Jump to content

This Aint Packers Talk v69


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

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. 

Some good points.  I’ll add that the market crash of 2008/2009 only took around two years to rebound (back to pre-crash levels).  The current market has already started to rebound and nearly half the losses since the crash began end of February have been regained.  The 30 million unemployed is a far more serious situation than the market, and that’s where smart re-opening of our country is prudent.

What sucks, is the conversations we’re having in this forum have been taking place for years but for political reasons have failed to materialize into an actionable plan with timely implementation.  Let’s hope for future pandemics, we’ll have a blueprint - a roadmap to follow - for a faster, more efficient response all the way around.  From PPE, to testing, to advanced warning protocols, to better shared resources and intel, to better virus tracking, to smart physical distancing strategies that don’t require the entire country to completely shutting down, to many other lessons learned.  Much of this strife could have been avoided or the effects minimized.  It’s the 21st Century FFS, and COVID-19 isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last infectious virus to run amok.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

This reads like feigned outrage to me.

I'm not outraged for two reasons:

1. I expect my government agencies to lie. They all do so with impunity at this point. 

2. It was such a terrible lie, nobody should have ever believed it in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Some good points.  I’ll add that the market crash of 2008/2009 only took around two years to rebound (back to pre-crash levels).  The current market has already started to rebound and nearly half the losses since the crash began end of February have been regained.  The 30 million unemployed is a far more serious situation than the market, and that’s where smart re-opening of our country is prudent.

What sucks, is the conversations we’re having in this forum have been taking place for years but for political reasons have failed to materialize into an actionable plan with timely implementation.  Let’s hope for future pandemics, we’ll have a blueprint - a roadmap to follow - for a faster, more efficient response all the way around.  From PPE, to testing, to advanced warning protocols, to better shared resources and intel, to better virus tracking, to smart physical distancing strategies that don’t require the entire country to completely shutting down, to many other lessons learned.  Much of this strife could have been avoided or the effects minimized.  It’s the 21st Century FFS, and COVID-19 isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last infectious virus to run amok.  

In all fairness the market is purposely and intentionally set up to manipulate and defraud small and medium investors and then get bailed out when it falls apart set up by the shadiest and greediest to help the greediest and most manipulative of people. It's a pyramid scheme run by the worst of people. 

Greedy people will manipulate the masses for their benefit. It's been proven time and time again.

It's the smart and shady greedy people taking advantage of the dumb and greedy. 

🤷

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

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. 

Is there anyone actually in the shutdown-until-vaccine camp? I’m not, no one I’ve ever talked to is, and public health officials certainly aren’t. The viewpoint that I think is far more common is to have stricter rules in place until the virus stabilizes or reaches a decline and to have less stringent measures, with the possibility of local tightening to prevent outbreaks from getting out of control. California seems to be everyone’s model of a strict lockdown state and right now we are transitioning into limited retail and dine-in eating on a county-by-county basis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, packfanfb said:

It's a tricky situation that needs some balance. Some of these Governors are over-stepping and running rough-shot over their constituents, some for the sake of political gain. Michigan is a big example of this right now. For a while Whitmer was threatening to arrest people for going fishing or having their lawns cut. Stuff is completely out of control. 

It's roughshod dummy

Link to post
Share on other sites

So went with the GF and her mother to get some things. But her mom had a I doctors appointment too. Long story short she's in the COVID wing at the hospital. Idk if it's bull****. Tested negative and they still put her in there because of the other signs and I guess the test isn't super accurate. Mentally *** exhausting day.. Fell sleep at like 1030 and just woke up a bit ago in an absolute panic.

2020 ******* sucks. 

It's not the end of the world but I'm not looking forward to the possibility of being at home for 14 days...

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Cakeshoppe said:

Is there anyone actually in the shutdown-until-vaccine camp? I’m not, no one I’ve ever talked to is, and public health officials certainly aren’t. The viewpoint that I think is far more common is to have stricter rules in place until the virus stabilizes or reaches a decline and to have less stringent measures, with the possibility of local tightening to prevent outbreaks from getting out of control. California seems to be everyone’s model of a strict lockdown state and right now we are transitioning into limited retail and dine-in eating on a county-by-county basis.

I'm not necessarily talking about this particular website, but there are plenty of people elsewhere that seem to imply that. or imply that the people supporting opening-up care more about money than people's lives. The virus has already stabilized in the majority of places and been declining. Daily "new case" numbers peaked about the 2nd week of April. Harder-hit states are long past their peak (NY~Apr11,  NJ/LA-Apr17, MI/MA-Apr23). 80% of states are past their peak, and even the ones that aren't past it are not expected to exceed resources in their soon-approaching peaks (most seem to have vastly more bed-resources per unit pop than the earlier-hit states). There are already 6 states that are basically down to zero hospital beds being needed for covid. And due to the 10-14 day lag effect between when you catch the disease, exhibit symptoms, and get your test processed,  that means the actual infected numbers peaked even earlier than the dates listed above. 

