 |
|
|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Matt V
Since 26 Oct 2014
462 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea
|
 Tue Apr 21, 20 8:57 am |
 |
|
| knotwindy wrote: | Panic is exactly what you are supposed be doing. It lowers your immune response and makes you think less clearly. This makes you more malleable and easier to control. Keep up the good work  |
C'mon, naughty! What are you trying to do?
I mean, do you really think it's a good idea to inform the panic-stricken, that by being panic-stricken they are actually more susceptible to what they are panicked about? Throwing a bit of gasoline on the fire, aren't we?
And don't get me wrong, the situation scares the heck out of me. We are not fixing the source of the next virus, which could actually have a significant death toll, compared to this one having an insignificant one. We are not fixing the issues with long-term Medical Supply manufacturing being located in a country that wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. We are not doing anything about the collective mental instability of this country on both sides of the issue, from over reaction to under reaction. And there are still people here on this forum that think government is good at solving problems. That sums up my greatest fears regarding covid 19.
_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about. |
|
|
Matt V
Since 26 Oct 2014
462 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:11 am |
|
|
| ay wrote: | Agree with the above.
Capitalism/the economy isn't focused on fighting starvation, infectious disease, mental health, and social welfare. Government should be, but instead the current administration is cutting health funding, blaming everyone else for failures, and not taking responsibility. Relying on charitable giving to solve humanitarian crisis demonstrates how little we value humanity.
The US population is obviously tired of quarantining and it appears it will be ending soon for most regardless of scientific basis, in contrast to other more responsible countries. As an aside, seeing "liberate" protesters while wearing masks is comical. Typical hypocrisy. |
Thank goodness that in capitalism the government doesn't focus on solving the problems you first mentioned. In socialism and communism, the government does focus on these problems, with a death toll in the last 100 years of that focus being hundreds of millions of its citizenry. Turns out that government is really bad in either case, at solving the problems which it focuses on.
So in the end, capitalism leads to Greater overall prosperity, unless you subscribe to the notion that keeping everyone in poverty is a great way to fight social inequality.
_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about. |
|
|
Ho-Toe
Since 30 Apr 2014
233 Posts
pissed-off science guy like Bill Nye
CO2 quantifier & upwelling specialist
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:44 am significant? |
|
|
| Matt V wrote: | | ...could actually have a significant death toll, compared to this one having an insignificant one. |
What is a "significant" death toll?
44,120 in the US and counting... that's insignificant?
I'm sure your metric would change if one of your loved ones succumbed.
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4297 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:45 am |
|
|
| ay wrote: | | As an aside, seeing "liberate" protesters while wearing masks is comical. Typical hypocrisy. |
I'm pretty sure that is supposed to be a satirical jab against black mask riots...
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4297 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:59 am Re: significant? |
|
|
| Ho-Toe wrote: | | Matt V wrote: | | ...could actually have a significant death toll, compared to this one having an insignificant one. |
What is a "significant" death toll?
44,120 in the US and counting... that's insignificant?
I'm sure your metric would change if one of your loved ones succumbed. |
I don't think he is meaning it in the way you are taking it. The Covid-19 death toll is insignificant as far as the effect on world civilization. Civilization will not collapse, or even be affected by the number of dead. (The effects of our response are another matter.) A pandemic with a lethality of 20% to 30% could be very significant in that it could push us in to the "Dark Ages" again.
What's worrying to me is that we don't even know what the lethality of Covid-19 is, and not much effort is going in to finding out at this point. Saying it is "more lethal than the flu" is a guess. We are only testing those already sick at this point, except in Iceland. It has been said the death rate is around 3%. (As well as other numbers bandied about.) But if there are 100 people who have it for every one person who tests positive, and those 100 are never tested because they never get ill, or ill enough to be tested, that puts the death toll at .3%. I'm not saying that's a correct number. I'm saying it could be for all we know. The only widespread testing of asymptomatic people that I am aware of is in Iceland. Those numbers support the 100 to 1 ratio. BUT, you can't assume the rest of the world is like Iceland. What it comes down to is we don't know. And we won't know until we start testing a representative portion of the population, not just the sick.
|
|
|
knotwindy
Since 25 Sep 2011
615 Posts
Addicted
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 10:43 am |
|
|
| Matt V wrote: | | knotwindy wrote: | | Panic is exactly what you are supposed be doing. It lowers your immune response and makes you think less clearly. This makes you more malleable and easier to control. Keep up the good work |
C'mon, naughty! What are you trying to do?
I mean, do you really think it's a good idea to inform the panic-stricken, that by being panic-stricken they are actually more susceptible to what they are panicked about? Throwing a bit of gasoline on the fire, aren't we?
And don't get me wrong, the situation scares the heck out of me. there are still people here on this forum that think government is good at solving problems. That sums up my greatest fears regarding covid 19. |
And as usual we will disagree. If you have given in to the panic already my little attempt at sarcasm will not really register or change the “level” of panic. By nature it means you are already not thinking clearly. If you are about to enter or have just gotten over the panic it might help as a warning. Might not, doesn’t matter. Just trying to present a different larger picture. Think of it as a public service announcement. Panic bad, thinking & empathy good.
