Statistical data vs emotion -

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

Makes sense to me. The shutdowns are far too extreme for the actual problem, creating a larger problem that is much worse. Some precautions and guidelines for those who will be around the most vulnerable should be the focus. Those who are somewhat more vulnerable than the healthy population should take personal precautions when indoors around larger groups of people. Flattening the curve appears to have been a success. It’s time to end the insanity ; the ridiculous notion that the government should trample individual rights to prevent anyone from contracting a virus. 

I obviously agree. Remember, those 1,000 nation wide deaths in the under 45 age group include NYC where the problem is more acute and include those with preexisting conditions...which almost surely make up 90% of the rest. So statistically speaking we shut down the entire country for a problem that MAYBE killed 100 people under the age of 50? Really? 

[Magox]

29 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nobody wants to comment? You all just want to blather in about nonsense?

 

Who are you arguing with?

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You want facts and statistics: 

 

As of one week ago since the Covid 19 story exploded there have been 600,000 American deaths in the age group of 55 and over. Of those 600,000 deaths...roughly 25,000 had been from Covid 19.
 

In that same period there have been less than 1,000 deaths of anyone under 45 years old....out of over 50,000 nation wide deaths due to all causes.

 

Can we go back to our semi-normal lives now, and be more acutely aware of our senior population? (PS: I’m a young senior!)

The comparisons to Covid and other causes of death like say heart disease is apples and oranges.  Because heart disease is not contagious.  

 

The things put into play for the pandemic, the closures and social distancing, have dramatically decreased the predicted number of deaths and has flattened the curve.  And things now will start to open up; the hospital network I work for will gradually start doing surgeries tomorrow.  My guess is most states will gradually start reopening things, with distancing and masks mandated.  We do need to start getting back to normal, but normal will be defined differently than it was a few months ago.

[Foxx]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

... The things put into play for the pandemic, the closures and social distancing, have dramatically decreased the predicted number of deaths and has flattened the curve.  ...

of course this is almost impossible to prove. however, if one were to look at the curve for say Sweden, whom did not lockdown and compare it to the US, they are almost identical.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Foxx

[oldmanfan]

19 minutes ago, Foxx said:

of course this is almost impossible to prove. however, if one were to look at the curve for say Sweden, whom did not lockdown and compare it to the Us, they are almost identical.

I think they emphasized spacing?

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

Who are you arguing with?

Everyone who thinks this is a crisis impacting the general population. It isn’t! 

[Boatdrinks]

39 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I think they emphasized spacing?

That would work for some businesses. For others that operate on small profit margins and need volume ( ie bars, restaurants) people should just have to use their own discretion and maybe even ppe if they choose. Otherwise, they should stay away from those establishments until treatments or a vaccine emerge. 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I obviously agree. Remember, those 1,000 nation wide deaths in the under 45 age group include NYC where the problem is more acute and include those with preexisting conditions...which almost surely make up 90% of the rest. So statistically speaking we shut down the entire country for a problem that MAYBE killed 100 people under the age of 50? Really? 

 

Are you arguing that there should never have been a shutdown? Or the shutdown should end immediately? Or both?

I’d say that shutting things down was important because nobody really knew anything about how bad this thing is.  Actually, nobody knows much even now.  

 

On the other hand, to to think that someone is going to come up with a foolproof treatment or a vaccine for a virus is foolish. Waiting for that to go back to “normal” isn’t going to work at all. 

 

The numbers and and data are important — but they can be used like you’re using them to say that this isn’t a big deal.  They can also be used like others are using them to say that the shutdown should continue if you want to see the numbers of sick and dying hold steady and decline gradually.  People are going to get sick and they are going to die, no matter if there’s a shutdown or not.  Herd immunity is extremely important and it is the opinion of most that gradually getting to that point is best so that the healthcare system isn’t crippled.  Ailments that AREN’T covid-19 haven’t disappeared off the map and hospitals need to be able to treat everyone who needs them — not be focused entirely on covid-19 patients.  There’s no cure for a virus, but there are steps which mitigate the spread and aid the system.

