psuhoffman

There is too much lumping of people into "sides" here IMO. Not everyone questioning the current plan or accepted assumptions about Covid is automatically saying "we should just open up with no measures and let whatever happen". And not everyone arguing against someone making a case for a quick opening is saying "we should stay closed for 3 years if we have too no matter what". There is a LOT of space in between those 2 extremes. Personally I have NEVER said we should stay in lockdown for any set period of time. My main points of contention have been when I saw arguments I didn't feel had logical consistency. But here is what I do think...whatever plan we have should be developed based on sound scientific evidence and logic. We should come up with metrics to determine when it is safe and and how to open. And then those metrics (not peoples feelings) should determine the timeline. Because those metrics will determine when it is safe...not someones feelings of cabin fever. The virus doesn't care how frustrated you are. If we open before it is time we risk doing more harm than good. But what those metrics should be is a valid debate. And once we meet the metrics, whatever they are, we should open. In some places maybe that is very soon. In some places maybe that is still a long ways away. I don't know...but I see way too many arguments that seem to be based upon wanting to formulate policy based on their feelings and what they want...not actual evidence that its a good idea medically.

I will accept that it was a mistake and not intentional. We all make mistakes. The number of infections likely is growing. Also keep in mind that because deaths lag infection by about 3 weeks typically there are some people who were infected at the time of the study as still alive...that will unfortunately pass away after the date of the study. So the mortality rate will end up higher than if you simply take the deaths and divide by the infections at the time of the study. That is one reason why there is a range not an exact number for the estimated mortality rate. One other thing...wrt to your comp to the flu. If you are going to compare the two you need to use the same metric. If you are going to use the lowest possible mortality estimate for covid then you need to compare it to the low end of the flue mortality estimates. When you made your flu/covid comparison you used the low end of the covid range with the high end of the flu. That is a skewed comparison.

My father was able to get a box of old government pandemic response kits from previous outbreaks in Asia. I think from one of his contacts in government from when he worked at the FED. Some of the stuff is slightly expired but its way better than having nothing. The kits include hand sanitizer, masks, and gloves.

This is a very fair point...but let me explain where my "animosity" comes from. It's not the "view". But I can see how it could be interpreted that way. For me...I get snippy and hostile when someone is trying to BS me, and its insulting to my intelligence. I don't mind an opposing point of view...I do mind when that person is trying to manipulate facts to support their argument and thinks I am stupid enough to not realize it. I will give you a specific example. The other day someone was citing a New York study. But I had already read the same study. So when they intentionally manipulated the results to skew the argument I was aware of that fact. First they used the State level numbers for infections with the city numbers for fatalities to skew the mortality rate. Then they made a patently false statement about what statistical significance is. Then they used the absolute lowest estimated possible mortality rate for Covid along with the absolute highest possible flu mortality in a comparison. When people do stuff like that I do get hostile because its insulting. I am not stupid, and obviously they think I am if they think that kind of data manipulation will work. But my hostility is not towards their point of view, its towards their dishonest presentation of their argument. There have been others who have made arguments on that side of the ledger who I have not said a single hostile comment towards. So long as people are making their arguments with sound logic and with intellectual integrity I am open and willing to amicably discuss and debate any point of view. But when people are trying to "get one over" on me...I do become hostile.

If you want productive discussion post something substantive to reply too. Cite some evidence to support a claim and we can discuss. You will be allowed to make your case. Others might refute it with contrary evidence. That’s how it works. But there wasn’t much to discuss in your original post.

Oppositional defiance

So you went with “I know you are but what am I”...

So if every study and all data is useless what are you using to form your opinion?

Another solid contribution. We are lucky to have you.

This was what you felt should be your contribution to this thread? Btw congrats on your promotion to being official VA spokesman.

I think saying it was a group is exaggerating. It was really only a couple contrarians like phin and golfsnow who said that. 2 people isn’t really a group.

Plus people aren’t doing most normal economic activity when they are sick. And the loss of much of entertainment and service industry is going to hurt bad no matter what we do. There are a LOT of factors people are failing to accurately incorporate into their theories. And that’s why it’s dangerous to think we know better than the experts. I’m sure there are factors I don’t know or am missing also but I’m not the one suggesting I know better than them.

