Anyone worried if Corona virus keeps spreading the gyms will shut down?

[BamBam54]

This idea of reaching "herd immunity" combined with the idea of "only 1% fatal" is some really bad math.

Herd Immunity is when 60-80% of the population has been exposed to the virus. That is over 200 million Americans. And if you think 99% will be fine, and 'only' 1% will prove fatal... that still equals 2 million dead Americans.

THAT was the math that led the US to invoke a very strict quarantine/social distancing (partial shutdown) in a hope to delay any crushing spike of dead bodies. NY got a taste. Did you see them digging mass graves on a NY island to bury the stacks of unclaimed bodies? And that was at the 10,000 dead point. It could have been much worse. It still might.

Because this virus will likely restart and reinfect and begin killing again until (A) herd immunity (B) a vaccine or (C) some new mediation technique involving the rapid anti-body test.

 

[JoePaul39]

Neither of us are experts hare, so let’s preface with that first and foremost. Next, I do think it’s good that we limited exposure already, hopefully it bought us time to get enough equipment to not be overwhelmed (things like ventilators, sufficient PPE, etc.). True, we don’t have a vaccine, and it’s a long way off, but at least we now hopefully have more/enough equipment to handle things, or will soon. And we learn more about the virus every day, and how to best treat it, etc. I don’t have the answer, not all the answers of course, but I’m just saying that suggesting we should return entirely to “business as usual” and ONLY tell “high risk” people to do ANY level of distancing is silly. That is all I’m saying.

i am glad you admitted you don’t have the answer and I wouldn’t expect us roiders on a forum to have that, but we should expect our top government leaders to have the answer and they should have provided a clear “exit target” defined when they INITIALLY decided to shut everything down. It has been nearly a month and a half and there is no mathematical measuring target set on when to open things up let alone how to do it. That have should have been established from the beginning. Supposedly they are finally going to come up with a task force this week to figure this out. I am not saying they should have been able to tell us a specific date up front on when things would open, but at a mathematical target that once we meet it we would start opening would have been nice. Instead have left the whole American public in anxiety by not doing this and thus proving no “end” in sight. The whole thing was not thought out very well.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

i am glad you admitted you don’t have the answer and I wouldn’t expect us roiders on a forum to have that, but we should expect our top government leaders to have the answer and they should have provided a clear “exit target” defined when they INITIALLY decided to shut everything down. It has been nearly a month and a half and there is no mathematical measuring target set on when to open things up let alone how to do it. That have should have been established from the beginning. Supposedly they are finally going to come up with a task force this week to figure this out. I am not saying they should have been able to tell us a specific date up front on when things would open, but at a mathematical target that once we meet it we would start opening would have been nice. Instead have left the whole American public in anxiety by not doing this and thus proving no “end” in sight. The whole thing was not thought out very well.

To be fair, I can't really blame the government(s) for taking a proactive initial approach. We still don't have an "exit target" defined, at least not publicly, so if we had to wait to have a clear, defined exit timepoint/strategy before implementing any lockdowns/restrictions, we still would have yet to have done ANYTHING, and we'd have some pretty major problems in some hostpot areas, like major cities. It's a novel virus, and there's still a lot we don't know about it. The more we know, the more we learn, the better idea we'll have about how to treat it, how to control it, etc. If we are able to figure out better courses of treatment, what medications to use, all that good stuff, then perhaps that changes the gameplan and course of action too. I can sort of see why they haven't announced some clearly defined "endpoint" mathematically, as things can change, and if they're quoted on something that ends up being based on outdated information, that's a problem, and can lead to even more public unrest. Just my $0.02, and I don't have all the answers, of course haha.

 

[Ricky10]

Good to hear some patients are recovering! You medical workers are true heroes in this time! Very comparable to our troops during war time who keep us safe. Is your intake rate of new COVID-19 new patients also dropping down to I hope?

Thank you

In Maine, we have been at least a few weeks behind the rest of the nation or “hot spots.” We definitely haven’t peaked yet here but new cases are consistently on the rise as expected. Generally speaking, I would say our intake of patients that are sick enough to be admitted to our hospital has remained consistent. We have had 6-8 people in the COVID unit at all times throughout the past few weeks. Some come and go with very little intervention, the rest are stuck on the vent for at least a week or two.

Of note, we did have one admission who was recently receiving chemotherapy for lymphoma- so definitely immunocompromised and one would think that he would do quite poorly. His x-ray did show bilateral infiltrates, yet all he required was 4 LPM of oxygen at his worst. The last day I worked, he was off oxygen and discharge was being planned.

All of these so called experts are still pushing ventilators even though they are just causing lung damage. These dumbasses do not have a clue which direction is up. Case in point: Boris Johnson (who is old and looks unhealthy as fuk) was just released from the hospital after a few days of oxygen, and NO FUKING VENTILATOR!

The way everyone/everywhere was told to ventilate these patients was established by the WHO (World Health Organization) and it was based on what was utilized in Wuhan. It’s a high pressure protocol that was likely utilized because they defaulted to treating it like SARS. I believe 80% of people placed on a ventilator in Wuhan died.

So as more clinical experience and data emerged from Europe and then the United States, we have come to realize that this ventilator strategy should only be used in specific cases that require more extreme settings. Most people don’t require this, and we are no longer using that as the default ventilator strategy for every COVID-19 patient in our hospital. It didn’t take us long to notice that things weren’t adding up ourselves.

It’s going to be more of a “just give them what they need“ type of approach, and treat everyone as an individual. The WHO set the wrong standard and should have known better than to base it on strategies utilized by China.

 

[JoePaul39]

@HIT4ME My purpose of those comparison statistics between per capita death rates between countries that shut down the economy compared to Sweden that did and the same comparison with states that did and did not shut down, I proved there is no statistical difference in deaths between shutting down the economy or leaving it open , therefore Trump needlessly shut down the economy which left millions unemployed, destroyed the economy, will lead to people being homeless, will lead to many businesses going under, and may throw us into recession. Not to mention it put nearly everyone in the entire country into both anxiety and depression. Don’t you think before keeping the economy shut down the government should at least have to be able to prove statistically that it saves lives?

