It's just the flu!
04-29-2020, 07:30 PM
#271
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
Originally Posted by Anson Harris
Hey, come back with those goalposts....
People refuse to admit what they don't know. You have zero knowledge of what effect social distancing measures have on total deaths (not to be confused with "flattening the curve"). I'll reference the IMHE numbers numbers for the sake of discussion, but let's not forget at all where those numbers started. It's very convenient to say that the social distancing measures are the reason the models were so wrong to begin with. To use another cliche: heads you win, tails I lose.
People refuse to admit what they don't know. You have zero knowledge of what effect social distancing measures have on total deaths (not to be confused with "flattening the curve"). I'll reference the IMHE numbers numbers for the sake of discussion, but let's not forget at all where those numbers started. It's very convenient to say that the social distancing measures are the reason the models were so wrong to begin with. To use another cliche: heads you win, tails I lose.
This is not over. I wouldn't be declaring those predictions inaccurate just yet.
04-30-2020, 07:19 AM
#272
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Anson Harris
I think you're continually missing the point about any comparisons to the flu. Even now, the flu and covid are in roughly a dead heat (but it remains to be seen what covid does over the course of one year, including estimating what it did before we knew about it fully).
To me, the point is not to dismiss covid as a non-issue. Even with how deadly the flu is, we basically do nothing as a society to deal with it. Yes, we tell people to get flu shots, but that's largely driven by people's economic motivations (less absenteeism, etc.). Other than that, no one does any kind of "social distancing" or other strategies to prevent flu deaths. We utterly tolerate 50-80k deaths each season (in the US alone).
The purpose of the flu comparison is to calibrate a discussion on what sorts of actions are justified in order to prevent a certain number of deaths. This is where the real debate should be. It's subjective, and people will disagree.
To me, it's sheer lunacy to say that 50k deaths require basically no action at all, but 72k deaths (current IMHE projection) requires shutting down the economy and trampling on the rights of every single person. Beyond that, it's a give-and-take. If the deaths were 150k, maybe we require some forms of social distancing. Personally, I feel like the deaths would have to be 500k or more to justify what's currently being done, AND the measures taken would need waaaaaay more proof that they are actually going to accomplish something before just blindly implementing them.
To me, the point is not to dismiss covid as a non-issue. Even with how deadly the flu is, we basically do nothing as a society to deal with it. Yes, we tell people to get flu shots, but that's largely driven by people's economic motivations (less absenteeism, etc.). Other than that, no one does any kind of "social distancing" or other strategies to prevent flu deaths. We utterly tolerate 50-80k deaths each season (in the US alone).
The purpose of the flu comparison is to calibrate a discussion on what sorts of actions are justified in order to prevent a certain number of deaths. This is where the real debate should be. It's subjective, and people will disagree.
To me, it's sheer lunacy to say that 50k deaths require basically no action at all, but 72k deaths (current IMHE projection) requires shutting down the economy and trampling on the rights of every single person. Beyond that, it's a give-and-take. If the deaths were 150k, maybe we require some forms of social distancing. Personally, I feel like the deaths would have to be 500k or more to justify what's currently being done, AND the measures taken would need waaaaaay more proof that they are actually going to accomplish something before just blindly implementing them.
04-30-2020, 09:03 AM
#273
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Originally Posted by popcopy
The point of this meme as that for each time the meme gets updated with the latest death count the incompetence of the "it's no worse than the flu" crowd shines even brighter. Maybe they'll begin to realize they were wrong all along and the actions taken by the government are justified.
04-30-2020, 09:00 PM
#274
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Reclining
Posts: 840
The debate really comes down to what is “acceptable risk”. The problem is, if you ask 100 people, you’ll get 100 different answers. My personal opinion regarding this has essentially been this: The level of panic does not seem proportional to the severity of the disease. If this were a Will Smith “I Am Legend” situation, I’d be locked down with my 5.56 and a couple of buddies, MREs and a crap ton of ammo. However, to me, coronavirus does not warrant a complete destruction of our economy and trillions of dollars in debt. I believe we need to open up, isolate and protect the vulnerable, and get on with life. But that’s my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.....
05-01-2020, 07:45 AM
#275
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,528
From Pennsylvania:
Dr. Donald Yealy of UPMC in Pittsburgh, Pa. speaks to reporters during an online briefing on April 30, 2020.
24.3k
shares
By David Wenner | [email protected]A UPMC doctor on Thursday made a case the death rate for people infected with the new coronavirus may be as low as 0.25% — far lower than the mortality rates of 2-4% or even higher cited in the early days of the pandemic.
Dr. Donald Yealy based it partly on studies of levels of coronavirus antibodies detected in people in New York and California, and partly on COVID-19 deaths in the Pittsburgh region. The studies found that 5-20% of people had been exposed to the coronavirus, with many noticing only mild illness or none at all, he said
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/0...to-normal.html
UPMC doctor argues COVID-19 not as deadly as feared, says its hospitals will shift back to normal
Updated Apr 30, 2020; Posted Apr 30, 2020Dr. Donald Yealy of UPMC in Pittsburgh, Pa. speaks to reporters during an online briefing on April 30, 2020.24.3k
shares
By David Wenner | [email protected]A UPMC doctor on Thursday made a case the death rate for people infected with the new coronavirus may be as low as 0.25% — far lower than the mortality rates of 2-4% or even higher cited in the early days of the pandemic.
Dr. Donald Yealy based it partly on studies of levels of coronavirus antibodies detected in people in New York and California, and partly on COVID-19 deaths in the Pittsburgh region. The studies found that 5-20% of people had been exposed to the coronavirus, with many noticing only mild illness or none at all, he said
05-01-2020, 10:48 AM
#276
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,032
Originally Posted by Excargodog
05-15-2020, 10:16 AM
#279
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,122
Originally Posted by popcopy
Stay inside dude, no one is making you go out. Many of us are willing to pave the way for you to get your life back. The problem is when you want to stay home and want everyone else to stay home too. You can’t make choices for other people.
This is going to challenge the whole idea of freedom. The lawsuits are already flying.
05-15-2020, 11:34 AM
#280
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by aldonite7667
Stay inside dude, no one is making you go out. Many of us are willing to pave the way for you to get your life back. The problem is when you want to stay home and want everyone else to stay home too. You can’t make choices for other people.
This is going to challenge the whole idea of freedom. The lawsuits are already flying.
This is going to challenge the whole idea of freedom. The lawsuits are already flying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
