eventually all realize that 90% of people have good intentions when it comes to their opinions on this stuff, the dialogue becomes a little more constructive and charitable, and that realization eventually makes its way to the rest of the political discourse in this country. It is simply not going to happen, but if it ever does, this is probably one of the better opportunities for it to.
 

Navin R Slavin

Fifth line center
Jan 1, 2011
16,175
63,350
Durrm NC
Implicit in the very language of "flattening the curve" was the expectation that the number of infected -- the area under the curve -- would always be the same for the first wave. Our goal was always to make sure our healthcare systems didn't get overwhelmed -- because if the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, mortality rates spike. See: Wuhan, Italy, NYC.

If the assumption is that "flattening the curve" was actually the correct goal, then *always implicit* in that goal was the idea that same number of people would ultimately be infected. I think the press keeps missing that in its breathless reporting.

It feels like we're very close to being able to say, across most of the US, that we know enough to keep the curve flat enough to have hospital beds, and still open up some. There *will* still be local spikes, and when there are, we know exactly how to lock down those areas again, and everyone has had some practice.

It'll be interesting to see how people in specific areas respond when they get locked down again after having had some relative freedom. I think it'll be harder to do the second time around without actual enforcement.
 

Anton Dubinchuk

aho
Sponsor
Jul 18, 2010
25,982
54,307
Atlanta, GA
Implicit in the very language of "flattening the curve" was the expectation that the number of infected -- the area under the curve -- would always be the same for the first wave. Our goal was always to make sure our healthcare systems didn't get overwhelmed -- because if the healthcare system gets overwhelmed, mortality rates spike. See: Wuhan, Italy, NYC.

If the assumption is that "flattening the curve" was actually the correct goal, then *always implicit* in that goal was the idea that same number of people would ultimately be infected. I think the press keeps missing that in its breathless reporting.

It feels like we're very close to being able to say, across most of the US, that we know enough to keep the curve flat enough to have hospital beds, and still open up some. There *will* still be local spikes, and when there are, we know exactly how to lock down those areas again, and everyone has had some practice.

It'll be interesting to see how people in specific areas respond when they get locked down again after having had some relative freedom. I think it'll be harder to do the second time around without actual enforcement.

Totally agreed. On that IHME model, almost all the curves are below the hospital bed, ICU bed, and ventilator lines, which is great.

One of the things I'm wondering is "what have we done?" Did we flatten the curve? Or did we "push" the curve? Most of us have probably seen the interactive models at this point that show if you truly just "shut down", the curve doesn't flatten but instead just moves right. It is probably some combination, but if we open up and stuff just happens anyway it's probably more "pushing" than flattening.

I am encouraged however that the opening up is very gradual. Seems like we will be able to play around with just a few variables at a time (I again reference the "Dance" after the "Hammer", I enjoyed that article). It may end up that we need to be in some "pseudo-open" state for a long while, so getting the "practice" of that in now as well is good.
 

Navin R Slavin

Fifth line center
Jan 1, 2011
16,175
63,350
Durrm NC
Totally agreed. On that IHME model, almost all the curves are below the hospital bed, ICU bed, and ventilator lines, which is great.

One of the things I'm wondering is "what have we done?" Did we flatten the curve? Or did we "push" the curve? Most of us have probably seen the interactive models at this point that show if you truly just "shut down", the curve doesn't flatten but instead just moves right. It is probably some combination, but if we open up and stuff just happens anyway it's probably more "pushing" than flattening.

I am encouraged however that the opening up is very gradual. Seems like we will be able to play around with just a few variables at a time (I again reference the "Dance" after the "Hammer", I enjoyed that article). It may end up that we need to be in some "pseudo-open" state for a long while, so getting the "practice" of that in now as well is good.

Yep. The farther we push the curve to the right, the more time we give ourselves to find more knobs and dials to turn so that we actually can flatten the curve.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Regardless of what one thinks about that YouTube video that was yanked (my take: methodology was badly flawed so that the numerical conclusion made is meaningless but the general idea there are far more cases that were never diagnosed seems like something any sensible person would think given how easy this thing spreads) why do people still think banning things does anything but draw more attention to them and cause everyone to actively search for them? Or that when something is banned the general mentality of people in general is to be more likely to agree with what the banned video/speech says? Posting your own video in response pointing out all the inaccuracies would in fact be far more effective.

They did, but in text and not video.

