Coronavirus

[MrPurple]

You guys covid is dead. George Floyd gave his life to kill it.

Hey Reid, did you hear that joke about the cure for Covid-19? It's a riot!

I am really disheartened that the community didn't call these two jokes out more. These jokes normalize and perpetuate the very type of aggression we need to dismantle. Jokes aren't funny when they have to rely on racism or the misfortune of others to land a punchline. If we silently condone or don't act up against jokes like this, we are part of the problem.

Over the past few weeks I've had to take a long hard look at myself and the community I live in and I want to be better, as should you all. Comments/jokes like these are just a small part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. I am not here claiming I am some saint.. I've cracked jokes like this recently and I look back in shame.

It really hit home for me when my friend sent a joke about cops to a few of us via text ("Why did the police get up early? So they could beat the crowd."). We laughed it off... and that's the problem. We can laugh it off. Many of us here have that luxury. As a community let's be better.

As for the Covid19 discussion, like many I've been frustrated with the lock downs and the impact it will have on many local businesses. I am having my first child in the coming week and I hope that he's safe and healthy. As such, my wife and I have the luxury of working from home and staying mostly isolated. I do, however, recognize that for so many this might not be possible.

For the record, I have an immense amount of respect for Reid as both a person and player. He's always been a class act each and every time we've spoken. IMO, as a person and player he's an asset to our community.

[AdmiralMotti89]

If our leaders, including our president, had taken this seriously, and convinced others to take it seriously, lockdowns wouldn't have been mandatory. We could have done just simple mask and social distancing. The problem is though people don't take it seriously. They don't wear masks and social distance. We had a chance to slow the spread drastically in February. We blew it. This is the consequence of making poor decisions.

Is a lockdown medically necessary? No. Is a lockdown required because the US is full of entitled pieces of * that can't be bothered to take this pandemic seriously? Yes.

What do you mean by saying it's not medically necessary, but still required? Or do you mean it shouldn't have had to become medically necessary if only people had worn masks and socially distanced earlier? You might recall that for a good while, there was confusion on whether or not "average people" should have been wearing masks, and it would seem this would come from people who were making their best guesses as to how to help with public health; "entitlement" doesn't look like it had anything to do with it. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... the-public

That there was so much confusion and conflicting information understandably contributes to the level of seriousness people apply.

In any case, it's news to me that if people had started to wear masks and social distance as soon as, say, the WHO published that human-human transmission were possible, that would have slowed the spread to whatever level would count as sufficient, whatever that would mean exactly.

The question of whether or not "we blew it" really needs to be evaluated in terms of what could have been done better based on the best available information at the time something could have been done.

[rhendon]

What do you mean by saying it's not medically necessary, but still required? Or do you mean it shouldn't have had to become medically necessary if only people had worn masks and socially distanced earlier?

Yes it shouldn't have become medically necessary. There are a lot of reasons for this. This also includes having more hospitals in areas and having the necessary equipment for them.

You might recall that for a good while, there was confusion on whether or not "average people" should have been wearing masks, and it would seem this would come from people who were making their best guesses as to how to help with public health; "entitlement" doesn't look like it had anything to do with it.

The entitlement has come after the April 3rd notice about wearing masks in your link. Before that, it was lack of information and miscommunication from our leaders. Trump spent the first month claiming this was just the flu and it would go away like a miracle in a month. He ignored CDC, doctors, WHO, etc on what to say. We also defunded our programs that literally had scientists stationed in Wuhan lab. We could have had access to information a lot sooner if we had kept that program funded. We could have had correct information sooner. We could have had a plan developed.

This also doesn't mention how Trump didn't follow the pandemic playbook that we've spent a decade + developing. It started with Bush and Obama continued it. There are guidelines that could have been followed much sooner even with the miscommunication and lack of information.

That there was so much confusion and conflicting information understandably contributes to the level of seriousness people apply.

Blatantly missing the fact that we had some leaders completely dismiss it from the get go and still do.

In any case, it's news to me that if people had started to wear masks and social distance as soon as, say, the WHO published that human-human transmission were possible, that would have slowed the spread to whatever level would count as sufficient, whatever that would mean exactly.

Not sure why you'd think that was news. It seems like a logical conclusion. If we are now deemed to wear masks to slow the spread, then why wouldn't if we had started sooner, that would have slowed it? Unless you still don't think masks work. Because if you have something that works in solving a problem, putting that into place sooner would seem to dictate that it would solve the problem sooner.

The question of whether or not "we blew it" really needs to be evaluated in terms of what could have been done better based on the best available information at the time something could have been done.

We had plenty of information. It may have not been all about COVID, but we know how pandemics work and viruses spread. We had leaders that ignored it, took a chance and played with human lives for political gains.

[allstarz97]

You guys covid is dead. George Floyd gave his life to kill it.