 

[JoePaul39]

Interesting article Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

At least 15,000 cars and trucks are expected to descend on Michigan’s state capital on Wednesday to protest what they are calling Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s tyrannical new guidelines to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus in the state.

www.foxnews.com

 

[thebigt]

the coronavirus kinda reminds me of what the boomer's parents must have thought back in mid 60's- 70's, kinda overwhelmed and unprepared. totally unequiped for the world to change so dramatically, so fast.

and now boomers are in charge and we are the ones overwhelmed and unprepared and totally unequiped for a world changing so fast....

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Interesting article Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

At least 15,000 cars and trucks are expected to descend on Michigan’s state capital on Wednesday to protest what they are calling Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s tyrannical new guidelines to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus in the state.

www.foxnews.com

The organizer of the protest says “Every person has learned a harsh lesson about social distancing. We don’t need a nanny state to tell people how to be careful.”

But the (admittedly a minority) of idiots going to packed churches, packing beaches during Spring Break, and throwing house parties prove that not “EVERY PERSON” has learned anything.

So there maybe can be, at some point, some balance between total shutdown and business as normal. Small gatherings, no curfews (some places have curfews, which doesn’t help with anything; the virus doesn’t go to sleep at night or something), etc. But the fact that there are idiots around the country blatantly disregarding all concepts of social distancing isn’t a good sign that we can rely 100% on voluntary actions only. If 95% of people obey voluntary social distancing, and “only” 5% blatantly disgraced it entirely, can’t it still run rampant? Hurting the 95% who voluntarily distance, and leading to the worst of both worlds; spread of the virus AND still some level of negative economic impact via restrictions?

 

[BamBam54]

I think the math for when to ease quarantine restrictions will be when the death graphs looks better than this on a local/regional level.

With the expectation that the virus will probably start to spread again... since it's still extremely contagious and we still have no natural immunity.

And if deaths starts increasing again rapidly/exponentially... wouldn't the country have to start shutting down again?

 

[Jinsun]

There is a lot wrong with the current situation.

- we are using inaccurate measuring do determine who is sick and who isn't
- the statistical samples are totally unrepresentative, as only people who come to the hospitals or people who are suspect to have the virus are being checked
- death rates are totally skewed as, such was the case in Italy, all deaths that happened were added to the total toll. I repeat, everybody that died, not just from covid19, all deaths are in the statistic.
- in Italy, where the "outbreak" is, the death toll is bad every year. Not very different then this year.
- our own director of clinic for infectology said in an interview, that cca 80% who died "from covid" would have died anyway. This is very important. We had 3x more deaths from the flu just 2 months ago, and that's were young people also died. Deaths happen between the 60 - 80 y'olds here and almost none of them are people who weren't either really old; from nursing homes (this people die from normal pneumonia, the flu, even comon cold, hip fractures, etc. every year), or people who were kinda dying anyway.
- I think china did a statistic, where they screened everybody who came cross border. Out of 100% who were infected, 80% remained asymptomatic. From those 80%, how many and who are actually critical?

So, what I am getting at is that there are lot's of misguided practices happening and a lot of "panic" which is making rational thinking a lot harder.

So I suggest that first everybody here finds out firstly what the actual death rates are. Does the statistic include all death rates, and who actually died? How many deaths were deaths from people that had a few more serious illnesses combined and it's hard to say from what they even died from ...? How many people die in this time of year anyway (from various reasons) in your region? And how many flu deaths are usually in this time period? I'm very interested in this, as I'm to lazy to do the research my self.

Deaths happen all the time, it seems that now, death got a common name attached to it - Covid19. Like there was only one, I repeat one, person in his 30's that got admitted in our country. And everybody was all of a sudden screaming "young people can also get it and suffer!!!!!". Khm, ... yeah, ... one person, and even he head real medical problems. But two month's ago babies and children were f-in dying from the flu, which was especially bad this season. Just look at the statistic a lot closely, all I'm saying, and then report back. This is all publicly accessible data.

Mortality rate isn't nowhere near to 4%. Here it's more close to 0.3%. And even those deaths are as I described above.

 

[Whisky]

The uk is in a similar situation to the US in the way we are questioning what is the strategy to come out of lockdown (economic pressures).....

the issue i see is that no one knows. Not us, not the experts, not the government and that’s not me slaying anyone, the reason they don’t know for sure is because there’s no play book for this situation.

no government should be blamed for trying to avoid deaths but clearly people have a right to be worried about the economy and long term impact.

however, the argument that Sweden have been fine is flawed (they do have some measures like no large gatherings etc) but it’s simply not been long enough to know the impact of their approach. No one can be sure than any country is even monitoring and reporting correctly either. They could be downplaying cases or their spike could be about to come.

regards the suggestion that this doesn’t affect younger fit people to a great degree I can only tell you what my doctor wife (respiratory consultant) is literally seeing and doing. She’s admitted a 37 yr old in good health to icu yesterday. She’s had them in their 20s, 30’s and 40s with no obvious health conditions dying or in icu. Yes it might hit the older and more infirm more but everything does. Uk numbers suggest a 1 in 2,000 fatality rate for fit and healthy people under 60. When it’s life and death for something we are all likely to get then that’s not amazing odds.

I personally would like to see a very gradual release of some measures with those that impact the economy most done first. This will mean me having to keep my gyms closed but I’ll live with that because of the situation. I just feel this is serious enough that we all have to see the bigger picture and trust that we’ll get through it.

pointless blaming governments though, they are all learning as they go. I believe they are trying to do what they think is best but in all honesty it’s impossible to know what ‘right’ looks like right now

 

[Jinsun]

regards the suggestion that this doesn’t affect younger fit people to a great degree I can only tell you what my doctor wife (respiratory consultant) is literally seeing and doing. She’s admitted a 37 yr old in good health to icu yesterday. She’s had them in their 20s, 30’s and 40s with no obvious health conditions dying or in icu.

Young people die from complications all the time (pneumonia, flu, ...). If your wife had a couple of young people in here icu, that doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary. Now, if she had like 50 - 100 new young patients dying on the icu, now that would be something different.

 

[BamBam54]

Mortality rate isn't nowhere near to 4%. Here it's more close to 0.3%. And even those deaths are as I described above.

Here are the current US statistics. Honestly, how do you come up with a 0.3% mortality rate out of these numbers???

