Printable View
I'm just going to add this:
Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.
Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).
Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.
As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".
[QUOTE=Ljbjarras;4760388]I'm just going to add this:
Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.
Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).
Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.
As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".[/QUOTE]Flu season is 5 months long, if the current trend continues maybe 100,000 will die. Heart disease is 600,000 every year. 2,700,000 people die in the USA every year. Now that the CDC is classifying any person who dies as a covid death if you're positive for the virus and any case where corona is suspected, the death count is not really accurate anymore.
From the CDC web page:
"2. As of April 14,2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statementpdf iconexternal icon issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease. ".
20,000 of the deaths were in New York because they didn't isolate the risk groups back in March. It's sad but had we known then what we know now that may have been avoidable.
It's some serious shit, there's no denying it, the effect on risk groups is horrific. Outside of the risk groups not so much.
Before anybody says it, the 5 weird stroke deaths in people under 40 in New York represent. 002% of the reported cases. If you have a big enough sample there are always weird outliers.
A2.
[QUOTE=Admin2;4760241]Exponential growth happens early because it attacks the risk groups horrendously
[/QUOTE]You *almost* had it here and then missed it. You're confusing getting COVID, and getting sick. These are two different things. The core of your contention is that the death rate is relatively low (I agree, not even a bad flu year "by the numbers") but missing the the simple fact that people can be completely asymptomatic and still have COVID, and give it to many people. Additionally, the death rate is directly correlated to the number of people that get the disease, so exponential growth means. Exponential deaths.
So your statement above is fundamentally false, in that exponential growth happens because how contagious the disease is. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with risk groups. In fact, as noted in many articles, the biggest challenge has been young people that show no signs.
Further, the contention that the death rate is statistically insignificant is based on the current infection rate. Which has been blunted by social distancing, and which will explode if it's ended too early.
By your position, social distancing is useless, should have never happened and everyone should go back to work tomorrow. The flu of 1918 showed the folly of that perspective.
[QUOTE=Ljbjarras;4760388]I'm just going to add this:
Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.
Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).
Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.
As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".[/QUOTE]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.
I feel the best way to decide whether we support staying indoors or lifting the ban can be determined by thinking the worst case scenario for someone we are very close to.
Essentially, if we were to answer, would we be okay if our closest friend were to die of COVID-19, we would say no. And most of the time, we would do anything to avoid this from happening.
With respect to COVID-19, the one data that is irrefutable is that it spreads very fast. So, when the lockdown gets lifted, there is a very high chance that it is going to spread fast and there is a good chance that someone very close to us will get affected and there is a chance (Even if it might be small), they might not survive through it. So, the question here would be are we okay with taking that chance.
On the other hand, I also understand that the economy and quality of life for many is getting affected and most likely would get worse. And so we cannot keep this lockdown forever. But I feel, in my good conscience, I cannot willingly roll the dice to risk someone's life.
And so, we would have to weigh the risks and lift the ban when we are convinced that the health system can handle the amount of patients that might be added or better the health system fast.
[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]We don't live in India and car deaths are not exponentially contagious.
[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]India is locked down tighter than we are. My company had to provide laptops for the offshore workers so they can work remotely, what a nightmare week that was.
That is why they are having fewer deaths.
[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4760755]You *almost* had it here and then missed it. You're confusing getting COVID, and getting sick. These are two different things. The core of your contention is that the death rate is relatively low (I agree, not even a bad flu year "by the numbers") but missing the the simple fact that people can be completely asymptomatic and still have COVID, and give it to many people. Additionally, the death rate is directly correlated to the number of people that get the disease, so exponential growth means. Exponential deaths.
So your statement above is fundamentally false, in that exponential growth happens because how contagious the disease is. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with risk groups. In fact, as noted in many articles, the biggest challenge has been young people that show no signs.
Further, the contention that the death rate is statistically insignificant is based on the current infection rate. Which has been blunted by social distancing, and which will explode if it's ended too early.
By your position, social distancing is useless, should have never happened and everyone should go back to work tomorrow. The flu of 1918 showed the folly of that perspective.[/QUOTE]You seem to not understand the difference between recovering and dying. You almost had it there but missed the important stuff.
