Jump to content
IGNORED

COVID-19...Preparation, or hysteria?


TheX

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, AustinBike said:

I disagree with your statement about opening things being tied to paychecks, it is tied to how willing you are to have other people die. Some of us are willing to stay inside so that our other neighbors have a better chance. 

Why doesn’t your neighbor just stay inside? Why does everyone have to be punished for a few being scared? Why does my decision to provide for my family mean that I don’t care if someone dies? When I drive, I have a chance that I could get in a wreck and kill someone or myself. Should I not drive? If you wanna stay home, stay home. 
 

Quarantine is when you restrict the movement of sick people. What is it called when the government restricts the movement of people who are not sick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JMR said:

Why doesn’t your neighbor just stay inside? Why does everyone have to be punished for a few being scared? Why does my decision to provide for my family mean that I don’t care if someone dies? When I drive, I have a chance that I could get in a wreck and kill someone or myself. Should I not drive? If you wanna stay home, stay home. 
 

Quarantine is when you restrict the movement of sick people. What is it called when the government restricts the movement of people who are not sick?

This would almost be a non-issue if the citizens were getting the same financial support from their government that other more advanced (read not 2nd world) countries are offering. Since we practically live in a dystopian corporatocracy, we are actively having discussions about risk vs reward and becoming destitute or potentially dying. But hey don't worry, big money was never sad. Not for a millisecond. That would be unamerican and our"leaders" saw to that.

The consolidation of wealth and power from this will make 911 look like amateur hour. 

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JMR said:

Lol! I’m sorry. The answer we were looking for is “Tyranny”. 😂

OK , Curious-- How is it tyranny to ask people to stay home so they don't get sick and spread a virus? Seems to me that this common sense. Now if the military was rolling through the hood and using force  --that to me would be tyranny. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cafeend said:

OK , Curious-- How is it tyranny to ask people to stay home so they don't get sick and spread a virus? Seems to me that this common sense. Now if the military was rolling through the hood and using force  --that to me would be tyranny. 

 

Just my opinion but, wouldn’t it be too obvious if tanks were rolling down our streets? They made us think it was common sense by calling it shelter in place. Or self quarantine. If it’s really about keeping our distance from each other to not spread a virus, why do they arrest a man playing ball with his son in a deserted park? What about the guy paddle boarding alone at the beach getting arrested? 
 

Would a government start tyranny with guns ablazin’ when we’re all armed? Or, would they convince us that it’s a good idea? That it’s for “the greater good”? Does the government really have our best interests in mind?

Maybe my head is cooking inside this tinfoil hat.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that every government around the world is issuing some sort of stay at home orders? Did all world leader meet in some back room and say "Hey, let's unleash a highly contagious virus into the general population so we can convince them to stay home, then tyrannize them." Good plan. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMR said:

Just my opinion but, wouldn’t it be too obvious if tanks were rolling down our streets? They made us think it was common sense by calling it shelter in place. Or self quarantine. If it’s really about keeping our distance from each other to not spread a virus, why do they arrest a man playing ball with his son in a deserted park? What about the guy paddle boarding alone at the beach getting arrested? 
 

Would a government start tyranny with guns ablazin’ when we’re all armed? Or, would they convince us that it’s a good idea? That it’s for “the greater good”? Does the government really have our best interests in mind?

Maybe my head is cooking inside this tinfoil hat.....

We can discuss hypothetical situations all day long. And don't get me wrong, I can agree this is a slippery slope to having big brother find his way further down our pants. That doesn't change the fact that this is a pervasive disease that has impacted peoples lives forever. We only seem to care about shit when it's either happening to us, or someone we care about. Otherwise, we can't be bothered. Even after all my years in the auto industry my heart hasn't hardened enough to behave like that.

What's a fact if you're really afraid of tyranny, is that our leaders, both dems and reps have renewed the patriot act every time it came up for expiration. We even got a v2.0 that hit the clause and was signed again by the very same dems that said our current president was the biggest threat to democracy in our lifetime. Like clockwork they play the part, sign your money and freedoms away and laugh about it over drinks. You know what major news network or candidate raised a red flag about that? Not one. Did any of us call our representatives or apply pressure to let the patriot act expire? No. 

