Politicizing Coronavirus. Agree Or Disagree? (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

are you suggesting that becase we don't have good data, we throw up our hands and pretend everything is the same? 

You are simultaneously acknowledging the data is isn't good..... AND defending its use.

I admit you have me confused.

 

[Gally]

Frankly, downplaying this by comparing it to the flu does a huge disservice.  We win by overreacting.  China and South Korea are winning becase they overreacted.  We lose by downplaying, especially by comparing to the flu.

The risk of overreaction is an economic downturn caused by decreased economic activity and some industries taking a major hit.  The risk of underreaction is an economic downturn caused by lots of dead people.  I'd rather overreact than under, but apparently thats political too.

I am not so sure this is correct.  Overreacting has led to no TP, water, and sanitizer on the shelves.  This overreaction can take away necessary resources for those that truly need it for other reasons.  It can lead to an unnecessary panic that can cause other issues not related to the virus.  It is not a simple equation.  People in general tend to overreact to the hysteria.  Just overreacting isn't necessarily a good thing. 

Knowing the actual facts and situation before going into overreact mode seems like the prudent thing.  This doesn't appear to be like the disease in the movie Outbreak.  It is a form of the flu that we haven't seen.  It seems to be worse to some unknown degree.  Statistics are still coming in.  Obviously if you are compromised in some way (elderly, respiratory issues, etc) then you should be more cautious because you are greater risk.  But going straight to overreact could cause other terrible issues. 

This is typical to the world today....hear the first news...sensationalize it so you become known...…..use it to benefit you...…….and then the real truth comes out and nobody knows because its on the back page as a retraction.  I am not saying this isn't bad...…...I am saying rushing to judgement is definitely bad before the facts are actually known. 

 

[Gally]

Again, let's look for nuance.  What we have is piecemeal, incomplete information and data without overall context and certainly not the benefit of hindsight. That doesn't mean we should ignore what we have... but dammit, let's use our brains and contextualize a bit.

Lies. Damn lies. Statistics.  But if we are honest about the third item, then we can have more honest and meaningful discourse on the issue.

We don't know the true fatality rate. But we can look at China. We can look at Italy. We can EXTRAPOLATE with items such as the gov'ts ability to control residents movement (i'd wager pretty good in china, not so much in Italy) and age (older population in Italy, but that doesn't mean the data gets completely discounted).

It's as if folks want/need to data to fit some narrative, and those narratives in our nation are driven by the extremes of the right and the left.  While the most likely truth lay somewhere in the middle (aha, just like our populace, but our system is designed to promote the extremes and not the 80% of agreed upon policies and not the 40-50% of US residents who are the  soft middle moderates more than anything).  The data is its own storyline, and the narrative is unfolding.  Let's use what information we have, recognize where it's incomplete or without context, and TRY to determine a course of action where less freakin' people die.

I will sum this up:

Statistics never lie...…….statisticians do!

 

[moleculo]

I'm saying we stop spreading misinformation.

When we have enough tests for everyone that should be tested, then you can look at fatality stats.  Until then, you're doing more harm then good by posting false information.

it's not misinformation.  It is 100% accurate that 3.5% of detected cases are fatal - this number roughly holds true globally and in the US.

 

[Koya]

I will sum this up:

Statistics never lie...…….statisticians do!

As do politicians.

Good thing we elected someone as President who is not one of those, though. (yes, this is sarcasm - because in the end, Trump clearly is not only a politician, but quite an adept one, at that.  Doesn't mean there aren't reasons to support him or some of his policies, but let's put to bed that we don't have a politician as President. We do*... Andrew Yang? He doesnt seem like a politician.  He's also out there doing math someplace with a few groupies)

* When the Attorney general a couple days back stated that the virus is contained in certain parts of the country, the ONLY responsible thing to do is call out the lie, and look to the politics behind it. This is literally life and death for some.

 

[Gally]

it's not misinformation.  It is 100% accurate that 3.5% of detected cases are fatal - this number roughly holds true globally and in the US.

