Coronavirus COVID-19

[JohnStOnge]

Yes. The media and politicians have done a phenomenal job in making the general public afraid of something that has a 99.75% survival rate on the off chance you do catch it.

More about concern for others, not fear. I've lost 3 friends to covid, none were in nursing homes, 1 retired, 2 still working when they were infected.

Only fear I see is the Trumpettes projecting fake fear rumors.

It's about doing your part to break the chains of transmission. The disease inflicts a high cost and also stresses our health care system. The main reason for trying to cooperate with efforts to slow the spread down is to avoid becoming a vector.

Or the mask thing. I think I may have written this before but this society supports laws requiring wearing seat belts and law throwing people in jail if they get caught driving with BAC >0.08. Seat belt laws save an estimated 15,000 per year. In 2001 people were arguing for nationwide 0.08 BAC laws by saying they would save something like 1,200 lives per year (see https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/does- ... 8-bac-laws). Again: That's per YEAR.

In October, it was estimated that universal mask usage in the United States would save 130,000 lives by February. See https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/23/uni ... tudy-says/. That's four months.

Yes. We are going to throw people in jail and make their lives miserable having to blow into devices to use the cars, etc.if they go to their daughter's wedding and have enough champagne to raise their BAC to 0.08 and happen to get stopped while driving 10 miles to get back to their house in order to to save like 1,200 lives per year from traffic accidents but we are going to say that telling somebody to wear a mask in public is this HUGE infringement when everybody wearing a mask in public would save about 100 times and many lives.

Many of the same people who want to throw the book at somebody caught driving with 0.08 think we should have a revolution over telling somebody to wear a mask when they go into a supermarket where all those poor supermarket employees have to sit there all day with people they don't know anything about coming in and we are in the midst of the worst pandemic in over a century.

The saddest thing for me, as a conservative, is that this stupidness is mostly coming from conservatives. Just reinforcing the justifiable perception that "conservative" = "idiot."

[kalm]

Yes. The media and politicians have done a phenomenal job in making the general public afraid of something that has a 99.75% survival rate on the off chance you do catch it.

It’s 1.7% in the US. Much higher in some countries.

How many deaths are worth opening up for voluntarily avoided businesses? Would that reopening have increased or decreased the death rate both Covid related and non-Covid related?

(By the way, Economists were suggesting this set of circumstances back in April).

[kalm]

More about concern for others, not fear. I've lost 3 friends to covid, none were in nursing homes, 1 retired, 2 still working when they were infected.

Only fear I see is the Trumpettes projecting fake fear rumors.

Oh please. There’s enough “Karen” videos out there to freeze up the internet, FFS.

Most of the Karen videos I’ve seen are of Karen’s freaking out over mask wearing and social distancing. That bitch, Karen, transcends politics...also gender.

[Gil Dobie]

More about concern for others, not fear. I've lost 3 friends to covid, none were in nursing homes, 1 retired, 2 still working when they were infected.

Only fear I see is the Trumpettes projecting fake fear rumors.

Oh please. There’s enough “Karen” videos out there to freeze up the internet, FFS.

Along with the Kellyannes with the Trumpette fear post.

[kalm]

A good read on the cerebral cortex, cortisol, binge activities, and pandemic induced agitation.

The prolonged traumatic, or "chronic toxic," stress that most people have been experiencing throughout the pandemic makes it more difficult to keep desires in check, and it in turn promotes illogical pleasure-seeking, said Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor emeritus of pediatric endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and author of "Metabolical." In scientific terms: When brains are flooded with the stress hormone cortisol on a long-term basis, it inhibits the function of the prefrontal cortex, leading to excessive activation of the "reward center" of the brain — triggering the excessive baking, drinking, smoking and shopping that filled the idle hours of 2020.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yo ... aqs2mGOfH0

[AZGrizFan]

Oh please. There’s enough “Karen” videos out there to freeze up the internet, FFS.

Along with the Kellyannes with the Trumpette fear post.

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

[AZGrizFan]

A good read on the cerebral cortex, cortisol, binge activities, and pandemic induced agitation.

The prolonged traumatic, or "chronic toxic," stress that most people have been experiencing throughout the pandemic makes it more difficult to keep desires in check, and it in turn promotes illogical pleasure-seeking, said Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor emeritus of pediatric endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and author of "Metabolical." In scientific terms: When brains are flooded with the stress hormone cortisol on a long-term basis, it inhibits the function of the prefrontal cortex, leading to excessive activation of the "reward center" of the brain — triggering the excessive baking, drinking, smoking and shopping that filled the idle hours of 2020.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yo ... aqs2mGOfH0

THESE are the “long term effects” of lockdown. These will have a worse long term impact on humanity than anything the virus itself can impart.

[Gil Dobie]

Along with the Kellyannes with the Trumpette fear post.

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

And you keep projecting the people are afraid. People are acting in a civilized way, trying to slow the spread, to keep the virus away from vulnerable people. Being afraid of wearing masks, because it will take away our freedom, that's fear.