Hey Reid, did you hear that joke about the cure for Covid-19? It's a riot!

I am really disheartened that the community didn't call these two jokes out more. These jokes normalize and perpetuate the very type of aggression we need to dismantle. Jokes aren't funny when they have to rely on racism or the misfortune of others to land a punchline. If we silently condone or don't act up against jokes like this, we are part of the problem.

Over the past few weeks I've had to take a long hard look at myself and the community I live in and I want to be better, as should you all. Comments/jokes like these are just a small part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. I am not here claiming I am some saint.. I've cracked jokes like this recently and I look back in shame.

It really hit home for me when my friend sent a joke about cops to a few of us via text ("Why did the police get up early? So they could beat the crowd."). We laughed it off... and that's the problem. We can laugh it off. Many of us here have that luxury. As a community let's be better.

As for the Covid19 discussion, like many I've been frustrated with the lock downs and the impact it will have on many local businesses. I am having my first child in the coming week and I hope that he's safe and healthy. As such, my wife and I have the luxury of working from home and staying mostly isolated. I do, however, recognize that for so many this might not be possible.

For the record, I have an immense amount of respect for Reid as both a person and player. He's always been a class act each and every time we've spoken. IMO, as a person and player he's an asset to our community.

Well said. Best of luck to you and your wife too, exciting!

[AdmiralMotti89]

Spoiler

Show

What do you mean by saying it's not medically necessary, but still required? Or do you mean it shouldn't have had to become medically necessary if only people had worn masks and socially distanced earlier?

Yes it shouldn't have become medically necessary. There are a lot of reasons for this. This also includes having more hospitals in areas and having the necessary equipment for them.

You might recall that for a good while, there was confusion on whether or not "average people" should have been wearing masks, and it would seem this would come from people who were making their best guesses as to how to help with public health; "entitlement" doesn't look like it had anything to do with it.

The entitlement has come after the April 3rd notice about wearing masks in your link. Before that, it was lack of information and miscommunication from our leaders. Trump spent the first month claiming this was just the flu and it would go away like a miracle in a month. He ignored CDC, doctors, WHO, etc on what to say. We also defunded our programs that literally had scientists stationed in Wuhan lab. We could have had access to information a lot sooner if we had kept that program funded. We could have had correct information sooner. We could have had a plan developed.

This also doesn't mention how Trump didn't follow the pandemic playbook that we've spent a decade + developing. It started with Bush and Obama continued it. There are guidelines that could have been followed much sooner even with the miscommunication and lack of information.

That there was so much confusion and conflicting information understandably contributes to the level of seriousness people apply.

Blatantly missing the fact that we had some leaders completely dismiss it from the get go and still do.

My point was that conflicting information about what to do makes people less likely to act according to whichever information ends up being the right info in hindsight. By the way, as the article noted, this information was conflicting within individual organizations, some of which you yourself cited as authorities that should have been better listened to. The leaders dismissing it was/is not good, but it doesn't mean that the health authorities have always had a coherent message for those who weren't dismissing it to follow.

In any case, it's news to me that if people had started to wear masks and social distance as soon as, say, the WHO published that human-human transmission were possible, that would have slowed the spread to whatever level would count as sufficient, whatever that would mean exactly.

Not sure why you'd think that was news. It seems like a logical conclusion. If we are now deemed to wear masks to slow the spread, then why wouldn't if we had started sooner, that would have slowed it? Unless you still don't think masks work. Because if you have something that works in solving a problem, putting that into place sooner would seem to dictate that it would solve the problem sooner.

Where did I say masks don't work? Where did I say masks wouldn't slow it? I was specifically responding to your claim about earlier mask usage slowing spread to the point where the lockdown would have been unnecessary:

If our leaders, including our president, had taken this seriously, and convinced others to take it seriously, lockdowns wouldn't have been mandatory. We could have done just simple mask and social distancing. The problem is though people don't take it seriously. They don't wear masks and social distance. We had a chance to slow the spread drastically in February. We blew it. This is the consequence of making poor decisions.

Where is your justification for the idea that masks and distancing could have slowed the spread sufficiently to make the lockdown unnecessary? There is a difference between something helping to slow the spread and something slowing the spread enough to make the lockdown unnecessary. It's not particularly reasonable for you to suggest that because I have yet to see support for a specific claim you made about how specifically effective earlier masks would have been, that means that I was saying that masks don't work at all.

Now, as for the different question of what should have been done by whom when, when would the measures needed to have been in place by in order to have slowed the spread to that sufficient level? And is that date before or after the health authorities coherently recommended policies in regards to masks and distancing? Is the date the WHO acknowledged human-human transmission even early enough? You mentioned April 3, would that have been early enough?

