COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: agreement.

Seen that one all the way back in the 70’s with global warming stuff and oil companies.  Its not “agreement” because as long as they can find one guy no matter how crazy they can stick them in the set and say it’s not “complete” agreement even though it’s 100 to 1.

So its an agreement because you ignore the experts that say something different from what other experts you like say?

 

You dont need to be an expert to read the data they provide. 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

There was an article from medicalxpress yesterday about a study that showed the death rate is 1.3% and thats without counting the unknown cases. Which we know from studies in boston and la that the infection rate is much higher then reported. The studies were estimating the death rate to be closer to .5%

And I linked to an article explaining why the death rate changes depending on the location.  You can't simply look at Boston and claim the death rate is only 0.5% when in places like NY it was as high as 18% at one time.

 

The death rate of the virus itself does not change, it is the same everywhere the virus goes, what changes the number of people that die from it is the culture, health system, and measure put in place to deal with it.  Not the least of which is testing which the US ballsed up big time in the early stages landing themselves in this mess.

 

I'm sorry but there is no other way to put it. 

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

What you have ether is a false equivalency, where you take the word of one person over another rather than look at both the combined advice of professionals from observed evidence and the general understanding of the virus or you have an appeal to authority.  Basically you pick and choose the outlier with a degree and claim they are just as relevant and accurate as the general body of professionals who say otherwise.

No im looking at the same data they are. the same data they have released. Dont need to be an epidemiologist to read stats.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

MY argument is not an argument from authority (actual term is as above), my point is that when you have a scientific consensus on a topic, that consensus is derived form the weight of the evidence pointing toward a theory or hypothesis.  Accepting this as the most likely explanation is not an apeal to authority, it is an observation of evidence based research.  An appeal to authority is what you are doing, pointing to someone who has a relevant education and claiming because they say something different that there is not evidence for the alternative or that that evidence can be dismissed.  This is not true.  You cannot simply dismiss the general body of evidence on something just because one or two wayward crack pots disagree.

 

 

There isnt scientific consensus on it. thats the point. You have some of the leading experts in the world saying lockdown isnt the answer.

 

What evidence is there that locking EVERYONE regardless of risk level is the right thing to do?

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

And I linked to an article explaining why the death rate changes depending on the location.  You can't simply look at Boston and claim the death rate is only 0.5% when in places like NY it was as high as 18% at one time.

 

The death rate of the virus itself does not change, it is the same everywhere the virus goes, what changes the number of people that die from it is the culture, health system, and measure put in place to deal with it.  Not the least of which is testing which the US ballsed up big time in the early stages landing themselves in this mess.

 

I'm sorry but there is no other way to put it. 

the death rate does change. if theres more infected then reported that drops the death rate. Thats how they are calculating the death rate.

 

NY is an exception, not the rule. You will not find another area in the US thats the same as NYC. And the death rate in NYC can be added to the fact that the governor made it law for nursing home to accept people who tested positive with covid.

 

The main factors of risk is age and health. Its why the average age of death in alot of areas is 70+. its why in most areas basically half the deaths are in nursing homes.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No im looking at the same data they are. the same data they have released. Dont need to be an epidemiologist to read stats.

 

There isnt scientific consensus on it. thats the point. You have some of the leading experts in the world saying lockdown isnt the answer.

 

What evidence is there that locking EVERYONE regardless of risk level is the right thing to do?

Exactly, you only have SOME, the rest are saying lockdown and isolation is necessary. 

 

This is the problem you don't seem to understand.  99% of the worlds experts are saying stay home, lock down if your area needs it.  Different areas have different requirements, some can partially lock down while others cannot.  The US cannot because they don't know how far spread the virus is.  We can have a partial lock down now because our testing is so expansive that positive results are like 0.7% positive.  That means through 6 weeks of lock down and heavy testing/isolation we have very very low likelihood of community transmission thus we can buy coffee and get our hair cut.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

Exactly, you only have SOME, the rest are saying lockdown and isolation is necessary. 

 

This is the problem you don't seem to understand.  99% of the worlds experts are saying stay home, lock down if your area needs it.  Different areas have different requirements, some can partially lock down whiles cannot.  The US cannot because they don't know how far spread the virus is.  We can have a partial lock down now because our testing is so expansive that positive results are like 0.7% positive.  That means through 6 weeks of lock down and heavy testing/isolation we have very very low likelihood of community transmission thus we can buy coffee and get our hair cut.

