birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Jun 27, 2020 20:22:47 GMT
I get you, Mr. Birder. I'm 68 and regularly go out as well. What I should have said is protect the elderly and infirm who may not be able to protect themselves. They should still have freedom of choice. I've always liked The Who song which said I hope I die before I get old.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 27, 2020 21:28:33 GMT
I get you, Mr. Birder. I'm 68 and regularly go out as well. What I should have said is protect the elderly and infirm who may not be able to protect themselves. They should still have freedom of choice. I've always liked The Who song which said I hope I die before I get old. I've always said ... Spare the pickaxe, spoil the body. But the answer to your question Mr Phy is they want to control you ... and they want you to blame the President for making them do it ... and they want it to go on as long as possible.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 27, 2020 21:29:03 GMT
Bear with me on this, and please fell free to correct me if my logic and reasoning are flawed. I've been thinking that the recent surge in COVID cases supports arguments AGAINST "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders." The US totally locked down in March, and two months later we began to see a slow decline in new cases, and a dramatic decline in COVID related deaths. This, we were assured, proved the effectiveness of the quarantine of the healthy as well as the sick. And, it's difficult to argue with that now, because when people started interacting again, the incidence of new infections has risen, in some places dramatically so. The response to that rise, starting in Texas and soon spreading to other locales I'm sure, is to lock down again. So why does the answer of those in charge seem to be back we go into a "solution" that has resulted in economic destruction, until the rise in cases slows again, and we start to reopen again, and then, what? Wash, rinse, repeat in an endless cycle of shutdown, then reopening then shutdown when the infections rise again, with each shutdown a new torpedo in the hull of the economy? Wouldn't it be better, especially since we know a lot more both about the virus and the economic effect of shutdowns, to now isolate the old and infirm, and let the virus take its course among the populations who will just get ill for a couple of days? We don't shut down the country during flu season. And, yes, I know, I know, "this is not the flue! It's much worse than the flue!" Blah, blah. But it's not much worse than the flue, and in many instances less severe, in the populations it is now predominantly infecting. No one seems to be taking into account that, this time, the virus is focusing on a younger cohort who are not only far less likely to die, but who will suffer flue like symptoms for a few days, won't overtax the medical systems as a result, and who will have COVID antibodies when they recover. It seems like the virus is going to work its way through the entire population no matter what we do. Let it do that whilst we protect the elderly and infirm, now that we know how to do that. If we make that call, then COVID is just another infectious disease like the hundreds we have lived with in human history. This almost perfectly expresses my feelings on this. I've thought this from the beginning, but of course, based on a misunderstanding many had of "flattening the curve," this POV was ridiculed on social media quite often. I don't have any conspiracy theories on this. I just think there is nothing we can do to hide from a virus. It's going to run its course specifically because, when we emerge from our holes and self-inflicted siege, the virus will still be out there. It's not going away. The herd must develop immunity - the only way out is through. Even with herd immunity, the virus will still infect some. Viruses don't just go away. It seems to me like we're lying to ourselves to make ourselves feel good, but we're not reducing the overall numbers of infections, and I don't believe we're reducing the number of deaths, either. All we're reducing is the life we have to return to.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2020 21:30:52 GMT
Bear with me on this, and please fell free to correct me if my logic and reasoning are flawed. I've been thinking that the recent surge in COVID cases supports arguments AGAINST "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders." The US totally locked down in March, and two months later we began to see a slow decline in new cases, and a dramatic decline in COVID related deaths. This, we were assured, proved the effectiveness of the quarantine of the healthy as well as the sick. And, it's difficult to argue with that now, because when people started interacting again, the incidence of new infections has risen, in some places dramatically so. The response to that rise, starting in Texas and soon spreading to other locales I'm sure, is to lock down again. So why does the answer of those in charge seem to be back we go into a "solution" that has resulted in economic destruction, until the rise in cases slows again, and we start to reopen again, and then, what? Wash, rinse, repeat in an endless cycle of shutdown, then reopening then shutdown when the infections rise again, with each shutdown a new torpedo in the hull of the economy? Wouldn't it be