(05-26-2020 07:38 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2020 07:24 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Side note: have we successfully flattened the curve yet? I haven’t heard that term used in a while.
No. While New York is going down, the rest of the US is now trending upwards:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020...stics.html
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...pdf#page=1
Alabama is already having issues with bed shortages and it's expected other rural communities will begin to face the same issues in the weeks and months ahead: https://www.businessinsider.com/dire-cor...eds-2020-5
Virginia is holding steady though.
"Trending upwards" has nothing to do with flattening the curve. We are "trending upwards" because testing is more prevalent than ever. Flattening the curve is about not overwhelming the healthcare system, or at least so we were told. One example in rural Alabama doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
(05-26-2020 08:50 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]@757ODU
If you have cancer and die from Covid-19, you die from Covid-19 (or a combination of).
My coworker's father passed away from a similar situation as your close family friend. He had cancer, contracted Covid-19, and died because of the virus. Her family isn't upset the death certificate lists Covid-19 as a reason. On FB, the family has since advocated for wearing masks and doing what we can to protect healthcare workers and each other.
I understand everyone handles death differently and I'm sorry for the loss, but it doesn't change the fact that Covid-19 killed her in her weakened state. Does it list both Covid-19 and cancer on the certificate? If it doesn't list cancer, then we may actually under counting the cancer death (not over counting Covid-19).
There was no positive test for Covid-19. There was an antibody test that showed she already had it.
(05-26-2020 09:05 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2020 08:53 AM)757ODU Wrote: [ -> ]There was no positive test for Covid-19. There was an antibody test that showed she already had it.
Understood. If they feel it's wrong, I hope they fight it then.
That said, there's zero evidence it's some widespread issue. Pulling a number out of my ass, but even if we go high and say incorrect death certificates are at 10%, we're still at 90,000 deaths...which should be a completely unacceptable number.
The only state that has gone back and reevaluated cause of death, Colorado, decreased COVID deaths by like 10%, if I remember correctly.
(05-26-2020 09:05 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2020 08:53 AM)757ODU Wrote: [ -> ]There was no positive test for Covid-19. There was an antibody test that showed she already had it.
Understood. If they feel it's wrong, I hope they fight it then.
That said, there's zero evidence it's some widespread issue. Pulling a number out of my ass, but even if we go high and say incorrect death certificates are at 10%, we're still at 90,000 deaths...which should be a completely unacceptable number.
Smudge, I hear you. Trust me I do. My issue is that if the death rate is 0.26% is it worth it to remain closed. I have no issues with wearing masks for places that mandate it. I am seriously concerned about psychological effects this is going to have on people. We may not see the massive suicide rate happening right now, but it will come. Just like everyone has a right to worry about every Covid-19 death, I also have the right to fight against the idea of remaining closed because of my belief that the alternate deaths will pile up. You want to talk about a spike, get ready for what's to come.
FWIW, I think most people are a little full of it on the polling. What I see outside does not reflect the fear that the polls seem to represent. I guess it could be a large cohort from Cali and the Northeast/DC that are skewing the results, but I drove down Atlantic Ave Saturday and it was packed, and nobody seemed to have a care in the world.
That is not to negate your opinion that wearing masks and social distancing is wise at this point, but I am not sure I believe that people need a ton of coaxing to get back out in public, and on with their lives.
Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are trying to use the pandemic to further their political causes. This is why I don't trust any of them to make the best decisions for me or my family.
The latest CDC estimated mortality rate from COVID is 0.3%. Let that sink in for a moment. We have shuttered an entire economy for a viral infection in which 99.7% of those who contract it will recover. To me that is unreasonable. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
I understand the uncertainty at the beginning of the outbreak and the need to be proactive. However, as new evidence emerges we need to re-evaluate our actions. I think its time to get back to normal. Those who are at high-risk or are fearful should remain isolated and wear protective gear. Let the rest return to their lives if they choose to do so.
My wife and I are both over 60 and grandparents, which is supposedly the "high risk" group. Our son is an emergency medicine physician in Orange County, California, which is as "front line" as you can get. I have a degree in microbiology and understand epidemiology. We all would choose to return to normal if given the choice.
To live is to accept risk. No one can guarantee 100% safety. No one.
(05-26-2020 12:39 PM)Maryland Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]The latest CDC estimated mortality rate from COVID is 0.3%. Let that sink in for a moment. We have shuttered an entire economy for a viral infection in which 99.7% of those who contract it will recover. To me that is unreasonable. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
If the mortality rate was 3%, I'd get it. But, .3%, skewed heavily toward LTC facilities, the elderly, and the comorbid, it just doesn't make any sense to me why we continue to react as though it is 3%.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/low-...54vvu.html
Now this. It seems that many of the things that many of us believed, based on science coming out of non sanctioned, non narrative compliant places like Stanford,Oxford and Israel, are proving to be true.