 

And I don’t think Sweden is a good comparison to the Northeast Corridor and other big urban areas in the US. And so if you compare Sweden only to places like western NY and the Midwest, then we with the shutdown are actually faring much better than Sweden (I could be wrong about that, I’m not much into the numbers).

 

Living in NYS, it is clear that a regional approach to opening thing up is probably best, but I honestly don’t know how that would work.  The economy is too interconnected and people from restricted areas will travel to other places for toilet paper and haircuts, etc.

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

39 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Everyone who thinks this is a crisis impacting the general population. It isn’t! 

Disagree. Once the country was closed down, this 'crisis' impacted the general population.

 

[Big Gun]

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation?fbclid=IwAR1QZwk5d5RsZ4ooP2d3modQ08mp5VdUvc-kqzf3JQJislDL982E80GFsA0

[SoCal Deek]

17 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Disagree. Once the country was closed down, this 'crisis' impacted the general population.

 

Correct...and now it’s passed time to fix it.

[Boatdrinks]

23 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Are you arguing that there should never have been a shutdown? Or the shutdown should end immediately? Or both?

I’d say that shutting things down was important because nobody really knew anything about how bad this thing is.  Actually, nobody knows much even now.  

 

On the other hand, to to think that someone is going to come up with a foolproof treatment or a vaccine for a virus is foolish. Waiting for that to go back to “normal” isn’t going to work at all. 

 

The numbers and and data are important — but they can be used like you’re using them to say that this isn’t a big deal.  They can also be used like others are using them to say that the shutdown should continue if you want to see the numbers of sick and dying hold steady and decline gradually.  People are going to get sick and they are going to die, no matter if there’s a shutdown or not.  Herd immunity is extremely important and it is the opinion of most that gradually getting to that point is best so that the healthcare system isn’t crippled.  Ailments that AREN’T covid-19 haven’t disappeared off the map and hospitals need to be able to treat everyone who needs them — not be focused entirely on covid-19 patients.  There’s no cure for a virus, but there are steps which mitigate the spread and aid the system.

 

And I don’t think Sweden is a good comparison to the Northeast Corridor and other big urban areas in the US. And so if you compare Sweden only to places like western NY and the Midwest, then we with the shutdown are actually faring much better than Sweden (I could be wrong about that, I’m not much into the numbers).

 

Living in NYS, it is clear that a regional approach to opening thing up is probably best, but I honestly don’t know how that would work.  The economy is too interconnected and people from restricted areas will travel to other places for toilet paper and haircuts, etc.

 

 

 

NYC is really it’s own state in many ways and needs to be treated differently. No one is driving from Flushing to West Seneca for a haircut. 

[oldmanfan]

46 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

That would work for some businesses. For others that operate on small profit margins and need volume ( ie bars, restaurants) people should just have to use their own discretion and maybe even ppe if they choose. Otherwise, they should stay away from those establishments until treatments or a vaccine emerge. 

This will be part of going forward.  I think if I were a governor I would look into mandating masks be worn by all in public, but legality would have to be determined.

 

Here’s the deal, not just with a contagious disease like coronavirus but other non-contagious diseases.  People know what they should do, it’s that they’re either too lazy, stubborn or dumb to do it.  Diabetes and heart disease are rampant in our country.  Why?  Because people don’t do things like eat properly or exercise.  Again the difference between that and the corona virus is they aren’t contagious.

 

I was at Lowe’s yesterday morning.  I would say only about half of the folks there had on masks.  And about the same percentage were staying 6 feet from others.  These are things that have been recommended and asked if the American public for weeks now, but  too high a percentage aren’t doing it.  That’s just dumb because you’re not protecting yourself, and selfish because you could spread your virus to others.  

 

As  long as people are going to behave that way, the longer it will take to get things under control.

[Boatdrinks]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

This will be part of going forward.  I think if I were a governor I would look into mandating masks be worn by all in public, but legality would have to be determined.

