Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

Q™ said:
And your point is what? That it’s OK to kill Jews because Hitler killed Jews? That it’s OK to lynch black people because, well, we lynched them for hundreds of years? I guess you think I’m a Clinton fan because, I guess, you believe that anyone who thinks the president is an asshole must be a Bill or Hillary fan. That is an argument that idiots cheer. Yea, Bill Clinton was an asshole...although not as big an asshole as Donald Trump is.
Click to expand...

My point being that trying to be "holier than thou" when no one is "holy" in the first place is a pointless exercise. I think Bill and Hillary are assholes but, after all, they "feel your pain" which makes them the biggest assholes to come down the pike in a long while.
 
sebastiantombs said:
My point being that trying to be "holier than thou" when no one is "holy" in the first place...
Click to expand...

No doubt that Bill and Hill are complte assholes, but that doesn’t justify Donald Trump’s aberrant behavior. Better to zip your lip than to employ such flawed logic which makes you look intellectually challenged (and I know you’re not stupid...misguided yes...,but certainly not stupid).
 
I sincerely hope I don't get it. I know several people that have had it and they had a terrible time with it though they have mostly recovered. One may have permanent heart damage. Keep in mind, for everyone that dies from it, about 10 people will have lasting health problems from it. It's not a binary "die or don't die" situation. It appears the vaccines are doing well in early testing in terms of raising an immune response, and it appears likely that early next year a vaccine can be widely deployed, if scaled up trials show good safety and prove efficacy in preventing infection or reducing severity of illness (the first trials simply looked at antibody generation and so could say nothing about efficacy)
Click to expand...

Do some people that don't die not end up with lasting health problems resulting from other illnesses? Even the flu? For instance, I actually know people that have lifelong implications resulting from Lyme Disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, but they still go outside, and generally do not cover themselves in chemicals in an attempt to keep the ticks off them. They have yet to be able to have well made, effective vaccines against common illnesses like the Flu. Much of the time, and it seems to be getting more common, the flu shot does no good because they didn't pick the right strain. I know my Grandpa used to get the flu up to twice a year. Once when he got the shot and potentially again when the common strain hit him.



Actually masks reduce the relative likelihood of spreading it from infected people to others, by trapping droplets from infected people, and doing so reduces the R (reproduction) value. If we all mask up and reduce risky behaviors (e.g. bars, parties without proper distancing) we can bring the R value below 1, which means every day there will be fewer infected people and eventually we get to just mop-up mode like most of Europe is right now, with few infected people out there an strong tracing to keep potentially infected people from infecting others. We can win in the short term and keep most of the economy open if we just do basic things like this.
Click to expand...

Masks can reduce the likelihood of spreading it through droplets, as I attempted to concede when saying they may or may not slow it down. I say may not, because I believe masks do increase the likelihood of infection through means other than droplets, such as surface contamination. Now we have people wearing handkerchiefs, resulting in the droplets only spreading 4-6 feet instead of 8-10, but those droplets are settling on items around them. Other people with masks are touching those items, then fiddling with their mask because people just can't help it, and potentially exposed themselves. This is the reason early on they said people with no symptoms should NOT wear masks. But I concede with a large portion of the infected are asymptomatic, you can't slow it down through masks on the sick only as well.


Wrong, it was detected on surfaces by PCR tests looking for the viral RNA. It is unlikely that the virus remains infectious very long. Though detectable by PCR, it is unlikely to be still able to cause infection after hours to a few days at most. The viral particle, to be active, needs its capsule intact and this part of it breaks down easily on its own over time when dry or on exposure to light.
Click to expand...

And it can't live in heat, so summertime will slow it down dramatically. I've heard so many different lines from the same people, that I just can't trust them anymore. Either they have other motives, or their expertise just isn't up to par. Maybe this virus is as bad or worse than they are saying, and maybe, just maybe, I'd take it more seriously if the liberal media hasn't tried to spoon feed me and shove half truths down my throat to push their own agenda for so long. Now it's to the point I can only trust my own observations, and cannot, will not, trust a word the media or so called "experts" tell me. My views may change if my observations change. If I begin to know people that get sick from this and otherwise healthy people die, I'll adjust my viewpoint.


True. Something like 40% of infections appear to be asymptomatic. A few more percent may be infectious but pre-symptomatic.
Click to expand...