Remember when Stanford and Oxford were saying the mortality rate appeared to be around .2% - .4%? Surprise, they were right. Too bad they were ignored in favor of Imperial, with its laughable modeling, and even more ridiculous leader and Washington with its wildly changing model that never seemed close to modelling anything other than poor prediction.
Now we are seeing evidence that the virus will just run its course and die out like previous SARS viruses? Who could have ever expected that, other than a leading epidemiologist in Israel, who was completely ignored because he failed to repeat the approved narrative.
I truly believe the response to this virus will go down as one of the worst government failures by the entire world, that has ever existed.
(05-26-2020 12:49 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/low-...54vvu.html
Now this. It seems that many of the things that many of us believed, based on science coming out of non sanctioned, non narrative compliant places like Stanford,Oxford and Israel, are proving to be true.
Remember when Stanford and Oxford were saying the mortality rate appeared to be around .2% - .4%? Surprise, they were right. Too bad they were ignored in favor of Imperial, with its laughable modeling, and even more ridiculous leader and Washington with its wildly changing model that never seemed close to modelling anything other than poor prediction.
Now we are seeing evidence that the virus will just run its course and die out like previous SARS viruses? Who could have ever expected that, other than a leading epidemiologist in Israel, who was completely ignored because he failed to repeat the approved narrative.
I truly believe the response to this virus will go down as one of the worst government failures by the entire world, that has ever existed.
Debacle. The problem is that our decision makers have to go off of the information they have at hand.
(05-26-2020 01:12 PM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a good thing the mortality rate is lower, but are we going to ignore that 100,000 Americans are now dead - with many more expected to die - and that's with measures in place? What would it be if we didn't close down? (Unfortunately we might still find out.)
And are we so desensitized that 100,000 preventable deaths is no biggie? Is there some magic number people begin to feel uncomfortable? This whole thing has been a debacle, but it's clear we disagree on the reasons why.
A normal flu season kills between 40,000 and 80,000 people, depending on the severity of the strain. Yet you don't hear a thing about it, other than your doctor recommending you get a flu shot.
A normal year results in around 35,000 traffic fatalities. Yet you don't see automobile traffic restricted.
Yes it's tragic when people die. But many (most) of those who succumbed to COVID where already severely compromised. It doesn't lessen the pain for their families, but it was likely to happen relatively soon anyway. Death is a part of life.
My 80 year old neighbor said it best, "I don't want to spend the last years of my life locked up." I believe each person is granted free will and will choose their path accordingly.
(05-26-2020 01:12 PM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a good thing the mortality rate is lower, but are we going to ignore that 100,000 Americans are now dead - with many more expected to die - and that's with measures in place? What would it be if we didn't close down? (Unfortunately we might still find out.)
And are we so desensitized that 100,000 preventable deaths is no biggie? Is there some magic number people begin to feel uncomfortable? This whole thing has been a debacle, but it's clear we disagree on the reasons why.
Open up, but let's be smart about it. This should have been a time to unite, not devolve into whatever this has become.
There are researchers that theorize that the lock downs may have exacerbated the problem. Since it has been determined that prolonged close contact is the way that the virus is most often transmitted, those theories do not seem implausible. If the approach of masks, social distancing, and placing a laser focus on the vulnerable, especially LTC facilites, had been adopted from the outset, it is possible we would have seen fewer deaths, or a similar number of deaths. As we see the virus seeming to run its course organically, it also calls into question whether lock downs really did have an effect, or whether it is just confirmation bias. I don't think we have to accept the narrative that the correct path was taken, simply because those who steered us onto that course say it worked. They will go to their grave, regardless of what science eventually says, claiming that millions would have died if they had not acted the way they did. If those people admit they were wrong, they are admitting to one of the most enormous mistakes in modern human history.
(05-26-2020 12:49 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/low-...54vvu.html
Now this. It seems that many of the things that many of us believed, based on science coming out of non sanctioned, non narrative compliant places like Stanford,Oxford and Israel, are proving to be true.
Remember when Stanford and Oxford were saying the mortality rate appeared to be around .2% - .4%? Surprise, they were right. Too bad they were ignored in favor of Imperial, with its laughable modeling, and even more ridiculous leader and Washington with its wildly changing model that never seemed close to modelling anything other than poor prediction.
Now we are seeing evidence that the virus will just run its course and die out like previous SARS viruses? Who could have ever expected that, other than a leading epidemiologist in Israel, who was completely ignored because he failed to repeat the approved narrative.
I truly believe the response to this virus will go down as one of the worst government failures by the entire world, that has ever existed.
I doubt this is a sign that it has "run it's course", more the strict stay at home measures in the UK and summer coming on.