[Gil Dobie]

A good read on the cerebral cortex, cortisol, binge activities, and pandemic induced agitation.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yo ... aqs2mGOfH0

THESE are the “long term effects” of lockdown. These will have a worse long term impact on humanity than anything the virus itself can impart.

Another example of fear mongering.

[SDHornet]

If you don’t tell the truth because you feel someone isn’t ready for the truth...is it a lie???

More moving of the goalposts by the "experts". Who would have guessed...

[SDHornet]

CA update per CA Dept of Health:

Age 65+ accounts for 10% of all cases, and 74% of all deaths.
Ages 18-49 account for 59% of all cases and 7% of all deaths.

Why are we shutdown again?

[SDHornet]

Clip from Rogan talking with a couple of restaurant owners from LA. Key take away is that the LA gubmint had no science to back up their draconian shutdowns of outdoor dining when challenged in court. Shocker.

[UNI88]

Along with the Kellyannes with the Trumpette fear post.

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

Fake fear rumor = the 2020 election was stolen

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Along with the Kellyannes with the Trumpette fear post.

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

You come to a fork in the road. You are told that you can take either side of the fork to get to where you want to go. You are told that the left fork goes through an area inhabited by lions. If you take it, you will probably make it. But there is 1 chance in 400 that you will be killed and eaten. You are told that if you take the left fork there are no lions. No worries.

Which fork are you taking?

1 in 400 is what you're talking about when you talk about 99.75%.

Any rational person is going to worry if they catch a disease that means a 1 in 400 chance that they will die from it. That is way higher than risks we are generally willing to take in this culture. It is, in relative terms and when one is talking about mortality, a high risk. Way higher than the risk that you would be killed by a drunk driver if there were no such thing as DUI laws. Way higher than the risk that you would die as a result of never wearing a seat belt. If I took the time I could think of many other examples.

[SeattleGriz]

If you don’t tell the truth because you feel someone isn’t ready for the truth...is it a lie???

More moving of the goalposts by the "experts". Who would have guessed...

Guys got an awesome track record going on.

In fairness, we have too many people that adhere to the belief all science is cut and dry when it's not close.

[AZGrizFan]

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

You come to a fork in the road. You are told that you can take either side of the fork to get to where you want to go. You are told that the left fork goes through an area inhabited by lions. If you take it, you will probably make it. But there is 1 chance in 400 that you will be killed and eaten. You are told that if you take the left fork there are no lions. No worries.

Which fork are you taking?

1 in 400 is what you're talking about when you talk about 99.75%.

Any rational person is going to worry if they catch a disease that means a 1 in 400 chance that they will die from it. That is way higher than risks we are generally willing to take in this culture. It is, in relative terms and when one is talking about mortality, a high risk. Way higher than the risk that you would be killed by a drunk driver if there were no such thing as DUI laws. Way higher than the risk that you would die as a result of never wearing a seat belt. If I took the time I could think of many other examples.

THAT is just as horrid of an analogy as the one you used with the football stadium and the sniper. Maybe you should just stick to misinterpreting economic data?

[JohnStOnge]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going accept the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

[AZGrizFan]

Not sure what a “fake fear rumor” is....we’re usually mocking them, not encouraging them.

How ANYONE is scared of something that has a 99.75% survival rate is beyond me.

Fake fear rumor = the 2020 election was stolen

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Fake fear rumor: Russiagate

[AZGrizFan]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

And as if on que, here’s your horrid football analogy.

Here’s the REAL data: 100,000 people walk into a football stadium. 10,000 of them are going to die (10% of our population dies EVERY year). With the virus, assuming EVERY death is an excess death and isn’t someone who would have died anyway (which is a HUGE assumption given the age group most affected by the virus) Now, instead of 10,000 dying, 10,082 people are going to die. THAT is what we’ve shut down the country for. That is what we’ve destroyed our economy for. THAT is what we’re cowering in our homes for.

[JohnStOnge]

Fake fear rumor = the 2020 election was stolen

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Fake fear rumor: Russiagate

"Russiagate" is just an example of a situation in which partisans successfully convinced people that something was a hoax when it was not. Again: Russia did work to influence the election. Moreover, we do not know that Russian efforts did not impact the outcome. Though there is not evidence that any votes were changed, there was a very sophisticated misinformation campaign that was designed to do things like repress the non White vote.

Also, there was indeed cooperation between members of the Trump campaign and Russians. That is in the Mueller report. But Barr was successful in spinning things by saying the report showed "no collusion" when it did not. The report clearly said that it had a narrow focus with respect to looking for criminal conspiracy with respect to two specific Russian government efforts. The authors explicitly stated that they did not look at the question of "collusion" in a general sense.

Also, the report actually said that one reason it did not consider Manfort's sharing campaign polling data with a Russian intelligence operative to be sufficient evidence to show the specific conspiracy activity they were looking for is because THE INVESTIGATORS DID NOT KNOW IF THE POLLING DATA WERE USED AND, IF SO, HOW THEY WERE USED. It wasn't because there wasn't smoke there. There was just no way to know if the activity was related to one of the specific Russian government efforts they were addressing.

