bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TribeFoo said:

Ohio has moved its projected peak up about a week to April 20ish. We have been under statewide stay-at-home orders for around 2 weeks. It’s estimated 2/3 of the population is cooperating.

We’ve been close to 2 weeks as well here in Michigan. But more deaths than Washington and California, and only behind New York and New Jersey. Much less must be cooperating? 

Share this post


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

We’ve been close to 2 weeks as well here in Michigan. But more deaths than Washington and California, and only behind New York and New Jersey. Much less must be cooperating? 

It may be. A lot may have to do with travel or some other cause. A big international flight that arrived from "somewhere" could have been a spark. 

The only truly egregious "lack of cooperation" examples (that I've noticed anyway) have been coming from the South (FL, LA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GamblorLA said:

 

I get where you're coming from, but to play devil's advocate we all do the same kind of stuff every day. Yesterday I decided to indulge in a couple bottles of expensive beer.  I probably could have sent that same money to a refugee camp or something and saved someone's life.  

Also fwiw, Sale himself gets paid either way.  He'd probably maximize his career earnings by sitting out an extra year and having that much less mileage on his arm. The Sox and their fans might not be thrilled with that though.

Your core point is obviously right, but this case just makes the darker side of our normal behavior more obvious.

I think I'll get a couple more bottles for tonight.  


Contributing to save someone’s life and taking away resources FROM saving someone else’s life are two different things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, GamblorLA said:

 

I get where you're coming from, but to play devil's advocate we all do the same kind of stuff every day. Yesterday I decided to indulge in a couple bottles of expensive beer.  I probably could have sent that same money to a refugee camp or something and saved someone's life. 

 

You're conflating consumer-level choices with provider-level policies. While it demonstrates an aptitude for rhetoric, I'm not buying the analogy. 

A more apropos comparison would be as follows:  an alcohol manufacturer decided, during this crisis, to allocate X widgets of "alcohol sanitizer" to make booze instead of apportioning it to the production of surgical sterilization supplies.

My example also isn't quite 100% accurate, as ElAttrache and his staff aren't widgets, but you get my meaning. 

Edited by Overlord
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

The New England Journal of Medicine and Dr. Fauci may disagree with you. Some guy shared this on Facebook, but I made sure to tell him it must not be true because MrBrown on rotoworld said otherwise. 
 

“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?fbclid=IwAR0Elt6J9F9cguVf0QOPGPKUJ8ebtCfsXJzNPw-uQu9el1SRoAIjKFZiYXI

 

Seasonal flu killed 14 people out of every 100,000 infected last year. You honestly believe this is just like a flu? Over 3,000 dead in 150,000 cases so far. Just over a hundred times more deadly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Looking at the breakdown in states is wild. NY is a petri dish when you consider population density, word travelers, and public transportation. That said, when California was going shelter in place, De Blasio was encouraging all New Yorkers to be “business as usual.” 
New York has over 65,000 more cases and almost 1,400 more deaths than California to this point. What a catastrophic disaster. 

 

It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds in different places.

Was chatting with some fellow Las Vegans and we seem to have had a low impact.  One thing was, our Gov acted swiftly and decisively.  He likely did a great service to the country and world, given how many people from all over the place pack into the strip and downtown like sardines.  

Anyway, locals also practice social distancing to a degree as a way of life already.  Many people have moved here from somewhere else, so we have fewer big families and extended families.  It's an island of misfit toys with a lot of loners.  Outside of the tourist spots, it's a spacious city.  Most people drive everywhere.  Public spaces and businesses are usually not crowded.  Plus it's a 24 hour city (not so much at the moment, though) which adds to the distancing because everyone functions at different times.  For example, I usually buy groceries after midnight and not many people are around.  

It's easy to feel isolated living here, which is usually a bad thing, but might save our bacon this time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Seasonal flu killed 14 people out of every 100,000 infected last year. You honestly believe this is just like a flu? Over 3,000 dead in 150,000 cases so far. Just over a hundred times more deadly. 

No. But those aren’t my words. I linked some information from some experts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Overlord said:

 

You're conflating consumer-level choices with provider-level policies. While it demonstrates an aptitude for rhetoric, I'm not buying the analogy. 

A more apropos comparison would be as follows:  an alcohol manufacturer decided, during this crisis, to allocate X widgets of "alcohol sanitizer" to make booze instead of apportioning it to the production of surgical sterilization supplies.