 

That's the f*ckin problem, not a guy paddleboarding.

 

Rant/ off

Edited by ATXZJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can sit here and debate the merits of reopening or staying sheltered in place all day. We are very fortunate to be where we are located geographically in the US. We had plenty of time to get information and make decisions on sheltering in place to slow the spread of the virus and it appears to have worked. We need to remember we are somewhat isolated from this compared to cities like NY and Seattle. We may be in good shape now but what happens when we reopen and the people who are too dumb or don't care start mingling again and we face a second wave of this. In the 1918 Spanish flu 3-5 million died in the very beginning, they used the same method we are currently using by sheltering. They saw the infection rate dropping and reopened everything, then came the second wave of the flu and between 50-100 million people died. I am not as concerned about this as I was when this first started but I am concerned enough to limit my exposure as much as practically possible.

They can reopen all they want I am still going to act as if this is a real danger. Until we know exactly who has had this and has antibodies we need to be cautious as to how we act. The only way we can go back to "NORMAL" is herd immunity. Now herd immunity doesn't mean grouping people together and infecting them. We get herd immunity two ways one by getting the virus and two by getting a vaccine. Until we have adequate testing and eventually a vaccine we need to be smart and cautious, but since we don't have a vaccine this all we can do.

On the other side there seems to be some data indicating more people have had this than we thought. I've also read some articles stating that this may have been around as early as late summer early fall, if that is the case then more people have been infected than we know meaning we are further along in herd immunity than suspected which is a good thing. One article I read stated that when the first positive case was confirmed in NY there were already 10,000 people infected. As this progresses and more people have gotten it we can start going back to doing our normal activities. Until then I'm going to act as if. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my opinion but, wouldn’t it be too obvious if tanks were rolling down our streets? They made us think it was common sense by calling it shelter in place. Or self quarantine. If it’s really about keeping our distance from each other to not spread a virus, why do they arrest a man playing ball with his son in a deserted park? What about the guy paddle boarding alone at the beach getting arrested? 
 
Would a government start tyranny with guns ablazin’ when we’re all armed? Or, would they convince us that it’s a good idea? That it’s for “the greater good”? Does the government really have our best interests in mind?
Maybe my head is cooking inside this tinfoil hat.....
Well fair enough, Thanks. Looking at the big picture with the guy in the park. I dont know.. when you are asked for an ID and give lip.. yea I think you will get hassled. Anyways there is normally more to the story than a headline grabbing statement like Man gets arrested while playing with son... anyways. I know we the people need to be careful with what the govt does but not everything requires a tin foil hat. Could simply be the powers that be simply dont want to deal with deaths. How do you do that? Staying home. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JMR said:

 When I drive, I have a chance that I could get in a wreck and kill someone or myself. Should I not drive? 
 

I think that is a good analogy. "If it would save just one life...." is just wrong in a lot of ways. Yes we could save 50,000 lives a year if we all gave up driving. But at what cost? At what cost? (he repeated dramatically)

But the decision making problem, and the arguments one way or the other, are complicated by the fact that there are no facts about what we are saving in lives. The models have already been proven wrong. Then they come out with new models. And those were wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better analogy is drinking and driving. One beer, good to go. Three beers, four, six, ten? Hell, you can drink enough to barely be conscious and still make it home...sometimes. It's all about increasing the level of risk.

Now, let's pretend you could get drunk by just driving too close to someone else who's drunk and you would have no clue that you were drunk for up to 2 weeks or maybe not at all. During this time, you are spreading your drunkenness to countless others. Then, factor in how drunk everyone else on the road is. If this ridiculous scenario could actually happen, would you just continue commuting through traffic everyday and taking road trips (maybe give a little more space between cars)? Fuck no. That would be terrifying to think that drunk people are driving all over the place and don't even know it. I'd stay off the roads as much as possible. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drunks don't scare me half as much as the people on their phones because there's a lot more of those mother f*ckers than there are drunks. Living in new mexico, i can speak from experience when it comes to DUIs.

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, notyal said:

A better analogy is drinking and driving. One beer, good to go. Three beers, four, six, ten? Hell, you can drink enough to barely be conscious and still make it home...sometimes. It's all about increasing the level of risk.