Again, statistics don't lie but picking specific things or adding specific caveats (detected cases vs actual cases...….yes I know actual cases are near impossible to obtain accurate info) to the statistics do lead a story a certain way.  Information like this doesn't tell the entire story.  I believe that is what most people on the don't overreact spectrum are hesitant about.

 

[moleculo]

You are simultaneously acknowledging the data is isn't good..... AND defending its use.

I admit you have me confused.

sorry.  Data isn't always clean...in my epxerience it rarely is.  That doesn't man we throw up our hands and say, "screw it".  We don't get to pretend that this is equivalent to the flu until we haven't tested every man, woman, and child in the US.

 

[Gally]

As do politicians.

Good thing we elected someone as President who is not one of those, though. (yes, this is sarcasm - because in the end, Trump clearly is not only a politician, but quite an adept one, at that.  Doesn't mean there aren't reasons to support him or some of his policies, but let's put to bed that we don't have a politician as President. We do... Andrew Yang? He doesnt seem like a politician.  He's also out there doing math someplace with a few groupies)

I was not being political or trying to say anything about politics.  My sole point was that statistics are just facts...….how anybody uses those facts can be done a thousand different ways to prove the point they want to make.  Yes - it happens in politics a lot.  However, not really what I was pointing out.

 

[Koya]

I will sum this up:

Statistics never lie...…….statisticians do!

We aren't supposed to change quotes, so I'll work with your original thought here:

Statistics never lie...…… POLITICIANS do!

 

[Gally]

We aren't supposed to change quotes, so I'll work with your original thought here:

Statistics never lie...…… POLITICIANS do!

You don't need the first part.....it can just be Politicians Lie......statistics have nothing to do with that....hahaha

 

[moleculo]

I am not so sure this is correct.  Overreacting has led to no TP, water, and sanitizer on the shelves.  This overreaction can take away necessary resources for those that truly need it for other reasons.  It can lead to an unnecessary panic that can cause other issues not related to the virus.  It is not a simple equation.  People in general tend to overreact to the hysteria.  Just overreacting isn't necessarily a good thing. 

Knowing the actual facts and situation before going into overreact mode seems like the prudent thing.  This doesn't appear to be like the disease in the movie Outbreak.  It is a form of the flu that we haven't seen.  It seems to be worse to some unknown degree.  Statistics are still coming in.  Obviously if you are compromised in some way (elderly, respiratory issues, etc) then you should be more cautious because you are greater risk.  But going straight to overreact could cause other terrible issues. 

This is typical to the world today....hear the first news...sensationalize it so you become known...…..use it to benefit you...…….and then the real truth comes out and nobody knows because its on the back page as a retraction.  I am not saying this isn't bad...…...I am saying rushing to judgement is definitely bad before the facts are actually known. 

The shelves will be re-stocked by next week.  I'm sorry, but stores having demand disruptions are really minor on the grand scale.

I'm not saying there isn't overreaction.  Of couse there is.  There always is.  Hell, my town overreacts by clearing the shelves of milk and bread at the first sign of a snowflake.  Guess what - milk and bread magically reappear a few days later.

 

[Koya]

I was not being political or trying to say anything about politics.  My sole point was that statistics are just facts...….how anybody uses those facts can be done a thousand different ways to prove the point they want to make.  Yes - it happens in politics a lot.  However, not really what I was pointing out.

I was not referring to you, apologies if that was unclear.  I know a certain percentage of folks believe what our President says because he is "not a politician"

We are in crisis and have no times for games nor BS.  We must be honest in our assessment of our leaders - from the administration to state governors and their apparatus down to mayors and councils.  This administration has been known to be one of the least transparent, and most likely to lie in recent memory.  That has to play into how we react to official statements so we as individuals can do what is best for our personal health and safety, and that of our families.

 

[eoMMan]

it's not misinformation.  It is 100% accurate that 3.5% of detected cases are fatal - this number roughly holds true globally and in the US.

Detected is a pretty important word, no?

 

[matuski]

sorry.  Data isn't always clean...in my epxerience it rarely is.  That doesn't man we throw up our hands and say, "screw it".  We don't get to pretend that this is equivalent to the flu until we haven't tested every man, woman, and child in the US.