The question of whether or not "we blew it" really needs to be evaluated in terms of what could have been done better based on the best available information at the time something could have been done.

We had plenty of information. It may have not been all about COVID, but we know how pandemics work and viruses spread. We had leaders that ignored it, took a chance and played with human lives for political gains.

If you watch the video I posted, you'll see some interesting conclusions from a doctor and epidemiologist. It's funny, the guy who argues the lockdown was necessary at one point says so because we didn't know much about Corona relative to other epidemics. The guy who argues the lockdown was a major mistake does so because of how similar Corona is to other epidemics. It's easy to look at the information we have now and say what should have been done, but that's quite different from the idea that we had "plenty of information" (much less sufficient information to know the best thing to do) at the time when certain measures could have been more effective.

Of course I am sympathetic to the idea that politicians have used and will use this for politickin'. But where exactly this virus fell/falls between the extremes of "if you come into contact with others, millions will die" and "you can go about business as usual and we'll be fine" has been quite murky. Either belief, or anywhere in between, will have a different balance of costs and benefits. And I think it's possible that at least some politicians were acting out of genuine concern for people and still ended up in wildly different places on the scale.

[JarJarDrinks]

Ah yes. "The Man. The Myth. The Legend."
I remember those articles. For years afterward, there were a couple of people who would continue to say "Tiger Style!" when seeing me at events.
So I guess the theory that I'm a machine goes back to...I don't know, 2002 or so?
I don't really have any evidence to debunk it, so I'll let you have this one.

Dont forget about your vibrating penis that turns lesbians straight...

the one nutjob conspiracy theorist.

Sounded like this was supposed to refer to me, but I don't follow. You'll have to let me know exactly what "conspiracy" you hallucinated me putting forth in any of these posts.

This right here

Spoiler

Show

The Coronavirus doesn't do anything that unusual.

are words that can only be uttered by the tin-foiliest of hat wearers.

[rhendon]

Where did I say masks don't work? Where did I say masks wouldn't slow it? I was specifically responding to your claim about earlier mask usage slowing spread to the point where the lockdown would have been unnecessary:

Where is your justification for the idea that masks and distancing could have slowed the spread sufficiently to make the lockdown unnecessary? There is a difference between something helping to slow the spread and something slowing the spread enough to make the lockdown unnecessary. It's not particularly reasonable for you to suggest that because I have yet to see support for a specific claim you made about how specifically effective earlier masks would have been, that means that I was saying that masks don't work at all.

The premise behind the lockdown was to get ahead of this pandemic before it flooded our hospitals with sick people that would die because they couldn't receive care not because of the virus. The lockdown was to slow the curve of people who were getting infected.

Why would that have been needed? Because people hadn't been informed to social distance and do the other preventative measures that we are now. People were going about their lives like this was just the seasonal flu and nothing needed to be done. Why? Because that is what our leaders were saying. It wasn't until after NYC was overloaded that people started changing their tune.

We had no idea that NYC would happen though right? Even though literally across the pond in Italy, we were watching a country shut down. Italy issued stay at home orders starting March 8th. NYC started on March 22. 2 weeks later.

We had information but no one wanted to believe it could or would happen here.

Now, as for the different question of what should have been done by whom when, when would the measures needed to have been in place by in order to have slowed the spread to that sufficient level? And is that date before or after the health authorities coherently recommended policies in regards to masks and distancing? Is the date the WHO acknowledged human-human transmission even early enough? You mentioned April 3, would that have been early enough?

You don't have to have all the information to make reasonable decisions. You just have to be prepared. You can act and put measures into place because of past pandemics to protect yourself from future ones. We don't have to make the same mistakes other countries made in the past here before we learn. That was the point of the pandemic planning that Bush/Obama administrations put together.

Here is a list of quotes from our president following a timeline of the virus. See if you can figure out when he started to take it seriously and see if you think that was too late.

Jan 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
Feb 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”
Feb 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
Feb 27: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
Mar 4: “Some people will have this at a very light level and won’t even go to a doctor or hospital, and they’ll get better. There are many people like that.”
Mar 9: “The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power ... to inflame the CoronaVirus situation.”
Mar 10: “We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”
Mar 14: “We’re using the full power of the federal government to defeat the virus, and that’s what we’ve been doing.”
Mar 15: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”
Mar 17: “I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”
Mar 18: “I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the ‘borders’ from China - against the wishes of almost all.”

So it looks like this was on the radar of the WH and our leaders as early as Jan 22. Imagine if we had as a country developed a plan of attack then to social distance and wear masks instead of doing it in late March and early April. It wouldn't have stopped it. But things would be a lot different today.

Again its not about having perfect information. Its about weighing risk vs reward. Its about potential disasters and having a plan for them.

Do you wait to come up with a fireplan for evacuating your house until after you have a fire or do you come up with one ahead of time and make sure your family is aware of what to do in that situation?

