Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[WingZ 547]

1 hour ago, Alan_A said:

Best of luck to you all.

Well, thanks for the time and effort you (and others) have put in to this discussion.

It's been my go-to place to get perspective on this extraordinary critter and its strange effects.

Edited May 1, 2020 by WingZ

[Nedo68 533]

2 hours ago, Alan_A said:

How many times do we have to go over this?

Best of luck to you all.

Thanks Alan,

I have given up allready here to explain something over and over again its ok 2, 3 times, but it doesn't make sense anymore here where you don't want to learn at all new stuff.

cu

[dave belsey 54]

I find myself wondering what could happen if a couple of asymptomatic New Yorkers were to visit relatives in Roswell or environs.

Dave.

[Reader 2,034]

3 hours ago, Alan_A said:

Best of luck to you all.

Thanks for all the work that you have put into this topic and for how much you have taught us in the last 91 pages. It cannot be helped that some know better.

[KevinAu 441]

5 hours ago, cmpbellsjc said:

I do agree that there isn’t a one size fits all. There’s 3 ways we could have approached this. One, do nothing and let the virus take its toll. Two, take precautions (masks, distancing, disinfectant) but let people do as they see fit or must do. Three, lock everything down. Somewhere there needs to be a balance (option 2) because we won’t be able to stop all deaths and the economic impact could end up hurting people more than option 3.

Your option 3 is required only if option 2 has failed. Option 2, if implemented early and properly can prevent option 3. The point of option 2 is to test/trace/quarantine at the very first signs in order to keep the embers of infection from igniting a fire. At the first signs, everybody also wears masks in public and social distances to the extent possible without shutting down the economy. That is how some of the asian countries got through this without locking down.

If a country fails to respond early enough and the disease has taken hold to spread within, then a lockdown is also required. That is what happened with most countries. If you don’t lockdown or release the lockdown before the disease reduces back down to a level commensurate with what its test/trace/quarantine can handle, then you will continue to have it spreading and affecting the economy.

If a country responds with test/trace/quarantine/masks/distance early and forcefully enough, then there is much less economic impact. That is why I have been arguing for mask mandate because that is the piece of the required response that america resisted for no good reason and why I think this country screwed itself economically. This shutdown never would have happened if we reacted properly during the first two months. If in february we had been testing, if we in february we required masks in public and were mindful of hygiene and distancing, we would have had a much better chance of avoiding a shutdown.

Edited May 1, 2020 by KevinAu

[KevinAu 441]

5 hours ago, cmpbellsjc said:

I don’t know anyone who’s ever died from either the flu or covid19, however according to these stats quoted below from the CDC and WHO, the season flu can cause a fair amount of deaths both in the US and Globally.

 

The flu is deadly. As your numbers from other parts of the world show. But as a rich first world nation, we have a vaccine for it. We do not yet have a vaccine for covid19, so our stats for that will look more like the flu stats in other parts of the world despite our rich first world status.

As you point out, your numbers for the flu are estimates. If we estimated instead of counting confirmed covid deaths the same way that these flu stats being bandied are estimated, it could be 9x to 44x times higher than the flu. Make sure you compare like fruits when trying to make a point.

Edited May 1, 2020 by KevinAu

[honanhal 1,420]

This thread is a microcosm of why we’re all doomed. On the one hand, you have science, the good faith pursuit of truth, engaging openly with people of different opinions to try to persuade them. On the other, cherry-picked facts to suit your pre-ordained conclusions, stubborn refusal to engage honestly with arguments made in good faith, and, when all else fails, “what do we really know? No one really knows anything.”

And you see the result here. The people like Alan who kept slamming their head into that wall of denial and the same nonsense repeated over and over — whether through bad faith or just ignorance, it’s hard to tell — eventually get driven out. Congratulations, guys. Savor your moment while you can.

What a world.

James

[Reader 2,034]

Well said sir, I made the point about half way through but my post was culled.

[dave2013 1,141]

7 hours ago, Alan_A said:

How many times do we have to go over this? The Stanford study is the one we've already talked about.  It's been thoroughly discredited.

The figures from the New York antibody study are outliers based most likely on unreliable testing.

What's the source of your article?  Please provide a link.

@birdguy - does anybody know anything?  Yes, they do.  They're called scientists and they publish science in peer-reviewed science journals. 

I'm really sorry that IHME and Johns Hopkins and Imperial College and Dr. Fauci and David Ho and Laurie Garrett don't line up with the happy talk you guys want to cherry pick from Fox News or wherever you're getting it.

Surprised nobody has cited the two urgent care guys from Bakersfield on this round.

You know what?  Have it your way.  It's not as bad as the flu and more people die in auto accidents and clearly everbody's wrong but you because we're all caught up in the big media conspiracy (how long before somebody brings up George Soros?) and it's because we're either ill-informed or we want to take away your freedoms.

Let's salute the brave protesters with the AR-15s fighting for a free society, the same way the Greatest Generation went out with their weapons to protest state tyranny when they all got drafted.  Oh... wait.

I'm done here.  I'm not going to waste my time when the same debunked word not allowed keeps coming up over and over and over because it suits somebody's agenda and "you can cite all the studies you want but I know what I know."

Have a party, guys.

If you want to find me, I'll be in the other threads talking about airplanes or maybe not even that.

Best of luck to you all.

The problem is that not all scientists and doctors agree.  It's a battle of the experts, like they have in court trials.  So who is right?  The fact is that neither you nor I really know.

