OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part V

[eco's bones]

The president stopping flights from China was a good thing. His opponents calling it racism is a great example of the “derangement syndrome” we hear about all the time. It was stupid then and has grown stupider with time.

Basically everything else the president has said or done since that point has been awful. That’s why his diehard supporters need to hearken back to a 3 month old action to defend him.

The ban on air travel from Europe came very soon after the China air ban anyway and both were necessary--and should have been done sooner anyway. You wonder exactly what those intelligence briefings on the virus that Donald apparently yawned through were about.

We know that cramming people into small spaces is a bad idea--that people need space and when out in public they need to wear masks. That this disease travels via droplets and that whenever anyone opens their mouth in proximity to another they are endangering them. Whenever someone sneezes in public it's the same. If you've been out and about at all you can be asymptomatic.

And this is another example of Donald's refusal to lead. He tells people they should wear masks--then refuses to wear one himself.

 

[Metranger]

I wonder if people are going to be afraid to ride on half filled or crowded elevators any longer.

 

[Synergy27]

I wonder if people are going to be afraid to ride on half filled or crowded elevators any longer.

I’ve always been afraid of them. Partially because of germs, but mostly because I’ve also been stuck in one. Fortunately this happened while with a friend, who happened to be an elevator mechanic and able to get us unstuck. I’m not afraid of elevators when I’m with him.

 

[sbjnyc]

I wonder if people are going to be afraid to ride on half filled or crowded elevators any longer.

I'm more afraid of climbing 20 floors to my apartment.

 

[NYR Viper]

"By my calculations, 150 children will die -- f*** 'em" is never an argument I expected to hear, but here we are.

This is a bit disingenuous though isn’t it? If those were the real numbers, based on your logic, we should ban all car transportation as more children are killed in car wrecks per year than that. How about things like riding a bike or skateboarding? Swimming would also need to be banned.

 

[Machinehead]

This is a bit disingenuous though isn’t it? If those were the real numbers, based on your logic, we should ban all car transportation as more children are killed in car wrecks per year than that. How about things like riding a bike or skateboarding? Swimming would also need to be banned.

THOSE THINGS AREN'T CONTAGIOUS

 

[Irishguy42]

This is a bit disingenuous though isn’t it? If those were the real numbers, based on your logic, we should ban all car transportation as more children are killed in car wrecks per year than that. How about things like riding a bike or skateboarding? Swimming would also need to be banned.

 

[NYR Viper]

THOSE THINGS AREN'T CONTAGIOUS

Understood, but his comment was on a death rate of one in a million. He then said that would be about 150 kids throughout the US which you then replied which I quoted before which was that ‘150 kids died, f*** ‘em. I’m just saying that if 150 was the barometer then I would imagine you would also be pining to shut down many other things due to death tolls?

Perhaps your point is that the kids would then infect others? If that’s the case that wasn’t quite clear. It only referenced a random small death toll.

 

[NYR Viper]

How would comparing death rates and tolls across various causes not be correlated? Wouldn’t you want to gain knowledge on the worst and create solutions to those first?

 

[Machinehead]

Understood, but his comment was on a death rate of one in a million. He then said that would be about 150 kids throughout the US which you then replied which I quoted before which was that ‘150 kids died, f*** ‘em. I’m just saying that if 150 was the barometer then I would imagine you would also be pining to shut down many other things due to death tolls?

Perhaps your point is that the kids would then infect others? If that’s the case that wasn’t quite clear. It only referenced a random small death toll.

We can't just skim past how preventable the deaths are. There's no reasonable way to ban transportation or swimming. As me move into the next phases of this outbreak, some people will die, yes.

Opening schools tomorrow, when there's absolutely no reason to and plans of action to do so safely haven't even begun yet, would kill 150 people when the correct number is 0.

 

[NYR Viper]

We can't just skim past how preventable the deaths are. There's no reasonable way to ban transportation or swimming. As me move into the next phases of this outbreak, some people will die, yes.

Opening schools tomorrow, when there's absolutely no reason to and plans of action to do so safely haven't even begun yet, would kill 150 people when the correct number is 0.

This is a good point. Sorry if I didn’t understand the other one just based on the post you quoted

 

[Ola]

"By my calculations, 150 children will die -- f*** 'em" is never an argument I expected to hear, but here we are.

I think it’s closer to the truth that one in a million under 50 y/o not belonging to a risk group will die from Covid 19.

It’s hard to find deaths per age group in the US. But here is what I’ve found from other countries:

In Sweden it’s 0.46 dead in 100k under 50 y/o and of those 0.46 a very large majority is in some risk group. In Italy it’s 282 / 38m x 100k = 0.74 dead per 100k under 50 y/o. It’s said that 95% of dead under 50 belongs to a risk group. It’s something like that..

So that makes it like 0.25 per million, right?

Fatalities in traffic is 11.25 per 100k in the US.

 

[Machinehead]

I think it’s closer to the truth that one in a million under 50 y/o not belonging to a risk group will die from Covid 19.

It’s hard to find deaths per age group in the US. But here is what I’ve found from other countries:
View attachment 344801

View attachment 344802

View attachment 344803

In Sweden it’s 0.46 dead in 100k under 50 y/o and of those 0.46 a very large majority is in some risk group. In Italy it’s 282 / 38m x 100k = 0.74 dead per 100k under 50 y/o. It’s said that 95% of dead under 50 belongs to a risk group. It’s something like that..

