New SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Thread
|
Actually isn't New York just about to go, excuse the term
FUCKING BERKO |
|
" ok so you read it you just didnt understand it. the revision didnt come too late to prevent a people being worried by the original numbers, the revision has come due to measures people have taken BECAUSE they were worried about the original numbers. you have the virus outbreak, you ask medical experts to model it and make an estimation on how many it will kill and how quickly. those models are based on the virus just spreading and doing its thing with the world carrying on the way they currently are. that model comes out with a ton of deaths, you then work out ways to prevent that amount of deaths and implement them. now you remodel the situation given those changes u have made and work out the new estimates to see if what uve done is gonna work. it comes out with far less deaths, good, job done, we did the right thing. somehow u think the new figures that show the measures we have taken vastly reduce the amount of projected deaths somehow mean we didnt need to take the measures, completely oblivious to the fact that the reason the death projections reduced was because we took those measures... its not 'interesting' that hes crediting the lockdown, its a projection about how many deaths will result from this, projection, future tense, of course it takes into account how measures we have taken that will effect future events effect those future events. if you struggle with getting your head around that sort of logic then just take my advice, stop reading that website thats been written by completely incompetent ppl and read better websites written by smart people who understand what they are talking about, that will avoid these sort of 2+2=7 conclusions. i dunno if the people who wrote that website are stupid or theyre just hoping the people who read their website are stupid, but either way theyre using absolutely absurd misinterpretation to paint a false picture that fits the narrative they want to push. if a narrative requires abandoning facts and logic in this way to justify itself then theres a high probability its bullshit. |
|
"  https://linktr.ee/wjameschan -- everything I've ever done worth talking about, and even that is debatable.
Huh. My mace dude is now an actual cultist of Chayula. That's kinda wild. |
|
|
Until "Panic news" isn't printed, it won't be absorbed. I'm sick of no-one holding the media accountable for the shit that gets printed. I'm in no way suggesting a gag, but they should'nt be able to roam free like a lion stalking a kill. They encourage and coax the story a lot more than they ethically report it.
|
|
" Well, not much you can do about it, atm. It's sort of the result of having a monetary incentive to sensationalize the news. I think the dumbest thing that has happened is chloroquine phosphate, which is used in malaria treatment and could be used treat COVID-19. Is getting a lot of negative press because Donald Trump said it. Seems tbh, that many news outlets are more concerned about inserting their politics then actually informing people how to properly treating the disease. Didn't help that some people started self-medicating (always a retarded idea) on chloroquine used in fish acquariums and died. And some news outlets reported it as a reason why chloroquine shouldn't be tested as a possible cure. Jesus Christ. One of the more heinous misdirection I've read on the news so far. (⌐■_■)
|
|
" Seems unlikely that medical professionals will give a rat's ass about what Trump or the media consider suitable or unsuitable cures. |
|
" The problem isn't what medical professionals would do, if you read what I wrote. But what the average person would do being told that a possible cure is a dangerous drug (it isn't, eating aquarium chemicals or overdosing on the chemical thinking its the same thing is). Last thing we need is people acting like anti-vaxxers because the last 6+ months of news fearmongering a possible cure. (⌐■_■)
|
|
" Just a small glimpse of what a collapse of the healthcare system looks like. The new cases there are not increasing day-to-day but there is simply not enough resources to deal with all the sick people. Last edited by Johny_Snow#4778 on Mar 27, 2020, 1:07:20 PM
|
|
" If they refuse an eventual cure/vaccine, forcefully quarantine them and/or let them die once the vaccine is spread everywhere. If people want to compete for the Darwin Awards, I say let them. |
|
" Exactly so. " Very cool! I'll have to keep my eye out for that book and similar ones. (Likely would have to order it as I don't think many non-university libraries/stores would carry it. :)) There are going to be plenty of these sorts of books with a pop-sci focus being put on the shelves in the coming months/year btw. :) I did some gruntwork on some population mondeling and the like "back in the day." Nothing with any heavy-lifting involved like the above work, but enough to appreciate how darn complex it can actually be in getting something with predictive value. It'd be mostly the sort of thing that city planners and policy makers would use in the socioeconomic sense. And, those are truly "hard number facts" if one subjectively compared them to the more elusive modeling of... biology stuffs. " I'd like to point out something... And, it's no attack or personal criticism, but it is an observation of a dangerous way to think about such things. You say that you have "never believed that there would be "millions" of deaths." OK, that's fine. I can see how one could think that. Kinda. :) But, then you cite that all these experts and the numbers we have and the regions of speculation we're entering into are... "unknowns." What you're doing is exactly where many of the problems lie when it comes down to "the Public" making an informed, cogent, decision. When faced with "danger" and a lack of sufficient evidence that can help predict whether a particular action that yields an outcome will result in "danger" there are two courses of action people generally take: 1) They decide to proceed with much caution. (Or, given the severity of the threat, they reverse their course of action.) 