Why do you get to pretend at all is the question.

You are making the same/opposite mistake to pretend you know it is worse.

 

[moleculo]

Detected is a pretty important word, no?

it is.  That means you take the stated CFR with a grain of salt and temper your response, but by no means does it change the fact that it is true and accurate.

 

[Gally]

The shelves will be re-stocked by next week.  I'm sorry, but stores having demand disruptions are really minor on the grand scale.

I'm not saying there isn't overreaction.  Of couse there is.  There always is.  Hell, my town overreacts by clearing the shelves of milk and bread at the first sign of a snowflake.  Guess what - milk and bread magically reappear a few days later.

Maybe, but if the overreactions continue there is a point that the shelves won't be restocked.....for instance if truck drivers are no longer allowed to deliver because nobody is allowed out of their house because the virus has everyone on lockdown as an overreaction.  Turns out this is nothing more than a bad flu strain but people die because they can't get their medications or other supplied needed to survive because everyone overreacted without knowing the true facts.

One of your original statements that I replied to was that overreaction was much better than underreaction.  This is not necessarily true.  Knowing the facts and then reacting appropriately is the best process.  Hysteria is not a good thing. 

 

[Koya]

The shelves will be re-stocked by next week.  I'm sorry, but stores having demand disruptions are really minor on the grand scale.

I'm not saying there isn't overreaction.  Of couse there is.  There always is.  Hell, my town overreacts by clearing the shelves of milk and bread at the first sign of a snowflake.  Guess what - milk and bread magically reappear a few days later.

What scares me is the misplaced overreaction.  TP and goods will be back on the shelves.  But the market elasticity for hosptical beds? That's far more constrained.  If people DON'T take precautions, especially if they are ill or known to have been in contact with someone who is, then there could well be a crisis when doctors must decide which patient will get to the ICU and which will... well, likely die.

Not saying we WILL get there. But it's hardly out of the realm of possibility. From all I've read on this issue, the real threat is an acute over-burdening of our medical resources which could lead to a significant spike in deaths over a short period of time for those who don't have access to medical care (this doesn't even get into broader issues of healthcare, just the finite number of ICU and hospital beds in what could become a zero sum game of life or death when/if a locality is overrun with patients.

 

[moleculo]

Maybe, but if the overreactions continue there is a point that the shelves won't be restocked.....for instance if truck drivers are no longer allowed to deliver because nobody is allowed out of their house because the virus has everyone on lockdown as an overreaction.  Turns out this is nothing more than a bad flu strain but people die because they can't get their medications or other supplied needed to survive because everyone overreacted without knowing the true facts.

One of your original statements that I replied to was that overreaction was much better than underreaction.  This is not necessarily true.  Knowing the facts and then reacting appropriately is the best process.  Hysteria is not a good thing. 

is that an overreaction?  I'm not sure we know that yet.

I have seen people claim that this is has run its course in China and they are doing fine...but what they did would be called overreaction here.

 

[eoMMan]

it is.  That means you take the stated CFR with a grain of salt and temper your response, but by no means does it change the fact that it is true and accurate.

Very much so.

Have fun.  I'm done with this.

 

[Gally]

is that an overreaction?  I'm not sure we know that yet.

I have seen people claim that this is has run its course in China and they are doing fine...but what they did would be called overreaction here.

I don't know if it is an overreaction.  That is my point.  All the facts aren't in yet.  There are not enough detected cases to really know if this is any more dangerous than the flu.  The idea pushing this overreaction is the fear of the unknown.  Until it is known it is all just speculation.  People hear things like it is "20x worse than the normal flu" and they begin to panic, hoard, etc.  Then other people don't get things they need and then it escalates.  Hysteria over the unknown can be worse than the actual virus itself.

 

[squistion]

We aren't supposed to change quotes, so I'll work with your original thought here:

Statistics never lie...…… POLITICIANS do!

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

- Mark Twain (paraphrasing Benjamin Disraeli) 

 

[moleculo]

Why do you get to pretend at all is the question.