 

[SkRaw85]

Yesterday’s WH press briefing was solid gold. Hypocrisy and lies that the sheep have been force fed for months exposed. “TrUmP cReATeD tHiS vIRuS aNd hATeS aMerIkA” GFY and move to China then. CNN and other libbys cut live feeds!
MAGA! Enjoy the next four years.
Even Fredo seems to have had an epiphany about his BS job as a $hit shoveler. Hmmmm, looks like it’s falling apart faster than usual. I love it.
Rant over. Good day gentlemen.

 

[thebigt]

Yesterday’s WH press briefing was solid gold. Hypocrisy and lies that the sheep have been force fed for months exposed. “TrUmP cReATeD tHiS vIRuS aNd hATeS aMerIkA” GFY and move to China then. CNN and other libbys cut live feeds!
MAGA! Enjoy the next four years.
Even Fredo seems to have had an epiphany about his BS job as a $hit shoveler. Hmmmm, looks like it’s falling apart faster than usual. I love it.
Rant over. Good day gentlemen.

the problem with those WH pressers is that almost everyone it seems looks at them with a biased eye. we can't count on the media to be objective.

I see one thing and the media reports the opposite of what I saw. of course I to am biased, I want trump to succeed.

 

[justhere4comm]

It’s actually at 4%.
Worldwide it’s 6%.

If we all just stopped and went back to normal. And it was .3 percent.

What’s .3 of 320m?
In reality it is 4% so...

 

[Whisky]

Young people die from complications all the time (pneumonia, flu, ...). If your wife had a couple of young people in here icu, that doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary. Now, if she had like 50 - 100 new young patients dying on the icu, now that would be something different.

bro, 930 of our reported 11,005 deaths are people under 60........

95 of whom were under 40.

bear in mind this is deaths. There are far more currently in ICU who may or may not die. The numbers will obviously increase.

that number of young people do not die from the flu.....

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

@HIT4ME My purpose of those comparison statistics between per capita death rates between countries that shut down the economy compared to Sweden that did and the same comparison with states that did and did not shut down, I proved there is no statistical difference in deaths between shutting down the economy or leaving it open , therefore Trump needlessly shut down the economy which left millions unemployed, destroyed the economy, will lead to people being homeless, will lead to many businesses going under, and may throw us into recession. Not to mention it put nearly everyone in the entire country into both anxiety and depression. Don’t you think before keeping the economy shut down the government should at least have to be able to prove statistically that it saves lives?

good post.

 

[Jinsun]

Here are the current US statistics. Honestly, how do you come up with a 0.3% mortality rate out of these numbers???

View attachment 193085

It's not as simple as that. By far. Did you read my post? There are far far more infected people then have been tested. If 80% are asymptomatic (that means they never get sick or show any symptoms) and tested get only a selected few - the ones that are already SICK to the point they need hospitalisation - how can you look at this statistic you posted and make any statistically significant calculations from it.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

the economy as we know it has already been destroyed. I said it from day one. good luck putting this genie back in the bottle.

 

[Jinsun]

 

[Jinsun]

bro, 930 of our reported 11,005 deaths are people under 60........

95 of whom were under 40.

930 deaths. Only and only due to Covid19? I suggested to check the statistics. What deaths get added to this toll.

 

[justhere4comm]

My cousin died of Muscular Dystrophy. Well. No. He died from the pneumonia.
Do you suppose if he hadn’t had MD he’d have not gotten pneumonia and died?

Edit: An after thought, but I want to draw another parallel between this and Covid 19 the struck me on a personal level as well. I was about 12 at the time, and waiting outside his room. They wouldn't let me see him. They said, I could make him sicker, so I had to stay outside. Then I remember, a lot of people rushing into his room suddenly and catching sight of him and his bed... it left me still for the fear factor alone. He was draped with a plastic shield over his bed.

I heard the machines; the whirling; beeping and then, the sudden stop and a tone. People eventually came outside the room, and I was left alone for a moment with my thoughts. All I remember really besides that scene are being told I can't see him. I don't think I've ever changed since that day as a 12 year old. A conscious naïveté of death. It's true. We are born alone, and we die alone. In the case of Covid-19. That's never truer.

This is my fear. Some idiot is going to kill someone I love because they think they have some right to behave differently because they known better. Someone in 'authority' told them it's their right to go to church and praise their god.

Covid 19 is brought on by Corona virus. They then suffer lung damage. How bad? What organ damage otherwise?
This is not to be over simplified by regurgitating conspiracy theory nonsensical nitpicking.

If opening the economy is in your eyes sooner just look at those already still open and those getting this. Healthcare; fast food; carriers postal and otherwise etc.

I will differ to the real scientists.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

interesting!

 

[justhere4comm]

Move to Sweden.

 

[thebigt]

My cousins died of Muscular Dystrophy. Well. No. He died from the pneumonia.

Do you suppose if he hadn’t had MD he’d have not gotten pneumonia and died?

Covid 19 is brought on by Corona virus. They then suffer lung damage. How bad? What organ damage otherwise?

This is not to be over simplified by regurgitating conspiracy theory nonsensical nitpicking.

of course there are going to be conspiracy theories, even the experts appear to be baffled...I've seen many revisions to what experts are advising, and the models they were using to predict outcomes were/are failing badly...it seems there are few FACTS, and tons of opinion being pushed as facts.

@Ricky10 has said that treatment they were using based on facts given was wrong.

 

[justhere4comm]

The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded, universal for all citizens and decentralized, although private health care also exists.

The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities.

We should have this here then too. No?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

There is a lot wrong with the current situation.

- we are using inaccurate measuring do determine who is sick and who isn't
- the statistical samples are totally unrepresentative, as only people who come to the hospitals or people who are suspect to have the virus are being checked
- death rates are totally skewed as, such was the case in Italy, all deaths that happened were added to the total toll. I repeat, everybody that died, not just from covid19, all deaths are in the statistic.
- in Italy, where the "outbreak" is, the death toll is bad every year. Not very different then this year.
- our own director of clinic for infectology said in an interview, that cca 80% who died "from covid" would have died anyway. This is very important. We had 3x more deaths from the flu just 2 months ago, and that's were young people also died. Deaths happen between the 60 - 80 y'olds here and almost none of them are people who weren't either really old; from nursing homes (this people die from normal pneumonia, the flu, even comon cold, hip fractures, etc. every year), or people who were kinda dying anyway.
- I think china did a statistic, where they screened everybody who came cross border. Out of 100% who were infected, 80% remained asymptomatic. From those 80%, how many and who are actually critical?