2) They decide that the threat of danger is not supported, so do not change their behavior. (Or, they do nothing, attacked by the supreme anxiety of the "Fight or Flight" response, they elect to "Play Dead." Since it's not really an "action" I didn't give it a "number." :)) You believe there will not be millions of deaths. Yet, point out that "we don't know" a lot of stuffs. Where do you derive your confidence that there won't be millions of deaths? If you had a big open room full of 100 people, randomly selected from all available cohorts, interacting with each other without any restraints other than typical human behavior, you will end up with at least anywhere from 2 to 5+ deaths due to one person being infected with Covid 19. (Rounded up starting at 1.4-1.6 or so, hard to say.) Period. No further investigation needed and the data is firm. That is what will happen. Around 20% of those people will need some kind of extended medical care. So, 20 people will be on their back and many of those will struggle to breathe or at least need some kind of medical intervention to help ease their symptoms. No cure. Just an easing of symptoms in a situation that, in the end, doesn't involved "death." Permanent lung damage? Likely, without more serious intervention or luck. But, whatever - We're just talking about the guaranteed "deaths" of 1-5+ people in that room. Why did they die? Well, mostly due to the severity of the illness coupled with existing health conditions. It's a bit more dangerous than the "Flu" and likely much more communicable, so it spreads faster. If we consider that what information we're getting is from "modern" sources, which means they have hospitals and doctors and nurses and respiratory specialists as well as modern equipment, that 1 to 5+ number becomes a bit... scarier. You see, 20% of those people in that room needed "medical assistance." They got it in some form, more or less. So, they may have not died because they actually got some form of medical care. What would happen if it was 100 people in a room with no advanced medical services available... What would that number of deaths look like? No Emergency Medical personnel rushing into that room to save a life. No ventilators or disinfectants or clean bed-sheets... Nothing but the floor and the air that's coming from a vent in the room. This is what "we don't know." We know that anywhere between 1.5 or so and somewhere around 5% of those who are infected are likely to die from being infected. We know there is no such thing as an "immunity" to this disease in humans. There is no population that can not be infected, just some general knowledge about how likely it is that people will be exposed/infected. (80%, give or take.) We do know it's a credible, significant, mortal threat to those who are infected and we know that pre-existing conditions can dramatically increase the likelihood not only of hospitilization needs, but of... death. What we don't know is the "high-end" of those numbers. We don't know what will happen when what medical infrastructure that has been present in effected areas, so far, is removed from all our guesswork and hard data collection. Disputed or not, massaged or not, the numbers do not look "good." Without sufficient medical treatment, what happens? Obviously, nothing good. And, yet, you seem confident that "millions" will not die. What forms that belief? What do you believe will intervene to prevent what would otherwise seem a logical prediction given that, for instance, advanced medical facilities can not be brought to bear on the problem? PS: I'm not being a fear-monger and am not that sort of person "IRL." I'm just pointing out that anxiety and "big numbers" often come together to form a very strange relationship when we start talking about human behavior and decision making. Not that you're wrong, just that I don't know what supports your "belief." Edit:Add - I want to be sure I'm clear, so here's a report with graphs and stuffs... :) https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sources-comparison It's very much worth noting that we don't likely have completely accurate numbers here. It's also worth noting that what is reported is what is "reported." It's what can reasonably be said to be "known." Some of the rise can be attributed to more testing. But, what's important is that... those lines keep going "up." That's an increase in infections/cases. We can also see that significant differences can be found based on population demographics and the availability of healthcare: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763667 Italy has had over a 7% fatality rate. The "what ifs" scenarios start to quickly get out-of-bounds in terms of predictitve value. PS: The death rate from the "Seasonal Flu" we all know and love is around 0.1 % in the U.S. That's with vaccines and advanced healthcare facilities that are used to dealing with it and predicting its impact. (https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/how-many-people-die-of-the-flu-every-year) Last edited by Morkonan#5844 on Mar 27, 2020, 2:52:59 PM
|
|
