TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
If you have a significant underlying health issue and are over 50 then I recommend you do your best to isolate as long as possible. Though I'm not a doctor.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
MXLRplus
Active Member
If I had underlying health issues I'd be getting all the flu shots possible each year, even now. That stuff will kill you if you are already sick and it's everywhere.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Incorrect. The denominator I used is the size of the city divided by four. If you prefer to use the size of the city (incorrectly since not everyone has been infected) and get 0.14% instead - that is still incredibly high for this age bracket.
It’s an actual problem, not surprisingly.
TyPope
Member
No. Our response slowed the spread of the virus and our medical facilities have been able to keep up. What will happen next is people like you will run out as soon as there is a slight dip in new numbers and we'll start up a VERY steep ramp of infections. It's possible the next wave will be multiples worse than the current one. People forget that we put restrictions in place and within an incubation period, we dropped from doubling the number of sick from once every 2 days to once every 5 days and it's declining still. The 1918 epidemic did the same thing. Our impatience could kill millions.
I am actually an analyst and get paid to track all this. One false sense of security is caused by this: We can only test so many people every day regardless of how many people have it. If, for example, we can only test 100 people and of the 100 people we test, there are 20 who test positive, we'll show 20 new cases. If there are a million new cases, we'll still only show there are 20 because we just can't test enough. Holding the number of new cases as a measuring stick is, inherently, not going to be very accurate once we reach our testing limit.
How many more death we had in the past two months comparing to normal March and aprils?
And disagreeing with Elon equals treating WHO as God?
MXLRplus
Active Member
The numbers are not in yet. You'll have to wait a few months for it. They could be lower than last year.
SDRick
Active Member
No doubt with opening up we will see a rise in cases. Curious as to why it could be multiple times worse. We seem to be better prepared mentally and physically with more masks, ventilators, PPE, statistics and testing than we were with the first wave.
.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
If the nationwide numbers are higher then the lockdowns caused it.
If the nationwide numbers are lower then it just proves we didn't need lockdowns.
If there are states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts with much higher numbers it just proves that they're faking the numbers because the Russia Hoax and Impeachment Hoax didn't work out.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Someone show me a scenario where millions of Americans are killed by this virus. Again....I post a simple observation or a statistic and you guys lose your minds. This guy posts something PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and it's fine. Because it fits a narrative you're comfortable with.
We're doing a horrendous job of mitigation and y'all are acting like people want to stop taking a know antidote.
MXLRplus
Active Member
I think we will see fewer "vector" class humans in America, those who are most likely to get infected and most likely to spread it, are going to drop in number dramatically, and that will attenuate the transmission rate as well. Either they have already had the virus and are now recovered, or they will be taking more precautions. If you nail the vector class in a population you can nearly wipe it out.
It is entirely possible that 10/90 rule applies here. A fraction of the population has the majority of the effect.
That is a brilliant summation. Now if you can just get everyone who endorses that to sign up for a free trial of Moron Spray. We'd be halfway to a cure (at least for idiocy??)
MXLRplus
Active Member
I'm referring to the lower flu infections and other contagions than C19, less traffic deaths, less trauma, better personal healthcare awareness, will reduce fatalities. Domestic violence/suicide, drug overdoses, failure to seek early treatment of health problems, will work in the other direction.
We won't know how it shakes out until they collect all the data and adjust it for variables. Perhaps if it shows a drop, we can do this every Dec-June. That would be nice wouldn't it?
TyPope
Member
You must know more than the foremost experts in the country. I defer to your expertise. I'll go back to my measly work as a lowly analyst for the DoD...
MXLRplus
Active Member
Odd selection of states doesn't include the biggest states. California, Texas, and Florida are the 3 biggest states. We will see in the end regardless. The CDC hasn't finished 2018 yet. 2017 is the last year with full data.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Those states don't have big outbreaks, deaths are almost certainly down in those states.
You don't know that. You are just making this up the same as the "open everything" crowd is making up what they say.
It is perfectly reasonable to "open" up low risk high reward activities today. Low risk would be things where people can easily maintain 6 or more feet distance and are outdoors. The science tells us that most transmissions take place indoors and from family members. This means that people should be going outdoors and not sitting next to each other just watching TV.
Allowing, even encouraging this with the proper precautions will go a long way towards keeping people on board with the other restrictions.
No one is saying we should pack into bars and restaurants, going to densely packed sporting events, conventions, etc.
It is nonsensical to disallow tennis, golf, hiking, surfing and similar activities as long as proper social distancing is maintained.
The same goes for jobs such as gardeners who don't get close to anyone.
Similar threads