So, what I am getting at is that there are lot's of misguided practices happening and a lot of "panic" which is making rational thinking a lot harder.

So I suggest that first everybody here finds out firstly what the actual death rates are. Does the statistic include all death rates, and who actually died? How many deaths were deaths from people that had a few more serious illnesses combined and it's hard to say from what they even died from ...? How many people die in this time of year anyway (from various reasons) in your region? And how many flu deaths are usually in this time period? I'm very interested in this, as I'm to lazy to do the research my self.

Deaths happen all the time, it seems that now, death got a common name attached to it - Covid19. Like there was only one, I repeat one, person in his 30's that got admitted in our country. And everybody was all of a sudden screaming "young people can also get it and suffer!!!!!". Khm, ... yeah, ... one person, and even he head real medical problems. But two month's ago babies and children were f-in dying from the flu, which was especially bad this season. Just look at the statistic a lot closely, all I'm saying, and then report back. This is all publicly accessible data.

Mortality rate isn't nowhere near to 4%. Here it's more close to 0.3%. And even those deaths are as I described above.

Do you really trust any data coming from China?

And what country are you in?

Also, even if the death rate is a lower 0.4% as compared to 4%, the US population is ~328,000,000. Considering there is no natural immunity or vaccine, let's say 1/2 the population got it, and "only" 0.4% who got it died, that's still ~656,000 deaths. Hardly insignificant really...


As for comparing it to the normal flu, this virus has killed 21,292 people, and no, that isn’t every person who died of anything in the country during this time. And that’s only since January 21, so under 3 months, and we’ve had strict social distancing regulations in place for much of that time. In the whole 2018-2019 flu season, an estimated 34,200 deaths occurred due to it in the US. Out of 35.5 million cases, but it can also be argued that, as you said about this novel virus, that a lot of people didn’t get counted as cases who were not terribly symptomatic and didn’t get tested. Your “problems” with COVID tracking apply to the flu too...

So we have 21942/554849 deaths for COVID (3.95%), compared to 34200/35500000 cases for the flu (0.1%). Even if COVID’s death rate is “only” 0.4% (so 1/10 of what it’s being reported as), that’s still 4x higher than the flu.

Not to mention that we’ve done a lot with restrictions and social distancing to limit the spread of the virus, flattening the curve. Had we done nothing at all, those numbers would be much higher than they currently.

Edit: sources:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S.

View the number of confirmed cases COVID-19 in the United States.

www.cdc.gov

Estimated Flu-Related Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 Flu Season | CDC

CDC calculates estimates of disease burden in the United States using surveillance data and modeling to adjust for sources of under-detection. Burden estimates for the 2018-2019 season found here.

www.cdc.gov

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

Move to Sweden.

how bout you move to Venezuela

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

OH and take your liberal friends with ya!!

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

 

[HIT4ME]

i am glad you admitted you don’t have the answer and I wouldn’t expect us roiders on a forum to have that, but we should expect our top government leaders to have the answer and they should have provided a clear “exit target” defined when they INITIALLY decided to shut everything down. It has been nearly a month and a half and there is no mathematical measuring target set on when to open things up let alone how to do it. That have should have been established from the beginning. Supposedly they are finally going to come up with a task force this week to figure this out. I am not saying they should have been able to tell us a specific date up front on when things would open, but at a mathematical target that once we meet it we would start opening would have been nice. Instead have left the whole American public in anxiety by not doing this and thus proving no “end” in sight. The whole thing was not thought out very well.

As @Whisky said, we don't have the data to create an accurate model. You are, on one hand, questioning the data that has been gathered, and then on the other faulting them for not creating a model to present to us - which would require more data.

Also, what is the point of putting a date on anything? Have you ever planned anything with any complexities at all? This isn't going to be a "OK, flip the switch, everyone is back open" thing. The world doesn't care what anyone's plan is, including the Trump's and it will happen when it happens. There is even a saying for it, "Man plans, God laughs."

Also, let's say at the beginning of this, without any data, Trump said, OK - shut down. Reopen April 7th, 2020. Would you have wanted that? How about if he said, Reopen April 7th, 2021? If we have a date, and we aren't ready, should we just push forward anyway because we were told this would happen? Or would people be upset with Trump because we had to delay it another month?

We need to adapt to the world.

To paraphrase Einstein - Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.

How do you value a human life?

And don't think people haven't considered what would happen if this was allowed to just play out. There was a news article about it the other day stating that Trump asked Fauci what would happen if we just let this wash over the US. The article was obviously trying to paint Trump in a bad light, like he didn't care about people - but he asked the questions and gathered the information and this is where we are.

@HIT4ME My purpose of those comparison statistics between per capita death rates between countries that shut down the economy compared to Sweden that did and the same comparison with states that did and did not shut down, I proved there is no statistical difference in deaths between shutting down the economy or leaving it open , therefore Trump needlessly shut down the economy which left millions unemployed, destroyed the economy, will lead to people being homeless, will lead to many businesses going under, and may throw us into recession. Not to mention it put nearly everyone in the entire country into both anxiety and depression. Don’t you think before keeping the economy shut down the government should at least have to be able to prove statistically that it saves lives?

I know what your purpose was. Fully understand. And it is highly flawed. Since you can agree that NOT being in lockdown would not reduce the number of infections - do you REALLY want to compare the US's actions against a country that has a 9% death rate from this? I mean, using your own example and your own logic you should be able to arrive at the fact that if we did what Sweden did - we'd be looking at almost 60,000 deaths right now (not even accounting for the increased rates of infection, the already depleted medical system, etc.)

While people are trying to play elementary games with numbers - yes, they are elementary - you don't need numbers at all. Just talk to anyone working in the medical field right now. The ventilators are gone. Medications, even things like albuteral, are getting very scarce, the deaths at these hospitals are at higher rates than average. When is the last time you heard of that in your LIFETIME?

Interesting article Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

At least 15,000 cars and trucks are expected to descend on Michigan’s state capital on Wednesday to protest what they are calling Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s tyrannical new guidelines to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus in the state.

www.foxnews.com

Look, I'm pretty darned conservative. I am all for people having rights. In my area I am free to come and go and move around as I please. Stores are closed and options are more limited. But I don't want to go out. There are idiots out there and danger and I am better off at my house. I have heat, electricity, TV, any movie I can think of, any TV show I can think of, the internet, you name it. This is how kings lived back in my grand pappy's day.

