bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

[ Posts removed. No politics, no personal attacks.] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StevieStats said:

I don't see why not. Like I said the hysteria is ridiculous and the only way COVID-19 affects the session is if MLB caves to the hysteria, which what they did. 

1400 sick out of 330 million and the entire country shuts down. 

Plenty of necessary actions and measures have been taken, but shutting down all major sports and any gathering is an absolute joke. 

People have lost their minds, it's pathetic.

 

I guarantee you a MUCH larger number of people have been infected. That's the problem. You can't quarantine people unless you shut things down. And a mild inconvenience seems like a very small price to pay to err on the side of caution. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jmcampbe11 said:

 

I guarantee you a MUCH larger number of people have been infected. That's the problem. You can't quarantine people unless you shut things down. And a mild inconvenience seems like a very small price to pay to err on the side of caution. 

The "1400 sick" stat seems pretty misleading.

Fauci admitted today that the testing apparatus is a "failing."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/12/fauci-says-us-coronavirus-testing-response-is-failing/amp/

When you combine that with the idea that there have been several days of lag time between transmission and symptoms, the way it increased exponentially in Italy, there are gonna be a ton more.

Cancelling stuff had to be done because we don't know how many people have it and how fast it's spreading.  At least with everyone spread out it can give them time to get their act together and get enough tests produced for folks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jmcampbe11 said:

 

I guarantee you a MUCH larger number of people have been infected. That's the problem. You can't quarantine people unless you shut things down. And a mild inconvenience seems like a very small price to pay to err on the side of caution. 

It's not a small price to pay though. You are pulling the e-brake on the economy for this. 

Not suggesting it is or isnt worth it but the consequences of this are going be large.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe we’re on page 19 of this thread and some still want to argue about whether this is a serious situation. We obviously don’t know everything about it but we do know it’s highly contagious, has a long incubation period, and can be carried by individuals who may not even know they have it. Meanwhile, government officials are admitting testing to this point has been a failure. This is not a good spot to be in and all we can do right now is be smart and take appropriate steps to limit potential exposure. We’re way past debating the severity of this situation.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Slatykamora said:

Not suggesting it is or isnt worth it but the consequences of this are going be large.

 

We were already several years overdue for a recession based on historical business cycle trends.  The economy rebounded after 9/11 and after the 2008 financial crisis.  We'll be fine on a macro scale.  The price of doing nothing or not enough is far greater than any extra hit we're taking now on top of what was already due.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonycpsu said:

 

We were already several years overdue for a recession based on historical business cycle trends.  The economy rebounded after 9/11 and after the 2008 financial crisis.  We'll be fine on a macro scale.  The price of doing nothing or not enough is far greater than any extra hit we're taking now on top of what was already due.

Agreed on the financial aspect.

Though we were due for a market correction regardless, a lot of businesses will still have cash to spend if we're smart and treat this as a health issue in a sound way when we come out the other side.

Trying to bury our heads in the sand will surely exacerbate transmission and leave us in much more dire straights.

We'd all love to be focusing on the closer thread more and getting ready for baseball season in a couple weeks, but this is a real situation with real consequences, and shutting things down was a no brainer until we have an adequate response.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TribeFoo said:

I cannot believe we’re on page 19 of this thread and some still want to argue about whether this is a serious situation. We obviously don’t know everything about it but we do know it’s highly contagious, has a long incubation period, and can be carried by individuals who may not even know they have it. Meanwhile, government officials are admitting testing to this point has been a failure. This is not a good spot to be in and all we can do right now is be smart and take appropriate steps to limit potential exposure. We’re way past debating the severity of this situation.

All of this is true. No disagreement. However, I will say this all has brought to my attention, and is cause for SOME of the replies, I think: It is amazing what we accept year to year as natural and “price of doing business.”

12,000ish people die every single year from the flu. We know how it’s spread, yet we continue NBA games and schools throughout each winter. Why?

I think this is where some of this backlash comes from. This is different. And more contagious. And could prove to be more deadly. But what’s the line? Why is 12,000 a year acceptable and no one blinks an eye?

Rhetorical really, because none of us have the answer. But it is interesting to me that 12,000 is cool, but man this could be worse, let’s shut down the country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TribeFoo said:

I cannot believe we’re on page 19 of this thread and some still want to argue about whether this is a serious situation. We obviously don’t know everything about it but we do know it’s highly contagious, has a long incubation period, and can be carried by individuals who may not even know they have it. Meanwhile, government officials are admitting testing to this point has been a failure. This is not a good spot to be in and all we can do right now is be smart and take appropriate steps to limit potential exposure. We’re way past debating the severity of this situation.

 

It's the future and we have a world of expertise and data at our finger tips.  Some people still just rely on infotainment channels and entertainers or politicians who just make stuff up. Or they just run with whatever conclusions pop into their head first.  It's a weird phenomenon.  