I said Covid 19 aggressively attacks risk groups so lets look at a group that couldn't practice social distancing.
The Theodore Roosevelt pulled into DaNang on March 5, on March 9th two people tested positive for corona in a hotel where some of the ships company were staying. The crew was recalled, the 4 guys who stayed in that hotel were put into isolation. On March 20th the first sailor tested positive so for 11 days the crew were onboard an aircraft carrier living in close quarters. By 16 April 95% of the crew had been tested for live cases, of the 4800 on board 600 were positive, of the 600 400 were asymptomatic. I get it you think that the fact that 60% of the were asymptomatic means that they are out there killing people just be breathing on them. Except 60% of the people they breath on will also be asymptomatic and asymptomatic means they don't even know they have it.
So the big question is. What happens to a relatively healthy young (average age 24) group of people who can't practice social distancing with 600 people who are confirmed positive?
7 weeks after first exposure, 4 weeks after the first confirmed positive 6 in hospital, 2 in intensive care of which one (41 year old chief) died.
5000 people, one death. The rest will make a full recovery.
Yes, the death rate is a direct corollary to the number of cases, LA County, Santa Clara, and New York antibody testing has shown that there are a minimum of 25 times the cases that were thought which lowers the death rate (if you add 25 X unknown cases and the body count is the same then the death rate drops by the number of new cases) giving it a death rate of around. 01-. 02% or like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University said "If 50 times more people have had the infection, the death rate could drop by that same factor, putting it "somewhere between 'little worse than the flu' to 'twice as bad as the flu' in terms of case fatality rate.
But what does he know, he only teaches medicine at one of the best medical schools in the country.
Yes, I know, that study was immediately denounced for faulty methodology except those people seemed to stop talking when independent studies in LA County and New York reached essentially the same conclusions.
The exponential growth happens IN risk groups, people outside of the risk groups are largely unaffected. It's time for intelligent quarantine and time to stop burning down the worlds economy.
I get it, you're going to argue this based on information you decided was correct a month ago, new information is available, science learns. It's a thing, it's a serious thing, it's not ebola, it's not the 1918 influenza. And not only because there has been an advance or two in medical science since 1918, it's nowhere near as lethal as that bug so stop comparing it to that. It's probably going to kill about 1/3 the people that heart disease kills every year. That kills 600,000 by your reasoning why are there still fast food restaurants? If outlawing them saves one person then it was worth the loss of civil liberties right?
And please stop talking about "they go out and kill other people" if you're in a risk group keep your ass at home. You live in a country where everything you need can be dropped off at your door in 24 hours. Make your garage a hot zone and disinfect everything before it comes in. Let the rest of the people who can do math get back to living life.
5800 people, living on an aircraft carrier, one dead. One. Six in hospital, six. They made such a big deal about those 28 spring breakers from Texas going to Mexico and how testing positive was what they deserved. All of them recovered.
Before you tell me again how I'm getting it wrong read "The De-industrialization of America" Barry Bluestone shows that for every 1% increase in joblessness 38,000 people die, it's called 2nd and 3rd order effects. The US jobless rate jumped 9% in April, that's 345,000 dead people. I guess they don't count though because nobody will be posting their names in Facebook to virtue signal.
Oh and before I forget, the idea that the death count went from the 10,000,000 like in the hammer and dance, or from the 1,500,000 on the CDC's page to probably less than 100,000 because 1/3 of the population stayed home is laughable. Either this thing is as blisteringly contagious as you say or it's not. I live in a country on lockdown, we can't cross the fucking street without a piece of paper. My friends in the US are driving all over the place. If you drive your car here without a pass from the government they confiscate your car. They closed restaurants and bars on you guys you can still go to a 7-11 anytime you want. I can go 500 meters from my front door once a day for an hour. The current infection rate in the US exploded this week with the antibody tests and that's great news. So great that the press had to take the news cycle by saying the man boy in the White House suggested that people should be injected with cleaning solution. I can't stand him but he didn't say it and when people should have been talking about how great it is that this is so much less lethal than originally thought they were posting pictures of bleach bottles.
