Jump to content

This Aint Packers Talk v69


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The CDC lied to the American people about the effectiveness of wearing masks. 

They did that to protect the supply for healthcare workers, we all saw what happened with toilet paper.
Had the same hoarding happened with masks and other protective early on, it would have put all of the hospital workers in a horrible spot
CDC is open to criticism and they earned some of it, but I'm on board with that decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

None of what you've said has a damn thing to do with them straight up lying and giving out bad advice.

Again you equate lying with giving out bad advice - which they corrected themselves about later.
Lying requires *intent* to mislead - which you can certainly claim and believe - but cant prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Natural social distancing.

Yes, we saw a great demonstration of that yesterday when the bars opened. Good thing rural folks never gather in bars. :)
I agree that it would be awesome to have different rules for different places, but that's not happening and I don't know who would be The Decider of what's rural or city. Is there a magic dividing line that everybody would agree to ? I kinda doubt it.

Time is a very big component of getting an infectious dose.   Here's a really well done article on it and I hope people take the time to read it.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?

Successful Infection = Exposure to Virus x Time

If a person coughs or sneezes, those 200,000,000 viral particles go everywhere. Some virus hangs in the air, some falls into surfaces, most falls to the ground. So if you are face-to-face with a person, having a conversation, and that person sneezes or coughs straight at you, it's pretty easy to see how it is possible to inhale 1,000 virus particles and become infected.

But even if that cough or sneeze was not directed at you, some infected droplets--the smallest of small--can hang in the air for a few minutes, filling every corner of a modest sized room with infectious viral particles. All you have to do is enter that room within a few minutes of the cough/sneeze and take a few breaths and you have potentially received enough virus to establish an infection.

But with general breathing, 20 viral particles minute into the environment, even if every virus ended up in your lungs (which is very unlikely), you would need 1000 viral particles divided by 20 per minute = 50 minutes.

Speaking increases the release of respiratory droplets about 10 fold; ~200 virus particles per minute. Again, assuming every virus is inhaled, it would take ~5 minutes of speaking face-to-face to receive the required dose.

The exposure to virus x time formula is the basis of contact tracing. Anyone you spend greater than 10 minutes with in a face-to-face situation is potentially infected. Anyone who shares a space with you (say an office) for an extended period is potentially infected.


There's a lot more info in there

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said:

And if we want to talk about lies, how about we talk about the person who has told over 18,000 false or misleading statements in about 3.5 years lol

As much as I’d like to in a different venue, let’s actually not talk about that person in this one. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cakeshoppe said:

As much as I’d like to in a different venue, let’s actually not talk about that person in this one. 

Fine, let’s just call it ‘ fake news’ and move on. Unfortunately, that’s what a lot of people do when they don’t like the truth. ( not saying you personally)

 

BTW, I was doing the math and it comes out to roughly 14 false or misleading claims A DAY

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

They did that to protect the supply for healthcare workers, we all saw what happened with toilet paper.
Had the same hoarding happened with masks and other protective early on, it would have put all of the hospital workers in a horrible spot
CDC is open to criticism and they earned some of it, but I'm on board with that decision.

And I acknowledged that, and that's fine.

But if you intentionally lie to me, regardless of whether or not it's for a good reason, I'm not going to believe you in the future. 

They traded in their credibility with that lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leader said:

Again you equate lying with giving out bad advice - which they corrected themselves about later.
Lying requires *intent* to mislead - which you can certainly claim and believe - but cant prove.

They knew it was a Corona virus when they sent out the information. They knew corona viruses have historically been spread via infectious droplets. 

There is no scenario here where the CDC comes out of this looking like they're not anything other than deeply untrustworthy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VonKarman said:

Herd immunity means that 1% of the population is gonna die. Spain, one of the most affected countries has 5-6% of infected people only despite having such a ****ty situation. And we had a total lockdown for a month, our current quarantine situation is similar to your total lockdown. Reaching the herd immunity would require repeating the same process a dozen times. Oh, and people get infected after herd immunity. Besides, the immunity might last only a few months, so it's not the kind of thing you can easily do.

That's not accurate. Herd immunity does not require 100% of the population to contract the disease. The largest number I've seen is 60% contraction, and even that is higher than what I've seen mathematically. You could start seeing partial herd-immunity effects (diminished spreading), by even 5-10% infected, and certainly by 30%. So long as you're not haven't super-spreader events (like rock concerts are shoulder-to-shoulder packed stadiums), we don't need everything else to be 100% shut down for the virus to fizzle out. 

Even if 60% infection was needed (and that % can vary based on difference in localities like population density and public transportation like subways), virus has been shown in many cases to have 0.6%-1% fatality (ie. the cruise ship that was thoroughly tested). 0.6% of 60% is 0.36% of the population. Obviously, any death is tragic, but there are many things that we take calculated risks for in life. Nothing is 100% safe. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the faction of "worth-it-if-it-even-saves-one-person" never seems to counterbalance the virus with other sources of death. obviously, we can't stay shut down forever, or eventually there will be crippling depression and more deaths from that. deaths from suicide, starvation, etc. Nobody of the shutdown-until-vaccine crowd ever shows a calculation for where the *crossover point* is at which point a shutdown causes more deaths than it saves. If you can't mathematically show that, how can you say for certain if it is "too early" to open things up? We have no clue have long it will actually take to make a vaccine, or how effective the vaccine would be. 

Opening up isn't just because rich people want to make more money. Lack of money can cause *tangible* effects in life-and-death matters. It's not just some artificial number in a bank account. The things we need in life aren't free. Less money means less healthcare. The stock market isn't just about the Warren Buffetts of the world. Millions of average people are having their retirement funds erased. Maybe that's not a big deal to some of us in our 30's who have time to make it up on the rebound, but what about 60's or 70's? The Great Depression took like a decade to get back to where it was, much less grow further, and retirees are often depending on that continued growth. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...