We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Corona Virus/COVID19: Local Impact

Status
Not open for further replies.
JB said:
Wow. Every data point used for medical is equally accessible in economy.

Every year people die sadly from contagious ailments. To pretend that that data is somehow different is very odd. That the tens of thousands that die every year Are somehow different than those now and that every expert that has backtracked on projections and the current CDC numbers for those under 50 would absolutely not bring any sort of lockdown.

Social distancing was designed to not overwhelm hospitals. They are not overwhelmed. In fact they are being laid off all over the country.

Opening safely and trying anything to get the meat 50 million back to work should be imperative.
Click to expand...
Wow. You think this Covid virus is similar to prior contagious ailments of our lifetime. You aren't accepting the reality of what this is.
 
MagicSpell said:
Interesting viewpoint. So, please educate us all on what is "irresponsible in their activities and social distancing". Since your quoted post came from the thread on flying, are you of the opinion that just flying is irresponsible and violates social distancing?
Click to expand...
Flying simply for leisure, yes.
 
LICC said:
Wow. You think this Covid virus is similar to prior contagious ailments of our lifetime. You aren't accepting the reality of what this is.
Click to expand...

Again, that was not said. I said the data is there on infectious rates and death rates to educate people properly.

I understand you want to ignore the data and just argue, but it's there and has been corrected by the CDC. For those that like to see more info, here.

 
LICC said:
You have no idea what the recovery will be like or how fast it may happen. But we do know that more people will die than otherwise if others are irresponsible in their activities and social distancing.
Click to expand...
D43EDCC0-81A1-4DF9-B80E-564D6420635D.jpeg

It’s ok to have the opinion that you have, however it’s not supported by any of the available data...

But by all means continue to judge what activities you deem irresponsible.
 
Based on how many automobile accidents there are a year, I guess driving for leisure is irresponsible too.
 
JB said:
Again, that was not said. I said the data is there on infectious rates and death rates to educate people properly.

I understand you want to ignore the data and just argue, but it's there and has been corrected by the CDC. For those that like to see more info, here.

Click to expand...

The CDC says it is devastating and lots about it are unknown. That doesn’t support your point.
 
LICC said:
Flying simply for leisure, yes.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense to me. Are you saying flying simply for leisure = flying just to be on an airplane?
If you are flying to reach a destination for leisure activities that's not flying for leisure. That's still a purpose to fly and in and of itself is not an irresponsible activity. Unless you consider any leisure activity to be irresponsible?
 
JDax said:
View attachment 8946149

It’s ok to have the opinion that you have, however it’s not supported by any of the available data...

But by all means continue to judge what activities you deem irresponsible.
Click to expand...
The death numbers would be much much higher if not for the lockdowns. So your comparison isn’t very useful.
 
LICC said:
The CDC says it is devastating and lots about it are unknown. That doesn’t support your point.
Click to expand...

What point. I gave the data. The under 50 data absolutely supports the idea that I have said for quite some time in this thread.

The beauty behind this is that if you have these major fears, you have the right to stay in. My thoughts haven't wavered much, those in high risk groups should be cared for and taken precaution at every turn. The rest need to return to work safely so we can avoid this amazingly quick fall that will take years to recover from.
 
*comes in to post about covid local impact
1590700467524.gif
 
JB said:
What point. I gave the data. The under 50 data absolutely supports the idea that I have said for quite some time in this thread.

The beauty behind this is that if you have these major fears, you have the right to stay in. My thoughts haven't wavered much, those in high risk groups should be cared for and taken precaution at every turn. The rest need to return to work safely so we can avoid this amazingly quick fall that will take years to recover from.
Click to expand...
Younger people can’t choose to ignore this. They can catch it and transmit it to older people who can have serious problems.
 
LICC said:
Younger people can’t choose to ignore this. They can catch it and transmit it to older people who can have serious problems.
Click to expand...
Autocorrect must be playing mind games. I didn’t say that either.


 
LICC said:
The death numbers would be much much higher if not for the lockdowns. So your comparison isn’t very useful.
Click to expand...
And you know this how? You have the data from an alternate reality where we didn’t lockdown?
 
LICC said:
Younger people can’t choose to ignore this. They can catch it and transmit it to older people who can have serious problems.
Click to expand...
You are creating a false argument. It isn't an either or question (i.e., young people either stay inside or young people ignore it). Younger people can safely use precautions while outside and interacting.

