The Coronavirus Thread

[pErvinalia]

Galaxian is alt-alt-right.

[rainbow]

Cunt wrote:

...I don't know what each of the numbers are...

The defence rests...

Do you?

I mean, well enough to say how many virus deaths a given country should aim for? Flattening the curve doesn't change the area under a curve, JimC. Without a vaccine (or better therapuetics) this doesn't stop any virus deaths, just spreads them out so the hospitals don't get overrun.

Which means that fewer people die.

Did you really have to have that pointed out to you?

The other advantage of flattening the curve is that treatments can be developed to reduce the severity of the disease. It also gains time so that transmission rates can be reduced by introducing behavioural changes. Wearing masks, washing hands, not standing too close and shouting. You know this, surely?
It allows for more testing to be done so that the actual rates of infection are known, and the amount of antibodies in the general population, so that the Economy can be opened up safely without having a second wave of infections.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

...I don't know what each of the numbers are...

The defence rests...

Do you?

I mean, well enough to say how many virus deaths a given country should aim for? Flattening the curve doesn't change the area under a curve, JimC. Without a vaccine (or better therapuetics) this doesn't stop any virus deaths, just spreads them out so the hospitals don't get overrun.

Which means that fewer people die.

Did you really have to have that pointed out to you?

The other advantage of flattening the curve is that treatments can be developed to reduce the severity of the disease. It also gains time so that transmission rates can be reduced by introducing behavioural changes. Wearing masks, washing hands, not standing too close and shouting. You know this, surely?
It allows for more testing to be done so that the actual rates of infection are known, and the amount of antibodies in the general population, so that the Economy can be opened up safely without having a second wave of infections.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

Yes. Yes it is...

[NineBerry]

Flattening the curve doesn't change the area under a curve, JimC. Without a vaccine (or better therapuetics) this doesn't stop any virus deaths, just spreads them out so the hospitals don't get overrun.

Yes, flattening the curve does change the area under it.

Because

* Minimizing the number of infected people until a vaccine is available which would then stop the curve
* There's even the chance that infections can be stopped locally by bringing down the curve to 0. (*)
* More infected people at the same time also means more people needing treatment at the same time, more fatalities
* Chance to develop better treatments which will reduced the number of fatalities when people get infected later.


(*) I am currently reading the Laura Spinney book on the Influenza pandemic of 1918 and she recounts that many places were successful in stopping waves of the pandemic completely just by using social distancing measures.

[Cunt]

People with a right to make decisions about policies understand "what each of the numbers are". I'll certainly trust scientifically informed medical opinion over the stoned musings of an internet troll.

What was your science degree about, again?

So you DON'T know.

Puts us on even ground. Except I didn't resort to accusing you of trolling.

Cunt wrote:

...I don't know what each of the numbers are...

The defence rests...

Do you?

I mean, well enough to say how many virus deaths a given country should aim for? Flattening the curve doesn't change the area under a curve, JimC. Without a vaccine (or better therapuetics) this doesn't stop any virus deaths, just spreads them out so the hospitals don't get overrun.

Which means that fewer people die.

Did you really have to have that pointed out to you?

The other advantage of flattening the curve is that treatments can be developed to reduce the severity of the disease. It also gains time so that transmission rates can be reduced by introducing behavioural changes. Wearing masks, washing hands, not standing too close and shouting. You know this, surely?
It allows for more testing to be done so that the actual rates of infection are known, and the amount of antibodies in the general population, so that the Economy can be opened up safely without having a second wave of infections.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

That's not why they initiated this. It was to stop the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

The purpose of the lockdown morphed, and while what you say makes enough sense, it isn't what the various countries and states are presenting.

Everyone is going to get this, by what I can see so far. You got a different view? You think handwashing and ordering people to stand apart is going to work? Why did anyone bother making vaccines then? When it would have been so much easier to just use isolation tactics...

Get this - the media is going out of their way to create panic around this. (see the recent apology from the hospital exposed by Project Veritas)

The news agency comes off sounding honest and squeaky clean.

So if you can't stop this from spreading, the answers to reduce loss of like are:
Prep/stock hospitals and similar facilities
Therapeutics (improved and hopefully more of them)
Vaccine and distribution to the point of herd immunity

Attempting to force people to stay home only works for people who aren't hungry. Whenever someone insists the shutdown needs to go on, I'll bet they still have food for their kids.

[Brian Peacock]

The nature article is from 2019

Yes, and it supports your preferred worldview.

I noticed.

Scientific literature generally supports the world view of rational and intelligent people.

The converse is equally true.

There are two numbers to consider.

Economic disaster deaths and virus disaster deaths.

I don't know what each of the numbers are, but every time the economy is mentioned, lots of folks who don't have to work for a living support the shutdown.

For example, all retirees, government workers and celebrities seem to come down firmly on the 'lockdown until every life is saved' side of things. Easy to do from a warm home, with a full fridge.