No need to use a one-size-fits all policy. Many states have much lower risk factors than NY, and even within states, not every locality is a hotspot. I sometimes think politicians just want to show to their constituents that they are doing *something* even if the action isn't really helping, or only having negligible effects given the resources spent. kinda like some overseas places that are sending full-body-suited and masked people through the *unpaved* streets and marketplaces to hose down things with portable disinfectants, as if that is really going to do much. or states arresting solo paddle-boarders or burying skate-parks. as John Wooden said, "Never mistake activity for achievement". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

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. 

 

I'm not saying you need 100% of people to get herd immunity, I'm saying that people still get infected after acquiring it:

 

 

BTW, most of the scientist assume at least 60% of the population to get it. And the fatality rate is around 1% (1.2% in Spain, which is one of the countries with more data).

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

I'm not saying you need 100% of people to get herd immunity, I'm saying that people still get infected after acquiring it:

 

 

BTW, most of the scientist assume at least 60% of the population to get it. And the fatality rate is around 1% (1.2% in Spain, which is one of the countries with more data).

You were saying that since your original post said 1% of the population. If the fatality rate is 1%, in order to get 1% of the total population as a fatality, then 100% of the population would need to be infected. 
 

and that guy on the twitter post is an idiot. nobody is saying that the very second you hit X% threshold of infected, that infections immediately disappear in a step-change. Obviously, the whole process is gradual, with continuously diminishing spread rate as you go all the way from 5% infected to whatever percentage it ends at when the virus fizzles out. I’ve seen other sources that do not agree with 60%. And even if a certain individual location needs 60% doesn’t mean every location does, especially if different country and state borders are basically isolated. Maybe in a place with massive population density where loads of people take public transportation you would need a higher infected percentage to get enough herd immunity effects to overcome the local inherent spread rate. But the spread rate is a lot lower in other areas where populations are less dense and there is less communal transportation. And in those areas, it will take a lower infected % to overcome the spread rate and cause the virus to fizzle out.

and the 60% could be to return to 100%-normal life with super-spreader stadium events, etc. If you shut down that relatively small subset of human interaction but open up the rest of businesses, you can cause the virus to fizzle at a lower infected % since the spread rate won’t be as high. It doesn’t have to be a binary all-or-nothing thing.

There are a lot of journalists that aren’t very mathematically literate. 

Edited by TransientTexan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

if total confirmed cases is a cumulative reporting of people who are sick and people who have recovered, one would have to question the graphic choice in the context of this story as incompetence or manipulation.

this kind of data would be helpful for determining % of population infected as you approach herd immunity. 

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

I'm not necessarily talking about this particular website, but there are plenty of people elsewhere that seem to imply that. or imply that the people supporting opening-up care more about money than people's lives. The virus has already stabilized in the majority of places and been declining. Daily "new case" numbers peaked about the 2nd week of April. Harder-hit states are long past their peak (NY~Apr11,  NJ/LA-Apr17, MI/MA-Apr23). 80% of states are past their peak, and even the ones that aren't past it are not expected to exceed resources in their soon-approaching peaks (most seem to have vastly more bed-resources per unit pop than the earlier-hit states). There are already 6 states that are basically down to zero hospital beds being needed for covid. And due to the 10-14 day lag effect between when you catch the disease, exhibit symptoms, and get your test processed,  that means the actual infected numbers peaked even earlier than the dates listed above. 

No need to use a one-size-fits all policy. Many states have much lower risk factors than NY, and even within states, not every locality is a hotspot. I sometimes think politicians just want to show to their constituents that they are doing *something* even if the action isn't really helping, or only having negligible effects given the resources spent. kinda like some overseas places that are sending full-body-suited and masked people through the *unpaved* streets and marketplaces to hose down things with portable disinfectants, as if that is really going to do much. or states arresting solo paddle-boarders or burying skate-parks. as John Wooden said, "Never mistake activity for achievement". 

 

Now this is a reasonable thought process ... well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rainmaker90 said:

 

If you're listening to anything Chris Cuomo is talking about, that's your first problem. Guy pretty much faked having COVID and then brought a film crew to his house to film his "emergence" from his fake basement quarantine. Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

If you're listening to anything Chris Cuomo is talking about, that's your first problem. Guy pretty much faked having COVID and then brought a film crew to his house to film his "emergence" from his fake basement quarantine. Lol. 

There it is! Just say it ‘ fake news’ because it proves you wrong. That’s what you guys do.

And then you make grotesque lies about a guy faking having Corona. The guy’s wife and 14 year old son both got the virus as well, and you’re calling it fake. That’s disgusting. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...