COVID-19 Threads

[Eight]

It’s about limiting the number of cases in the short term to avoid the healthcare system being overrun.

It’s not horrible yet but it could be if we just carry on with life as usual. A doctor buddy of mine summed it up pretty succinctly...

“When I look at what happened (is happening) in northern Italy when a large wave of COVID-19 hit while no significant preparations were made, I tend to think this is real. There, at one point, they were rationing ventilators. If you’re over 60 you don’t get a ventilator. So, what needs to happen here is to flatten the incidence curve, spread out the new cases over time so it doesn’t overwhelm our medical facilities.”

all very, very understandable and i think it is an important story to be told

the key is how that story is told and i know for me there is where we start to see problems.

when we focus on the deaths and focus on the individual cases and play the what if card i think it scares the [ #2020 ] out of people and the heightened anxiety is counterproductive.

i know there is a terrible problem in getting people to accept what they hear as truthful and in large part the media is to blame for overplaying things.

the virus by itself can be fatal, but nothing i have read has put in on a scale of ebola or sars or some type of movie virus that far too many are relating what they hear.

the greatest concern from what i have seen or read is as you point out the potential for surpassing the ability to treat and one of the decisions mentioned at the end of the lancet article i posted was triage of medical resources.

 

[RollToad]

Coronavirus vs. College Football Playoff.

Go!

 

[Billy Clyde]

He doesn’t get it man. He can’t fathom that those numbers are small because so many people haven’t been tested yet nor does he understand that the possible death rate and breakdown of deaths is much higher among the older population so he uses the total population to make it look less dangerous than many think.

It's what happens when softheaded people spend weeks listening to someone tell them it's a, "Hoax." From that point forward, every piece of new data large or small is either rejected outright, or spun beyond recognition from the now-baked-in mindset.

 

[JogginFrog]

There are a great deal of Chinese living in Italy involved in the textile and leather goods industries. There is (was) so much traffic between Wuhan and Italy that they set up a daily non-stop flight.

Thanks for explaining this. Found the following links from 2013 and 2018--they don't mention Wuhan, but they do explain the link between Wenzhou to Prato, Italy--where Chinese make luxury products that say, "Made in Italy." The outbreak in that region is starting to make sense.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...workers-who-assemble-designer-bags-in-tuscany

Edit: One interesting bit is that (prior to Covid) the Chinese in Italy never seemed to die; gangs disposed of bodies to obtain passports that get resold to the next wave of Chinese newcomers.

 

[Wexahu]

He doesn’t get it man. He can’t fathom that those numbers are small because so many people haven’t been tested yet nor does he understand that the possible death rate and breakdown of deaths is much higher among the older population so he uses the total population to make it look less dangerous than many think.

The number of cases being represented in the totals is absolutely too low....no doubt there are thousands and thousands, maybe millions that have it and don't know it. But the # of deaths figure is probably fairly accurate, so the overall fatality rate being reported is probably way too high. And I know that the death rate among elderly people is much higher....heck, the median age of the deaths in Italy is 1 year lower than the average life expectancy. This disease impacts the elderly at a highly disproportionate rate.

Yet there are perfectly healthy 30-year olds with symptoms that are literally scared for their life because of how this thing is being reported in the media. Yeah, I don't really get that. When the CNN anchor interviewed the girl who had recovered who told everyone who is healthy to "not panic, you'll get over this" she looked disappointed in her answer.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

It's what happens when softheaded people spend weeks listening to someone tell them it's a, "Hoax." .

Cool. You might think about laying off the rhetoric. it's just as bad as what Wex is doing in it's own way.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

Looks like ESPN is basically going to become the LHN showing 20 year old games.

 

[Mean Purple]

It's what happens when softheaded people spend weeks listening to someone tell them it's a, "Hoax." From that point forward, every piece of new data large or small is either rejected outright, or spun beyond recognition from the now-baked-in mindset.

Nobody in the government ever actually called the virus issue a hoax.

 

[PhillyFrog]

Nobody in the government ever actually called the virus issue a hoax.

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/

 

[Mean Purple]

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/

Out of context. He was calling the dems claim that the US was not doing anything a hoax.

Snopes has already been busted on that.

People should stop being dumb.

 

[LeagueCityFrog]

No more going inside Chic-fil-as in Houston. Only drive thru. The Catholic diocese of Galveston-Houston also just announced members are more than excused if they don't want to attend weekend service currently and that older members should stay away.

 

[Billy Clyde]

Nobody in the government ever actually called the virus issue a hoax.

I never said it was someone in the government.

 

[HFrog1999]

It's pretty simple

Wash your hands

Don't touch your face

and practice Social Distancing

 

[Billy Clyde]

Cool. You might think about laying off the rhetoric. it's just as bad as what Wex is doing in it's own way.

Point taken.
I'm explaining my point of view of how one can arrive at an irrational position despite continually mounting evidence contradicting that position.
Mounds of research, going back decades, on bias proves over and over again that when people begin receiving data, they do so with some sort of bias, whether or not conscious. When the bias is sufficiently strong, no amount of evidence, from any source no matter how credible, is likely to sink in or alter perception.
Rather, the data is filtered through the bias and either accepted whole cloth if it fits the existing internal narrative, no matter how unlikely the validity of the data, or rejected outright or rationalized or misinterpreted, no matter how objectively credible the source and how likely valid the data.
Further, I believe in this instance, it's justified to point out what is the most likely source of such a bias, so as to help understand how it occurs.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

Point taken.
I'm explaining my point of view of how one can arrive at an irrational position despite continually mounting evidence contradicting that position.
Mounds of research, going back decades, on bias proves over and over again that when people begin receiving data, they do so with some sort of bias, whether or not conscious. When the bias is sufficiently strong, no amount of evidence, from any source no matter how credible, is likely to sink in or alter perception.
Rather, the data is filtered through the bias and either accepted whole cloth if it fits the existing internal narrative, no matter how unlikely the validity of the data, or rejected outright or rationalized or misinterpreted, no matter how objectively credible the source and how likely valid the data.
Further, I believe in this instance, it's justified to point out what is the most likely source of such a bias, so as to help understand how it occurs.

Name calling not needed and the mods already threatened to pull this thread if it was reduced to that.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-deaths-trump-stock-market-pandemic-economy-bankrupt-italy-a9394891.html

Just want to see where this takes us.

 

[Billy Clyde]

Name calling not needed and the mods already threatened to pull this thread if it was reduced to that.

So, your response to reading, "point taken," is to go with some additional scolding. Cool, thanks.

 

[Mean Purple]

Just spoke with a medical professional. Overreaction is the best approach. Said this thing spreads way too easy and to stay out of crowded areas.

I mentioned I am not in that serious age range and he said it is good that I don't plan to die, but I should plan to avoid hospitalization.

I have ordered the canceling and postponing of some large meetings.

He mentioned there is a big concern for rural areas. Thanks to the ACA, the increase in costs drove rural med facilities to consolidate and close some. Means the issue of fewer beds is even worse.

I would think this is a nightmare for athletic directors.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

No

So, your response to reading, "point taken," is to go with some additional scolding. Cool, thanks.

Because you didn't stop at "point taken". You had to continue with your holier than thou crusade which prompted the further response. You're just the opposite side to Wex on the same coin.

"I'm explaining my point of view of how one can arrive at an irrational position despite continually mounting evidence contradicting that position.
Mounds of research, going back decades, on bias proves over and over again that when people begin receiving data, they do so with some sort of bias, whether or not conscious. When the bias is sufficiently strong, no amount of evidence, from any source no matter how credible, is likely to sink in or alter perception.
Rather, the data is filtered through the bias and either accepted whole cloth if it fits the existing internal narrative, no matter how unlikely the validity of the data, or rejected outright or rationalized or misinterpreted, no matter how objectively credible the source and how likely valid the data.
Further, I believe in this instance, it's justified to point out what is the most likely source of such a bias, so as to help understand how it occurs."

 

[Ron Swanson]

I have ordered the canceling and postponing of some large meetings.

Humble “I have the authority to cancel large meetings” brag