And the experts saying stay home are not looking at everything. they are only looking at their area of expertise (health).

 

If health risk were the only thing we had to worry about then that would be fine. But its not. Looking at the issue from only one side is the worst thing you can do in a pandemic.

 

Again you can look at the data they are providing. For the majority of the population the virus will only have mild symptoms. So what sense does it make to lock everyone up?

[MadyTehWolfie]

11 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No im looking at the same data they are. the same data they have released. Dont need to be an epidemiologist to read stats.

 

There isnt scientific consensus on it. thats the point. You have some of the leading experts in the world saying lockdown isnt the answer.

 

What evidence is there that locking EVERYONE regardless of risk level is the right thing to do?

Data say death rate is .02% and based on antibody tests the death rate in NY was never 18% its far lower then 1%. That being said Cuomo f^&*ed up the response and had covid positive nursing home residents go back to the nursing homes instead of the makeshift hospitals till they weren't contagious. I love how everyone who says "save every life" but the fdact remains we didnt protect the most vulnerable with the lockdowns they are still getting it, and the people saying ti are likely people who work from home who have no clue what its like to not be able to feed themselves or their family or lose absolutely everything because the government forced them to shutdown without compensating them for it. Then they say if you want to open up you want to kill grandma. No I dont she already got it in the nursing home along with 20+ people who got sick and died there. We didnt protect the vulnerable we flattened the curve but does it matter? Nope cause the old still died anyway. I dont know why we are tanking the economy and destroying millions of lives for maybe 100 thousand lives. This is policy making people weigh the risk vs reward numbers are in time to open up because so far we didnt save anyone and the numbers are vastly lower then we though and the vaccine isnt coming any time soon either. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And the experts saying stay home are not looking at everything. they are only looking at their area of expertise (health).

 

If health risk were the only thing we had to worry about then that would be fine. But its not. Looking at the issue from only one side is the worst thing you can do in a pandemic.

 

Again you can look at the data they are providing. For the majority of the population the virus will only have mild symptoms. So what sense does it make to lock everyone up?

That's just naive, claiming the experts aren't looking at all the evidence because they are saying thing you disagree with.

 

Don't pretend you know better.  In order to argue the few you agree with know more than the majority you don't agree with requires some serious intentional delusion.

 

 

There is no amount of arguing that is going to persuade any rational person that media articles carry more weight than proper research explained by the vast majority of experts in that field.

 

 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

That's just naive, claiming the experts aren't looking at all the evidence because they are saying thing you disagree with.

 

Don't pretend you know better.  In order to argue the few you agree with know more than the majority you don't agree with requires some serious intentional delusion.

 

 

There is no amount of arguing that is going to persuade any rational person that media articles carry more weight than proper research explained by the vast majority of experts in that field.

 

 

Epidemiologists are not experts on the economy. Are you trying to say we should ignore the economic experts but listen to the health experts? Because that kinda goes against your whole thing on listening to the experts. And your basically arguing the rule of majority. Majority doesnt mean they are right. Your saying just ignore the experts who disagree with the experts i listen to.

 

Please show me one health expert that is saying that lockdown is sustainable and wont have disastrous effect on the economy.

 

Again looking at the data that the experts provided what sense does a universal lockdown make? Why are people that have a much better chance of dying in a car wreck being told to lockdown and lose everything for something that they will get over in a couple days in bed?

 

I understand protecting nursing homes and having high risk households stay locked up. They are going to need to do that until there is a cure. But what sense does it make for low risk people to stay locked up? If high risk people are staying locked up we pose no threat to them in terms of infecting them.

[Bombastinator]

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

The disease isnt being reduced. Its still out there.

 

What are we doing thats proven to reduce it?

 

Again you act as if this is deadly for everyone. Its not. We know its not. If it was we wouldnt have 1.2 million known cases with just 80k deaths. 