And if I need food or to leave for some survival reason and that becomes difficult because of some rule...well good luck to anyone enforcing that rule. Maybe I am biased because I don't feel like I've had a lot of restrictions put on me. I've just been self-imposing them.

But think about this - they say, "We have learned a hard lesson about social distancing" - and in order to demonstrate that, they are getting 15,000 cars to gather in one place? During a time where movement is already limited? When their worry is that the economy will tank? That is certainly not a leader I would follow into battle.

 

[HIT4ME]

There is a lot wrong with the current situation.

- we are using inaccurate measuring do determine who is sick and who isn't
- the statistical samples are totally unrepresentative, as only people who come to the hospitals or people who are suspect to have the virus are being checked
- death rates are totally skewed as, such was the case in Italy, all deaths that happened were added to the total toll. I repeat, everybody that died, not just from covid19, all deaths are in the statistic.
- in Italy, where the "outbreak" is, the death toll is bad every year. Not very different then this year.
- our own director of clinic for infectology said in an interview, that cca 80% who died "from covid" would have died anyway. This is very important. We had 3x more deaths from the flu just 2 months ago, and that's were young people also died. Deaths happen between the 60 - 80 y'olds here and almost none of them are people who weren't either really old; from nursing homes (this people die from normal pneumonia, the flu, even comon cold, hip fractures, etc. every year), or people who were kinda dying anyway.
- I think china did a statistic, where they screened everybody who came cross border. Out of 100% who were infected, 80% remained asymptomatic. From those 80%, how many and who are actually critical?

So, what I am getting at is that there are lot's of misguided practices happening and a lot of "panic" which is making rational thinking a lot harder.

So I suggest that first everybody here finds out firstly what the actual death rates are. Does the statistic include all death rates, and who actually died? How many deaths were deaths from people that had a few more serious illnesses combined and it's hard to say from what they even died from ...? How many people die in this time of year anyway (from various reasons) in your region? And how many flu deaths are usually in this time period? I'm very interested in this, as I'm to lazy to do the research my self.

Deaths happen all the time, it seems that now, death got a common name attached to it - Covid19. Like there was only one, I repeat one, person in his 30's that got admitted in our country. And everybody was all of a sudden screaming "young people can also get it and suffer!!!!!". Khm, ... yeah, ... one person, and even he head real medical problems. But two month's ago babies and children were f-in dying from the flu, which was especially bad this season. Just look at the statistic a lot closely, all I'm saying, and then report back. This is all publicly accessible data.

Mortality rate isn't nowhere near to 4%. Here it's more close to 0.3%. And even those deaths are as I described above.

For someone who admittedly is too lazy to research basic numbers, you sure feel pretty confident in throwing out a bunch of your own statistics and statements as if they are fact.

I did quite a bit of math that should answer a lot of your questions a few posts back. Even using your assumptions that 80% of the people are asympomatic you would have to assume about a 0.8% death rate.

Your assessments are flawed as well - because you act like there is EVER a 100% accurate count. News flash - not everyone who gets the flu is counted either - so that death rate is MUCH lower than the number we use as well. I would argue that a HUGE number of people get the flu and don't ever go to the doctor even - they just treat it like the common cold - and on they go. If your doctor never hears about it, he can't report it. So we cannot act like the people NOT showing up are skewing things all that much.

You are also not taking into account that people are FREAKING out right now. If they can get tested, a lot of people are getting tested. My doctor friends are telling me the majority of their tests are coming back negative. This is a huge hole in your argument - if all these people are infected and asymptomatic, how do we have so many people showing up at their doctors coming back uninfected? It really makes you wonder about that 80% asymptomatic rate.

As far as the director of infectology - I would like a link to that quote first and foremost before I comment. I don't know the context or anything about it. But I doubt, on its face, that all these people would have died anyway in the last month, if that was true - we would be in a constant state of medical scarcity because this past month has certainly made drugs and ventilators and even doctors harder to come by. If that was normal, I'll eat my shoes.

As far as throwing out the statement that we had 3X the number of flu deaths a few months ago - you should also be able to recognize based on the hospitalization situation that this is qualitatively incorrect. But, you admitted you are too lazy to research, so I am guessing you didn't really vet that quantitative side of this either. The typical flu rates in the US are between 20,000-80,000 PER YEAR. That's without and lock downs, etc. With this lock down we are on pace to eclipse that in a few months.

Since you "suggest that first everybody here finds out firstly what the actual death rates are. " and then say you are too lazy to do it, here is the CDC summary on 2018-2019:

"Our estimates of hospitalizations and mortality associated with the 2018–2019 influenza season continue to demonstrate how serious influenza virus infection can be. We estimate, overall, there were 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 season. More than 46,000 hospitalizations occurred in children (aged <18 years); however, 57% of hospitalizations occurred in older adults aged ≥65 years. Older adults also accounted for 75% of influenza-associated deaths, highlighting that older adults are particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes resulting from an influenza virus infection. An estimated 8,100 deaths occurred among working age adults (aged 18–64 years), an age group that often has low influenza vaccination uptake11."

Keep in mind they also suggest that 35.5 million people were infected, but only 16.5 million were reported. Suggesting they believe that greater than 50% of the people don't show up and get reported. But there's my homework for you - we have outpaced the hospitalizations for a year of flu in one month, WITH the lockdown. We are on course to outpace the deaths in less than 2 months.

Also, I've said it before in this thread but I will say it again. The 20% of patients who get sick and up in the hospital are NOT DANGEROUS. They are in the hospital and not spreading the disease. The 80% of asymptomatic people ARE DANGEROUS. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. But for some reason people seem to want to use this as a defense for this not being so bad?

And, like your other statements and statistics - one person in their 30's and having underlying problems is not accurate. There have been at least 9 people under 20 killed. Yes, it is more rare as you get younger - but, um, isn't that always the case?

How many 20 year olds die of old age?

Young people die from complications all the time (pneumonia, flu, ...). If your wife had a couple of young people in here icu, that doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary. Now, if she had like 50 - 100 new young patients dying on the icu, now that would be something different.

Again, did you actually do any research to come up with your data here? Or are you just making things up and saying them like they are factual?