Without testing the entire population, any percentage they give will be on the low end. Perhaps 40% of the people they have tested will be asymptomatic, and that very well could be enough data to establish the true rate, but there are bound to be more asymptomatic people out there that have no reason to, and therefore never get tested. If those people were also tested, the percentage could climb. That's why you can't take percentages as Gospel. There's just no way to really, truly know. Hillary had a 99.9% chance of winning on election day.

So, for every 100 people infected with the virus (infections, not cases!!), something like 1 % of them die based on data to date. Estimates I've seen range from 0.5% go 1.5%, largely based on the subject pool. The CASE fatality rate last time I looked was 4% or so, but remember that's a number that depends on how many people are being discovered (tested/diagnosed) and so will vary widely from place to place. But generally speaking, if you are infected you've got a 40% chance of not even knowing it, and a 1% chance of dying. But let's say you get infected... dying isn't the only bad outcome. You might feel awful for a few weeks as is typical. You might need to go into a hospital for a protracted stay. You might need to have a tube down your throat. All of these happen MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY than dying. And even after you recover, it's now being understood that systemic cardiovascular damage is common, which means your heart and or lungs may not work as well as before for months, years, or even permanently. Something like 10% of cases being followed (cases, not infections) show long term or likely permanent damage. Yuk.
Click to expand...

Most of this has been covered. You concede that because of untested, asymptomatic cases the numbers won't be as high as they are seeing, and I concede that there is obviously a chance of death resulting from this virus. I haven't had the flu in at least 12 years, but man I remember feeling horrible at the time. Probably thought I could die. I've never stayed overnight in the hospital, even after getting hit by a car and getting a blood clot in my leg and a concussion to go along with it, but it's common knowledge that extended periods in hospitals can make sick people sicker. There's more than just Covid in those places running around, just itching for the chance to find someone with an already compromised immune system. Since hospitals have had to shut down their money making, elective procedures, I wonder if any of those people got a tube down their throat more because the hospital needed the extra funding they would receive, and less because the person truly needed it?



The immunity raised by the vaccine is likely more potent and longer lasting than that from having the disease, based on the mechanisms involved. Only clinical studies will tell us this for sure, but it is reasonable to think that a vaccine might provide a degree of protection for at least a year.
Click to expand...

I don't watch much news, maybe I've missed it, but I keep hearing we don't have time for clinical studies! We need to develop this vaccine and shove it in the arms of the population, then we can work out the details.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Sorry to shout, but his is just completely bad reasoning. So far in the US we've had more that 4M cases and probably 40M people have been infected at some point, so an estimated 12% of the US has been infected. This has been going on mostly since March in terms of numbers, so we are about 5 months in and about 5-8 months away from the availability of mass vaccinations. It's gone exponential again here, rising in most states and severely so in a half dozen. By masking and avoiding high risk activities we can bring it under control. Remember the infections we've had so far have resulted in close to 150k deaths already; anything we can do to minimize the spread saves a lot of lives. None of the other activities you mention has something like a 1% death rate from doing the activity, either individually or cumulatively over a course of months.
Click to expand...

Researchers currently estimate the death rate to be somewhere from 0.3% up to 1.5%. That is a huge, huge range. They obviously have no idea, because they know you can't trust the numbers. Did the man with a bad heart that died and tested positive for Covid-19 die from covid, or from his heart condition? I'd place a wager on what the death certificate would say.... The truth is any number that you, I , or anyone else throws out in relation to covid-19 is simply guesswork.

If we as a country can keep it to 200k deaths before mass vaccination, isn't that better than 300k? or 400k? We have the ability to improve our outcome by doing simple things while keeping most of the economy open.
Click to expand...

I would concede this and do my part to keep it to 200k deaths if we had all the facts and knew what were trying would truly help instead of just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks, if this logic is applied to other areas as well. In 2019, planned parenthood affiliates alone performed 345, 672 abortions. That number isn't total US abortions. The lowest figures I can easily and quickly find for the entire US was a record low number of abortions in 2017 at 862,320. that number was down 7% from 2014, so it's going in the right direction. But if I'm asked to bend to the will and logic of those that want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't wear, where I can and can't go, in an effort to save thousands, or even a hundred thousand, while they celebrate the "right" to abort over 800,000 children, well they can kiss my.....

Just assuming we can't have much of an effect and we're all destined to get it is very dangerous. We CAN and MUST take practical measures to stem the tide.
Click to expand...

I live in a nice, quite, very low populated area. My measures are the same as always. I'm not working right now so I tend to stay at home and away from people. I did this before Covid. But if I need to run to the store and grab something I will. If you tell me I have to wear a mask while doing so, see my answer above.