My example also isn't quite 100% accurate, as ElAttrache and his staff aren't widgets, but you get my meaning. 

 

Is this happening across the board? (I have no idea what the answer is.)   Are resources normally used for, say, plastic surgery being shifted into the corona battle yet?  I guess the bottom line is, is Sale absorbing resources that would actually be used, but are now missing from the response to corona?

I guess we could talk about the other aspect forever.  Could say, from a consequentialist perspective, there isn't much difference.  I control a resource (my money) and use it to briefly amuse myself rather than save a life. Maybe the category in which you place that decision matters a lot or maybe it doesn't.  IDK, but the point is we prioritize resources in ways that seem messed up in a vacuum all the time.  There was a guy I read in school (Peter French?) who argued we were all very much in the wrong for not sending resources to the desperately poor and endangered until those problems were solved.  The other side of that is economic activity sustains people too.  e.g. some guy doesn't need to rely on me for food because I bought his beer.  I work in the gambling industry and only have money to donate because that business has customers. etc.  Won't answer these questions here.

Anywho, this tommy john surgery and other elective procedures are interesting issue. I always enjoyed bioethics. The SFC article is pay walled, unfortunately, but I hope to read more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

No. But those aren’t my words. I linked some information from some experts. 

And my post is purely about statistics instead of projection or guessing work. Per 100,000 infected numbers of both show covid as hundreds of times more deadly than the flu last year. I mean the current death trends put this closer to the Spanish flu epidemic than the post you made. The fact they start by saying they ASSUME something already shows it has zero scientific basing. You don’t assume in science. 
Secondly out of all the closed cases over the entire world the death rate isn’t 1%. It’s not 5%. It’s now grown to 19%. Out of all finalized cases not currently being treated almost 1 in 5 has ended in death. 

Edited by daynlokki

Share this post


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

I live in San Joaquin co Ca, our updated deaths as of today is 144. Sac co is now at 244, where US Davis is located. We've been under the Shelter in place order for 2 1/2 weeks now and see the rate climbing at a slower rate, evidence that the shelter in place is working. Not fast enough, but it will work if everyone abides by the orders. Stay safe, and please, wear gloves if you must get supplies. 

When I go into any store I wear a hat & have a mask don’t wear gloves. Wash hands before and after shopping 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Big League Choo said:

The thing nobody takes into account is the amount of people who feel a little sick and dont bother getting tested

Everyone with even a semi-functional brain is taking this into account

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And my post is purely about statistics instead of projection or guessing work. Per 100,000 infected numbers of both show covid as hundreds of times more deadly than the flu last year. I mean the current death trends put this closer to the Spanish flu epidemic than the post you made. The fact they start by saying they ASSUME something already shows it has zero scientific basing. You don’t assume in science. 
Secondly out of all the closed cases over the entire world the death rate isn’t 1%. It’s not 5%. It’s now grown to 19%. Out of all finalized cases not currently being treated almost 1 in 5 has ended in death. 

Those numbers will change. But ok. Take it up with Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine. Let them know you’re daynlokki from rotoworld when you call.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Out of all finalized cases not currently being treated almost 1 in 5 has ended in death. 

This is basically a meaningless number at this point. Only a very tiny fraction of cases are "closed". Do you even know what criteria (other than an outright death) must be met to consider a case closed?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

And my post is purely about statistics instead of projection or guessing work. Per 100,000 infected numbers of both show covid as hundreds of times more deadly than the flu last year. I mean the current death trends put this closer to the Spanish flu epidemic than the post you made. The fact they start by saying they ASSUME something already shows it has zero scientific basing. You don’t assume in science. 
Secondly out of all the closed cases over the entire world the death rate isn’t 1%. It’s not 5%. It’s now grown to 19%. Out of all finalized cases not currently being treated almost 1 in 5 has ended in death. 

Yes, they never use hypotheses in science.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

We’ve been close to 2 weeks as well here in Michigan. But more deaths than Washington and California, and only behind New York and New Jersey. Much less must be cooperating? 

Yeah Michigan is a mess right now...people still bringing their entire families to shop, governor is too busy doing press and threatening doctors to fill out fema paperwork. Michigan will be on top in cases soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

Those numbers will change. But ok. Take it up with Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine. Let them know you’re daynlokki from rotoworld when you call.