better, especially since we know a lot more both about the virus and the economic effect of shutdowns, to now isolate the old and infirm, and let the virus take its course among the populations who will just get ill for a couple of days? We don't shut down the country during flu season. And, yes, I know, I know, "this is not the flue! It's much worse than the flue!" Blah, blah. But it's not much worse than the flue, and in many instances less severe, in the populations it is now predominantly infecting. No one seems to be taking into account that, this time, the virus is focusing on a younger cohort who are not only far less likely to die, but who will suffer flue like symptoms for a few days, won't overtax the medical systems as a result, and who will have COVID antibodies when they recover. It seems like the virus is going to work its way through the entire population no matter what we do. Let it do that whilst we protect the elderly and infirm, now that we know how to do that. If we make that call, then COVID is just another infectious disease like the hundreds we have lived with in human history. Personally, long before CV spread meaningfully to the west it was the hospitalizations and pressure on health care which i found most concerning. Uk just about got away with it and i know for a fact people who normally would have been admitted were left at home by paramedics as they knew however uncomfortable they were, they would likely survive. Not sure the US experienced this outside NY?? No country in europe or n america has allowed infection to spread unabated. This has shielded us from experiencing the full effects of what this virus may do. Sweden is not a good analogue for the rest of the above countries, they're accommodation and population densities are basically a best case scenario for spread prevention.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 28, 2020 0:59:52 GMT
[ Snip ] You know that would take longer to return in then a 2 week quarantine....right??? Think of the adventure, Acid.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 28, 2020 1:05:44 GMT
Bear with me on this, and please fell free to correct me if my logic and reasoning are flawed. I've been thinking that the recent surge in COVID cases supports arguments AGAINST "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders." The US totally locked down in March, and two months later we began to see a slow decline in new cases, and a dramatic decline in COVID related deaths. This, we were assured, proved the effectiveness of the quarantine of the healthy as well as the sick. And, it's difficult to argue with that now, because when people started interacting again, the incidence of new infections has risen, in some places dramatically so. The response to that rise, starting in Texas and soon spreading to other locales I'm sure, is to lock down again. So why does the answer of those in charge seem to be back we go into a "solution" that has resulted in economic destruction, until the rise in cases slows again, and we start to reopen again, and then, what? Wash, rinse, repeat in an endless cycle of shutdown, then reopening then shutdown when the infections rise again, with each shutdown a new torpedo in the hull of the economy? Wouldn't it be better, especially since we know a lot more both about the virus and the economic effect of shutdowns, to now isolate the old and infirm, and let the virus take its course among the populations who will just get ill for a couple of days? We don't shut down the country during flu season. And, yes, I know, I know, "this is not the flue! It's much worse than the flue!" Blah, blah. But it's not much worse than the flue, and in many instances less severe, in the populations it is now predominantly infecting. No one seems to be taking into account that, this time, the virus is focusing on a younger cohort who are not only far less likely to die, but who will suffer flue like symptoms for a few days, won't overtax the medical systems as a result, and who will have COVID antibodies when they recover. It seems like the virus is going to work its way through the entire population no matter what we do. Let it do that whilst we protect the elderly and infirm, now that we know how to do that. If we make that call, then COVID is just another infectious disease like the hundreds we have lived with in human history. Total agreement from this seventy-five year old. No more torpedoes .... please.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 28, 2020 1:34:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 28, 2020 1:48:07 GMT
Perhaps standard issue in Democrat States? Might solve numerous problems. Very hard to loot out of I would think.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 28, 2020 4:11:50 GMT
Since I've gotten "in sync" with the virus hoaxers moves, I've done great in the market. We launched this micro hedge fund about the same time that the market crashed. Aggressively daytrading volatility ETF's with margin. It was a rocky start but we recovered nicely. A friends and family 506(b) fund. Plan to double it again this summer.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 28, 2020 7:20:33 GMT
Mask wearing.
Early on there was alot of chat about how effective a mask was in preventing contracting this disease and rightly, the conclusions erred towards, not very effective. They may help, but shouldn't be relied on.