You are also arguing against the real time data we are seeing across the country from states that have reopened very safely. People are interacting and businesses are reopening. Incidences of deaths have decreased in many of those states.

Two months in and the basic lesson of C19 is that if you don't co-mingle old and young (see Italy) and if you don't stupidly send sick C19 patients into nursing homes (see NY, PA, MI, et al) and if you are not immune deficient the odds are pretty damn solid people are going to be okay.
 
Last edited:
JDax said:
And you know this how? You have the data from an alternate reality where we didn’t lockdown?
Click to expand...

Wyoming and Montana have a combined Covid death total of 27 people. This thing has been overblown to outlandish proportions. Back in March, MSNBC predicted 20 million deaths from Covid.
 
I swear the older residents without kids at home in our neighborhood have made social distancing violations into the new “get off my lawn”.

I really think they expect all the kids to be locked in the basement and we are all bad parents.
 
JDax said:
And you know this how? You have the data from an alternate reality where we didn’t lockdown?
Click to expand...
Are you listening to the thoughts in my head? You said almost word for word what I was going to reply!
 
tequila4kapp said:
You are creating a false argument. It isn't an either or question (i.e., young people either stay inside or young people ignore it). Younger people can safely use precautions while outside and interacting.

You are also arguing against the real time data we are seeing across the country from states that have reopened very safely. People are interacting and businesses are reopening. Incidences of deaths have decreased in many of those states.

Two months in and the basic lesson of C19 if that is you don't co-mingle old and young (see Italy) and if you don't stupidly send sick C19 patients into nursing homes (see NY, PA, MI, et al) and if you are not immune deficient the odds are pretty damn solid people are going to be okay.
Click to expand...
That is not reality. I have four friends who lost their mothers from this. One lost both parents within 28 days. His brother caught it in a supermarket first. None were in nursing homes. Keeping people out of close groupings, which means closing certain businesses and activities unless essential, is absolutely necessary until this is under control.
 
MagicSpell said:
Are you listening to the thoughts in my head? You said almost word for word what I was going to reply!
Click to expand...
California locked down well before NY and had much lower rates. Sweden didn’t lock down and had triple the rates of its Nordic neighbors. Facts.
 
LICC said:
That is not reality. I have four friends who lost their mothers from this. One lost both parents within 28 days. His brother caught it in a supermarket first. None were in nursing homes. Keeping people out of close groupings, which means closing certain businesses and activities unless essential, is absolutely necessary until this is under control.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal data does not provide context to the entire state of the pandemic. I can appreciate your experience (and don't discount it) but it doesn't dictate the policy across all geographies where the situation (borne out by real data) shows the risk is far lower than other areas.

So, the question I ask you (as no one else with your viewpoint has answered so far) - define the criteria for claiming the pandemic is "under control"?
 
LICC said:
That is not reality. I have four friends who lost their mothers from this. One lost both parents within 28 days. His brother caught it in a supermarket first. None were in nursing homes. Keeping people out of close groupings, which means closing certain businesses and activities unless essential, is absolutely necessary until this is under control.
Click to expand...
I am sorry for their and your losses.

How old were they? Were they wearing masks? Using hand sanitizer?

I left two factors out - whether or not you live in a densely populated urban area like NYC and if you are over 60 years old both appear to matter a lot.
 
Last edited:
MagicSpell said:
Anecdotal data does not provide context to the entire state of the pandemic. I can appreciate your experience (and don't discount it) but it doesn't dictate the policy across all geographies where the situation (borne out by real data) shows the risk is far lower than other areas.

So, the question I ask you (as no one else with your viewpoint has answered so far) - define the criteria for claiming the pandemic is "under control"?
Click to expand...
It likely won't be until effective treatments or vaccines are widely available. But it could stop spreading before then. Many unknowns.
 
LICC said:
California locked down well before NY and had much lower rates. Sweden didn’t lock down and had triple the rates of its Nordic neighbors. Facts.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the connection of your statement to my quoted post in your statement. But since you brought it up, comparing CA and NY is a non-starter. The demographics of California is no where near NYC. Comparing Sweden to other Nordic neighbors is fine IF you also include in the comparison the population densities and economic ramifications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top