[Darth_Link]

You guys covid is dead. George Floyd gave his life to kill it.

Hey Reid, did you hear that joke about the cure for Covid-19? It's a riot!

I am really disheartened that the community didn't call these two jokes out more. These jokes normalize and perpetuate the very type of aggression we need to dismantle. Jokes aren't funny when they have to rely on racism or the misfortune of others to land a punchline. If we silently condone or don't act up against jokes like this, we are part of the problem.

Over the past few weeks I've had to take a long hard look at myself and the community I live in and I want to be better, as should you all. Comments/jokes like these are just a small part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. I am not here claiming I am some saint.. I've cracked jokes like this recently and I look back in shame.

It really hit home for me when my friend sent a joke about cops to a few of us via text ("Why did the police get up early? So they could beat the crowd."). We laughed it off... and that's the problem. We can laugh it off. Many of us here have that luxury. As a community let's be better.

As for the Covid19 discussion, like many I've been frustrated with the lock downs and the impact it will have on many local businesses. I am having my first child in the coming week and I hope that he's safe and healthy. As such, my wife and I have the luxury of working from home and staying mostly isolated. I do, however, recognize that for so many this might not be possible.

For the record, I have an immense amount of respect for Reid as both a person and player. He's always been a class act each and every time we've spoken. IMO, as a person and player he's an asset to our community.

FWIW, I did PM the mods about those posts. I think they are appaling for exactly the reasons you mention, albeit not surprising giving the guys posting history.
I'm also not surprised that the mods didn't deal with them more as some people in this community are protected from repercussions when they act wrong or say bad things (that's not on the mods, as I assume it's on advocate level whether or not something happens).

Best of luck to you and the wife.

[AdmiralMotti89]

We are now worlds away from your original claim, the one I have yet to see justification for. Talking about when the lockdown should have happened and when politicians started taking covid seriously are separate issues from earlier masks and distancing preventing a lockdown and information from health authorities about masks and distancing being coherent enough in February to make actionable measures on them.

If our leaders, including our president, had taken this seriously, and convinced others to take it seriously, lockdowns wouldn't have been mandatory. We could have done just simple mask and social distancing. The problem is though people don't take it seriously. They don't wear masks and social distance. We had a chance to slow the spread drastically in February. We blew it. This is the consequence of making poor decisions.

Is a lockdown medically necessary? No. Is a lockdown required because the US is full of entitled pieces of * that can't be bothered to take this pandemic seriously? Yes.

Where is your justification for the claim that politicians taking it more seriously would have avoided the lockdown (not lessened the impact generally. I mean specifically avoiding the lockdown)? Your March 8/March 22 comparison seems to be about information we had that suggested a lockdown was necessary. That's a reasonable claim that based on what Italy did on 3/8, NYC should have responded quicker than 3/22. But that's about a lockdown in March, not about measures that supposedly should have been taken by leaders in February that would have avoided a lockdown altogether. What about the measures that according to you could have avoided a lockdown entirely? When were they coherently recommended by health experts to our leaders? As late as February 29, the surgeon general was saying that masks were not effective for the general public. Was he not taking the virus seriously? Or was he taking it seriously but just incorrect based on the best information he had? There's a pretty big difference.

So it looks like this was on the radar of the WH and our leaders as early as Jan 22. Imagine if we had as a country developed a plan of attack then to social distance and wear masks instead of doing it in late March and early April. It wouldn't have stopped it. But things would be a lot different today.

To develop a "plan of attack" in regards to masks and distancing, you need to know how masks and distancing work in regards to the virus. The CDC and WHO were quite unclear about this well into March, so why should leaders have known better in February?

[MrPurple]

FWIW, I did PM the mods about those posts. I think they are appaling for exactly the reasons you mention, albeit not surprising giving the guys posting history.
I'm also not surprised that the mods didn't deal with them more as some people in this community are protected from repercussions when they act wrong or say bad things (that's not on the mods, as I assume it's on advocate level whether or not something happens).

Best of luck to you and the wife.

Thanks, Emil. I don't want to detract from the convo that's going on here. It's important that we have a free and open dialog on our response to Covid. That's good for democracy and I've actually enjoyed reading what people think. I am not even saying we should censor people. I want to know what Reid and an Hunter think. And every other person posting here.

I am just saying when we see stuff like this, we should as a collective say "Hey that's not okay for these reasons."

[Hunter]

that's the point where you should stop provoking people and tone it down a notch, Hunter.

Oh, and when is the point where people should stop provoking me, and tone it down a notch? I'll set an alarm, so I know when it's coming.
I will not be singled out as the one who should "stop provoking people" whilst the likes of Darth_Link and arebelspy *repetitiously* choose phrasing for their posts (both to me and about me) that is clearly intended to be antagonistic and inflammatory.
Which is fine with me, I can handle it. But let's not pretend it isn't happening.