So that makes it like 0.25 per million, right?

Fatalities in traffic is 11.25 per 100k in the US.

It doesn't matter. Those people are not expendable, whatever the number is.

I understand a virus makes death inevitable and I've been in favor of a managed but aggressive response because I don't believe society being reclusive is sustainable.

Throwing people in front of danger who don't have to be there to meet arbitrary standards of what "reopen" looks like, because you don't think you're at risk, is unacceptable.

 

[Ola]

In comparison the “normal” flu kills many more than Covid 19 under 50 — 3.6 per 100k.

And the normal flu kill quite many in the 0-4 range, 115 per year maybe. Covid might killl what a 2-3 in that range.

Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2017–2018 influenza season | CDC

Covid-19 is many many many times more deadly in the +70 range.

 

[Ola]

It doesn't matter. Those people are not expendable, whatever the number is.

I understand a virus makes death inevitable and I've been in favor of a managed but aggressive response because I don't believe society being reclusive is sustainable.

Throwing people in front of danger who don't have to be there to meet arbitrary standards of what "reopen" looks like, because you don't think you're at risk, is unacceptable.

I am not quite sure what you mean, you lost me somewhere there.

I think it’s quite clear that shutting down was a big blunder — in light of what we know today — and that all focus/resources should have been put at protecting those at risk, which would have had a real impact.

Now they need to steer the policy towards what will work and from a policy that certainly makes much more damage than whatever — if any — gains you get. That can’t be done over night.

 

[sbjnyc]

It's much higher than that. First of all, mortality rates are annual and you have at best a months worth of data from a limited population.

I think it’s closer to the truth that one in a million under 50 y/o not belonging to a risk group will die from Covid 19.

It’s hard to find deaths per age group in the US. But here is what I’ve found from other countries:
View attachment 344801

View attachment 344802

View attachment 344803

In Sweden it’s 0.46 dead in 100k under 50 y/o and of those 0.46 a very large majority is in some risk group. In Italy it’s 282 / 38m x 100k = 0.74 dead per 100k under 50 y/o. It’s said that 95% of dead under 50 belongs to a risk group. It’s something like that..

So that makes it like 0.25 per million, right?

Fatalities in traffic is 11.25 per 100k in the US.

 

[Machinehead]

I am not quite sure what you mean, you lost me somewhere there.

I think it’s quite clear that shutting down was a big blunder — in light of what we know today — and that all focus/resources should have been put at protecting those at risk, which would have had a real impact.

Now they need to steer the policy towards what will work and from a policy that certainly makes much more damage than whatever — if any — gains you get. That can’t be done over night.

Not sure where I lost you. Steer policy towards what will work but don't blindly kill people "because they're young." Pretty straightforward point if you ask me.

Schools are the absolute worst thing you could do right now without a clear plan to reduce infection.

"Protect those at risk" is a trojan horse. Much of the elderly population of the US is already isolated in nursing homes -- disaster. Much of the elderly population in Italy lives in the home -- also a disaster. The only way to protect those at risk is to keep the spread below a certain level.

 

[Machinehead]

"It'll only be 150 dead" was a dumb argument.

"Relax, it'll only be 40" is not a better one.

 

[LORDE]

The ban on air travel from Europe came very soon after the China air ban anyway and both were necessary--and should have been done sooner anyway. You wonder exactly what those intelligence briefings on the virus that Donald apparently yawned through were about.

We know that cramming people into small spaces is a bad idea--that people need space and when out in public they need to wear masks. That this disease travels via droplets and that whenever anyone opens their mouth in proximity to another they are endangering them. Whenever someone sneezes in public it's the same. If you've been out and about at all you can be asymptomatic.

And this is another example of Donald's refusal to lead. He tells people they should wear masks--then refuses to wear one himself.

Don’t forget his VP

 

[LORDE]

THOSE THINGS AREN'T CONTAGIOUS

Omg why is that an argument.

Yea cars, and swimming pools and cancer etc

But if u go near a car, or swimming pool... or someone who has... killed you... u better believe there would be bans on that shit.

So funny what crap people will talk themselves into, without thinking at all

 

[Machinehead]

Omg why is that an argument.

Yea cars, and swimming pools and cancer etc

But if u go near a car, or swimming pool... or someone who has... killed you... u better believe there would be bans on that shit.

So funny what crap people will talk themselves into, without thinking at all

Seriously. If cancer were contagious we'd be in personal bubbles.

 

[LORDE]

Seriously. If cancer were contagious we'd be in personal bubbles.

‘Moops!? Wrong!!! The correct answer is Moors.” It’s a typo!!!!

 

[sbjnyc]

If they only test symptomatic people you can't generalize to the entire population.

 

[Metranger]

In his 1999 National Press Club "after speech" Q&A, George Carlin said "Nature has a way of weeding out people that aren't going to make it". He was talking about drug abuse but I found his words relevant to today.

I'm not making any new revelations but he is so missed. What a genius.

 

[Machinehead]

If they only test symptomatic people you can't generalize to the entire population.

Unless I misunderstood what Cuomo said when he rolled this out, I don't think they are only testing symptomatic people in this particular survey.

A test of symptomatic people would yield much higher than 13%, no?