Every day, more people have to consider the other side of that equation.

Even if an article from last year insists that economic ruin isn't really that bad for people.

I think you're generalising from your own experience and buying into certain talking points which are popular in certain media. If you actually think about what you're implying then you'll realise that you're trying to determine the price of a human life and figure out if the fiscal cost of saving a life is worth the economic cost of doing so. How does that kind of equation work out from where you're sitting?

[Sean Hayden]

You'd think now would be the time to discuss if our social safety nets are robust enough. Instead I find people saying things like "...they didn't ask the government for help, they just did what they knew how to do and went back to work" in response to people getting into trouble for violating lockdown orders.

Is it because people believe the money isn't there?

I have a really difficult time keeping things in perspective on this subject. I'm constantly tempted to think of how large profit margins are, and how long the demand for growth has been going on, and when I think about things like that, and I see the rich are worried that we need to get back to work, I'm forced to ask if that is because the demand for growth must be maintained or because if we don't we'll lose everything? I know what seems more likely and it ain't pretty.

[Brian Peacock]

The FED, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Japanese Central Bank have undertaken to buy an unlimited amount of investment grade financial and company debt. For any business big enough to issue bonds the central banks have agreed to take those obligations off their hands. It started with high-rated debt but quickly moved on to lower-grade debt. Companies need cash, and this is a quick and dirty way to get it to them. It's estimated that the FED has underwritten something in the region $5trillion so far. The Bank of England c.£2tn as well as agreeing to print money to cover government spending. All I'm saying is that social safety nets are a matter of political will, not money.

[Animavore]

[Cunt]

I think you're generalising from your own experience and buying into certain talking points which are popular in certain media.

Fair enough. If you can see you are doing it as well.

If you actually think about what you're implying then you'll realise that you're trying to determine the price of a human life and figure out if the fiscal cost of saving a life is worth the economic cost of doing so.

Isn't that what needs to be calculated though?

Seriously, if there will be deaths when the virus reaches everyone, and there will be deaths from poverty and food shortages, one does have to aim for the lesser of the two evils.

It's fucking simple to choose good over evil. It's a lot tougher to sort out bad from terrible, awful or torturous.

How does that kind of equation work out from where you're sitting?

Where I'm sitting? There is so much information out, good and bad, I think it's worth focusing on some of the bad, as a way to see shitty tactics.

Like the Reuters story about the President of Tanzania 'catching' the tests being bogus. Knowing something about testing and labs, I could have made the same theatrical show as the Pres, but how the FUCK did they sneak that into Reuters uncritically?

[Scot Dutchy]

Five Eyes network contradicts theory Covid-19 leaked from lab

No current evidence to suggest coronavirus leaked from Wuhan research lab, agencies say

There is no current evidence to suggest that coronavirus leaked from a Chinese research laboratory, intelligence sources have told the Guardian, contradicting recent White House claims that there is growing proof this is how the pandemic began.

The sources also insisted that a “15-page dossier” highlighted by the Australian Daily Telegraph which accused China of a deadly cover up was not culled from intelligence from the Five Eyes network, an alliance between the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

British and other Five Eyes agencies do believe that Beijing has not necessarily been open about how coronavirus initially spread in Wuhan at the turn of the year. But they are nervous about getting involved in an escalating international situation.

[JimC]

The whole Wuhan virus lab thing is a Trump beat-up to deflect attention from his own failures. Clearly the Chinese government was slow to act, and tried desperately to cover up its own early failings, but it's getting into woo-woo conspiracy theory territory to suggest deliberate or even accidental release. Their nasty wet-market trade in endangered animals is enough of a stain on China without paranoia designed to bolster partisan political positions in the west.

[rainbow]

That's not why they initiated this. It was to stop the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

REPEAT
Which means that fewer people die.

The purpose of the lockdown morphed, and while what you say makes enough sense, it isn't what the various countries and states are presenting.

Everyone is going to get this, by what I can see so far. You got a different view?

Get Coronavirus? With available information it will probably be between 40% and 70% before it burns out. The lower figure applies if people adhere to social distancing, there is sufficient testing and tracking, and better disinfection systems are employed (No, not by injection into the lungs!)

You think handwashing and ordering people to stand apart is going to work?

It has already been shown to slow down the rate of transmission. That gives more time for a vaccine to be developed.

Why did anyone bother making vaccines then? When it would have been so much easier to just use isolation tactics...

...because it isn't a simple binary option. I'd've thought even you could grasp that.

[JimC]

rainbow, you are making a very good attempt in the impossible mission to convey rational arguments to Cunt...

I mean, it would be like trying to get the Pope to read The God Delusion, but top marks for effort!

[NineBerry]

rainbow, you are making a very good attempt in the impossible mission to convey rational arguments to Cunt...

I mean, it would be like trying to get the Pope to read The God Delusion, but top marks for effort!

He's read it. I heard him laughing loud from here when he read the part about falling down the stairs and crashing into that vase.