What's new
By:

Coronavirus

infection said:
I think the question, from a superficial level, sounds like prioritizing other things over life, but the question isn’t asked about a lot of things. 40k deaths a year on roads isn’t questioned. Nearly 100k deaths due to alcohol isn’t questioned. Obviously we don’t know what the exact death toll will be, but as a hypothetical, it’s good to ask the question, and I am asking this non-rhetorically: what’s the minimum level that warrants shutting things down indefinitely? 5k deaths? 1k? There’s not a right or wrong answer here, but if we’re saying even even 15k, then we have some real re-evaluating to do in many other ways in which we tolerate death as a risk and not just with motor vehicles and alcohol.
Click to expand...
Don't forget cigarettes
 
Political Jazz Fan said:
I'm guessing you did not read the article. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

Rather than copying and pasting headlines and twitter posts, why don't you articulate your own opinion on this subject?

Furthermore, rather than citing a fox news article, go take a look at the 324 page report to see if there is something useful to back up your argument.

Anyway, the GHS index that Fox is citing, measures "health security and related capabilities" (p.5). It states that "knowing the risks and identifying the gaps, however, is not enough. Political will is needed to save lives and build a safer and more secure world" (p.31).

In that sense, despite U.S. ranking first in several categories, public trust in the federal government remains near historic lows (Washington Post, 2019 using information from the Pew Research Center). At the end of the day, you can have outstanding infrastructure in place and capabilities to respond like the US but politicians who just blew it by seeking their own agenda. And that's what the Trump administration did by downplaying the risks of this pandemic and wasting precious time.

Side note: Fox cities the paper saying "the U.S. score was still not perfect...". Nope, the original report has no mention of that. The Washington Post article did. I guess whoever wrote the Fox news article didn't read the GHS report either.
 
Last edited:
For anyone asking about the economic impact of those shutdowns, i ask something

What gonna be the economic impact of 5 times Italy deaths per day (USA population is more than just 5 times bigger, here in Brazil it is more than 3 times, and i'm not even talking about it being worse by faster spreading or posible lesser capacity to care of the worse cases) ? Are we really expecting that when it gets really ugly, that everyone just gonna stay living their normal days ?

When it comes the real panic by piles of bodies, people unable to go to work because they can't get out of bed, or needed to go to the hospital, or simply died. When people get more afraid (not only for themselves, but for their relatives too) of getting the disease than getting fired, and the same for the clients of the place where you work (be it a fabric, a grocery store, a library, etc...), when they're unable to get out of home or too afraid to. When that happens, how do we save the economy ?
 
Political Jazz Fan said:
Article from a day ago:

US was more prepared for pandemic than any other country, Johns Hopkins study found
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us...r-pandemics-johns-hopkins-study-found-in-2019

I can see why you are so negative and confused too. 99% of the coverage for the virus is negative. You can barely find any truthful/balanced articles on google right now.
Click to expand...

It is like a story of the New York Yankees being best prepared team to win a pennant. Talent galore, how can they lose?

Then you choose reality TV Star Sharon Osbourne as your manager and they come in last place.
 
Last edited:
rjfan said:
For anyone asking about the economic impact of those shutdowns, i ask something

What gonna be the economic impact of 5 times Italy deaths per day (USA population is more than just 5 times bigger, here in Brazil it is more than 3 times, and i'm not even talking about it being worse by faster spreading or posible lesser capacity to care of the worse cases) ? Are we really expecting that when it gets really ugly, that everyone just gonna stay living their normal days ?

When it comes the real panic by piles of bodies, people unable to go to work because they can't get out of bed, or needed to go to the hospital, or simply died. When people get more afraid (not only for themselves, but for their relatives too) of getting the disease than getting fired, and the same for the clients of the place where you work (be it a fabric, a grocery store, a library, etc...), when they're unable to get out of home or too afraid to. When that happens, how do we save the economy ?
Click to expand...


Moreover, if we get the economy going and we go into a second exponential curve (see 1918), then what? Slow the economy a second time? We need to get this in the rear view mirror and the risks of prematurely pulling the plug are significant. Unless we just say "screw it, what's a few 100 thousand deaths, let's plow forward.

We seem to be starting to bend the curve with current mitigation steps (too soon to know for sure), we need to put our foot on this mother bleeper's neck and put it down.
 
I think it is a foregone conclusion that the flu is deadlier than COVID-19. I think the panic is being driven by 2 things: first, it is a new virus we have no treatment or vaccine for and which can move without symptoms so it is "scary", and second, the flu has been around long enough we just accept the deaths as "part of the plan" (credit to the Joker) and move on.

I think it is pretty clear that the actual cases are likely far higher than the diagnosed cases since we know for a fact it can be asymptomatic or extremely mild in many cases, maybe even the majority of cases. Even a modest 1 to 1 (1 un-diagnosed case to every diagnosed case, which is very reasonable and likely far higher) ratio, puts the death rate comfortably below that of the annual flu.

Once we get a vaccine for it, this will fade into the background. Truthfully I think this is being blown heavily out of proportion and we are needlessly doing severe damage to our economy and the fabric of our society. This is akin to using a chainsaw to extract a sliver in ones finger (slight exaggeration).
 
Rubashov said:
Stage 2 lockdown until September
Click to expand...

That is very weird. I work for a Australian company and was talking with my Chair today from Perth. She said Australia was under a Stage 2 shutdown, which avoided a lockdown (for now), and that there was no fixed time frame.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that the flu is deadlier than COVID-19. I think the panic is being driven by 2 things: first, it is a new virus we have no treatment or vaccine for and which can move without symptoms so it is "scary", and second, the flu has been around long enough we just accept the deaths as "part of the plan" (credit to the Joker) and move on.

I think it is pretty clear that the actual cases are likely far higher than the diagnosed cases since we know for a fact it can be asymptomatic or extremely mild in many cases, maybe even the majority of cases. Even a modest 1 to 1 (1 un-diagnosed case to every diagnosed case, which is very reasonable and likely far higher) ratio, puts the death rate comfortably below that of the annual flu.

Once we get a vaccine for it, this will fade into the background. Truthfully I think this is being blown heavily out of proportion and we are needlessly doing severe damage to our economy and the fabric of our society. This is akin to using a chainsaw to extract a sliver in ones finger (slight exaggeration).
Click to expand...

My brother is a PA up at Huntsman and is dealing with this. He said that what they are seeing is that COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu. The problem is that when one person has the flu and is contagious, on average they spread the flu to 9 other people. With COVID-19 you are contagious the moment you contract it and it spreads at a much higher rate for a longer period of time. On average each contagious person will spread COVID-19 to 40-50 other people.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that the flu is deadlier than COVID-19. I think the panic is being driven by 2 things: first, it is a new virus we have no treatment or vaccine for and which can move without symptoms so it is "scary", and second, the flu has been around long enough we just accept the deaths as "part of the plan" (credit to the Joker) and move on.
Click to expand...

COVID 19 transmits at a higher rate, there is no vaccine, and it is (very likely) more lethal, and it will overwhelm our medical capabilities if not mitigated.

Influenza does none of that.

Panic is stupid

So are the "flu is worse" analogies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top