Now, let's pretend you could get drunk by just driving too close to someone else who's drunk and you would have no clue that you were drunk for up to 2 weeks or maybe not at all. During this time, you are spreading your drunkenness to countless others. Then, factor in how drunk everyone else on the road is. If this ridiculous scenario could actually happen, would you just continue commuting through traffic everyday and taking road trips (maybe give a little more space between cars)? Fuck no. That would be terrifying to think that drunk people are driving all over the place and don't even know it. I'd stay off the roads as much as possible. 

Have you been drinking today?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1974, the government of Michael Manly, who in 1978 was given a standing ovation at the UN after his speech, in 1974 built a detention facility named The Gun Court. It was suppose to be for people related to gun crimes, but it became a political detention center as well. And this was done just two years into the four year election cycle Manley had won. Along with the "...indefinite detention..." law (implemented after a national State of Emergency was enacted), The Gun Court became an iconic symbol of political oppression.

Here's a link to a Jamaican's view on the matter of "...indefinite detention..."... And a photo of the Gun Court.

Being dropped off at high school, I would drive pass it five days a week. Funny how some 40-odd years later I can still remember it clearly.

And FYI... At that time Jamaica had rich people making money as usual.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/opinion/are-permanent-detentions-the-way-forward-_162471?profile=1444

I0000at9zQGlvtCY.jpg

Edited by RidingAgain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people in public health know this:  after a an epidemic/pandemic is over, NEVER will you hear, "they nailed it.  We did all the right things."  It's either "we didn't do enough soon enough" or "what happened to all the deaths they warned us about?  They overreacted".   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ATXZJ said:

The drunks don't scare me half as much as the people on their phones because there's a lot more of those mother f*ckers than there are drunks. Living in new mexico, i can speak from experience when it comes to DUIs.

Nothing worse than woke drunks😂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AntonioGG said:

The people in public health know this:  after a an epidemic/pandemic is over, NEVER will you hear, "they nailed it.  We did all the right things."  It's either "we didn't do enough soon enough" or "what happened to all the deaths they warned us about?  They overreacted".   

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notyal said:

A better analogy is drinking and driving. One beer, good to go. Three beers, four, six, ten? Hell, you can drink enough to barely be conscious and still make it home...sometimes. It's all about increasing the level of risk.

Now, let's pretend you could get drunk by just driving too close to someone else who's drunk and you would have no clue that you were drunk for up to 2 weeks or maybe not at all. During this time, you are spreading your drunkenness to countless others. Then, factor in how drunk everyone else on the road is. If this ridiculous scenario could actually happen, would you just continue commuting through traffic everyday and taking road trips (maybe give a little more space between cars)? Fuck no. That would be terrifying to think that drunk people are driving all over the place and don't even know it. I'd stay off the roads as much as possible. 

What if 98% of the drunks didn’t have symptoms, didn’t drive all over the roads? Would you still not drive? If 2% of the people showed symptoms? I don’t know the statistics, but I would think that in a 24 hour period, there’s more drunks than 2%. I risk it everyday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMR said:

What if 98% of the drunks didn’t have symptoms, didn’t drive all over the roads? Would you still not drive? If 2% of the people showed symptoms? I don’t know the statistics, but I would think that in a 24 hour period, there’s more drunks than 2%. I risk it everyday. 

If 98% of drunk drivers made it home without consequence each night (i.e. didn't show symptoms), yet the total number of drunk drivers was growing exponentially, yeah I'd stay off the roads as much as possible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, notyal said:

If 98% of drunk drivers made it home without consequence each night (i.e. didn't show symptoms), yet the total number of drunk drivers was growing exponentially, yeah I'd stay off the roads as much as possible.

What is the defining thing? Where's the line? 

What if you had the munchies and needed food? What if you wanted to go pick up your buddy? What if you needed another six pack at home?