However i think this is looking at it the wrong way round and perhaps the requirements to use masks are based on this (aside from an initial need for masks to be available to healthcare as demand outstripped supply)
As this disease is predominantly spreading effectively while people are unaware they're infected (during a long asymptomatic shedding period prior to feeling ill...if at all) masks must surely help contain virus laden water particles being emitted from an infectious person. There's plenty of cases where multiple infections have derived from close contact indoor occasions (parties, meat factories, hotels, bars, churches, conferences). However people do clearly contract the disease while going about normal daily activities. Any one of these people may then attend some indoor event and can apparently infect multiple people rapidly and so on. Pretty sure masks may reduce R significantly enough by reducing the viral load in the air around a shedding individual.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 28, 2020 9:43:01 GMT
Im not a fan of the Gaurdian, however having trawled through most articles not paywalled this a.m. i conclude this article is the most broad and informative available at this point. Im sure some of the quoted persons may be deemed controversial by some, not because i know which ones are, only that views are polarised and inevitably to take one stand point automatically means people disagree with you. Generally tho, there are points about the developing situation in the US which i feel are likely to become key talking points in the next few weeks. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/27/coronavirus-cases-us-trump-politics-masksProbably the biggest elephant in the room would be the statement "developing situation in the US", which if posted with good distribution on twatter would result in a outright brawl. I believe this is the reality. I think that decent initial control has led to complacency and a philosophy that CV is some kind of myth. Sadly, i also fear in coming weeks reality will produce itself quite visibly unless something is done. If something changes and current tracks of infection are curtailed then of course this will propagate more philosophies that CV is a myth. Honestly this could only be a good scenario. Best case.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 28, 2020 9:45:12 GMT
Mask wearing. Early on there was alot of chat about how effective a mask was in preventing contracting this disease and rightly, the conclusions erred towards, not very effective. They may help, but shouldn't be relied on. However i think this is looking at it the wrong way round and perhaps the requirements to use masks are based on this (aside from an initial need for masks to be available to healthcare as demand outstripped supply) As this disease is predominantly spreading effectively while people are unaware they're infected (during a long asymptomatic shedding period prior to feeling ill...if at all) masks must surely help contain virus laden water particles being emitted from an infectious person. There's plenty of cases where multiple infections have derived from close contact indoor occasions (parties, meat factories, hotels, bars, churches, conferences). However people do clearly contract the disease while going about normal daily activities. Any one of these people may then attend some indoor event and can apparently infect multiple people rapidly and so on. Pretty sure masks may reduce R significantly enough by reducing the viral load in the air around a shedding individual. The spreads all occur where people talk loudly mainly in an indoor environment. So singing, shouting in someone's ear in a noisy club or pub or meat packing plant will all spread the disease. Then go home and join your locked down family where just talking in a small room for 30 minutes will spread the disease to all who did not go out. If you go out to eat or drink then you will remove any mask which has by then trapped a few hours worth of viral particles from you and your breathing has kept them warm and moist, whereas a non-mask wearer will have shed very little from just breathing a few more talking quietly. Sneezes and coughs into tissues that are then discarded into waste bins will not spread much virus. Yes in some controlled situations - no doubt where masks are tested - masks may work, but I just get the feeling that in normal usage they are more of a comfort blanket and an indication to 'authority' that you are well trained and compliant
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 28, 2020 10:01:36 GMT
Mask wearing. Early on there was alot of chat about how effective a mask was in preventing contracting this disease and rightly, the conclusions erred towards, not very effective. They may help, but shouldn't be relied on. However i think this is looking at it the wrong way round and perhaps the requirements to use masks are based on this (aside from an initial need for masks to be available to healthcare as demand outstripped supply) As this disease is predominantly spreading effectively while people are unaware they're infected (during a long asymptomatic shedding period prior to feeling ill...if at all) masks must surely help contain virus laden water particles being emitted from an infectious person. There's plenty of cases where multiple infections have derived from close contact indoor occasions (parties, meat factories, hotels, bars, churches, conferences). However people do clearly contract the disease while going about normal daily activities. Any one of these people may then attend some indoor event and can apparently infect multiple people rapidly and so on. Pretty sure masks may reduce R significantly enough by reducing the viral load in the air around a shedding individual. The spreads all occur where people talk loudly mainly in an indoor environment. So singing, shouting in