You are making the same/opposite mistake to pretend you know it is worse.

In the face of uncertainty, it's prudent to err on the side of caution.  We have data right now: the global CFR is lower than 3.5%.  We know that and  (I hope) can agree on that.  What we don't know is how much lower - is it 2x lower?  10x lower?  35x lower?

if it's 35x lower, its the flu and this is much ado about nothing - China massively overreacted, and Italy is doing the same.  Here in the US, people will buy stocks at a deep discount and a lot of people will have too much toilet paper.

If it's 2x lower, we are in for tough times ahead.

 

[matuski]

In the face of uncertainty, it's prudent to err on the side of caution.  We have data right now: the global CFR is lower than 3.5%.  We know that and  (I hope) can agree on that.  What we don't know is how much lower - is it 2x lower?  10x lower?  35x lower?

if it's 35x lower, its the flu and this is much ado about nothing - China massively overreacted, and Italy is doing the same.  Here in the US, people will buy stocks at a deep discount and a lot of people will have too much toilet paper.

If it's 2x lower, we are in for tough times ahead.

Your speculation = prudent. 

Not speculating = pretending, not prudent.

Gonna have to let you run with this.

 

[moleculo]

I don't know if it is an overreaction.  That is my point.  All the facts aren't in yet.  There are not enough detected cases to really know if this is any more dangerous than the flu.  The idea pushing this overreaction is the fear of the unknown.  Until it is known it is all just speculation.  People hear things like it is "20x worse than the normal flu" and they begin to panic, hoard, etc.  Then other people don't get things they need and then it escalates.  Hysteria over the unknown can be worse than the actual virus itself.

ok, but the risk of inaction or inaction will lead to FAR worse consequences than overreaction.  

 

[Koya]

In the face of uncertainty, it's prudent to err on the side of caution.  We have data right now: the global CFR is lower than 3.5%.  We know that and  (I hope) can agree on that.  What we don't know is how much lower - is it 2x lower?  10x lower?  35x lower?

if it's 35x lower, its the flu and this is much ado about nothing - China massively overreacted, and Italy is doing the same.  Here in the US, people will buy stocks at a deep discount and a lot of people will have too much toilet paper.

If it's 2x lower, we are in for tough times ahead.

All this damned nuance and context!  Just tell me something 100% already, truth be damned!

 

[Koya]

Your speculation = prudent. 

Not speculating = pretending, not prudent.

Gonna have to let you run with this.

His comments seem pretty well thought out, based in reality, and acknowledged a lack of certainty.  Not sure what more to expect under the current condition.

 

[matuski]

 based in reality, and acknowledged a lack of certainty

Say again?

Based in a reality where we don't have the information.

We seem to agree whole heartedly.

 

[moleculo]

His comments seem pretty well thought out, based in reality, and acknowledged a lack of certainty.  Not sure what more to expect under the current condition.

 some people prefer to wait until the water is neck deep before acknowleging there's a flood.

 

[Koya]

Say again?

Based in a reality where we don't have the information.

We seem to agree whole heartedly.

Not sure what you are saying.

We have information. A lot of it.  Some of it is unclear, some of it is incomplete, some of it is of spurrious sourcing and merit. But we have it.

The key is how do we distill all of the information we do know, within a quickly changing dynamic, so the nation and its citizens can take the most appropriate action.

To say we don't have information is just abjectly false.  To say we have enough information to know what to expect is also abjectly false. 

 

[Gally]

ok, but the risk of inaction or inaction will lead to FAR worse consequences than overreaction.  

Far reaching hysteria could end up worse than the consequences.  Like I said before, if you are in the risk class (elderly, respiratory problems, etc) then it is prudent to protect yourself and take every precaution.   If you are not then being diligent (not hysterical) has a purpose.  My problem is the hysterics associated with the unknown.

 

[matuski]

We have information. A lot of it. 

We do not have the information to make the specific claims he is making.

 

[moleculo]

Far reaching hysteria could end up worse than the consequences.  Like I said before, if you are in the risk class (elderly, respiratory problems, etc) then it is prudent to protect yourself and take every precaution.   If you are not then being diligent (not hysterical) has a purpose.  My problem is the hysterics associated with the unknown.