It's important that we have a free and open dialog on our response to Covid. That's good for democracy and I've actually enjoyed reading what people think. I am not even saying we should censor people. I want to know what Reid and an Hunter think.

*cracks knuckles*

So if anyone doesn't like tonight's posts, just blame Matt. This will be on his head.

[Hunter]

Right from the outset, it was obvious that this infection is NOWHERE NEAR as dangerous as ANY of those others.

You probably mean but did not write "if you caught it". If you compare both the fatality rate and the way in which it spreads, so the virus in its whole, I cannot agree that Covid-19 is "nowhere near as dangerous" as SARS.

It sounds like you're mixing up the virus and the disease. This is a very easy thing to do, because people will sometimes (often, even) invoke the name of one when they mean the other.

But there is not an "infection" UNTIL someone has "caught it." Covid-19 is the disease. The infection. And it is NOWHERE NEAR as dangerous as SARS. I understand that this virus transmits very easily, and how that helps make it threatening. But I picked the words I did for a reason, and what I actually said there (that you have quoted) is still unassailable.

And this is all despite the FACT that city officials in the USA have been caught (and then ADMITTED to) putting Covid-19 on THOUSANDS of death certificates, based only on SUSPICION, with no test actually being administered.

Caught is a weird word to use when the CDC, on their public website, instructs medical personnel to report Covid-19 as cause of death if the person in charge thinks its likely but no test has been done and there is no capacity to test afterwards.

HOWEVER, my understanding is that it was added to the CDC's website on April 2nd? Which would not have been until AFTER the city officials were "caught" doing it. It would not have been until AFTER all the uproar on social media had begun. But even if that had gone up on the website before anyone was "caught" that still wouldn't make the practice reasonable or ethical.

In a week where New York City reported just over 10,000 Covid deaths, they admitted that nearly 3,800 of them were instances where no test was administered. I will admit that I do NOT know whether the ratio from that particular week is a representative sample. But if it did happen to be? Man, that's a LOT more "i dunno...the 'Rona did it?" than I think most people would expect.

So you've got them putting Covid on death certificates on the basis of SUSPICION, in instances where no test ever took place.
AND,
You've got them putting Covid on death certificates of people who tested positive, in instances where something else was the actual culprit.

In combination, that's a real double-whammy of fabricated Covid deaths, artificially inflating the count. Gotta stoke the flames of that Coronavirus panic. And hospitals gotta get that 20% bonus for Medicare reimbursements on Covid-19 patients (even media outlets that are actively participating in the Covid scare have still verified that this is real).

NYC's Health Commissioner had this to say on the subject:

Behind every death is a friend, a family member, a loved one. We are focused on ensuring that every New Yorker who died because of COVID-19 gets counted

lol, WHAT?!

How in THE HELL is that supposed to be ONE IOTA more important than ensuring that every New Yorker who did NOT die because of COVID-19 does NOT get counted in the death toll? It's ridiculous. "Pardon me, Miss, but your Agenda is showing."

[Hunter]

Well lets do the math Hunter.

I had done the math already. "I'm good with calculation." (And also, am possibly a robot.)

In 2 years during the Ebola outbreak, Ebola infected less than 30k people (according to CDC). It killed just over 11k. So less than 50% mortality rate (even though you stated 80% above).

That's not being good with calculation. 12k people is "less than 30k people."
If "less than 30k people" were infected (let's say...12k) and it killed "just over 11k" of them, is the mortality rate less than 50%? Don't think so.

Being more serious now, yeah, I stated over 80%. That's not something I would have just made up though. Your sample numbers are from the 2014 outbreak, which was caused by the Zaire ebolavirus. That was the largest ebolavirus outbreak, and Zaire ebolavirus has also been behind *more* ebolavirus outbreaks than any other kind of ebolavirus, so it makes sense that you would have used an outbreak of Zaire ebolavirus in your example. That's the one people have most often meant when they just say "ebolavirus." So you've got the right one, but I don't know why you would look only at the one outbreak, even if it was the biggest one.

When talking about Zaire ebolavirus' fatality rate, Wikipedia sez (emphasis mine) that it is "up to 90% in some epidemics, with an average case fatality rate of approximately 83% over 27 years."

You can nitpick that if you want, but it won't change the fact that infections caused by ebolavirus are still phenomenally more dangerous than Covid-19 infections.

Let's take your 0.10% mortality rate. 2 million cases (which is definitely underreported because of lack of testing), and use that 0.10 #. That .1 is still 2,000 people. Which is 1/5 of what Ebola killed in 2 years. So simple math of 4 months to 2 years shows COVID on pace to kill 12k people (in the US) in the same time frame as Ebola killed in 2 years (worldwide).