 

I suspect it's actually much worse outside of this forum, cuz we are self selected as people actively seeking information, even if it is about a silly game grafted onto another silly game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

All of this is true. No disagreement. However, I will say this all has brought to my attention, and is cause for SOME of the replies, I think: It is amazing what we accept year to year as natural and “price of doing business.”

12,000ish people die every single year from the flu. We know how it’s spread, yet we continue NBA games and schools throughout each winter. Why?

I think this is where some of this backlash comes from. This is different. And more contagious. And could prove to be more deadly. But what’s the line? Why is 12,000 a year acceptable and no one blinks an eye?

Rhetorical really, because none of us have the answer. But it is interesting to me that 12,000 is cool, but man this could be worse, let’s shut down the country. 

The main area of concern is that it's new and we don't have enough data points yet to make statistically medically sound decisions on it.  Influenza comes in many forms, with new strands out regularly, but we have some general concept of how you can prevent it, how you can treat it, etc because we've been dealing with some variance of it for a long time.

Right now we're not, as a country, adequately prepared to test for or treat Covid-19.  We've been caught flat footed, in some respects, because it's moved really quickly, because it remains dormant in the system for so long, etc.

I would look at these decisions in a positive light because it will give us some time to develop a better defense while the transmission rate flattens.  Awareness is going to be our best weapon towards getting back on track.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

All of this is true. No disagreement. However, I will say this all has brought to my attention, and is cause for SOME of the replies, I think: It is amazing what we accept year to year as natural and “price of doing business.”

12,000ish people die every single year from the flu. We know how it’s spread, yet we continue NBA games and schools throughout each winter. Why?

I think this is where some of this backlash comes from. This is different. And more contagious. And could prove to be more deadly. But what’s the line? Why is 12,000 a year acceptable and no one blinks an eye?

Rhetorical really, because none of us have the answer. But it is interesting to me that 12,000 is cool, but man this could be worse, let’s shut down the country. 

 

The reason is the flu is manageable. This virus is not manageable. With its high infectivity and relatively high mortality, it overwhelms the entire health care system and essentially cripples it. If it’s not manageable and people can’t get care and are dying all over the place then the economic impacts will follow anyway. This way we bite the economic bullet and prevent 50 million people dying (like Spanish Flu). 

Ao i guess the short answer of what virus we “let go” and which ones we go balls to the wall to stop, it’s if they will crash the system if left unchecked or not. And we already know for sure it will crash the system: just look at unchecked spread in Wuhan and Italy and probably Iran: tons of people die, hospitals are overrun and they then have to shut it all down anyway

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

The main area of concern is that it's new and we don't have enough data points yet to make statistically medically sound decisions on it.  Influenza comes in many forms, with new strands out regularly, but we have some general concept of how you can prevent it, how you can treat it, etc because we've been dealing with some variance of it for a long time.

Right now we're not, as a country, adequately prepared to test for or treat Covid-19.  We've been caught flat footed, in some respects, because it's moved really quickly, because it remains dormant in the system for so long, etc.

I would look at these decisions in a positive light because it will give us some time to develop a better defense while the transmission rate flattens.  Awareness is going to be our best weapon towards getting back on track.

And yet it kills 12,000+ every year. And we continue to cough and sneeze in NBA arenas and schools.

So I’m assuming you’re saying once we are comfortable with CV and know the data points, that it will only kill 12,000, it’ll be business as usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

And yet it kills 12,000+ every year. And we continue to cough and sneeze in NBA arenas and schools.

So I’m assuming you’re saying once we are comfortable with CV and know the data points, that it will only kill 12,000, it’ll be business as usual. 

The problem isn't that we know the stats about fatality volume of influenza, the problem is that we understand so little about how to test and treat Covid-19.

Let's take Trey Mancini as an example.  Something made his doctor screen him for colon cancer at 27 even though they don't typically do it til you're 50.  That's because his doctor asked the right questions, and was able to run the tests and treat it in the right way.

Right now, we don't have enough data for all doctors to make that hypothesis, we don't have enough tests to determine if it is, or enough data on treatment plans if we do.

So we need time to develop this plan and get in front of it.  Just saying, "oh it's like the flu, and we're ok with x number of people dying of the flu" is like saying "oh well heart disease kills x amount of people per year, and we're fine with McDonalds, why don't we all touch this glowing green rock that fell from space that we know nothing about."

The two concepts don't line up.  Both are viruses, but they are different, and we don't know very much about this one yet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

We were already several years overdue for a recession based on historical business cycle trends.  The economy rebounded after 9/11 and after the 2008 financial crisis.  We'll be fine on a macro scale.  The price of doing nothing or not enough is far greater than any extra hit we're taking now on top of what was already due.