 

There was an article from medicalxpress yesterday about a study that showed the death rate is 1.3% and thats without counting the unknown cases. Which we know from studies in boston and la that the infection rate is much higher then reported. The studies were estimating the death rate to be closer to .5%

Re: reduced

exactly it went from exponential grow to to flat. That’s sort of what reduced means.  You’re apparently trying to conflate that with eliminated.  I am claiming elimination or near elimination may be possible because social distancing didn’t just work it worked really well. It’s a may though.  Almost as weak as the may of herd immunity.   Too weak to be counted on. So grind on it and hope.  It’s all we got.  Because we don’t know how long it will take it makes sense to get more granular and bottom up about the economy (it mostly never shut down btw) and see if things can be improved.  That takes time though and assumes a long period because if we put work into something that won’t show fruit for four months but the problem is gone in three it’s obnoxious.  I think it should be done anyway and I’d waste happens it happens.  We don’t know how long this will last. 
 

re: deadly.  So as long as you pretend that the last reply never happened and keep on saying the same wrong thing it will eventually be right?

 

again for the I -don’t-know-how-manyenth-time. We’ll try a slightly different tack because I’m still trying to do you the service of assuming you’d actually have an interest and aren’t just trying to push the “other peoples lives for the service of my wallet” sociopath thing. 

 

IF. (If means dependent on a thing happening or not happening) acquired immunity from getting the disease is sufficiently short duration herd immunity doesn’t work.   
IF herd immunity doesn’t work people will get sick over and over again.  Just because it wasn’t bad or noticeable the first time doesn’t mean it will KEEP ON being that way, which means that eventually the will get it bad enough to die from it.  Might take a couple of times, might take 20.  It is a statistical certainty.  Rule of large numbers.  Like Vegas, and car insurance. 

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Epidemiologists are not experts on the economy. Are you trying to say we should ignore the economic experts but listen to the health experts? Because that kinda goes against your whole thing on listening to the experts. And your basically arguing the rule of majority. Majority doesnt mean they are right. Your saying just ignore the experts who disagree with the experts i listen to.

 

Please show me one health expert that is saying that lockdown is sustainable and wont have disastrous effect on the economy.

 

Again looking at the data that the experts provided what sense does a universal lockdown make? Why are people that have a much better chance of dying in a car wreck being told to lockdown and lose everything for something that they will get over in a couple days in bed?

 

I understand protecting nursing homes and having high risk households stay locked up. They are going to need to do that until there is a cure. But what sense does it make for low risk people to stay locked up? If high risk people are staying locked up we pose no threat to them in terms of infecting them.

Economists are experts on the economy.  Or they used to be.  The rich had a problem with economists in the 70’s because they kept saying that the kinds of things that are happening now would happen if the kinds of things that were done were done.  So they bought their own.  Took years called the Chicago school and the Swiss school.  Their replies wer “no! Something completely different will happen!” Which was enough to break the whole thing and lo the things the real economists predicted came to pass and the Chicago school stuff didn’t.  Academia discredited them for making worthless predictions but it took years to do.  Same thing has happened with global warming.  Now you want to do it with public health.

 

heres the problem: this time its not just about money. People will die.  Lots and lots of people.

[MadyTehWolfie]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: reduced

exactly it went from exponential grow to to flat. That’s sort of what reduced means.  You’re apparently trying to conflate that with eliminated.  I am claiming elimination or near elimination may be possible because social distancing didn’t just work it worked really well. It’s a may though.  Almost as weak as the may of herd immunity.   Too weak to be counted on. So grind on it and hope.  It’s all we got.  Because we don’t know how long it will take it makes sense to get more granular and bottom up about the economy (it mostly never shut down btw) and see if things can be improved.  That takes time though and assumes a long period because if we put work into something that won’t show fruit for four months but the problem is gone in three it’s obnoxious.  I think it should be done anyway and I’d waste happens it happens.  We don’t know how long this will last. 
 

re: deadly.  So as long as you pretend that the last reply never happened and keep on saying the same wrong thing it will eventually be right?

 

again for the I -don’t-know-how-manyenth-time. We’ll try a slightly different tack because I’m still trying to do you the service of assuming you’d actually have an interest and aren’t just trying to push the “other peoples lives for the service of my wallet” sociopath thing. 

 

IF. (If means dependent on a thing happening or not happening) acquired immunity from getting the disease is sufficiently short duration herd immunity doesn’t work.   
IF herd immunity doesn’t work people will get sick over and over again.  Just because it wasn’t bad or noticeable the first time doesn’t mean it will KEEP ON being that way, which means that eventually the will get it bad enough to die from it.  Might take a couple of times, might take 20.  It is a statistical certainty.  Rule of large numbers.  Like Vegas, and car insurance. 