someone's ear in a noisy club or pub or meat packing plant will all spread the disease. Then go home and join your locked down family where just talking in a small room for 30 minutes will spread the disease to all who did not go out. If you go out to eat or drink then you will remove any mask which has by then trapped a few hours worth of viral particles from you and your breathing has kept them warm and moist, whereas a non-mask wearer will have shed very little from just breathing a few more talking quietly. Sneezes and coughs into tissues that are then discarded into waste bins will not spread much virus. Yes in some controlled situations - no doubt where masks are tested - masks may work, but I just get the feeling that in normal usage they are more of a comfort blanket and an indication to 'authority' that you are well trained and compliant If one person catches in street, however unlikely, then visits a group indoors and spreads to 10, that's a potentially avoidable situation. People are catching this in supermarkets etc, as infection still spreads even when we spend 99% of our time in our homes for 9 weeks. It just spreads alot slower.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 28, 2020 10:27:31 GMT
Im not a fan of the Gaurdian, however having trawled through most articles not paywalled this a.m. i conclude this article is the most broad and informative available at this point. Im sure some of the quoted persons may be deemed controversial by some, not because i know which ones are, only that views are polarised and inevitably to take one stand point automatically means people disagree with you. Generally tho, there are points about the developing situation in the US which i feel are likely to become key talking points in the next few weeks. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/27/coronavirus-cases-us-trump-politics-masksProbably the biggest elephant in the room would be the statement "developing situation in the US", which if posted with good distribution on twatter would result in a outright brawl. I believe this is the reality. I think that decent initial control has led to complacency and a philosophy that CV is some kind of myth. Sadly, i also fear in coming weeks reality will produce itself quite visibly unless something is done. If something changes and current tracks of infection are curtailed then of course this will propagate more philosophies that CV is a myth. Honestly this could only be a good scenario. Best case. The problem is that the Grauniad and other media sources don't want to break down the figures as the information from the detail in the figures is actually relatively good news. Florida is on of the more populous states and has a skewed average age as it is a state that people retire to. It is also a state that people from the North East buy holiday and 'snow bird' homes in. So many of the early cases in southern Florida were seeded by people from NY/NJ/CT traveling south to avoid their poorly managed states and bringing the disease with them. But nevertheless there was no hard lock down in Florida just some counties with more restrictions than others. The recent warm weather and relaxation of the limitations mainly in those areas that are regular 'second home' destinations has resulted in an uptick in cases. If you were to draw a line 21 units long to represent 21 million population then draw a line alongside it 0.13 units long the number of infections it would not appear to be something to panic about. This breakdown of cases is just one of the routinely published statistics by Florida Department of Emergency Management. floridadisaster.org/covid19/ For those of you who like playing with numbers get your beverage of choice and set aside a few hours as the statistics are broken down in almost every way possible. It is a pity that this is not the standard for other states - but those from states like the aforementioned NY/NJ/CT appear to be more likely to obfuscate than inform Here I have downloaded a breakdown for 9.25AM June 27 of the COVID-19 all Florida stats. Note that the bars in the bar charts are not to scale. Otherwise the hospitalizations and deaths would be too small to read compared to infections. You will immediately note that the main bulge of infections are in the 15 year old to 64 year old with the highest rate being in the 25 to 44 year old age groups an age group that represents only 7% of the deaths. From elsewhere the deaths in this group are linked to co-morbidities the main ones being linked obesity and diabetes. The background effect here is that as the numbers of 15-64 year olds INCREASE who catch COVID-19 and are not really ill - most identified in routine testing - the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate DECREASES Serology testing will show that the actual numbers of infected probably is at least 4 to 5 times larger than the number of positive infection tests. So the question to ask now - is why are we so alarmed about COVID-19 when its CFR is dropping below that of seasonal influenza? I think that the initial Ferguson/Imperial College model which was 'touted' by Fauci and Birx was that ' you are all going to die!!' and that caused a political panic that has not died down. It is that panic that Grauniad and others are trying to stir back up again by using unexplained gross figures. That is not to say that if you are above 60 years old AND have comorbidities or are insufficient in Vitamin D, Zinc or Selenium then you really do not want to catch COVID-19. Unfortunately, inactive, fat with diabetes sums up a large number of 'boomer' age Americans.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 28, 2020 12:36:58 GMT
All the above is fine while infection rates are low/people behave in a manner which keeps them low.
If allowed to spread uninhibited, small percentages still equal large numbers which as we have seen, can build very quickly.
|
|