You have multiple problems there. For one, ebola killed for a lot more than 2 years, and killed a lot more than 10,000 people because you're just talking about a single outbreak, when there were several. Second, it's useless to talk about what Covid is "on pace" to do "in the same time-frame" when we don't know whether Covid will actually make it to a length of 2 years (or 1 year, for that matter). Lotta outbreaks of disease have dried up (for good) in less time than that. And you are the one who keeps talking about how much we DON'T know about this virus, so you can't try to tell me you KNOW that it will last as long as even that SINGLE ebola outbreak did.

We wouldn't have had to shut down the economy if our leaders had pressed for social distancing, wearing masks, etc a lot sooner and told people that this was a serious disease that needed to be dealt with. Instead we had leaders pushing the same agenda that you are Hunter and people died for it. People DIED that didn't need to. People DIED because of misinformation.

That is why I wear my mask. That is why I social distance. It isn't to protect me. I do it to protect others from catching it from me because I don't know if I'm infected or not. I don't want to be the cause of someone else's death. I don't want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution.

Were you busily being part of the solution while the CDC was saying that people don't need to wear masks? Unlike those dumb leaders, were you running around telling people "Don't listen to the CDC! What would an organization named the 'Centers for Disease Control' know about containing the spread of a new virus? Prolly nuthin, right? Wear a damn mask!"

I mentioned the notices from the CDC that were plastered all over the government facility I work in. It had a big list of Do's and Don'ts for all of us who are employed by the Agency. The "What to do" list had a whole bunch of stuff on it, but the "What not to do" list was actually only 2 items.

The first said they recommend not visiting countries that have a travel advisory.
The other said (and I quote): "The general population does not need to wear masks."

Wearing a mask. That's what NOT to do, on a list of only TWO things NOT to do.

It would seem that eventually, the CDC was kidnapped and reprogrammed (maybe it was the same people that got to Drew Brees?) resulting in the flip-flop that Reid referenced earlier. But I would guess you didn't think people should start wearing masks until someone TOLD you to think that people should start wearing masks. Even if it was the SAME someone who'd been telling you the exact opposite for the 2 months prior.

So it looks like this was on the radar of the WH and our leaders as early as Jan 22. Imagine if we had as a country developed a plan of attack then to social distance and wear masks instead of doing it in late March and early April.

How was that supposed to happen, given the above?

I think Motti's mostly got this part of the conversation "locked down" so I'll let him handle it. But yeah...what he said.

Do you wait to come up with a fireplan for evacuating your house until after you have a fire or do you come up with one ahead of time and make sure your family is aware of what to do in that situation?

When the fire alarm for my apartment complex goes off, I put in earplugs and try to get back to sleep. This isn't a joke of some sort. I have already done this twice this year.

#Fireproof
#RobotsRule

[Hunter]

FWIW, I did PM the mods about those posts. I think they are appaling for exactly the reasons you mention, albeit not surprising giving the guys posting history.
I'm also not surprised that the mods didn't deal with them more as some people in this community are protected from repercussions when they act wrong or say bad things (that's not on the mods, as I assume it's on advocate level whether or not something happens).

I know, right? Like that post from arebelspy where he says "F*ck you" directly to a moderator 3 different times, and...crickets?

I think it's fascinating that Hunter knows no one who tested positive, yet is certain that most people at Rhendon's work have had it?

Most things I do are fascinating, just get used to that. Now, would it help if I pointed out that I didn't say I'm certain that most people at rhendon's work have had it? You should totally go find where I said that so that you can throw it in my face. And then tuck your tail between your legs when you see that it never happened.

What I did say is that I would bet most workplaces of 300+ employees have already had it sweep through.
You could NOT talk me into laying down money saying that I *myself* haven't already had it. I think it's entirely likely that I have.
And also, I can't name anyone I know who has tested positive for it.

These things are all compatible, because of the MASSIVE amount of people who are asymptomatic when infected. Plus the many other people who DO develop mild symptoms, but still never know they were caused by Covid-19, because they aren't able to distinguish them from those of a cold or the seasonal flu.

Gergall made this post almost 3 months ago:

Well at least most of you guys aren't forced to go to work and be exposed to this thing on a daily basis...

If it's any consolation, they're saying we can't stop the spread at this point, it's out of control and about half the population will carry it (in many cases, with little or no symptoms, but still contagious).

By going to work you're just gonna get it before me, not instead of me.

Okay, so this thing spreads like wildfire, right?
And people kept screaming their heads off about how bazillions of people were flaunting social distancing guidelines and ignoring stay-at-home orders, right?
And huge amounts of people who get it will never know they had it, right?

Well then when you flash-forward to the present, it's gotta be HIGH-TIME that a sh*t-ton of folks switch from "just assuming they're gonna get it" to "just assuming they already got it."