The Health commissioner came out and said he did NOT concur with the Dr's (when the doctors said they were in agreement).
Public Health responds to comments made by Accelerated Urgent Care Doctor about reopening

The ACEP/AAEM jointly came out and denounced it and stated why in their release:
ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

The video isn't gone by any means. YouTube yanked it likely because they attempt to remove misleading/misinformation and deemed it so, but it's still easy to find.
 

sabremike

Friend To All Giraffes
Aug 30, 2010
22,532
33,771
Brewster, NY
They did, but in text and not video.

The Health commissioner came out and said he did NOT concur with the Dr's (when the doctors said they were in agreement).
Public Health responds to comments made by Accelerated Urgent Care Doctor about reopening

The ACEP/AAEM jointly came out and denounced it and stated why in their release:
ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

The video isn't gone by any means. YouTube yanked it likely because they attempt to remove misleading/misinformation and deemed it so, but it's still easy to find.
YouTube has publicly stated they will pull anything that goes against what the WHO says about the virus. The WHO is just about the most dirty stinking rotten corrupt organization on the planet and THEIR opinion is being used to censor misleading/misinformation? And as I pointed out before all they accomplished was make people far more prone to side with the doctors in the video so it was a failure even on utilitarian grounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

Chrispy

Salakuljettaja's Blues
Feb 25, 2009
8,196
26,225
Cary, NC
YouTube has publicly stated they will pull anything that goes against what the WHO says about the virus. The WHO is just about the most dirty stinking rotten corrupt organization on the planet and THEIR opinion is being used to censor misleading/misinformation? And as I pointed out before all they accomplished was make people far more prone to side with the doctors in the video so it was a failure even on utilitarian grounds.

OR removing the video will tell people who actually trust the medical specialists in this field that this was a poor study, against current recommendations, and shouldn't be trusted, which a lot of people need when presented with a misleading study that used inconsistent samples and tried to compare them to each other.

A "rebuttal" video doesn't work given Youtube's algorithms take people to similar information after watching something, not conflicting information. Just because it's on a similar topic, that doesn't mean people are watching both videos. Youtube's entire algorithm is based on recommending things other people who watched this video also watched. It's how you can end up in a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories on Youtube so easily.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,738
38,189
colorado
Visit site

This visualization and the associated data gives me pause.

As this all gets quantified in time I’ll be curious to see how Colorado got so high up the list. I don’t think we were behind the rest of the country in closing everything down. I know we’ve had a lot of press about our assisted living facilities which had some big numbers. As someone who frequents those places on a daily basis this isn’t surprising but if our facilities are behind the rest of the countries that would be interesting. I had maybe wrongly assumed poorly run assisted living was a national thing more than local.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

Chrispy

Salakuljettaja's Blues
Feb 25, 2009
8,196
26,225
Cary, NC
As this all gets quantified in time I’ll be curious to see how Colorado got so high up the list. I don’t think we were behind the rest of the country in closing everything down. I know we’ve had a lot of press about our assisted living facilities which had some big numbers. As someone who frequents those places on a daily basis this isn’t surprising but if our facilities are behind the rest of the countries that would be interesting. I had maybe wrongly assumed poorly run assisted living was a national thing more than local.

There are two possible causes of "death above normal" during a pandemic that shuts everything down:
1) Unreported Covid-19 deaths
2) Non-Covid-19 deaths that could have been treated had medical care been available in a non-epidemic environment.

As you have shutdowns in more rural locations with fewer options for medical care, it wouldn't shock me to see deaths in the second category increase.
 

sabremike

Friend To All Giraffes
Aug 30, 2010
22,532
33,771
Brewster, NY
OR removing the video will tell people who actually trust the medical specialists in this field that this was a poor study, against current recommendations, and shouldn't be trusted, which a lot of people need when presented with a misleading study that used inconsistent samples and tried to compare them to each other.

A "rebuttal" video doesn't work given Youtube's algorithms take people to similar information after watching something, not conflicting information. Just because it's on a similar topic, that doesn't mean people are watching both videos. Youtube's entire algorithm is based on recommending things other people who watched this video also watched. It's how you can end up in a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories on Youtube so easily.
This article by Steve Sailor sums up my feelings quite nicely:

Science Says - Taki's Magazine
 

Lempo

Future Considerations Truther
Sponsor
Feb 23, 2014
26,665
82,983
The Prime Minister of Russia Mihail Mishustin got corona.

Our goverment may implode due to the similar sort of intended politically-informed appointment for the chief for the minister of financy that had recently rendered our ministry of social and health affairs pretty much useless to face a pandemic crisis.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->