The new Corona virus, should we worry?

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,702
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
So a deaths per capita comparison between Minnesota and South Dakota would also be meaningless?
When comparing time series (trends), yes it is helpful to normalize them.

When talking about total cost/loss inflicted by the disease on society, the absolute number is also just as important if not more so.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,575
Reaction score
3,032
Points
113
Get rid of the TSA. Why can't I have the choice to fly with no TSA, its total bullshit. I should be able to hop on a plane like a bus. This country is full of pussies.
Howie and Wally going to bat for the TSA. You love to see it.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,744
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
If it was somehow possible to lock every single person in their homes for 2 weeks at the onset of the pandemic (bring them food/water, the whole bit), sign me up.

Pure fantasy

How many Americans don’t have running water? An unfortunately high percentage of Americans could probably hibernate for the winter...
A hard lockdown, total travel ban would have had obvious civil liberty issues, political ramifications, some unintended associated casualties and adverse outcomes and may have only delayed the inevitable.

Without total suppression early on, the virus was going to spread far and wide, run its course which most people have come to accept. The larger fantasy is thinking the majority of the 500+k deaths could have been mitigated to some high percentage. Maybe with better public health efforts and messaging some single digit percentages could have been shaved off but that’s pure conjecture.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,744
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
Yeah gee, I wonder what could go wrong. It's not like random people are committing violent acts of hatred against Asian Americans, is it?


Because ... you say so. Neat

I’ve posted links to several other experts stating this. It’s not me saying this. Follow along,
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
Focus quarantine and mask efforts on true at risk population, virus moves thru rest of population faster. Fewer deaths.
shorter quarantine for some, no quarantine for many = lower mental health issues

I can see debating one of the three, but not all. You’re denying that the approach we took involved any trade offs.
You can’t protect the high risk if the virus is running wild through the rest of the population. High risk people still have jobs that require close contact with others. You’re underestimating how many people are in the higher risk group. It’s pretty substantial. This almost certainly would have resulted in a lot more deaths.
 
Last edited:

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
No, but communication from 'experts' continues to be poor and politically driven rather than having a realistic conversation of who is at risk and who isn't.

Quarantining and masking healthy people has never been supported by any sort of data or Science. As soon as they could use it for a political tool, they did, and continue to do so.

At the beginning, everyone believed in staying home for two weeks to slow the spread to prevent overrunning hospitals in order to help people 65+ or with severe comorbidities. Then it changed to keep everyone from returning to normal until there is a cure, which may never happen, because even today's vaccines don't prevent infection.

Meanwhile there is plenty of data that proves many experts are full of it, and people have had enough. A large portion of the population has lost trust in the experts because of their failure to communicate the real risks, and their continued gloom and doom speech, when the data completely contradicts them.

Age is the #1 risk factor, obesity is #2. We've known that all along. What was the government's solution to that? Shut down gyms, shut down schools, shut down sports, and encourage ordering take out. The exact opposite of what should have happened.
You really think that if all those things were open the past year that we all of a sudden would have become a healthy country?
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,907
Reaction score
2,517
Points
113
You really think that if all those things were open the past year that we all of a sudden would have become a healthy country?

Along with an open dialogue from the experts of the true risks from this virus, yes we’d be significantly more healthy today.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
You can’t protect the high risk if the virus is running wild through the rest of the population. High risk people still have jobs that require close contact with others. You’re underestimating how many people are in the higher risk group. It’s pretty substantial. This almost certainly would have resulted in a lot more deaths.
Those with high risks have choices, correct? Stay home? That is what you have told us for a year now.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,702
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
Without total suppression early on, the virus was going to spread far and wide, run its course
If we had done nothing, our total deaths would be closer to 5M than 500k. Untold higher numbers of cases leading to long haul complications, hospitalizations, and impossible to account for costs to society. Far higher than the costs of the mitigation efforts.

I'm glad that your personal freedom was sacrificed, to save those lives. Some businesses were lost, but I'm also glad they were sacrificed, to save those lives.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
Those with high risks have choices, correct? Stay home? That is what you have told us for a year now.
I’ve literally never said that. 50% of the country shouldn’t have to isolate in their home for a year because the other 50% can’t be bothered with trying to help them.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
I’ve literally never said that. 50% of the country shouldn’t have to isolate in their home for a year because the other 50% can’t be bothered with trying to help them.
Each person has a choice to make. Each day. We know your choice was to continue working, putting yourself at some risk as well as anyone you contacted.