Those number undoubtably will change. Funny your side only believes him when it fits your agenda. Fauci also recently stated he believes this pandemic will kill between 100,000-200,000 Americans. 
Notice you didn’t bring that portion of his predictions up. The flu kills less than one tenth of one singular percent of those who contract it. The death rate for covid is at least ten times more, even at 1%. 

Edited by daynlokki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, cs3 said:

This is basically a meaningless number at this point. Only a very tiny fraction of cases are "closed". Do you even know what criteria (other than an outright death) must be met to consider a case closed?

Yes you must test negative of covid. That’s the other way to have a closed case. This is also worldwide, not purely US based. If it were, I’d be saying closer to 38%. Because that’s where we are at as a country. 38% of closed US cases of covid are deaths (7252 recoveries, 3889 deaths as of right now reported)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Those number undoubtably will change. Funny your side only believes him when it fits your agenda. Fauci also recently stated he believes this pandemic will kill between 100,000-200,000 Americans. 
Notice you didn’t bring that portion of his predictions up. The flu kills less than one tenth of one singular percent of those who contract it. The death rate for covid is at least ten times more, even at 1%. 

I don’t play sides. I just like to deal with facts. This isn’t political to me. This is life and death for many around the world.

Yeah, I gave a link with some points of discussion. I did not include everything he’s ever said. You got me man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, 2ndCitySox said:

Yes, they never use hypotheses in science.

When the scientific method ends in forming a hypothesis I will believe papers that assume. 

Edited by daynlokki

Share this post


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

I don’t play sides. I just like to deal with facts. This isn’t political to me. This is life and death for many around the world.

Yeah, I gave a link with some points of discussion. I did not include everything he’s ever said. You got me man.

Seems pertinent and well known. If you are citing a person specifically assume anything they have ever said, especially recently on the specific situation is gonna come up. It directly contradicts what you are saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

Seems pertinent and well known. If you are citing a person specifically assume anything they have ever said, especially recently on the specific situation is gonna come up. It directly contradicts what you are saying. 

It doesn’t contradict anything. Two things can happen here:

1) The death rate ends well <1%, as he suggests

2) Because of the number who will be infected, that will be a large number, maybe 100,000+ in the US.

So he is not contradicting himself, and I’m not sure what you don’t get about this. 
 

HINT: Take 100M people (who may get infected) and multiply that by 0.001. See what number you come up with.

Edited by Backdoor Slider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has already been posted here but have to agree RE: this thread:

ImaginativeThirstyArctichare-max-1mb.gif

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SuperJoint said:

It has already been posted here but have to agree RE: this thread:

ImaginativeThirstyArctichare-max-1mb.gif

 

 

Too many doctors and not enough patients in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Backdoor Slider said:

It doesn’t contradict anything. Two things can happen here:

1) The death rate ends well <1%, as he suggests

2) Because of the number who will be infected, that will be a large number, maybe 100,000+ in the US.

So he is not contradicting himself, and I’m not sure what you don’t get about this. 

For 100,000 to die at a 1% rate we would need to have 10m infected. 
 

Quote from your original post: This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately0.1%) or a pandemic influenza(similar to those in 1957 and 1968)rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had casefatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%,respectively.2

 

100,000 to 200,000 deaths would in no way, shape or form be ANYTHING like severe seasonal influenza. That would be the original post I was talking to you about. So yes, that in fact directly contradicts what you were saying. The worst flu in the last 40 years had about half as many deaths in the US. You CANNOT compare the two because they don’t compare. That’s like saying Trout and Ty France are the same hitter despite France putting up a small portion of the stats of Trout.  It’s asinine. 

Share this post


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

For 100,000 to die at a 1% rate we would need to have 10m infected. 
 

Quote from your original post: This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately0.1%) or a pandemic influenza(similar to those in 1957 and 1968)rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had casefatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%,respectively.2

 

100,000 to 200,000 deaths would in no way, shape or form be ANYTHING like severe seasonal influenza. That would be the original post I was talking to you about. So yes, that in fact directly contradicts what you were saying. The worst flu in the last 40 years had about half as many deaths in the US. You CANNOT compare the two because they don’t compare. That’s like saying Trout and Ty France are the same hitter despite France putting up a small portion of the stats of Trout.  It’s asinine. 

Yes. 10M getting inflected upon a population of 330M is not really far fetched for something we know is highly contagious. 

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.