 

[BamBam54]

It's not as simple as that. By far. Did you read my post? There are far far more infected people then have been tested. If 80% are asymptomatic (that means they never get sick or show any symptoms) and tested get only a selected few - the ones that are already SICK to the point they need hospitalisation - how can you look at this statistic you posted and make any statistically significant calculations from it.

Yes, I read your post. It was filled with ambiguity, misleading assumptions, and bad math. So I just took the one most simple statement to fact-check, your claim that the US mortality rate for covid-19 is 0.3% and asked you to explain where you got that claim. What data, what math? Didn't you read my post?

You only came back with "its not as simple as that" when yes, it really is. I am asking you to explain how you came up with the number you used... the data/math that equals 0.3% mortality in the US. Not hypotheticals about how many more people MIGHT be infected that we don't know about. I mean, with the things we actually know, for real, right now, here in the US, and how you came up with a claimed 0.3% mortality rate. Show your work please.

Because I would add that most of the people recently listed as covid positive, 200k in the last week alone added to the total, are still battling the disease meaning the death toll with absolutely rise even for the apx 600k cases we already have. And the total number of tests taken with the majority coming back negative is meaningless. If someone had allergies and got covid testing, of course it comes back negative. But they are still unprotected and still just as likely to get the virus later.

 

[Jinsun]

Do you really trust any data coming from China?

And what country are you in?

Also, even if the death rate is a lower 0.4% as compared to 4%, the US population is ~328,000,000. Considering there is no natural immunity or vaccine, let's say 1/2 the population got it, and "only" 0.4% who got it died, that's still ~656,000 deaths. Hardly insignificant really...


As for comparing it to the normal flu, this virus has killed 21,292 people, and no, that isn’t every person who died of anything in the country during this time. And that’s only since January 21, so under 3 months, and we’ve had strict social distancing regulations in place for much of that time. In the whole 2018-2019 flu season, an estimated 34,200 deaths occurred due to it in the US. Out of 35.5 million cases, but it can also be argued that, as you said about this novel virus, that a lot of people didn’t get counted as cases who were not terribly symptomatic and didn’t get tested. Your “problems” with COVID tracking apply to the flu too...

So we have 21942/554849 deaths for COVID (3.95%), compared to 34200/35500000 cases for the flu (0.1%). Even if COVID’s death rate is “only” 0.4% (so 1/10 of what it’s being reported as), that’s still 4x higher than the flu.

Not to mention that we’ve done a lot with restrictions and social distancing to limit the spread of the virus, flattening the curve. Had we done nothing at all, those numbers would be much higher than they currently.

Edit: sources:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S.

View the number of confirmed cases COVID-19 in the United States.

www.cdc.gov

Estimated Flu-Related Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 Flu Season | CDC

CDC calculates estimates of disease burden in the United States using surveillance data and modeling to adjust for sources of under-detection. Burden estimates for the 2018-2019 season found here.

www.cdc.gov

I am not against social distancing, etc. Never said that. What I am saying is that the statistics are awfully inaccurate and the panic is overwhelming. Statistics would off course be worse with no measures being taken.

Again, in Italy all deaths are added to the total toll. Not just deaths from covid. Secondly, again, in our country 80% of people who's death got added to the total would have died ANYWAY. This are words from our chief of infectology clinic, ie. the main clinic for this situation. Third, I suggested to check your country statistics:

- Which deaths are all counted in the official covid19 death statistics. Just check it and report back. Do some research.
- Of those that actually had covid19 how many actually died directly from it. In our country almost nobody.
- How many of those deaths would have happened anyway, covid or no covid.
- How many of those deaths would have occurred if the patient was to get the flu, pneumonia, or some other generally non life threatening illness.
- How many of those deaths are really really old people, who would have died if somebody looked at them in the wrong way.
- Of all the young people that died, how many died actually and only from covid19 and compare that statistic to other diseases like the flu, pneumonia, in this time of year.
- How are the tests done. Who gets tested and who not. How representative are the numbers?
- What was the testing methodology? How accurate is it?
- Etc ...

How many people die from diabetes, heart stroke, car accidents, drug use, etc. Compare that to covid statistics, and no, I am not talking about the official statistic posted a few posts above. Compare it to the real statistic. Oh wait, there isn't any reliable statistic, just this very much inaccurate and over blown one. Dang.

All I'm saying is that this is a really unique situation, one that social/humanistic studies will do studies on it for decades to come. And I'm also saying that we are overreacting.

 

[HIT4ME]

bro, 930 of our reported 11,005 deaths are people under 60........

95 of whom were under 40.

bear in mind this is deaths. There are far more currently in ICU who may or may not die. The numbers will obviously increase.

that number of young people do not die from the flu.....

Just because I have it open thanks to my doing Jinsun's homework for him - 136 children died from the flu in 2018-19 and 25% of the 34,200 deaths appear to be in people under 65. 8100 deaths among 18-64 years old. In a year of course.

It's not as simple as that. By far. Did you read my post? There are far far more infected people then have been tested. If 80% are asymptomatic (that means they never get sick or show any symptoms) and tested get only a selected few - the ones that are already SICK to the point they need hospitalisation - how can you look at this statistic you posted and make any statistically significant calculations from it.

Have you read anything other than your post? I did the math including your 80% statistic yesterday - Even assuming that 80% of the people who have it right now are completely uncounted and asymptomatic - we're looking at just about a 0.8% death rate. That's the best case scenario - so I'm not sure where you even come close to a 0.3% death rate. Oh yeah, you made it up. But at least it is kind of based on all the other made up statistics you made up too.

930 deaths. Only and only due to Covid19? I suggested to check the statistics. What deaths get added to this toll.

You suggest HE check statistics??? Seriously, this is getting funny for real - have you researched ANY of the stuff you are saying? You even stated you are too lazy to actually get the statistics yourself. He provides statistics and your response is THIS^^^???

interesting!

I haven't watched this yet, but again - I'd be careful comparing our stats to a country with a 9% death rate. And with less than 12,000 cases their hospitals are probably not under the pressure other countries are seeing by a long shot.

Guess who else hasn't gone into a lock down? Greenland. Namibia.

Greenland hasn't had a single death from Covid-19. Namibia has had only 2. Although, that's a 12% death rate for Namibia. But NO lock downs yet. None at all. It must be working. It's proof that lock downs aren't good!

of course there are going to be conspiracy theories, even the experts appear to be baffled...I've seen many revisions to what experts are advising, and the models they were using to predict outcomes were/are failing badly...it seems there are few FACTS, and tons of opinion being pushed as facts.

