Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 7:54:40 GMT -6
Meanwhile, while y'all are hunkered down waiting on a vaccine for this virus, next year's is already being cooked-up which will be JUST enough different for your new vaccine to be ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2020 9:06:34 GMT -6
The big problem with "flattening the curve" is that it stretches out the disease for a long, long time. You still have as many sick and dead, but it lasts a lot longer. That just isn't true.
1. You prevent many illness because people have a much better chance over time to avoid infection.
2. You prevent MANY deaths because the health care system can treat the illness better without running our of ventilators, by having enough medical staff.
3. And maybe most important, TIME and DELAY of onset allows more people to be vaccinated BEFORE they can be infected. Not to mention the possibility we can find treatment that is more effective.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2020 9:07:36 GMT -6
Meanwhile, while y'all are hunkered down waiting on a vaccine for this virus, next year's is already being cooked-up which will be JUST enough different for your new vaccine to be ineffective.
Your point if it is valid is just more reason to slow this thing down to develop treatment and improve tracking and mitigation methodology.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2020 9:19:38 GMT -6
Here is a description of how things might work out in several scenarios.There is room to improve the outcomes described above BUT not without some time for the science and industry to develop responses.
Here is an article where the authors use a simulation which shows how mitigation and flattening the curve works. You can ignore the politics and opinion part, and ignore the title of the article which misrepresents the administrations likely plan. Ignore that go down to the good science which is in simulation graphic. Play with that to show how mitigation can do a lot of good. Number of cases and number of deaths are shown by area under the curves shown. You can use the slider to say how long we engage in current mitigation. Again, the articles conclusions cannot take into account likely improvements in how we react to the virus. The good news is that this simulation isn't sophisticated enough to show how with better tracking and better data which we don't now have we can probably do better. (Not mitigation to the same degree everywhere for example.)
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 27, 2020 9:41:39 GMT -6
You can ignore the politics and opinion part, and ignore the title of the article which misrepresents the administrations likely plan. Ignore that go down to the good science which is in simulation graphic. You can ignore a lot, but some of us want to see the whole picture. You can't deny that there is a part of the population (including scientists, politicians, and the media) that wants this to last until the election, for the sole reason to assure Trump doesn't get a second term. Many of them will outright lie to influence the general population. Hell, look at reddit. There are some on there that are happy that the virus is taking down older folks, since it eliminates boomers and Trump voters. I keep seeing these graphs that are complete speculation. Most of them have no numbers attached. Some have a higher spike. They've been wildly inconsistent. Regardless, try telling the people who are losing their livelihoods that flattening the curve is the best thing for them. That we're theoretically saving lives when they can't pay their actual rent. I've personally lost a shitload of money (over 100K) over this thing, and I'm going to lose a lot more. I'm at the edge of the at-risk age group. I've still got a job, but who knows how long I'll have it? The unpopular fact is that diseases kill people. Disproportionately according to age. As tragic as that is, that's part of life. Not trying to be callous, but we are all going to die at some point. Whether it's heart attack, car crash, meteorite, spontaneous combustion, whatever. If you choose to live in fear, go ahead. I won't.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2020 9:47:09 GMT -6
Just look at the science. You ignore that completely.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Mar 27, 2020 9:54:21 GMT -6
Purchased my season tickets last month, sure hope things improve and we have football.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 27, 2020 9:58:00 GMT -6
Yes I’d be quite happy to “live free or die” at age 56, with diabetes, and have a family. I’m not living in fear per se, but if I can take Steps to NOT die way prematurely to a virus we still don’t know enough about then I’m going to sure as hell take take those steps. And to not have my elderly mother die a miserable death? And I would hope others would too. I don’t give a shit who is president. Leave that out of it.
Last I checked cars are not highly infectious. And, yet the government takes all kinds of steps to try to minimize crashing them or getting injured/killed. Standards, restrictions, and safety devises based on research, testing and data. You know, like we’re trying to do with this new virus? Or we could just all live our lives with no safety features or requirements or speed limits for cars and what ever happens happens. Live and let die!
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 27, 2020 10:01:36 GMT -6
Just look at the science. You ignore that completely. And you look at it exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 27, 2020 10:08:52 GMT -6
Yes I’d be quite happy to “live free or die” at age 56, with diabetes, and have a family. I’m not living in fear per se, but if I can take Steps to NOT die way prematurely to a virus we still don’t know enough about then I’m going to sure as hell take take those steps. And to not have my elderly mother die a miserable death? And I would hope others would too. I don’t give a shit who is president. Leave that out of it. Last I checked cars are not highly infectious. And, yet the government takes all kinds of steps to try to minimize crashing them or getting injured/killed. Standards, restrictions, and safety devises based on research, testing and data. You know, like we’re trying to do with this new virus? Or we could just all live our lives with no safety features or requirements or speed limits for cars and what ever happens happens. Live and let die! I'm not saying we shouldn't take precautions, but you have to admit, the unprecedented actions taken seem a little extreme. Because they are unprecedented! Maybe you don't give a shit who's president, but a lot of people do, and act irrationally in their hatred. And they're using this crisis to their advantage to sow fear. Your cars metaphor is a bit confusing. I guess the best comparison to current actions would be telling everyone to park their cars and not drive them, so that there are no accidents.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 27, 2020 10:30:15 GMT -6
Plenty of folks would love to see their opposition fail. At whatever it is. How people have cut off their noses to spite their face to “own the libs”. That whole deal works both ways. I’ve seen plenty of people say they hope “libtards” get this thing. Liberals haven’t cornered the market on hate and politically driven actions. I don’t agree with hoping for the worst on anyone.
We don’t know yet what the full impact of this virus will be on our country, because it’s new! So we’re being very aggressive in trying to get a grip on it. Or, we could be more lax and increase the spread exponentially. Britain tried the lax route (herd immunity) first and quickly realized that was a big mistake.
In thus country, spring breakers “just want to live their lives” and end up with several of them contracting the virus and taking it back home to families. In reality we have no idea what the best course of action is because this thing is unlike what scientists and drs have seen. Are you aware of the long term, maybe permanent lung damage some survivors are experiencing. Thus thing attacks people in different ways. We have to get a grip on it somehow.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 27, 2020 10:32:05 GMT -6
Just look at the science. You ignore that completely. And you look at it exclusively. When you say above: The big problem with "flattening the curve" is that it stretches out the disease for a long, long time. You still have as many sick and dead, but it lasts a lot longer. Those statements are factual, scientific in nature. And there is no data or science that supports you. I responded only with readable articles supported by scientific best evidence. The articles may have political implication, but I asked you to ignore that and talk about the facts. In that context I asked you to forget politics and look only at the science. You have not done that, no comment, no admission you are likely flat out wrong.
Based on science, there just are not going to be as many deaths, not as many total people sick.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 27, 2020 10:40:09 GMT -6
You have to balance the "science" (which is speculative) with the reality of other aspects of life.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Mar 27, 2020 11:00:49 GMT -6
I just want a 6-5 quarterback with a rocket arm
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 27, 2020 11:11:25 GMT -6
I just want a 6-5 quarterback with a rocket arm Boom. Peyton Manning is available. Gotta be a 5th year grad transfer option there, right?
|
|