Most folks stayed away from people, masked, etc etc. How can you say "bothered" when most people did exactly as you requested?

And yes, you advocated for staying home during the "lockdowns" and beyond. For some folks.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
740
Points
113
I’ve literally never said that. 50% of the country shouldn’t have to isolate in their home for a year because the other 50% can’t be bothered with trying to help them.
I have to ask, so it's not reasonable to expect at-risk people to take some responsibility for themselves and their own health but it IS reasonable to force mask mandates and a litany of other requirements on the entire population of the country?

Some people need to take a step back and take a look at this from 30,000 feet and see what's really going on here
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,702
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
it's not reasonable to expect at-risk people to take some responsibility for themselves and their own health but it IS reasonable to force mask mandates and a litany of other requirements on the entire population of the country?
Every human on Earth is at-risk of catching covid.

Science does not possess the knowledge, at this time, to explain or predict which of those infected is likely to result in severe illness.


You'll then pretend that "data" gives a clear picture of this. Which is silly, because the "data" presented is always 6th grade level statistics.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
I have to ask, so it's not reasonable to expect at-risk people to take some responsibility for themselves and their own health but it IS reasonable to force mask mandates and a litany of other requirements on the entire population of the country?

Some people need to take a step back and take a look at this from 30,000 feet and see what's really going on here
I never said higher risk people shouldn’t take responsibility for themselves. But the only way for them to truly protect themselves if the rest of the country is doing whatever they want would be to completely isolate. Don’t go to work, don’t go anywhere. Not sure how that would be good for the economy.

Yes I think it should be reasonable to ask everyone to wear a mask and avoid large gatherings compared to telling half the country you’re not worth my time to protect because I can’t be bothered with small inconveniences.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
I never said higher risk people shouldn’t take responsibility for themselves. But the only way for them to truly protect themselves if the rest of the country is doing whatever they want would be to completely isolate. Don’t go to work, don’t go anywhere. Not sure how that would be good for the economy.

Yes I think it should be reasonable to ask everyone to wear a mask and avoid large gatherings compared to telling half the country you’re not worth my time to protect because I can’t be bothered with small inconveniences.
That's exactly what happened. For many months of 2020.

Your advocacy for "the workers" has an odor of self to it.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
740
Points
113
I never said higher risk people shouldn’t take responsibility for themselves. But the only way for them to truly protect themselves if the rest of the country is doing whatever they want would be to completely isolate. Don’t go to work, don’t go anywhere. Not sure how that would be good for the economy.

Yes I think it should be reasonable to ask everyone to wear a mask and avoid large gatherings compared to telling half the country you’re not worth my time to protect because I can’t be bothered with small inconveniences.
Again, the lack of a consensus in the scientific/medical community on the efficacy of masks, type of masks, where they should be used and where they shouldn't, make it an awfully tough pill to swallow to mandate something that in general it seems "we think it might help" if you wear a mask. The message continues to be across the board on this topic from the "experts", and people wonder why some might have an issue with wearing masks, in many cases with no rhyme or reason as to where and when.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,702
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
make it an awfully tough pill to swallow to mandate something that in general it seems "we think it might help" if you wear a mask.
Doing something that might help instead of doing nothing that is guaranteed not to help, is a tough pill to swallow??

Only the most awful, selfish people can think this way.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,744
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
No one should forget that any Nobel for the Pfizer vaccine will go to a female German scientist (and her husband) who emigrated there from Turkey.

Well, not quite. A Hungarian and a Jewish-American native of Lexington, MA are the fathers of mRNA tech. Moderna and BionTech licensed their technology.



In 1998, Drew Weissman, who was working on an HIV vaccine at the National Institutes of Health, joined the university. “I met him at the Xerox machine and told him I could make any RNA,” Karikó recalled.

They ended up working together and, in 2005, achieved a major breakthrough. The problem with mRNA was that it triggered an inflammatory reaction when injected. The two researchers, however, found a way to ward off this response by modifying one of mRNA’s four building blocks, called nucleosides.

They published their discovery but it received little attention at the time. Some – including Derrick Rossi, one of the founders of Moderna – now say that the duo should receive the Nobel prize in chemistry for their breakthrough.

The next year, Karikó and Weissman set up a company to develop mRNA drugs, led by Karikó as chief executive. But they never got as far as clinical trials and the university sold the exclusive licence of their patent to a third party, CellScript. Meanwhile, Rossi, a Canadian stem cell biologist who had read their groundbreaking 2005 paper, found strong financial backers and in 2010 founded Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In 2013, Karikó joined BioNTech – she also had a job offer from Moderna – which was based on the Mainz university campus in Germany and at the time did not even have a website.