If you think isolation will come close to if not illuminate the virus I have a really expensive bridge to sell you. All this does is slow infection that's it. It will not come close to illuminating it and it will not cure it. If anything it'll make the pandemic last longer because of no herd immunity. 80% will get it regardless of isolation. You go to the supermarket your exposed everyone is constantly exposed due to this. Factor in the inability to clean 100% failure to use PPE effectively and constant exposure doing something as simple as grocery getting. Your just slowing the inevitable not preventing it. You will be exposed to it and you will most likely get it at some point. We can't live like bubble boy here 

[MadyTehWolfie]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Economists are experts on the economy.  Or they used to be.  The rich had a problem with economists in the 70’s because they kept saying that the kinds of things that are happening now would happen if the kinds of things that were done were done.  So they bought their own.  Took years called the Chicago school and the Swiss school.  Their replies wer “no! Something completely different will happen!” Which was enough to break the whole thing and lo the things the real economists predicted came to pass and the Chicago school stuff didn’t.  Academia discredited them for making worthless predictions but it took years to do.  Same thing has happened with global warming.  Now you want to do it with public health.

Wait...are you saying your a global warming denier

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Wait...are you saying your a global warming denier

Me? I’m a global warming argument watcher.
 

I’ve watched the argument from its start, where some scientists did some modeling and figured out there was a 90% chance the earth was warming, and made some guesses as to why (that turned out to be mostly correct) and I watched large oil companies and other interests that stood to lose if this was dealt with confuse the issue and find fake experts and whip up fake news and grab any straw. One big straws o grab in the 70’s was it was only a 90%chance.  There was a 10% chance it would cool instead.  So they went for the cooling thing just like business interests are now going for the low probability herd thing, and they pushed it hard.  
 

There’s a lot of similarity really.  A giant chorus of “who cares if it’s true? It’s unpleasant and we don’t want to hear it” from the money.  This time it’s different though.  Peoples lives are at stake and running away with the cash isn’t possible.  There’s nowhere to go and no time.  The people in the 70’s simply lived out their lives and died before the stuff they did caught up with their grandchildren.  This one is gonna catch up sooner than that.

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Epidemiologists are not experts on the economy. Are you trying to say we should ignore the economic experts but listen to the health experts?

No, I 'm saying listen to the health experts for advice on health, economics experts for the advice on economics and government are the ones charged with listening to both and making a decision.  If you have a good government you'll be fine, if you have a shit one you're fucked. 

 

But the problem here is you are trying to ignore the majority of the health experts because you don't like what they are saying. 

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

Because that kinda goes against your whole thing on listening to the experts.

Only if change what I am saying.  Like I said I say listen to the health experts on health and you try to argue they aren't experts on the economy.  Like no shit.

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And your basically arguing the rule of majority. Majority doesnt mean they are right. Your saying just ignore the experts who disagree with the experts i listen to.

 

No I am arguing what is commonly refereed to as a scientific consensus.  Learn what that is and don't misrepresent it. It is not a rule of majority, it is simply the what the most evidence points to.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Please show me one health expert that is saying that lockdown is sustainable and wont have disastrous effect on the economy.

That doesn't even make sense as an argument, you may as well ask me to show you one mechanic who thinks bees aren't important.   The problem is health experts can tell you what will happen health wise for most given situations.  They don't and won't tell you what the economic impact of that is, they don't even care. That is a problem for the economists and bankers etc.   Why do you even think the two are linked?

 

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Again looking at the data that the experts provided what sense does a universal lockdown make? Why are people that have a much better chance of dying in a car wreck being told to lockdown and lose everything for something that they will get over in a couple days in bed?

What data?  you are still appealing to authority and not understanding what that even means in terms of reality.

 

 

Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is true.  You can always find someone who agrees with you. I have said this over and over in this thread.  But the virus does not care about your finances, your wealth or lack of it, the virus does not care that you don't understand the first thing about it or epidemiology.   Epidemiologists also don't care about your finances, they only care about reducing the impact of the virus.  No amount of financial fear will change the reality of what is happening.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

In order for contact tracing to work in the us youd need basically everyone to agree to it and take part in it.

 

They cant force anyone to do that. They cant punish people for not doing it. Thats why i say it wont work.