Oh and one last thing...before the “but the economy” arguments start up again. The economy has already been tanked. It’s too late. There is no way to flip a switch and just undo what’s been done. And even if we open and go herd immunity the economy will be further damaged by the 200 million sick people and 25 million people that would end up hospitalized in the unmitigated spread scenario (again using best case scenarios) and the 1-2 million deaths. We are going to suffer economically for a while no matter what we do now. So that is a really crappy justification for accepting a strategy with higher projected fatalities.

It’s that some are taking a study that pretty much confirms how awful unmitigated spread would be and are somehow manipulating some numbers and ignoring others to twist it into a case for exactly that! Bottom line is even if we take the absolute best case pie in the sky estimate for each factor, lowest estimated Mortality, lowest possible herd quotient, we would still get well over a million deaths from a scenario of unmitigated spread. And that’s accepting the best case. But this game is getting exhausting. I’m sure once the efforts to spin the data get old the conversation will return to relativism and utilitarian arguments like, is a million people really that many in the grand scheme or libertarian ones like “but what about my personal rights”. It’s onviouslt not going to end no matter how much statistical evidence emerges because some people just don’t like it and that’s all that matters.

1. You conveniently didn’t factor in the people currently infected who will eventually die. 2. You used confirmed deaths not estimated total which skews the results. 3. You keep using the absolute lowest estimated end of the mortality range from the covid study along with the high end of the flu mortality range for your comp. That isn’t an honest comparison. 4. You clearly do not know what “statistically significant” means. 5. Even if we did accept your skewed comparison (and I’m not) .5 and .1 is VERY different in a huge population. And it can be statistically significant in a large enough study population size. You obviously missed my post about false equivalencies and data manipulation. When you do these “fun with numbers” games you aren’t fooling anyone, it’s just insulting. People on THIS board aren’t stupid. Maybe you should try your luck with those tactics somewhere like 4chan.

Something that irks me...after every story like that there is a comment like “they had a pre-existing condition”. What is their point? Did his death matter less because he had cancer as a child? Would me and my wife’s death matter less because we have asthma? Would my fathers because he has diabetes? Or my uncle and father in law because they have heart problems? How many people don’t have something? And something about “this isn’t killing young healthy people” irks me everytime. Yes so? What’s their point? Only slightly less annoying are the “omg were all gonna die from this” posts. Umm no but this is bad enough, you don’t have to exaggerate just because it’s not the apocalypse. You would think this would be that rare subject where people would put their dumb ass nonsense away just for a little while. Obviously that was too much to ask.

But that comparison is flawed because most of those risks are to oneself. I ski but if I screw up doing some off piste run it’s only me that suffers. Sometimes it’s a risk involving a few others like driving. But in almost no cases does society allow individuals to accept risk for everyone or large populations. Where exactly the line is becomes murky and a huge debate sometimes but this is most definitely on the “not an individual choice” side. One person being a clown could infect 50 people. Those 50 people could then infect 500. This isn’t an individual risk/choice situation.

“There is always one”...or was it “there can be only one” I get confused.

RIP drought thread

If you think pandemic response policy should fall under individual and not collective action we will have to agree to disagree. But the preponderance of evidence and public opinion is not on your side with that belief.

@SnowGolfBro here is the problem with a lot of your argument. You’re coming at the question of when to open backwards. Our best virology experts should use all the available relevant evidence to formulate a plan to reopen and a metric for when it is safe to do so. When a State meets that criteria then by all means they should begin to implement the plan to ease restrictions. But a lot of your policy advocacy is based on anecdotal things like “I know people are fed up”. What does those feelings of frustration have to do with whether it is safe to open? The virus doesn’t care about our feelings. Then you support that anecdotal based view with cherry picked data or speculation about the data with the obvious motive of validating your feelings. You aren’t letting logical scientific methodology drive your policy. Your preferred policy is driving your methodology.

The false equivalencies being made aren’t fooling anyone. People need to stop. It’s kinda insulting when you post something people would have to be stupid to believe. Examples I’ve seen lately Comparing the rate of “confirmed” covid infections to “estimated” flu infections. Comparing the spread of covid during extreme mitigation measures to the spread of other viruses during limited or no measures. Comparing the spread of a virus in one society to another with a completely different population density or culture. Projecting similar results of a policy from one culture onto another. Comparing the mortality of confirmed covid cases to the mortality of estimated cases of other viruses. Bringing up one variable to discredit one data set then ignoring its effect on the other you are comparing it too.

Fake news