As for your false dichotomy about capitalism or government they are not mutually incompatible. One is an economic ism, the other is an organizing ism. There are also many forms of each. The Unfettered corporate capitalism being praised will lead to self destruction & tyranny. Overbearing government goes the same way. However an appropriate level & combination of the 2 can most likely be far superior. Some Cooperation rather than just Competition might go a long way towards sustainable. Just my opinion.
And ALL the numbers being tossed out like bird seed are just that, made up nonsense to feed a hungry public that doesn’t have the sense to act rationally. And except for the rare honest researcher or scientist whose work most likely gets distorted anyway, most of the sheeple reporting on this are just selling tv & radio time and are not overly concerned with the accuracy or truth. Notice how they change the story regularly? They either are incompetent or ignorant or bought & paid for already. Almost none of it should be believed yet. Maybe in time we will get clearer answers. Maybe.
Yea, it’s a bit harsh but again, just my opinion. Feel free to ignore it entirely.
_________________
curiously observing blurry patterns while slightly distracted |
|
|
Thatspec
Since 17 Mar 2008
125 Posts
Ptucky
Stoked
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 11:47 am |
|
|
| knotwindy wrote: |
And ALL the numbers being tossed out like bird seed are just that, made up nonsense to feed a hungry public that doesn’t have the sense to act rationally. And except for the rare honest researcher or scientist whose work most likely gets distorted anyway, most of the sheeple reporting on this are just selling tv & radio time and are not overly concerned with the accuracy or truth. Notice how they change the story regularly? They either are incompetent or ignorant or bought & paid for already. Almost none of it should be believed yet. Maybe in time we will get clearer answers. Maybe.
|
Well said. At one time it appeared the only reliable statistic was 'total deaths', even that has become suspect. Now it's just about manipulating statistics.
 |
| |
Dilbert.png |
|
|
|
user124
Since 02 Aug 2012
391 Posts
Portland
Obsessed
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 3:04 pm |
|
|
| A more optimistic view might see the variability in reported numbers as an ongoing evolution of our understanding of a novel virus that humankind has never seen before. It's not all conspiracy and intentional distortion. Studies and numbers reported in the news media should be viewed with a critical eye, and the primary source should be available and sometimes reviewed independently. There are useful data out there than can help guide our personal behavior and help us understand the policy decisions. But as is in the conclusion of almost every scientific paper "more research is needed".
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4297 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
|
|
knotwindy
Since 25 Sep 2011
615 Posts
Addicted
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 8:34 pm |
|
|
| If you think that research is safe to trust that’s great. But in the first paragraph they used the word estimate twice and didn’t do any testing from the little I read. They took the numbers from ‘worldstats’ which could be accurate I suppose. Then they spent another paragraph explain why the numbers of total deaths reported are possibly wrong and then used them anyway. Might be just more nonsense due to poor testing and all the other issues already discussed and some that haven’t been touched on yet. I’m not doubting Oxford, they get a pass until I know more about their techniques but still seems pretty suspect to me with regards to overall accuracy. Just me, though. I’m kind of skeptical in regards to research when power & money is involved. Only from looking at the recent past though. I hope I’m wrong.
|
|
|
Thatspec
Since 17 Mar 2008
125 Posts
Ptucky
Stoked
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:23 pm |
|
|
Apologies... I am feeling pretty pessimistic about the next year or two.
Nak, there's some credible information in there, but I'd still regard anything about 'case fatality rates' as BS. I'd look to Iceland, South Korea, and Germany for reliable data in that regard as they will ultimately test the most.
One statement in there stands out;
"Evaluating CFR during a pandemic is, however, a very hazardous exercise, and high-end estimates should be treated with caution as the H1N1 pandemic highlights that original estimates were out by a factor greater than 10."
If that overestimation is the same this time (and it will be), that puts SARS-CoV-2 at a .005% IFR based on Iceland's best case data. That's using real and credible data from the quoted article yet we just don't ever see it reported that way.
So if I cherry pick the data to show the best case scenario (pretty optimistic huh?), does that make me any worse than the so called experts that cherry pick it and cram the worst case scenario down our throats five times a day?
Wait wait, it gets better! Lets use the worst case scenario to NUKE the world economy for the next three years 'cuz that won't have any negative health outcomes at all.
Did anybody kite today, looked windy?