@Ricky10 has said that treatment they were using based on facts given was wrong.

People are baffled. There is a lack of facts. But data always has issues and trying to poke holes in reasonably reliable data because you don't want to believe it or it makes you feel smart to think that the average person doesn't understand how a denominator works is a waste of time. I think the statisticians working on this probably have division on a lock down of its own and understand there are probably people not being reported in those numbers. The people saying this aren't geniuses who see something everyone else doesn't.

And yes, lots of people pushing made up stuff as facts - like "It's a 0.3% death rate" - you would literally have to be an idiot to believe that.

 

[thebigt]

I think one thing is clear...we need to stop using/believing data provided by the Chinese government!!!

 

[Jinsun]

You only came back with "its not as simple as that" when yes, it really is. I am asking you to explain how you came up with the number you used... the data/math that equals 0.3% mortality in the US.

I wasn't talking about the usa. I'm from eu. I have no time/energy to do proper research on all the points I made above for your specific countries/regions. That's why I suggested for all of you to do some dinging for your region about the abnormalities I mentioned above. Bc they do exist.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

why isn't Russia reporting numbers
?? weird

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I am not against social distancing, etc. Never said that. What I am saying is that the statistics are awfully inaccurate and the panic is overwhelming. Statistics would off course be worse with no measures being taken.

Again, in Italy all deaths are added to the total toll. Not just deaths from covid. Secondly, again, in our country 80% of people who's death got added to the total would have died ANYWAY. This are words from our chief of infectology clinic, ie. the main clinic for this situation. Third, I suggested to check your country statistics:

- Which deaths are all counted in the official covid19 death statistics. Just check it and report back. Do some research.
- Of those that actually had covid19 how many actually died directly from it. In our country almost nobody.
- How many of those deaths would have happened anyway, covid or no covid.
- How many of those deaths would have occurred if the patient was to get the flu, pneumonia, or some other generally non life threatening illness.
- How many of those deaths are really really old people, who would have died if somebody looked at them in the wrong way.
- Of all the young people that died, how many died actually and only from covid19 and compare that statistic to other diseases like the flu, pneumonia, in this time of year.
- How are the tests done. Who gets tested and who not. How representative are the numbers?
- What was the testing methodology? How accurate is it?
- Etc ...

How many people die from diabetes, heart stroke, car accidents, drug use, etc. Compare that to covid statistics, and no, I am not talking about the official statistic posted a few posts above. Compare it to the real statistic. Oh wait, there isn't any reliable statistic, just this very much inaccurate and over blown one. Dang.

All I'm saying is that this is a really unique situation, one that social/humanistic studies will do studies on it for decades to come. And I'm also saying that we are overreacting.

Where are you getting your "facts" from man? Follow my link; it tells you about how they determined COVID deaths...

You say we're "overreacting," but you can only say that because the "overreaction" IS WORKING. If we did nothing, and we had hundreds of thousands of people dead in a few months easily, we'd be crying how we UNDERREACTED, and that's much worse than overreacting...

And why is the methodology flawed ONLY for COVID, and not for the flu? What, every person who gets the flu is tested? Every person who dies from the flu died FROM THE FLU, but 80% of people who die from COVID "would have died anyway?" That's one of the most asinine things I've ever heard...

And I NEVER mentioned Italy; I ONLY discussed COVID and the flu in the US. And the US is NOT including "all deaths period" in the COVID count. That's bulls**t man...

You keep posting a bunch of nonsense, telling other people to "look it up," and "do real research," and then ignoring it when they do. You clearly didn't read the links I sent, as they discussed the criteria for determining deaths by COVID. Post some da*n sources yourself man. Reputable ones. You're making supposed quotes from experts with no source/citation. You're better than that man, or, at least, you should be.

Go do some research yourself, show some citations/sources, and come back, or just shut up...

 

[Jinsun]

For someone who admittedly is too lazy to research basic numbers, you sure feel pretty confident in throwing out a bunch of your own statistics and statements as if they are fact.

I did quite a bit of math that should answer a lot of your questions a few posts back. Even using your assumptions that 80% of the people are asympomatic you would have to assume about a 0.8% death rate.

Your assessments are flawed as well - because you act like there is EVER a 100% accurate count. News flash - not everyone who gets the flu is counted either - so that death rate is MUCH lower than the number we use as well. I would argue that a HUGE number of people get the flu and don't ever go to the doctor even - they just treat it like the common cold - and on they go. If your doctor never hears about it, he can't report it. So we cannot act like the people NOT showing up are skewing things all that much.

You are also not taking into account that people are FREAKING out right now. If they can get tested, a lot of people are getting tested. My doctor friends are telling me the majority of their tests are coming back negative. This is a huge hole in your argument - if all these people are infected and asymptomatic, how do we have so many people showing up at their doctors coming back uninfected? It really makes you wonder about that 80% asymptomatic rate.

As far as the director of infectology - I would like a link to that quote first and foremost before I comment. I don't know the context or anything about it. But I doubt, on its face, that all these people would have died anyway in the last month, if that was true - we would be in a constant state of medical scarcity because this past month has certainly made drugs and ventilators and even doctors harder to come by. If that was normal, I'll eat my shoes.

As far as throwing out the statement that we had 3X the number of flu deaths a few months ago - you should also be able to recognize based on the hospitalization situation that this is qualitatively incorrect. But, you admitted you are too lazy to research, so I am guessing you didn't really vet that quantitative side of this either. The typical flu rates in the US are between 20,000-80,000 PER YEAR. That's without and lock downs, etc. With this lock down we are on pace to eclipse that in a few months.

Since you "suggest that first everybody here finds out firstly what the actual death rates are. " and then say you are too lazy to do it, here is the CDC summary on 2018-2019:

"Our estimates of hospitalizations and mortality associated with the 2018–2019 influenza season continue to demonstrate how serious influenza virus infection can be. We estimate, overall, there were 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 season. More than 46,000 hospitalizations occurred in children (aged <18 years); however, 57% of hospitalizations occurred in older adults aged ≥65 years. Older adults also accounted for 75% of influenza-associated deaths, highlighting that older adults are particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes resulting from an influenza virus infection. An estimated 8,100 deaths occurred among working age adults (aged 18–64 years), an age group that often has low influenza vaccination uptake11."