As I mentioned before, allll those people who were saying they thought they already caught it back in January/February (before it was *supposed* to have arrived in the USA, by original estimates) have only seen their stories grow more and more and more credible, as time has gone on, and as more information has come to light.

I aim to fight misinformation when I see it, not get people to know me.

Same.

Many reports point to somewhere a 0.5- 1.5 % fatality rate

Oh, "many reports" huh? Well I guess that settles it then. I mean, I cited the estimates from the World Health Organization. And the CDC. And the CEBM.
But I didn't realize you were just gonna trump all that with what you say happened in "many reports." Seems legit. Well played, sir.

Hunter doesn't know me, I don't know him. All I know is his online persona that ONLY speaks in absolutes, and that he was relevant in the 90s as a decent player in a dead card game that 500 play nowadays.

So you're gonna try to start a pissing contest over a dead card game? But that seems so silly! The only thing that would make it even sillier would be to choose an all-time great Legend of a player like MEEEE as your target for it.

Relevant in the 90s? Actually, I was still sitting in Final Confrontations in the year 2000. Oh, and also the year 2012, when I finally retired (which maybe opened the door for you to finally matter?) Oh, and also EVERY other year in between that I picked up a deck, because I was actually PLENTY "relevant" throughout the whole of my playing career.

Which is something we WILL NOT see being said by anyone with a screen name of "Darth_Link."

[Madmanwithabox]

Message from moderator

Folks, again, gentle reminder to be civil.
It’s fine to have strong opinions about the current situation, just remember to express them respectfully (to those that have been doing so, it’s appreciated).
Please also note that no one has full immunity to ban (at most, it’s <5), we just prefer to resolve issues amicably where possible.
That said, this thread is being carefully monitored, and steps will be taken to ensure the commentary stays on topic and civil.

[Death Star]

It sounds like you're mixing up the virus and the disease. This is a very easy thing to do, because people will sometimes (often, even) invoke the name of one when they mean the other.

But there is not an "infection" UNTIL someone has "caught it." Covid-19 is the disease. The infection. And it is NOWHERE NEAR as dangerous as SARS. I understand that this virus transmits very easily, and how that helps make it threatening. But I picked the words I did for a reason, and what I actually said there (that you have quoted) is still unassailable.

Ok, I misunderstood what you wanted to say by that. You were just laying the groundwork for what you wrote later in that post. Because I think noone is or was ever disputing that "Covid-19 the disease is less lethal than SARS or Ebola".
The measures taken against SARS were less drastic because it was relatively easy to contain the virus that causes SARS and therefor not that many people got it. And since your beef is with the drastic measures taken against Corona I thought you were implying "SARS was way more deadly but the measures taken were way less" which alone does not make sense because you have to take the causing virus into consideration too. But that was not what you wanted to say. Cool.

And this is all despite the FACT that city officials in the USA have been caught (and then ADMITTED to) putting Covid-19 on THOUSANDS of death certificates, based only on SUSPICION, with no test actually being administered.

Caught is a weird word to use when the CDC, on their public website, instructs medical personnel to report Covid-19 as cause of death if the person in charge thinks its likely but no test has been done and there is no capacity to test afterwards.

HOWEVER, my understanding is that it was added to the CDC's website on April 2nd? Which would not have been until AFTER the city officials were "caught" doing it. It would not have been until AFTER all the uproar on social media had begun. But even if that had gone up on the website before anyone was "caught" that still wouldn't make the practice reasonable or ethical.

In a week where New York City reported just over 10,000 Covid deaths, they admitted that nearly 3,800 of them were instances where no test was administered. I will admit that I do NOT know whether the ratio from that particular week is a representative sample. But if it did happen to be? Man, that's a LOT more "i dunno...the 'Rona did it?" than I think most people would expect.

So you've got them putting Covid on death certificates on the basis of SUSPICION, in instances where no test ever took place.
AND,
You've got them putting Covid on death certificates of people who tested positive, in instances where something else was the actual culprit.

In combination, that's a real double-whammy of fabricated Covid deaths, artificially inflating the count. Gotta stoke the flames of that Coronavirus panic. And hospitals gotta get that 20% bonus for Medicare reimbursements on Covid-19 patients (even media outlets that are actively participating in the Covid scare have still verified that this is real).

I certainly do not follow the same social media that you do. Can you point me to a link please where those "Covid scaremongering media outlets" have verified that? I mean verified that hospitals fudged the death records of patients, not verified that there IS a 20% bonus for treating Covid-19 patients because, duh, that is part of an official goverment act of legislation.