It has been a busy seven years. BioNTech now has 1,500 employees and its market value hit a record $25bn (£19bn) when the first positive results of trials of the Covid-19 vaccine it has developed with Pfizer were published last week.

Karikó serves as the BioNTech’s senior vice-president and head of RNA protein replacement therapies, and is also an adjunct associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Weissman, a professor of medicine at the university, has gone on to develop RNA vaccine candidates against flu, herpes and HIV.

Both BioNTech and Moderna licensed the modified mRNA technology developed by Karikó and Weissman for their vaccines.

 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
Again, the lack of a consensus in the scientific/medical community on the efficacy of masks, type of masks, where they should be used and where they shouldn't, make it an awfully tough pill to swallow to mandate something that in general it seems "we think it might help" if you wear a mask. The message continues to be across the board on this topic from the "experts", and people wonder why some might have an issue with wearing masks, in many cases with no rhyme or reason as to where and when.
It’s pretty much a consensus that masks help to some degree and that’s all that should matter. There’s uncertainty as to how much they help but almost all agree they do help which is the point. I agree the message has been bad but too many people act like wearing a mask is a big thing that hinders their ability to live. How spoiled have we become?

And I wasn’t talking about just masks. If the country had come together to all make small sacrifices like wearing a mask and avoiding large gatherings we’d be in a better place IMO. Certainly better than if we went with the “half the country do whatever you want while the higher risk are essentially on their own” strategy some are suggesting.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
It definitely has not happened even close to consistently.
Yes, it has. Beginning in March 2020, people stayed home. Ghost towns, other than grocery and convenience stores. Nearly everyone wore masks and stayed clear of others. NEARLY everyone.

As the bullshit began to emerge in terms of masking, for example, people made adjustments to their behavior. And most continued to mask, even though they didn't beleive the feed of maybe, could, should, might.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,575
Reaction score
3,032
Points
113
You can’t protect the high risk if the virus is running wild through the rest of the population. High risk people still have jobs that require close contact with others. You’re underestimating how many people are in the higher risk group. It’s pretty substantial. This almost certainly would have resulted in a lot more deaths.
Yes you can. Stricter lockdown on high risk population and use of N95 masks. What jobs require close contact? This is what maddens me. We can cancel ALL jobs to protect the small subset that are truly at risk, but we can’t limit high risk folks from close contact with others? What sense does that make? There are no precautions high risk folks can take to limit their exposure? Of course there are. Wear a shield and N95. Wash hands frequently.
Again, clearly communicate who is at risk, and how to protect yourself. And clearly communicate who isn’t high risk, and should only quarantine if feeling sick. The same way we handle every other pandemic in history.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
3,168
Points
113
Yes, it has. Beginning in March 2020, people stayed home. Ghost towns, other than grocery and convenience stores. Nearly everyone wore masks and stayed clear of others. NEARLY everyone.

As the bullshit began to emerge in terms of masking, for example, people made adjustments to their behavior. And most continued to mask, even though they didn't beleive the feed of maybe, could, should, might.
You’re contradicting yourself. You say people have been doing nothing this whole time, then say people adjusted their behaviors. Which is it?

All the evidence points to people not consistently doing those things but I know you’re not someone that uses evidence to come to your conclusions.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,575
Reaction score
3,032
Points
113
It’s pretty much a consensus that masks help to some degree and that’s all that should matter. There’s uncertainty as to how much they help but almost all agree they do help which is the point. I agree the message has been bad but too many people act like wearing a mask is a big thing that hinders their ability to live. How spoiled have we become?

And I wasn’t talking about just masks. If the country had come together to all make small sacrifices like wearing a mask and avoiding large gatherings we’d be in a better place IMO. Certainly better than if we went with the “half the country do whatever you want while the higher risk are essentially on their own” strategy some are suggesting.
There’s very little scientific evidence around masks. In fact, I just heard of a study that thinks the kinds of masks people wear turn droplets into aerosol and make spread HIGHER with masks.
the narrative from the left is that masks obviously work, and people are too selfish to wear them. That narrative has a lot of holes.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,702
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
Yes you can. Stricter lockdown on high risk population and use of N95 masks.
Silly. Lazy to say, impossible to do. How do you define a threshold? And in what dimension/measure?

People would cheat it, as well, so as not to be imprisoned in their homes.
 
Top Bottom