Not doing so condemns hundreds of thousands of US people to death needlessly. We ignored this thing long enough early on and now are the world's poster child for a botched response. Let's not make it worse than it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Again, we ignore issues and condemn hundreds of thousands of babies in the US to a needless death yearly already. Why the sudden concern for others? Because one of those others could be you? The truth is, it's not my place to ban abortion, I brought it up to show a point. Morally it would be the right thing to do in my view, but I recognize that freedom is not safe. It's ugly. It's scary. It's deadly. My point in all this is that I am not willing to sacrifice one bit, not measly little crumb of any freedom I may have left because the left has already shown time and time again if you give any, they will try to take it all. So I'll fight in my own way. I'll put myself in harms way to prove a point and hold on to that which I still have. I'll do the wrong thing for the right reasons if the need arises. The includes not wearing a mask even if it would protect me, even if it would protect others, for the sole and simple reason of I don't like being told by those that "know what's best for me" that I have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oceanslider, BobRegnar, bigredfish and 2 others
Q™ said:
Like the I fucked a porn-star when my wife was home taking care of our new-born son and then paid hush money so it wouldn't come out before the election story...or the I didn't fuck a porn-star when my wife was home taking care of our new-born son then never paid hush money so it wouldn't come out before the election story?
"Either way...I swear to God"
Click to expand...

Assumptions or do you have proof?



Look at Joes caretaker (his wife), she knows what's going on.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Arjun and sebastiantombs
Talk about flawed logic when you point out one failing and ignore another. Q you can say and do as you please, it's your right, but it may not be right. Then we can examine Creepy Joe for his questionable aberrant behaviors as well. What I'm saying is that not one of them, even the revered John F. Kennedy, and yes I'm old enough to remember him and admired him when he was in office and still do for what he accomplished, is without their little "peccadillos". Clinton actually did it in the Oval Office, in the White House, talk about despotic behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer
Damn, does history repeat itself? I think Woodrow Wilson would approve :facepalm:

Ironic eh?


It was advised for everyone to wear a face-covering. No one is controlling you. Had the government instructed everyone to jump off a bridge to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic, then that'd would have been a completely different story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer and Frankenscript
Travis798 said:
Do some people that don't die not end up with lasting health problems resulting from other illnesses? Even the flu? For instance, I actually know people that have lifelong implications resulting from Lyme Disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, but they still go outside, and generally do not cover themselves in chemicals in an attempt to keep the ticks off them. They have yet to be able to have well made, effective vaccines against common illnesses like the Flu. Much of the time, and it seems to be getting more common, the flu shot does no good because they didn't pick the right strain. I know my Grandpa used to get the flu up to twice a year. Once when he got the shot and potentially again when the common strain hit him.





Masks can reduce the likelihood of spreading it through droplets, as I attempted to concede when saying they may or may not slow it down. I say may not, because I believe masks do increase the likelihood of infection through means other than droplets, such as surface contamination. Now we have people wearing handkerchiefs, resulting in the droplets only spreading 4-6 feet instead of 8-10, but those droplets are settling on items around them. Other people with masks are touching those items, then fiddling with their mask because people just can't help it, and potentially exposed themselves. This is the reason early on they said people with no symptoms should NOT wear masks. But I concede with a large portion of the infected are asymptomatic, you can't slow it down through masks on the sick only as well.




And it can't live in heat, so summertime will slow it down dramatically. I've heard so many different lines from the same people, that I just can't trust them anymore. Either they have other motives, or their expertise just isn't up to par. Maybe this virus is as bad or worse than they are saying, and maybe, just maybe, I'd take it more seriously if the liberal media hasn't tried to spoon feed me and shove half truths down my throat to push their own agenda for so long. Now it's to the point I can only trust my own observations, and cannot, will not, trust a word the media or so called "experts" tell me. My views may change if my observations change. If I begin to know people that get sick from this and otherwise healthy people die, I'll adjust my viewpoint.




Without testing the entire population, any percentage they give will be on the low end. Perhaps 40% of the people they have tested will be asymptomatic, and that very well could be enough data to establish the true rate, but there are bound to be more asymptomatic people out there that have no reason to, and therefore never get tested. If those people were also tested, the percentage could climb. That's why you can't take percentages as Gospel. There's just no way to really, truly know. Hillary had a 99.9% chance of winning on election day.