The idea that the Mueller report was a nothing burger is a fiction generated by Republicans in Congress and William Barr.

[BDKJMU]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

And as if on que, here’s your horrid football analogy.

Here’s the REAL data: 100,000 people walk into a football stadium. 10,000 of them are going to die (10% of our population dies EVERY year). With the virus, assuming EVERY death is an excess death and isn’t someone who would have died anyway (which is a HUGE assumption given the age group most affected by the virus) Now, instead of 10,000 dying, 10,082 people are going to die. THAT is what we’ve shut down the country for. That is what we’ve destroyed our economy for. THAT is what we’re cowering in our homes for.

So out of 330+ million US population, we should have 10%, 33+ million die this year? That would be a big jump from the about 2.8 million that died last yr.

[SeattleGriz]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going accept the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

Why do we need a sniper? Couldn't they just be lethal COVID cases? It's already a superspreader event.

[kalm]

A good read on the cerebral cortex, cortisol, binge activities, and pandemic induced agitation.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yo ... aqs2mGOfH0

THESE are the “long term effects” of lockdown. These will have a worse long term impact on humanity than anything the virus itself can impart.

The virus caused the lockdown.

[kalm]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

And as if on que, here’s your horrid football analogy.

Here’s the REAL data: 100,000 people walk into a football stadium. 10,000 of them are going to die (10% of our population dies EVERY year). With the virus, assuming EVERY death is an excess death and isn’t someone who would have died anyway (which is a HUGE assumption given the age group most affected by the virus) Now, instead of 10,000 dying, 10,082 people are going to die. THAT is what we’ve shut down the country for. That is what we’ve destroyed our economy for. THAT is what we’re cowering in our homes for.

But the biggest problem with this sort of exercise is the uncertainty surrounding the economic assumptions. The authors assumed that lockdowns were the main cause of reduced economic activity -- that the reason people aren’t shopping and going to work is that they’re not allowed to. But in reality, fear of coronavirus is probably a much more important factor keeping people in their homes. Evidence from surveys, mobility patterns, pre-lockdown restaurant reservation data and the early results of actual reopenings all point toward fear of the disease being a much more important than government diktats.

Thus, the tradeoff between economic losses and human losses probably isn’t what these economists think it is. Letting up on lockdowns might have little effect; and ending them prematurely might do real harm, allowing the coronavirus to spread while failing to provide most businesses with enough customers and workers to survive. Any increase in infections might intensify the fear, causing even more economic harm

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a ... ssion=true

[JohnStOnge]

I've probably typed this before too but, if so, this can be an update. It is reasonable to estimate, based on the numbers at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... /index.htm, that about 1 in each 1214 people who started 2020 in my age range group (55 - 64) have died of COVID-19 by now.* Actually somewhat more than that because the provisional death counts are always a few weeks behind. But let's go with 1 in 1214.

So let's say you are offered the chance to go to some large event of a kind that you like. For some of you that might be a big football game. There are going to be 100,000 people at the event. You can go for free. You'll be dropped off at the gate in a helicopter and picked back up afterwards so no traffic hassles. Everything provided.

But you have to agree that once you go in you have to sit in a seat to the extent that you normally would. You can get up and go to the bathroom, concessions, and such but you have to come back to your seat as you normally would. So you're going to spend several hours in that seat.

During the event, a sniper will randomly shoot and kill 100,000/1214 = 82 people. That's the risk you take by accepting the offer.

Are you going the offer? Is that such a tiny risk that you are going to say, "What the heck, it's worth it!"

*Obviously the number is not exact because it is a dynamic situation. The exact composition of the group that was in the 55-64 year old range at the start of the year changes every day as some new people move into it and others move out of it. However, the population estimate is a 2019 estimate so it should be fairly close to what the number was at the beginning of the year. Also, all of the people who were in the 56 - 63 range would have remained in the 55-64 group throughout if they survived to this point. You can think of other aspects of the situation but I think you can see that the estimate should be reasonably close.

And as if on que, here’s your horrid football analogy.

Here’s the REAL data: 100,000 people walk into a football stadium. 10,000 of them are going to die (10% of our population dies EVERY year). With the virus, assuming EVERY death is an excess death and isn’t someone who would have died anyway (which is a HUGE assumption given the age group most affected by the virus) Now, instead of 10,000 dying, 10,082 people are going to die. THAT is what we’ve shut down the country for. That is what we’ve destroyed our economy for. THAT is what we’re cowering in our homes for.

10% of the population does not die every year. It is less than 1%. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm. Also, for the latest year for which data are available (2018), the death rate per 100,000 population for people in the 55 through 64 year old range was 887 per 100,000 population. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/datab ... )%2C%20and. That is 0.9%.

As of a few weeks ago (lag with provisional data), we were at about 82 deaths per 100,000 population among the 55-64 year age group from COVID-19 alone. Getting close to 10% of the total deaths we would expect in that age group from all causes.

I don't know why some people find it necessary to try to downplay the significance of this thing. It's just not rational.