Keep in mind they also suggest that 35.5 million people were infected, but only 16.5 million were reported. Suggesting they believe that greater than 50% of the people don't show up and get reported. But there's my homework for you - we have outpaced the hospitalizations for a year of flu in one month, WITH the lockdown. We are on course to outpace the deaths in less than 2 months.

Also, I've said it before in this thread but I will say it again. The 20% of patients who get sick and up in the hospital are NOT DANGEROUS. They are in the hospital and not spreading the disease. The 80% of asymptomatic people ARE DANGEROUS. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. But for some reason people seem to want to use this as a defense for this not being so bad?

And, like your other statements and statistics - one person in their 30's and having underlying problems is not accurate. There have been at least 9 people under 20 killed. Yes, it is more rare as you get younger - but, um, isn't that always the case?

How many 20 year olds die of old age?



Again, did you actually do any research to come up with your data here? Or are you just making things up and saying them like they are factual?

Okey, wow. Can we just take a big breath of air? : )

Again, I am not from the us. I was talking about my country. And yes, the director of our clinic had a talking head interview last week and that's the statement she made. We are a small country and all of this is very transparent.

 

[BamBam54]

I would also point out that there is also UNDER reporting of covid deaths. Confirmed by the medical examiner and NYC health committee chair. See pic attached.

So yeah, this isn't going to be a perfect exact science either way... but you are seriously missing some important data analysis and cognitive thought to imagine that a **** ton more people aren't dying right now, from a very new and dangerous virus, even with the most extreme preventative policies now in place.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

And this gem is one of the stupidest things I've had the misfortune of hearing:

"How many people die from diabetes, heart stroke, car accidents, drug use, etc."

Car accidents? What man, are you suggesting we stop people from driving forever? Car accidents are inevitable, unfortunately. We will have an answer to COVID in time, be it a vaccine (which is admittedly ~12-18 months off or something?), better treatment options/knowledge (which medications to use, hopefully this happens soon, if it isn't happening already), more equipment (more ventilators, more/better PPE, etc. which we're starting to do), that will help keep death rates lower. Flattening the curve until then is key. To make this even remotely comparable to car accidents, you must inherently believe that within the foreseeable future we will have a "solution/answer" to drastically reduce the number of car accidents and deaths from car accidents. But we don't, so it's not relevant to the discussion, at all, period.

You just love halfway relevant and misleading comparisons and "statistics." You know what they say; a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you keep posting precious little about a bunch of things...

 

[HIT4ME]

Okey, wow. Can we just take a big breath of air? : )

Again, I am not from the us. I was talking about my country. And yes, the director of our clinic had a talking head interview last week and that's the statement she made. We are a small country and all of this is very transparent.

Yeah, I'm going to get carpel tunnel if you keep throwing up "facts"

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Okey, wow. Can we just take a big breath of air? : )

Again, I am not from the us. I was talking about my country. And yes, the director of our clinic had a talking head interview last week and that's the statement she made. We are a small country and all of this is very transparent.

Why do you keep avoiding saying what country you're in and sharing a source for the quote from the head of the clinic? Should we just take your word as Gospel when you can't provide a single source, and won't even tell us what "small country" you're in?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I wasn't talking about the usa. I'm from eu. I have no time/energy to do proper research on all the points I made above for your specific countries/regions. That's why I suggested for all of you to do some dinging for your region about the abnormalities I mentioned above. Bc they do exist.

Everyone needs to do "proper research" EXCEPT YOU. Everything you say, without a single source, is legit, but when we post multiple sources coming from official government websites, it's wrong. Got it...

 

[thebigt]

And this gem is one of the stupidest things I've had the misfortune of hearing:

"How many people die from diabetes, heart stroke, car accidents, drug use, etc."

Car accidents? What man, are you suggesting we stop people from driving forever? Car accidents are inevitable, unfortunately. We will have an answer to COVID in time, be it a vaccine (which is admittedly ~12-18 months off or something?), better treatment options/knowledge (which medications to use, hopefully this happens soon, if it isn't happening already), more equipment (more ventilators, more/better PPE, etc. which we're starting to do), that will help keep death rates lower. Flattening the curve until then is key. To make this even remotely comparable to car accidents, you must inherently believe that within the foreseeable future we will have a "solution/answer" to drastically reduce the number of car accidents and deaths from car accidents. But we don't, so it's not relevant to the discussion, at all, period.

You just love halfway relevant and misleading comparisons and "statistics." You know what they say; a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you keep posting precious little about a bunch of things...

there still is no vaccine for AIDS, worldwide the death rate is still very high. the vaccine for the flu is hit or miss.
not arguing the points you have made, just pointing out some facts.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

there still is no vaccine for AIDS, worldwide the death rate is still very high. the vaccine for the flu is hit or miss.
not arguing the points you have made, just pointing out some facts.

What? Surely you know that the transmittal of HIV/AIDs and COVID-19 are not even remotely comparable; not by any stretch of the imagination. You have really ZERO risk of catching AIDs just going about your daily life; that is not at all true if we were to remove all restrictions/distancing during this COVID outbreak. Your "facts" you are pointing out are entirely irrelevant...

 

[thebigt]

What? Surely you know that the transmittal of HIV/AIDs and COVID-19 are not even remotely comparable; not by any stretch of the imagination. You have really ZERO risk of catching AIDs just going about your daily life; that is not at all true if we were to remove all restrictions/distancing during this COVID outbreak. Your "facts" you are pointing out are entirely irrelevant...

you are relying on a vaccine for coronavirus...it is totally relevant to point out that all these years later thousands die each year from aids, for which there is still no vaccine. even the flu 'shot' is hit or miss.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

you are relying on a vaccine for coronavirus...it is totally relevant to point out that all these years later thousands die each year from aids, for which there is still no vaccine. even the flu 'shot' is hit or miss.

Did you read the rest of my post? I also mentioned improved knowledge of the virus and how to treat it (what medications to use, etc.), more equipment (ventilators, PPE, etc.), etc. as other things to help us fight the virus. All things that are on a shorter-term plan/basis than a potential vaccine. We will likely improve how we combat this virus in the short-term, even without a vaccine, as we learn more about it. This is not true of car accidents, which is what I was responding to. Car accidents are not some new phenomenon where we don't know how to combat it yet...