Most of this has been covered. You concede that because of untested, asymptomatic cases the numbers won't be as high as they are seeing, and I concede that there is obviously a chance of death resulting from this virus. I haven't had the flu in at least 12 years, but man I remember feeling horrible at the time. Probably thought I could die. I've never stayed overnight in the hospital, even after getting hit by a car and getting a blood clot in my leg and a concussion to go along with it, but it's common knowledge that extended periods in hospitals can make sick people sicker. There's more than just Covid in those places running around, just itching for the chance to find someone with an already compromised immune system. Since hospitals have had to shut down their money making, elective procedures, I wonder if any of those people got a tube down their throat more because the hospital needed the extra funding they would receive, and less because the person truly needed it?





I don't watch much news, maybe I've missed it, but I keep hearing we don't have time for clinical studies! We need to develop this vaccine and shove it in the arms of the population, then we can work out the details.



Researchers currently estimate the death rate to be somewhere from 0.3% up to 1.5%. That is a huge, huge range. They obviously have no idea, because they know you can't trust the numbers. Did the man with a bad heart that died and tested positive for Covid-19 die from covid, or from his heart condition? I'd place a wager on what the death certificate would say.... The truth is any number that you, I , or anyone else throws out in relation to covid-19 is simply guesswork.



I would concede this and do my part to keep it to 200k deaths if we had all the facts and knew what were trying would truly help instead of just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks, if this logic is applied to other areas as well. In 2019, planned parenthood affiliates alone performed 345, 672 abortions. That number isn't total US abortions. The lowest figures I can easily and quickly find for the entire US was a record low number of abortions in 2017 at 862,320. that number was down 7% from 2014, so it's going in the right direction. But if I'm asked to bend to the will and logic of those that want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't wear, where I can and can't go, in an effort to save thousands, or even a hundred thousand, while they celebrate the "right" to abort over 800,000 children, well they can kiss my.....



I live in a nice, quite, very low populated area. My measures are the same as always. I'm not working right now so I tend to stay at home and away from people. I did this before Covid. But if I need to run to the store and grab something I will. If you tell me I have to wear a mask while doing so, see my answer above.



Again, we ignore issues and condemn hundreds of thousands of babies in the US to a needless death yearly already. Why the sudden concern for others? Because one of those others could be you? The truth is, it's not my place to ban abortion, I brought it up to show a point. Morally it would be the right thing to do in my view, but I recognize that freedom is not safe. It's ugly. It's scary. It's deadly. My point in all this is that I am not willing to sacrifice one bit, not measly little crumb of any freedom I may have left because the left has already shown time and time again if you give any, they will try to take it all. So I'll fight in my own way. I'll put myself in harms way to prove a point and hold on to that which I still have. I'll do the wrong thing for the right reasons if the need arises. The includes not wearing a mask even if it would protect me, even if it would protect others, for the sole and simple reason of I don't like being told by those that "know what's best for me" that I have to.
Click to expand...

So much here, so little time. I'll just hit a few highlights.

Sure, there are complications from other illnesses all the time. But COVID-19 seems to have a disproportionate rate of serious cardiopulmonary damage. It's a nasty beast.

You're wrong about us not having an effective vaccine against the flu. We range typically from 20-75% effective each year. Even in a relatively poor year, we can prevent 20% of the illness, death, missed work, medical expenses etc. Most of the time it's more like 50%. That's pretty good given the dynamics of the problem, and serious side effects are rare. I guarantee that if we had a cheap, safe vaccine for COVID-19 that was 20% effective, the lines would go round the block. And even when we get it wrong and have one of those 20% years, it means we've vaccinated people against a different strain and that strain is unlikely to become an epidemic for a few years. Taken as a whole program, the flu vaccination process is one of the great scientific and medical wins of the 20th century. We don't have one against a cold because it's not economically viable. And you don't get the flu from getting the flu shot.

Masks are strongly effective, period. Any small increase in surface contamination is minor compared to not spreading around your droplets while breathing, speaking, coughing, sneezing. And remember the biggest problem is people who don't know they are infected... everybody needs to mask. Countries where masking is promoted rapidly recovered from COVID. Countries where idiot politicians got their followers to make fun of mask wearing are having a big spike right now. Oh wait, there's only one country like that... us.

The summer effect is difficult to quantify. Who knows how much more sickness we would be seeing right now if not for it? That's not proof that there is a summer effect, but you can't rule it out. This will certainly be studied and a decent answer will emerge. We don't have it right now.