A2.
[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]WTF? I don't live in India. And last time I seen a report, the authorities were beating people with sticks to enforce physical distancing. Also, I wouldn't trust reports out of authoritarian governments right now. They don't have the data and they dig have integrity. And there is an estimated 1-2 million car related "injuries" per year. That's because we have a national safety program in place that tracks data for car manufacturers so they can figure out how to innovate and make cars safer. Hence the high injury numbers compared to the relatively low death rate.
Did you watch Pandemic on Netflix? India struggles with the H1 N1 flu virus every year. An article from India News reports in January that there were 884 new cases of H1 N1 with 14 deaths.
This isn't a joke. There is actually a dangerous virus infecting people and killing people. We don't have a tested treatment for people in critical care, and we don't have a vaccine. Those states opening up are opening up to what? Half the country staying at home? Those struggling small businesses are still going to go under.
Our backstop is the Federal government and they are proving to not be up to the task.
[QUOTE=Admin2;4761412]The exponential growth happens IN risk groups, people outside of the risk groups are largely unaffected.[/QUOTE]And this is why you're wrong, and it's the basis of your contention.
Let's take this apart for a minute. Do young people get Covid? Yes, they do. Do they get sick? Often not. Are they then carriers that can affect others? Yes.
Exponential growth happens in all of the population, and in fact asymptomatic young people are among the most dangerous carriers as they are least likely to socially distance. This is why your "if you're at risk, stay home", which translates as "if you're not at risk, I. E. Young, this stuff doesn't matter" is patently, completely and dangerously false.
[URL]https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/03/coronavirus-vunerable-elderly-adults-ageism-younger-people/608224/[/URL]
This is where your focus on point statistics is simply wrong; EVERYONE is at risk. EVERYONE can carry the disease. Exponential growth in cases can affect the ENTIRE population.
I'm out; we're unlikely to reach an accord and in the end the vast majority of guidance says I'm right. And a small smattering of anecdotal situations here and there prove. Nothing.
This is such a dangerous thing to get hung up on. The long term damages that we are seeing so far have been rather alarming. Scarring on organs, including the heart and lungs, neurological damage, not to mention the psychological damages. These things have a way of severely affecting the quality of life for people who contract the virus. But because it is not as easily quantifiable, people tend to stick with discussing death only.
This is a case in which I am in support of being cautious, fuck the economy.
People over profits, period.
[QUOTE=MassageMeow;4762174]This is such a dangerous thing to get hung up on. The long term damages that we are seeing so far have been rather alarming. Scarring on organs, including the heart and lungs, neurological damage, not to mention the psychological damages. These things have a way of severely affecting the quality of life for people who contract the virus. But because it is not as easily quantifiable, people tend to stick with discussing death only.
This is a case in which I am in support of being cautious, fuck the economy.
People over profits, period.[/QUOTE]So stay home and STFU.
[QUOTE=TinyTim76;4762207]So stay home and STFU.[/QUOTE]Good to know that in your equally worthless opinion that this is not a thing that can be discussed.
[QUOTE=MassageMeow;4762569]Good to know that in your equally worthless opinion that this is not a thing that can be discussed.[/QUOTE]I thought we were discussing.
[QUOTE=MassageMeow;4762174]People over profits, period.[/QUOTE]This is what I'm talking about. People say this, but it clearly has nothing to do with that. Over 1 million people will die in automobile accidents this year. COVID-19 deaths will likely NEVER reach that total number in even 10 years. So why don't you advocate that we stop driving cars? Stay home, save lives, right? Or are you so selfish that you put money and entertainment ahead of human lives? This is a virus that's not nearly as deadly as everyone said it was. My ex-wife is a scientist and I've hung around those people a lot. Yeah, they're smart but they never admit that they're wrong. When things don't go the way that they predicted, it's because everyone else is being stupid. I can tell you a gazillion stories and give you a ton of examples, but it'd bore you. The fact is that I understand why the scientific community is behaving the way they are because I saw it every day for 8 years.