(05-26-2020 01:35 PM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]This is nothing like influenza, which has both a vaccine, is less deadly, less contagious, and doesn't survive in different types of environments like Covid-19 has. Additionally, why wouldn't we want to try to stop a virus from becoming a normal part of our lives? We're ok with simply adding another thing that kills tens-of-thousands annually (hundreds in this case), possibly for generations to come?
And automobiles is an apples-to-orange comparison. We have plenty of traffic laws, a comical amount of safety regulations, as well as local and federal methods to enforce them.
When people get in their car, or go out during flu season, they know there's a risk but they also know society has collectively found a way to mitigate those risks. This is not the case with Covid-19. The only risk mitigation we have right now are masks, social distancing, and not gathering in large groups. And without ways to enforce it, your choice to do whatever you want reduces my choice to be safe when I go out. This argument for freedom is a two-way street.
So wait to live your life as it was, until there is a vaccine? It seems pretty clear that you are close to saying this word for word.
To me, the argument is beyond whether wearing a mask does or doesn't help. It's about the government, no strike that, it's about an individual dictating to a local business how it must operate. I ain't down with that.
(05-26-2020 01:50 PM)757ODU Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2020 01:35 PM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]This is nothing like influenza, which has both a vaccine, is less deadly, less contagious, and doesn't survive in different types of environments like Covid-19 has. Additionally, why wouldn't we want to try to stop a virus from becoming a normal part of our lives? We're ok with simply adding another thing that kills tens-of-thousands annually (hundreds in this case), possibly for generations to come?
And automobiles is an apples-to-orange comparison. We have plenty of traffic laws, a comical amount of safety regulations, as well as local and federal methods to enforce them.
When people get in their car, or go out during flu season, they know there's a risk but they also know society has collectively found a way to mitigate those risks. This is not the case with Covid-19. The only risk mitigation we have right now are masks, social distancing, and not gathering in large groups. And without ways to enforce it, your choice to do whatever you want reduces my choice to be safe when I go out. This argument for freedom is a two-way street.
So wait to live your life as it was, until there is a vaccine? It seems pretty clear that you are close to saying this word for word.
I'm totally ok with it, if Smudge wants to sit around and wait for a vaccine that may never come. But, don't freakin' tell me I have to. I'll take my chances.
I'm seriously looking at renting a place in Florida for a month. I didn't sign up to told by a Governor who should have been run out of town a year ago how to live my life.
"your choice to do whatever you want reduces my choice to be safe when I go out. This argument for freedom is a two-way street."
So you're saying that everyone has to either be quarantined or masked so that YOU can feel comfortable going out. That's exactly the opposite of freedom.
When I lived in Maryland, I chose never to walk in downtown Baltimore at night even though I had the freedom and the right to do so. I didn't feel safe. I made a decision not to do something I believed would put me at risk. It's the same with COVID. You can choose to self isolate or not. I choose not.
By the way, the lastest CDC numbers refute your contention that COVID is a super-plague. A 99.7% recovery rate doesn't particularly scare me.
(05-26-2020 01:50 PM)757ODU Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2020 01:35 PM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]This is nothing like influenza, which has both a vaccine, is less deadly, less contagious, and doesn't survive in different types of environments like Covid-19 has. Additionally, why wouldn't we want to try to stop a virus from becoming a normal part of our lives? We're ok with simply adding another thing that kills tens-of-thousands annually (hundreds in this case), possibly for generations to come?
And automobiles is an apples-to-orange comparison. We have plenty of traffic laws, a comical amount of safety regulations, as well as local and federal methods to enforce them.
When people get in their car, or go out during flu season, they know there's a risk but they also know society has collectively found a way to mitigate those risks. This is not the case with Covid-19. The only risk mitigation we have right now are masks, social distancing, and not gathering in large groups. And without ways to enforce it, your choice to do whatever you want reduces my choice to be safe when I go out. This argument for freedom is a two-way street.
So wait to live your life as it was, until there is a vaccine? It seems pretty clear that you are close to saying this word for word.
That's likely right. In the CDC's revised outlook, which many epidemiologists see as being lowballed (*cough* politically influenced *cough*) they still say without a vaccine or social distancing in place we'd be looking at another 500K deaths before it runs it's course. Get used to the social distancing.
(05-26-2020 02:08 PM)Maryland Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]"your choice to do whatever you want reduces my choice to be safe when I go out. This argument for freedom is a two-way street."
So you're saying that everyone has to either be quarantined or masked so that YOU can feel comfortable going out. That's exactly the opposite of freedom.
When I lived in Maryland, I chose never to walk in downtown Baltimore at night even though I had the freedom and the right to do so. I didn't feel safe. I made a decision not to do something I believed would put me at risk. It's the same with COVID. You can choose to self isolate or not. I choose not.
By the way, the lastest CDC numbers refute your contention that COVID is a super-plague. A 99.7% recovery rate doesn't particularly scare me.
“the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.....a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members......to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” - Justice John Marshall Harlan writing for the 7-2 majority in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.