You're wrong on your understanding of statistics in terms of how many people we need to test. Random testing is giving us good answers about the % cases versus infections and so on. A big study in Indiana a couple months ago was among the first to pretty definitively say the # infections was ~10x the number of diagnosed cases at the time. Testing has become more available (in some places at least) so gradually the ratio is dropping, as sick people (with symptoms) are more able to access testing. That same study also was the first good data I saw in the US that showed ~40% asymptomatic. More waves of this testing are underway, more data being analyzed, better numbers overall.

A range of 0.3 to 1.5 is a reasonable range for infection death rate, but most current estimates I'm seeing suggest a narrower 0.6 to 1.0 overall rate. More if you look at a state with a high percentage of obese and elderly, less in a state with other demographics.

We'll never agree on reproductive rights so I'm avoiding that topic, but if you make a case "some people have abortions and I think it's wrong, so I'm going to not wear a mask in public" you are part of the problem not the solution. I can't compel anybody to do anything, so good luck to you.

I'm in Maryland this week, and people just wear the damned masks in the stores. They won't be able to shop without them so they just put them on. It's not hard, and it DOES help. I don't see why you make it so difficult. Someone tells you to do things every day; we are a society held together by laws. Not sure why you are singling this one out, if your jurisdiction has mandated masks.

Most people do simple things to help others. I know I do. Hence, I mask up.
 
While I wouldn't go and throw a fit in the store, I can't say I blame these people. The first guy, you only catch part of it. How much did they antagonize him and berate him before getting a reaction they could post online? I've seen those tactics before first hand when I was welding on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Obviously these privately owned stores have every right to refuse someone not wearing a mask. Just like they have the right to allow smoking in their establishme.....wait... bad example. Just like they have the right to refuse to spend money building handicap access and instead choose to forgo business from those that can't get into...wait, another bad example. Lets see, PRIVATE store owners are forbidden to refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, hell they would probably get sued by a short person if they made their counter too high, but yet it's suddenly their right to refuse service to people that are claustrophobic, people that have severe anxiety issues, people that just don't want to be sheep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a private business to have the ability and right to refuse anyone. But I believe if they want to refuse me because I'm white, they should be able to. If they want to refuse based on gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever, they should have that right. If they still have a market left in which to make money after their discriminatory policies, good for them. A restaurant should be able to say "you know what, this is a smoking business. Our customers will smoke all they want and if people don't like it, they can eat somewhere else". And then they can live or die based on those policies.

As long as businesses aren't actually private, and they aren't allowed to discriminate, and for as long as a baker can be sued because he doesn't want to contribute to a gay wedding because it's against his beliefs and values, can you really blame people for getting upset when suddenly they are suddenly being refused service?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer, sebastiantombs and Arjun
Technically, no one should be questioning others for not wearing a mask unless they work for the store / company and have a policy in place to promote safety. If you're in a store surrounded by a bunch of numb heads not wearing a mask, you just move on as long as you have your own mask on.

There are two types of learners, 1) They learn after getting COVID-19, 2). They learn based on the basic common sense principle. Remember that for the first several days you are asymptomatic from this virus

Travis798 said:
While I wouldn't go and throw a fit in the store, I can't say I blame these people. The first guy, you only catch part of it. How much did they antagonize him and berate him before getting a reaction they could post online? I've seen those tactics before first hand when I was welding on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Obviously these privately owned stores have every right to refuse someone not wearing a mask. Just like they have the right to allow smoking in their establishme.....wait... bad example. Just like they have the right to refuse to spend money building handicap access and instead choose to forgo business from those that can't get into...wait, another bad example. Lets see, PRIVATE store owners are forbidden to refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, hell they would probably get sued by a short person if they made their counter too high, but yet it's suddenly their right to refuse service to people that are claustrophobic, people that have severe anxiety issues, people that just don't want to be sheep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a private business to have the ability and right to refuse anyone. But I believe if they want to refuse me because I'm white, they should be able to. If they want to refuse based on gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever, they should have that right. If they still have a market left in which to make money after their discriminatory policies, good for them. A restaurant should be able to say "you know what, this is a smoking business. Our customers will smoke all they want and if people don't like it, they can eat somewhere else". And then they can live or die based on those policies.

As long as businesses aren't actually private, and they aren't allowed to discriminate, and for as long as a baker can be sued because he doesn't want to contribute to a gay wedding because it's against his beliefs and values, can you really blame people for getting upset when suddenly they are suddenly being refused service?
Click to expand...
 
  • Angry
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: sebastiantombs, Jessie.slimer and Arjun
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom