Originally posted by -Pr-
I heard you the first time. I just don't agree. And, as nicely as I can put it, I feel more comfortable trusting my actual doctors (plural) than, essentially, some guy on the internet.
Please do follow the advice of your doctors and professionals. Covid-19's not just some "little flu". We're over 220K dead in the US and rising.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't worry, you're not a bad-faith troll so I have no problem repeating stuff I've posted over and over in this thread. I only do the "look it up yourself" to people are are not interested in honest discussion and just want to troll.My opinion, which I do not know if it is backed by actual high quality research, is to setup those sanitization spray stations before entering common areas. I think they worked really well in China.
On top of that, strict protections for elder care facilities on who can enter. That worked and has shown to have worked. It should not be left up to the states or cities to protect the elder care facilities. It should be federally mandated (or, nationally mandated, in your country's case). I would hold the same opinion if a virus had a majority Infection Fatality rate among the young, as well. While it would be devastating to the economy, if a virus had 84% of all deaths among the 15 and younger crowd, and an infection fatality rate of 16% among that age group, sorry, but you'd need to protect that age group with strict controls. That's what SARS-CoV-2 is for the 75 and older crowd.
And for people like you, extra precautions would be necessary regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic situation - same precautions for people like you at all times, year round. You know best and your doctor knows your medical situation best so what precautions you take should be up to you to decide (and not follow, if you don't care about your health, as well - shouldn't be our choice, should be yours).
The narrative has shifted, lately, on what governments should be doing. They are not talking about lockdowns as much, anymore. And many orgs are now discussing and talking about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns as a mortality-control measure.
For example, the WHO statement I posted about a page back or a couple of pages back. Or this WSJ article, which was largely pro-lockdown during the early days of the outbreak:
I know those are news sources but the WHO, if seen as an authority, should be considered now that we have more data and research to determine what actually works. WSJ is just a news org but when they properly source their article, it lends itself to better credibility on "what policy works."
And for large cities and countries who have reached what is being called the "steady state", there is a consistent new-case measure. Meaning, there is a floor limit and you will always have a minimum number of new cases. The goal is to have enough of your population naturally immune that you can't really experience an outbreak. The protections in place at elder care facilities should always be followed, however. Every flu and cold season, you can kill the elderly if you let sick relatives and friends visit. This has always been true. It's just more obvious, now.
We also know that lockdowns very much disproportionately negatively affect the poor. It's an elitist policy and we know from prior research, the economic devastation is going to take more lives than it could save, regardless of what any controversial limited benefit research shows.
I'm being long-winded but if you are at risk, a great measure would be those sanitization spray stations that you walk through. It would be good for you and everyone.
However...there are also other issues with trying to create a clean-room in the world - it would harm immune system strength and make us susceptible to other illnesses in the future that we might not otherwise be. It's a very complicated situation and has ridiculous nuance.
So your assertion is that we should just... carry on as if there isn't a pandemic? Treat it like the flu etc?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Originally posted by Robtard
Please do follow the advice of your doctors and professionals. Covid-19's not just some "little flu". We're over 220K dead in the US and rising.
Oh, trust me, I'm taking every reasonable precaution.
I'm not taking any risks.
Originally posted by Bashar TegThat's the story all over the news. My town is more infected than most probably because it's close to a big urban area, but we're not as bad as other places that are more metro. But yeah, the UK are calling for a second lockdown, the graph says it all.
looks like you're in the middle of a second wave. we're teetering on the start of our own in nj
Originally posted by Surtur
And then you see places like Sweden that didn't shut down and aren't really worse off than us, right?
Actually, while they are done dealing with it, the rest of the modern world is dealing with a second wave. Sweden continues to drop down the list while many other countries continue to pass it. They went from #2 deaths per million to #13. A few months ago, news outlets and government officials mocked and criticized Sweden for their approach. Now, places are not doing that. And Sweden can brag about it.
Be fit. Be sparsely populated. And you can have great numbers, though.
Originally posted by Raptor22
DDM mumbled angrily to himself as he watched PR thru his back window. 😛
More accurate is like this:
"I am not just some guy on the internet", dadudemon quietly protested as he watched -PR- live a successful and happy life.
Originally posted by -Pr-
So your assertion is that we should just... carry on as if there isn't a pandemic? Treat it like the flu etc?
Sort of. What you sugest is almost the suggestion of world leading epidemiologists' opinions. The main key difference from what you're stating and what they suggest is protecting the elderly. But, this would be true of every flu and cold season.
Another suggestion, backed by actual research, is affordable and comprehensive universal healthcare. This has been proven to also save lives. Something the US does not have.
Originally posted by Blakemore
I always wear a mask if I'm going somewhere. Not taking any risks.DDM: 1. masks don't work
DDM: 2. more people die from flu and pneumonia than COVID
DDM: 3. treat it like the flu
4. what, treat this pandemic like it's a virus that kills more people, due to poor hygeine?5. Are you ****ing retarded?
1. That's almost 100% correct based on the science. And I've covered it thoroughly, by this point. If you still believe all masks help, with the exception of respirators (and the science is still not solid on it), you're an obstinate idiot. Unsure why wearing masks became the icon of righteousness and pro-science when in reality, it's just not a supportable position.
2. Never said that. Do better with your strawman's by not using outright lies.
3. Since it kills more elderly than the flu per infection, no, you shouldn't. The flu kills more young, though. You should treat them slightly differently. But they do have similar symptoms and infection vectors.
4. That doesn't even make sense. Try to make your strawman's at least make sense. Go back to the drawing board and make a better strawman.
5. Not even a little. Relative to you? I'm doing pretty well for myself. But you're not bad, yourself. Are you able to explain why you're so hostile towards me, lately? Do you feel like it puts you into a "cool people" clique?
Originally posted by dadudemonYou did say flu was more infectious. Don't lie.
Actually, while they are done dealing with it, the rest of the modern world is dealing with a second wave. Sweden continues to drop down the list while many other countries continue to pass it. They went from #2 deaths per million to #13. A few months ago, news outlets and government officials mocked and criticized Sweden for their approach. Now, places are not doing that. And Sweden can brag about it.Be fit. Be sparsely populated. And you can have great numbers, though.
More accurate is like this:
"I am not just some guy on the internet", dadudemon quietly protested as he watched -PR- live a successful and happy life.
Sort of. What you sugest is almost the suggestion of world leading epidemiologists' opinions. The main key difference from what you're stating and what they suggest is protecting the elderly. But, this would be true of every flu and cold season.
Another suggestion, backed by actual research, is affordable and comprehensive universal healthcare. This has been proven to also save lives. Something the US does not have.
1. That's almost 100% correct based on the science. And I've covered it thoroughly, by this point. If you still believe all masks help, with the exception of respirators (and the science is still not solid on it), you're an obstinate idiot. Unsure why wearing masks became the icon of righteousness and pro-science when in reality, it's just not a supportable position.
2. Never said that. Do better with your strawman's by not using outright lies.
3. Since it kills more elderly than the flu per infection, no, you shouldn't. The flu kills more young, though. You should treat them slightly differently. But they do have similar symptoms and infection vectors.
4. That doesn't even make sense. Try to make your strawman's at least make sense. Go back to the drawing board and make a better strawman.
5. Not even a little. Relative to you? I'm doing pretty well for myself. But you're not bad, yourself. Are you able to explain why you're so hostile towards me, lately? Do you feel like it puts you into a "cool people" clique?
As for science, you're a ****ing mormon! You wouldn't know science if it hit you!
Originally posted by Robtard
Please do follow the advice of your doctors and professionals. Covid-19's not just some "little flu". We're over 220K dead in the US and rising.
The flu is actually much more deadly than the Coronavirus. The CDC has already said that only 6% of the official Covid death count number are covid-only deaths. Meaning that 94% of them had other factors contributing to the person dying.
I know I've said that like a half-dozen times already but people like you just keep pushing the fear-mongering propaganda.
If I had to choose between becoming infected with the common flu and the Coronavirus I would choose the latter any day of the week because I know my odds of survival would be a heck of a lot higher.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeIf that is the case, shouldn't we be cautious of seasonal flu too?
The flu is actually much more deadly than the Coronavirus. The CDC has already said that only 6% of the official Covid death count number are covid-only deaths. Meaning that 94% of them had other factors contributing to the person dying.I know I've said that like a half-dozen times already but people like you just keep pushing the fear-mongering propaganda.
If I had to choose between becoming infected with the common flu and the Coronavirus I would choose the latter any day of the week because I know my odds of survival would be a heck of a lot higher.
Originally posted by Blakemore
You did say flu was more infectious. Don't lie.
No I didn't. This is specifically what I said about it in this post on April 1st:
Originally posted by dadudemon
The R0 is higher and the mortality rate is lower.
And since actual mortality figures are bivariate (infection numbers and deaths), there is a point in the data where the number of people infected would create a larger set of deaths than the flu. This is obvious.
How was it possible for my model to correctly predict the number of deaths, which quickly exceeded the number of 2017-2018 flu season deaths in April before I adjusted my model to a higher R0, while at the same time claiming the flu was deadlier?
You've gotta stop with the witch-hunt. It's not there. And you've repeatedly made yourself look weird and creepy.
Originally posted by dadudemonTurns out, eThneo said what I thought you said, but the points still stands that you had to adjust your figures and you haven't even taken lockdown into account because it completely destroys your argument. Did you see the post I made with the BBC post in it?
No I didn't. This is specifically what I said about it in this post on April 1st:And since actual mortality figures are bivariate (infection numbers and deaths), there is a point in the data where the number of people infected would create a larger set of deaths than the flu. This is obvious.
How was it possible for my model to correctly predict the number of deaths, which quickly exceeded the number of 2017-2018 flu season deaths in April before I adjusted my model to a higher R0, while at the same time claiming the flu was deadlier?
You've gotta stop with the witch-hunt. It's not there. And you've repeatedly made yourself look weird and creepy.
Originally posted by dadudemonI can't believe you actually made me do this facepalm
My model shows us at ~230,000 by the end of Jan, 2021.Keep in mind, tens of thousands of elderly were dying from interrelated diseases and illnesses that include cold viruses like coronavirus, each year, before SARS-CoV-2.
They will continue to die each year, by the tens of thousands, forever and ever.
Edit - Note that positives per test and just raw positive test cases have been significantly dropping for weeks. And the population being infected also affects the mortality figures. If the younger people are the ones testing positive, it doesn't matter how many get infected, almost none of them will die - CDC has their mortality rate at like .003%. The "death" delay is about 21 days. We started seeing declines in August and the deaths started dropping around 21 days after that.
Although I will apologize. You said by end of January 2021 not by end of year. So your estimate was even more off then I gave you credit for.