By the way, just because a study is peer-reviewed does not make it fact.  Scientists and doctors have been wrong many times throughout history, and at times even dishonest.  They are not gods.

You say "it's not as bad as the flu" in criticism of my and other's comments, yet I never said it was not as bad as the flu.  In fact I said it is a bad flu, meaning it's worse than the seasonal flu.  I just don't equate its severity with that of Ebola.

I think based on some comments you made here that you are not being objective.

And, no, I won't "have a party".  I'm staying home as much as I can and when I go out I wear a mask, social distance, and wash my hands frequently.  I'm not afraid of dying of it as the odds of that are extremely low, but I'd rather not contract it. 

Dave

Edited May 1, 2020 by dave2013

[sightseer 895]

@dave2013  There is an error in your thinking.

Why are you surprised that a highly contagious virus would kill more people who are all confined closely together like those in nursing homes?  What is the point of social distancing if not to minimize this effect?   What will be the likely result of people of other age groups congregating together in tight quarters at work environments?  Did not social distancing "bend the curve down" in New York city?  

@Alan_A  please just take a break and consider returning.  You do a monstrous amount of good. (along with Martin rex007 (i think it is))

[dave2013 1,141]

Well, I was going to post a link to a video of Dr. Wittowski, an epidemiologist and biostatician in Austria, who is critical of the response to Covid-19 and doesn't think it as deadly as many in the media and govt. portray it to be.  He said that we should have simply isolated the elderly and sick and taken reasonable precautions as we do with any other transmittable disease.

Guess, what?  Youtube removed the video, claiming it violated their terms of service.

So much for free speech.  Once you lose that, well...

Dave

Edited May 1, 2020 by dave2013

[Bob Scott 7,742]

1 hour ago, honanhal said:

This thread is a microcosm of why we’re all doomed. On the one hand, you have science, the good faith pursuit of truth, engaging openly with people of different opinions to try to persuade them. On the other, cherry-picked facts to suit your pre-ordained conclusions, stubborn refusal to engage honestly with arguments made in good faith, and, when all else fails, “what do we really know? No one really knows anything.”

And you see the result here. The people like Alan who kept slamming their head into that wall of denial and the same nonsense repeated over and over — whether through bad faith or just ignorance, it’s hard to tell — eventually get driven out. Congratulations, guys. Savor your moment while you can.

Science is neither all-seeing nor infallible.  Both the statistical analysis done through grossly incomplete sampling and the models derived from that analysis are theoretical.  There's a big difference between fact and theory.  You can doubt theory, especially when the theoretical models are all over the map from one week to the next, and that doubt does not imply bad faith or ignorance.  The "good faith pursuit of truth" as you put it can and does still result in bad information being unintentionally marketed as "truth"--simply because the motivations for seeking it were good doesn't make it true and complete.  The "truth" is that quite often we simply don't know what we don't know. 

I see another wall of denial--the denial that there could be any place at all in public policy that recognizes the individual's right to make an informed decision to take risk, or for society as a whole to accept elevated levels of risk in order to serve the vital interests of the vast, overwhelming majority.  Is a tiny fraction of a percent mortality risk so awful that we can justify forcing a third of the population into economic ruin?

[dave2013 1,141]

1 minute ago, sightseer said:

@dave2013  There is an error in your thinking.

Why are you surprised that a highly contagious virus would kill more people who are all confined closely together like those in nursing homes?  What is the point of social distancing if not to minimize this effect?   What will be the likely result of people of other age groups congregating together in tight quarters at work environments?  Did not social distancing "bend the curve down" in New York city?  

@Alan_A  please just take a break and consider returning.  You do a monstrous amount of good. (along with Martin rex007 (i think it is))

Yes, it is a highly contagious virus that kills people.  There is no doubt that the shutdowns and lockdowns greatly reduced the number of infections and thus deaths.  I'm not disputing that.  I have stated again and again that extended 3 month lockdowns, or longer as some have suggested, are not necessary in the vast majority of the country.  Maybe NYC would have to do something like that due to the population density, but few other places need to.

I also do not believe that the virus is as deadly as the media claims it is, and that the overall reaction to it has been overblown and unnecessary, largely due to media sensationalism, alarmism, and hysteria.

I, too, am disappointed that Alan_A has chosen to leave.  He provides some balance to this debate.  The fact is that none of us is 100% right about everything regarding Covid-19.  As with many things in life, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Dave

 

[sightseer 895]

@dave2013  why do you use the phrase "as the media claims it is" while using media to prove the media is wrong?   Your earlier post claimed suppression of information about studies claiming many more people have or have had the virus.  I've encountered all that information so it wasnt all that supressed.

No matter what anyone forecasts to be probable truth, it takes a sane look at current reality (like "excess deaths" or bending down the curve or clusters of deaths) to arrive a sensible conclusion that doesnt endanger others lives.

You  talk about supresssed information...look up Z1 Flow of Funds.

@w6kd  what has happened is discernable truth.  some seek to keep that truth buried.  When I refer to truth, its always the past that Im refering to.  The future is always speculation but theres a huge difference in a good faith result and one where a corporation who makes a giant mess pays off scientists so that they can have final editing of any reports...or think tanks paid to create arguments that "a million dollars doesnt go very far these days" but "poor people are not poor because most have color TV"  but i digress.

[KevinAu 441]

31 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Is a tiny fraction of a percent mortality risk so awful that we can justify forcing a third of the population into economic ruin?

What you’re forgetting is that the tiny percent mortality risk was likely achieved only by forcing a third of the population into economic ruin. Sometimes in life, there are no good choices left.