 

 

Contact tracing is a targeted approach, so you only need contacts with infected and causal individuals. It’s not really like a whole population thing. 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Contact tracing is a targeted approach, so you only need contacts with infected and causal individuals. It’s not really like a whole population thing. 

Stuff I've heard is you only need about 40% to take it up for it to be an effective part of the solution. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Stuff I've heard is you only need about 40% to take it up for it to be an effective part of the solution. 

It would really depend on vaccine coverage and prevalence of the disease I suppose. It’s more useful for ring vaccination.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

On 5/8/2020 at 8:49 PM, wkdpaul said:

I think I prefer saying it's misrepresented, I know what they're trying to do here, but it's just straight a bad job if you have to stop and explain a simple chart like this.

I think the chart is very straightforward: on the right column, which fraction of the total population belongs to each group. On the left column, which fraction of the fatalities belong to each group. I mean, it's in the column titles, how could anyone make it more explicit?  

It's basically how you present data to see if any particular group is under-represented or over-represented in something (in this case, fatalities, but it could be olympic medals, corporate boards, etc).

 

The only way to read "higher deaths than population" in, say, the second row, is to fail at reading a double entry table. It's not a very advanced skill... 

 

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

In order for contact tracing to work in the us youd need basically everyone to agree to it and take part in it.

 

They cant force anyone to do that. They cant punish people for not doing it. Thats why i say it wont work.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/07/1001360/india-aarogya-setu-covid-app-mandatory/amp/
 

You were saying?

 

[atxcyclist]

6 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/07/1001360/india-aarogya-setu-covid-app-mandatory/amp/
 

You were saying?

 

'Download this tracking app or be arrested', sounds very damned draconian for a nation that's supposedly a democracy; I doubt they got to vote on it. I also don't see how any average person would think a government-mandating tracking app is a good thing.

[PhantomJaguarr]

Local casinos are going to reopen pretty soon. 777 zing corona’. If I’m winning at the tables I’d fake cough so no one else comes near.

 

https://www.cbs8.com/article/money/business/viejas-casino-set-to-reopen-on-may-18/509-0d6049cc-4c93-4beb-9c1b-99f7cd89ab4a

 

Quote

Everyone in the casino, employees and guests, will be required to wear masks, officials said.

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, PhantomJaguar77 said:

Local casinos are going to reopen pretty soon. 777 zing corona’. If I’m winning at the tables I’d fake cough so no one else comes near.

 

https://www.cbs8.com/article/money/business/viejas-casino-set-to-reopen-on-may-18/509-0d6049cc-4c93-4beb-9c1b-99f7cd89ab4a

 

 

Well that scares the heck out of me.  Strangers shoulder to shoulder and handing bits of plastic and paper back and forth. I hope they got testing and tracking up.  That one might go next to hair dressers and movie theatres for modification requirement. 

[TheGreenBeam]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

'Download this tracking app or be arrested', sounds very damned draconian for a nation that's supposedly a democracy; I doubt they got to vote on it. I also don't see how any average person would think a government-mandating tracking app is a good thing.

The government has made it mandatory to download the app only for government workers and employees of private food delivery services. I have not downloaded the app, and I have not been arrested or fined. The government just wants to encourage everyone with a smartphone to download the 'Aarogya Setu' app; it has no power to make the use of the app compulsory without legislative consent. 

 

 

While the government initially claimed that the use of the app would be purely voluntary, it soon made it mandatory to download the app for government workers, but the use of the app for normal people is more or less voluntary. 

 

 

A coupe of days ago, I helped my mom configure the app. All it asks for is your age, gender, travel history, and symptoms. The app shows a message if you are in "moderate" or "high-risk" which is based on your proximity to a contacted person who has tested positive for the virus. You just have to keep your location sharing to 'always' and the app sends your location data to the government. Once the epidemic is over, the users can delete the app. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

'Download this tracking app or be arrested', sounds very damned draconian for a nation that's supposedly a democracy; I doubt they got to vote on it. I also don't see how any average person would think a government-mandating tracking app is a good thing.

Might be interesting to see the kind of stuff the US implemented during WW2.  Some of it is still with us and didn’t exist before the war.  A lot of it got removed along with the threat. 
 

ww2 was a multi year even though.  This thing is like lightning compared to a world war.