This is way different then 2008 or what was bound to happen in a year or 2 anyway. 2001 would be a little more comparable, but things were not shut down very long. If at all? I was in school for 9/11 and don't remember missing any time from it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing the nature of the precipitating event or how long certain businesses were shut down, but the magnitude of the economic effects.  And so far at least, the economic effects are in line with what economists were predicting in terms of a recession.  We will of course see more pain going forward, but that has to be compared to the pain of potentially losing untold number of lives and working hours to an uncontrolled pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonycpsu said:

I'm not comparing the nature of the precipitating event or how long certain businesses were shut down, but the magnitude of the economic effects.  And so far at least, the economic effects are in line with what economists were predicting in terms of a recession.  We will of course see more pain going forward, but that has to be compared to the pain of potentially losing untold number of lives and working hours to an uncontrolled pandemic.

There is a difference between a drop in consumer confidence and outright throttling it. Shutting down schools in a 2 income household society. 

BTW if i haven't made it clear, i'm not advocating against doing this. Safe over Sorry. Who am I to suggest differently when for profit businesses are making choices that go against profit for the sake of safety?

Just not to under-estimate the effects of these actions. There is a handful factors at play that we would have hit us at some point down the road. Now they could be hitting us all the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

The problem isn't that we know the stats about fatality volume of influenza, the problem is that we understand so little about how to test and treat Covid-19.

Let's take Trey Mancini as an example.  Something made his doctor screen him for colon cancer at 27 even though they don't typically do it til you're 50.  That's because his doctor asked the right questions, and was able to run the tests and treat it in the right way.

Right now, we don't have enough data for all doctors to make that hypothesis, we don't have enough tests to determine if it is, or enough data on treatment plans if we do.

So we need time to develop this plan and get in front of it.  Just saying, "oh it's like the flu, and we're ok with x number of people dying of the flu" is like saying "oh well heart disease kills x amount of people per year, and we're fine with McDonalds, why don't we all touch this glowing green rock that fell from space that we know nothing about."

The two concepts don't line up.  Both are viruses, but they are different, and we don't know very much about this one yet.

No, it’s nothing like this. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. I’m asking why not be more proactive every year and prevent these deaths as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Backdoor Slider said:

No, it’s nothing like this. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. I’m asking why not be more proactive every year and prevent these deaths as well. 

We are though.

How many times have you heard "get your flu shot" in October?

They're available at the grocery store or pharmacies near you.

There's no Covid-19 vaccine to administer to anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you have in mind to shut down the flu and be proactive?  I mean, we already have a flu shot

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fbaseballgod said:

What would you have in mind to shut down the flu and be proactive?  I mean, we already have a flu shot

 

 

We know how the flu is spread. We know the flu shot is often the wrong strain and misses the mark. Not having crowds of hundreds/thousands and closing down schools, where the flu still spreads, would save thousands of lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

We know how the flu is spread. We know the flu shot is often the wrong strain and misses the mark. Not having crowds of hundreds/thousands and closing down schools, where the flu still spreads, would save thousands of lives. 

I'm not honestly sure what you are trying to get at here but are you suggesting we close down all sporting events and schools for... the seasonal flu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fbaseballgod said:

I'm not honestly sure what you are trying to get at here but are you suggesting we close down all sporting events and schools for... the seasonal flu?

If we could potentially save thousands of lives, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Backdoor Slider said:

If we could potentially save thousands of lives, why not?

Well, because life goes on, and it's unreasonable to shut down the entire world just for the seasonal flu.  Shutting down this stuff, this kind of disruption, etc, should only be for exceptional circumstances and avoided if at all possible, so we can can have a functioning society.  

Plus, I'm not even sure shutting down sporting events and schools would have that much impact, considering that we already have a vaccine+it affects a population that dosen't often go to sporting events and schools+isn't as easily spread as the coronavirus by far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COVID-19 has a higher fatality rate, a higher infection rate, and *no* vaccine.  Comparing it to seasonal flu which is largely (though not completely) controlled by vaccines, not nearly as deadly, and not nearly as contagious is silly.  The number of lives potentially lost to COVID-19 if proactive measures aren't taken has been estimated to be 480,000.  If you think that's an overestimate, (a) show your credentials to make such a judgement, and (b) explain how it's a 3400% overestimate, because that's the difference from 12,000 lost to the seasonal flu each year.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

COVID-19 has a higher fatality rate, a higher infection rate, and *no* vaccine.  Comparing it to seasonal flu which is largely (though not completely) controlled by vaccines, not nearly as deadly, and not nearly as contagious is silly.  The number of lives potentially lost to COVID-19 if proactive measures aren't taken has been estimated to be 480,000.  If you think that's an overestimate, (a) show your credentials to make such a judgement, and (b) explain how it's a 3400% overestimate, because that's the difference from 12,000 lost to the seasonal flu each year.

Lots more strawman in here. For the umpteenth time, I get the difference. But 12,000 is a lot. That’s all I’m talking about. Why not mitigate that risk as well? I’m not sure what you’re not getting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.