 

Here’s the deal, not just with a contagious disease like coronavirus but other non-contagious diseases.  People know what they should do, it’s that they’re either too lazy, stubborn or dumb to do it.  Diabetes and heart disease are rampant in our country.  Why?  Because people don’t do things like eat properly or exercise.  Again the difference between that and the corona virus is they aren’t contagious.

 

I was at Lowe’s yesterday morning.  I would say only about half of the folks there had on masks.  And about the same percentage were staying 6 feet from others.  These are things that have been recommended and asked if the American public for weeks now, but  too high a percentage aren’t doing it.  That’s just dumb because you’re not protecting yourself, and selfish because you could spread your virus to others.  

 

As  long as people are going to behave that way, the longer it will take to get things under control.

Masks should be optional in the USA. No one is going to sit in a restaurant to eat or go watch a game at a bar with a mask on, anyway. Those who wish to stay home or wear an N 95 mask can do so. Influenza is also contagious, so where does it stop ? The overwhelming majority of those who do get infected with Covid 19 will recover, and a large portion will have no symptoms. Personal responsibility and personal risk assessment win over trampling freedoms. Spacing is a reasonable concession for a time. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Boatdrinks

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

NYC is really it’s own state in many ways and needs to be treated differently. No one is driving from Flushing to West Seneca for a haircut. 

 

No, but would you consider the Poconos too far to drive (an hour and a half)?  Get a haircut, have some lunch, do a bit of shopping and drive back to Queens. How about a train ride to Atlantic City, or driving to the shore for a weekend? Does Long Island and Westchester get put into “NYC” status?  

 

I understand and the different treatment idea.  I think regions should be defined a bit larger than “NYC”. Same goes for Boston, Chicago, DC, etc.

 

 

[Tiberius]

21 minutes ago, pop gun said:

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation?fbclid=IwAR1QZwk5d5RsZ4ooP2d3modQ08mp5VdUvc-kqzf3JQJislDL982E80GFsA0

Quote

The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.

Restaurants and movie theatres? How about flying on airlines? Not sure people would even come back. Schools? Sporting events? 

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Masks should be optional in the USA. No one is going to sit in a restaurant to eat or go watch a game at a bar with a mask on, anyway. Those who wish to stay home or wear an N 95 mask can do so. Influenza is also contagious, so where does it stop ? The overwhelming majority of those who do get infected with Covid 19 will recover, and a large portion will have no symptoms. Personal responsibility and personal risk assessment win over trampling freedoms. Spacing is a reasonable concession for a time. 

Again be careful with comparisons.  With the flu there is a seasonality; we don’t know that for corona.  And for the flu there are immunizations; it will be a while for that with coronavirus.  Influenza is still an issue because some refuse to get immunized, and to be fair the virus varies in effectiveness year to year.  All of these are still to be determined with coronavirus.

 

If wearing masks in public helps get things back to some sense of normality why argue against it?

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Again be careful with comparisons.  With the flu there is a seasonality; we don’t know that for corona.  And for the flu there are immunizations; it will be a while for that with coronavirus.  Influenza is still an issue because some refuse to get immunized, and to be fair the virus varies in effectiveness year to year.  All of these are still to be determined with coronavirus.

 

If wearing masks in public helps get things back to some sense of normality why argue against it?

It’s too restrictive and we are not a society that wears face coverings. Personal choice is best. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

If wearing masks in public helps get things back to some sense of normality why argue against it?

 

Because the data that says it will help get us back to normal is incomplete and wearing a mask is not returning to normalcy, it's a deviation from it to the absurd.  

 

And, in this country, we have a stubborn streak of enjoying freedom in the face of tyranny. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Again be careful with comparisons.  With the flu there is a seasonality; we don’t know that for corona.  And for the flu there are immunizations; it will be a while for that with coronavirus.  Influenza is still an issue because some refuse to get immunized, and to be fair the virus varies in effectiveness year to year.  All of these are still to be determined with coronavirus.

 

If wearing masks in public helps get things back to some sense of normality why argue against it?

Why not a burka?  I always want my government mandating what I need to wear to go out in public.