There's a point, whatever the consequences, that you will take the risk for the desired thing. That is what this unanswerable debate is about. When is the unknown risk worth the known reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chief said:

We can sit here and debate the merits of reopening or staying sheltered in place all day. We are very fortunate to be where we are located geographically in the US. We had plenty of time to get information and make decisions on sheltering in place to slow the spread of the virus and it appears to have worked. We need to remember we are somewhat isolated from this compared to cities like NY and Seattle. We may be in good shape now but what happens when we reopen and the people who are too dumb or don't care start mingling again and we face a second wave of this. In the 1918 Spanish flu 3-5 million died in the very beginning, they used the same method we are currently using by sheltering. They saw the infection rate dropping and reopened everything, then came the second wave of the flu and between 50-100 million people died. I am not as concerned about this as I was when this first started but I am concerned enough to limit my exposure as much as practically possible.

They can reopen all they want I am still going to act as if this is a real danger. Until we know exactly who has had this and has antibodies we need to be cautious as to how we act. The only way we can go back to "NORMAL" is herd immunity. Now herd immunity doesn't mean grouping people together and infecting them. We get herd immunity two ways one by getting the virus and two by getting a vaccine. Until we have adequate testing and eventually a vaccine we need to be smart and cautious, but since we don't have a vaccine this all we can do.

On the other side there seems to be some data indicating more people have had this than we thought. I've also read some articles stating that this may have been around as early as late summer early fall, if that is the case then more people have been infected than we know meaning we are further along in herd immunity than suspected which is a good thing. One article I read stated that when the first positive case was confirmed in NY there were already 10,000 people infected. As this progresses and more people have gotten it we can start going back to doing our normal activities. Until then I'm going to act as if. 

I did some quick math on herd immunity. It basically says that the threshold needs to be 80-95%. The concept of herd immunity relies HEAVILY on vaccines. If 80-95% are vaccinated then you *might* be at herd immunity.

But we have no vaccine, so when people argue herd immunity they are saying that 80-95% have antibodies because they have had the virus.

So, what does herd immunity look like in the US? Well, we have 370M people.

For 80% herd immunity (the VERY lower limit) you would have 296M people how had the virus. Based on a 2% death rate, that is 5.9 MILLION deaths.

For 95% herd immunity (the upper limit) you would have 350M people infected and over 7M deaths.

And that assumes that having antibodies means you cannot re-contract the virus, something the CDC and The WHO are not willing to commit.

So, in a nutshell, the argument for herd immunity is we're gonna have ~6-7M dead. Just imagine the economic toll of 6-7M dead Americans. I don't think we'd ever recover.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AustinBike said:

I did some quick math on herd immunity. It basically says that the threshold needs to be 80-95%. The concept of herd immunity relies HEAVILY on vaccines. If 80-95% are vaccinated then you *might* be at herd immunity.

But we have no vaccine, so when people argue herd immunity they are saying that 80-95% have antibodies because they have had the virus.

So, what does herd immunity look like in the US? Well, we have 370M people.

For 80% herd immunity (the VERY lower limit) you would have 296M people how had the virus. Based on a 2% death rate, that is 5.9 MILLION deaths.

For 95% herd immunity (the upper limit) you would have 350M people infected and over 7M deaths.

And that assumes that having antibodies means you cannot re-contract the virus, something the CDC and The WHO are not willing to commit.

So, in a nutshell, the argument for herd immunity is we're gonna have ~6-7M dead. Just imagine the economic toll of 6-7M dead Americans. I don't think we'd ever recover.

Totally agree. From all the information I've seen it looks like the CFR will be somewhere around 1% hopefully lower. If like your math states and we reach a CFR of 2% you're right financially it will be a start over and we're f@cked. As far as commitment from the CDC and WHO on reinfection I don't think there are any clear numbers. Something I did see was that some people who have been infected are not showing any antibodies so this is something that may be of concern moving forward also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, there are plenty of concerns on antibodies and way too little information to make any definitive statements. Could you imagine the gamble to send 5-7M people to their deaths in order to build up a herd immunity only to find out that the herd is still unprotected because people can get it a second time (there are existing cases like this), some people who get it show no antibodies (based on your comment), or that the virus mutates and the herd is unprotected from the new strain. This is why opening up so soon is a horrific gamble. I'd be fine to say "eh, let the bone wipes who go get tattoos or haircuts suffer, it will thin the herd" but unfortunately the medical community is in the crosshairs on this one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Albert locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...