Last edited by Thatspec on Tue Apr 21, 20 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
user124
Since 02 Aug 2012
391 Posts
Portland
Obsessed
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:25 pm |
|
|
| knotwindy wrote: | | If you think that research is safe to trust that’s great. But in the first paragraph they used the word estimate twice and didn’t do any testing from the little I read. They took the numbers from ‘worldstats’ which could be accurate I suppose. Then they spent another paragraph explain why the numbers of total deaths reported are possibly wrong and then used them anyway. Might be just more nonsense due to poor testing and all the other issues already discussed and some that haven’t been touched on yet. I’m not doubting Oxford, they get a pass until I know more about their techniques but still seems pretty suspect to me with regards to overall accuracy. Just me, though. I’m kind of skeptical in regards to research when power & money is involved. Only from looking at the recent past though. I hope I’m wrong. |
So you didn't actually read the article, yet you have determined, apparently based on your personal skepticism regarding the influence of "power and money" that it is "suspect with regard to overall accuracy." Huh?
So I actually did read the article. They obtained the reported case and death numbers from every country they could. They noted the wide variability in calculated case fatality rates (CFR), and then they tried to review and analyze the reasons that have been postulated for the variability in reported CFRs between countries. They then looked at several specific situations where infection fatality rates (IFR) can be calculated , which is different from CFR in that it also includes asymptomatic cases. They also looked at what happened historically with CFR and IFR estimates during the swine flu epidemic in 2012 and based on that adjusted their estimates for covid. Bottom line, they estimate IFR for sars-cov2 to be between 0.1% and 0.36%, but with a number of reasonable caveats.
So basically they tried to gather all information available, be intelligently skeptical, and then come up with their own estimate that they feel is most accurate based on the information currently available. They of course give the caveat that these numbers may evolve and change. Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach to me. But maybe we should listen to you instead and just throw it out the window and give up because there might be "power and money" involved.
Last edited by user124 on Tue Apr 21, 20 9:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
knotwindy
Since 25 Sep 2011
615 Posts
Addicted
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:33 pm |
|
|
No, I’m not saying believe me. I’m saying they are giving their best guess which is undoubtedly better than mine but that is a low bar as I know nothing about who & where the stats they started with came from. I would like to point out that in the midst of a crisis nobody is really concerned about statistics. They are trying to do what needs to be done. So a best guess is still a guess and not much more. I still think waiting on better info is the better choice than trusting anyone’s guess.
_________________
curiously observing blurry patterns while slightly distracted |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4297 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:35 pm |
|
|
Like I said, It's worth examining.  They present a lot of raw data and past experience that's useful for people trying to understand what is going on. Much better than just listening to the media. I think it's a pretty honest assessment, especially since they point out just how wrong they could be. Obviously written by some folks that might just be some of the sharper tools in the shed.
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4297 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 9:40 pm |
|
|
| knotwindy wrote: | | No, I’m not saying believe me. I’m saying they are giving their best guess which is undoubtedly better than mine but that is a low bar as I know nothing about who & where the stats they started with came from. I would like to point out that in the midst of a crisis nobody is really concerned about statistics. They are trying to do what needs to be done. So a best guess is still a guess and not much more. I still think waiting on better info is the better choice than trusting anyone’s guess. |
I would rate it more as "informed expert opinion" than best guess, but still you're right in that it is not fact. They admit that as well. I think it's important to note that these intelligent, expert authorities in the field come up with a number wildly different than what other intelligent, expert authorities come up with. In a lot of ways, you and I are on the same page on this I think.
|
|
|
user124
Since 02 Aug 2012
391 Posts
Portland
Obsessed
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 10:03 pm |
|
|
| knotwindy wrote: | | No, I’m not saying believe me. I’m saying they are giving their best guess which is undoubtedly better than mine but that is a low bar as I know nothing about who & where the stats they started with came from. I would like to point out that in the midst of a crisis nobody is really concerned about statistics. They are trying to do what needs to be done. So a best guess is still a guess and not much more. I still think waiting on better info is the better choice than trusting anyone’s guess. |
But the statistics they are talking about are incredibly important as they determine whether we are even dealing with a severe crisis, how long economically crippling stay-at-home orders are necessary, how trillions of dollars of healthcare resources are allocated, whether some people may lose their civil liberties and be forced into quarantine etc. etc. And 0.1-0.36% IFR is quite a bit more precise and useful in making these decisions than a wild guess. Also consider that when dealing with a pandemic illness for which there is no effective cure or treatment is that you may need to get ahead of it prevent spread - so you can't just sit around and wait for better info.
|
|
|
knotwindy
Since 25 Sep 2011
615 Posts
Addicted
|
| Tue Apr 21, 20 10:16 pm |
|
|
Their degree of importance is not related to their degree of accuracy.
Also, if there is no treatment or cure yet and we know to physically distance and wash hands to stop the spread, why would an intelligent guess about numbers help?
I’m glad someone is trying to track this mess and I hope they get it dialed but so far I don’t see anything that sounds like hard information that might help. Just different groups of people making different assumptions and coming up with different answers. Not what I would call great research or science but they’ll get there eventually if we give them some time by doing what we’ve been doing that seems to be working for now. And maybe, hopefully be a bit more open if people can be reasonable. Yes, that’s a longshot.
_________________
curiously observing blurry patterns while slightly distracted |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