I already pointed you to articles that explain the rationale behind the practice of counting suspected Covid deaths. You can disregard them, consider them unreasonable and unethical, sure, freedom of speech. You can also imagine that the process of reporting Covid on the death certificate despite there not being a positive test result does not involve any more thought than "eh, I am hungry, time to go to lunch, lets just call it 'Rona did it".
You can even cite the case (I only read about the one, maybe there are more) of a person with a negative test result being reported as suspected of dying due to Covid. Hint: As far as I know, there is about a 20% chance of a false negative with tests for the active disease. The chance for a false positive by the way is way smaller. Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/co ... aningless/

And if your argument is also "but theres also people that died WITH Covid but NOT FROM Covid", which might have been that earlier social media outrage, sure, go ahead. Looking forward to hearing how you would distinguish these cases.



In total, if your conclusion is that there was a large scale orchestrated overreporting of corona deaths for a political (?) agenda and for the profit of the health care sector then I will stop arguing with you right there. In that case you "win" the argument. Congratulations. Still looking forward to that link I asked about above.

I think that in the final analysis, we're going to see the fatality rate on this thing settle in at under one-tenth of one percent. So that if the only 2 things we know about a person are:

A) It's a human being
and
B) They just got Covid-19

then they have *better* than a 99.9% chance of recovery.

One more thing I forgot to mention earlier: You are aware, hopefully, that one cause for the fatality rate of the disease hopefully being as low as possible in the end ARE the strict measures taken that you so disagree with. Because those measures slowed the spread of the virus and allowed more people to get the treatment they needed to survive the disease, unlike the early peaks in Italy or Spain for example (NY also?) where the health care system was overburdened and more people died than necessary as hospitals could not give everybody the best treatment.

So if you're saying "with that low a fatality rate we should not have been making such a fuss" you are also saying "I would have accepted a higher fatality rate, no problem".

[rhendon]

Actually Hunter my information had nothing to do with Zaire and wasn't just a single outbreak. This is from the CDC website that states 2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak. Also, Zaire isn't a country anymore and hasn't been since 1997. Where the * are you getting your information from?

https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/history/2 ... index.html

That is the CDC website with their stats. Why am I using their stats? Because they are the stats I'm using for the Corona virus. Makes sense to use the same site for the data if possible.

If you look at the site, you'll see that there was 28,652 cases of Ebola across Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Italy, Malli, Nigeria, Senegal, Spain, UK and the US. That is total cases, suspected or probable. Confirmed cases was 15,261. Total deaths was 11,325.

11,325/28,652 x 100 = 39.52%
11,325/15,261 x 100 = 74.20%

So the total cases they confirmed is closer to 80% but is still off.

Pulling up ALL outbreaks in Africa since 1976 on the CDC site (https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/history/d ... n-map.html), I find they have 31072 total cases. 12937 deaths.

12,937/31,072 x 100 = 41.63%

I'm willing to concede that Ebola has a higher mortality than COVID, which I was never arguing in the first place. I just questioned your 80%.

Then you posted a lot of other garbage, literally garbage, that doesn't dispute the math on the COVID numbers at all.

You said COVID won't be around in 2 years possibly, but I never said it was. I just showed what pace it was on for. Its call predicting the future based on numbers we have. But none of that changes what it has done already. Where in less than 6 months, it has killed more people than Ebola has over 34 years. It has infected more people than Ebola has in 34 years.

Even with a lower mortality rate, even with one close to the flu level of mortality rate, it is still dropping people like flies. Even with we reduce the deaths to 1/4th of what they are, that is still more than Ebola killed in Africa in 34 years (minus the ongoing numbers) and that is still way to many people to die. That is still way too many people to risk when it can be prevented.

If you want to be stupid with the fire alarm, so be it. That is your choice. It affects just you. You going out into public and not being apart of the lockdown, doesn't affect just you. You could have COVID and you could spread it to someone. You don't get to make that choice and let your choice risk someone else's life. You don't like that. Fine. Don't live in a society. This is the choice you make when you choose to live in a society. You sacrifice for the greater good. The needs of a Hunter do not outweigh the needs of the many.

[sac89837]

[spideyguy0]

Want to go on record that I reported Reid's post. I think it's important that we publicly (not just privately) call out inappropriate posts of this type.

[Gergall]

This right here

Spoiler

Show

The Coronavirus doesn't do anything that unusual.

are words that can only be uttered by the tin-foiliest of hat wearers.

I predict that Covid-19 will eventually be "not unusual" in a couple years. We won't eradicate it, so it will always be going around. But if most people are immune, and especially if there is a vaccine, it will eventually join the ranks of a thousand other diseases that are rare to get and even rarer to die from.

In other words, the unusual thing about Covid-19 isn't necessarily the disease itself. The unusual part of it is that we are living through the birth of the disease when things are very tumultuous, with the capability to overrun our hospitals due to rapid spread. After we get through this first part, the next 500 years of Covid-19 won't be nearly as interesting.