I agree, I just don't really comprehend "hysterics" and what the downsides are.

 

[Koya]

We do not have the information to make the specific claims he is making.

Ok, got ya.

But you agree we do have information to make postulations - necessary ones to determine how we can best behave, without panic or overdoing it, correct?

i.e. This SEEMS to be worse than the flu - how much worse? We don't know.  We know it's not as acute as Ebola, but it also has a chance to linger within a population for a longer period (because it doesnt kill most of its hosts), and we still aren't 100% sure that one is immune from getting it again / a mutated form of the virus that could even be more virulent.

CONSIDERING this... seems that its wise to not have large gatherings, to take extra precaution re: washing hands, trying not to touch your face - and if you are in a high risk group, to be even more cautious and deliberate in this actions.

Is that fair to say, with the information we have?

 

[matuski]

i.e. This SEEMS to be worse than the flu

It seems to be worse?

Sounds like we don't have the information.

 

[Gally]

I agree, I just don't really comprehend "hysterics" and what the downsides are.

Society stopping completely.  No supplies available, people looting, hospital beds unavailable for people in need, medicines unavailable for people in need.  The complete logistics failure that could happen if hysteria took over.

Do I think that will happen?  No.  But I also don't think this is anything more than an unknown flu that could be slightly more potent to the elderly & compromised than the normal flu that already kills thousands of people each year. 

 

[Koya]

It seems to be worse?

Sounds like we don't have the information.

We don't have 100% clarity.  We DO have the information.

I mean, why not have unprotected sex with a partner that probably is infected with a potentially deadly disease.  You don't have the information, so no need for a condom, right! (I am being quite serious here, as this seems to be a decent parallel - do you need 100% confirmation before you take precautions. That's why they are called precautions)

 

[Don Quixote]

I agree that it would be great to hear more from experts, but part of the reason that we are not hearing as much from them is due to politics. Trump abolished the directorate for global health security and biodefense from the National Security Council that was established after the Ebola outbreak. There are vacancies all over the government for leadership in relevant agencies that Trump has not bothered to fill. Trump has appointed a politician (his VP) as the point man on the coronavirus response, and someone at the CDC who provided sound information got muzzled and subject to conspiracy theories from the right that she was trying to hurt Trump because she’s Rod Rosenstein’s sister.  

 

[Koya]

It seems to be worse?

Sounds like we don't have the information.

Another way to put this, since reality is grey, regardless of whether or not someone sees the world in merely black and white:

We DO have enough information to recommend limiting large gatherings, to take extra precaution regarding personal hygiene and face touching, and to recommend that those in high risk groups take additional precautions (i.e. don't travel, reduce or eliminate public transportation, etc).

We DON'T have enough warrant wholesale closure of commerce, halting of all transportation and logistics, or forcing people to remain at home/isolated/quarantined en masse.

I'll admit, it confounds me that this is even up for discussion.

 

[moleculo]

Society stopping completely.  No supplies available, people looting, hospital beds unavailable for people in need, medicines unavailable for people in need.  The complete logistics failure that could happen if hysteria took over.

Do I think that will happen?  No.  But I also don't think this is anything more than an unknown flu that could be slightly more potent to the elderly & compromised than the normal flu that already kills thousands of people each year. 

the red above is what happens if we underreact, not overreact.

Overreacting leads to hoarding and quarantine.  a temporary disruption in availability of toilet paper.  Economic recession.

Underreacting leads to the medical system being overrun in addition to all of the above, except it will be too late for anything to have any meaningful effect.

 

[Gally]

We don't have 100% clarity.  We DO have the information.

I mean, why not have unprotected sex with a partner that probably is infected with a potentially deadly disease.  You don't have the information, so no need for a condom, right! (I am being quite serious here, as this seems to be a decent parallel - do you need 100% confirmation before you take precautions. That's why they are called precautions)

The difference here is the lack of clarity (unknown) is a hysteria making device to the masses.  Your example is a single person that can make decisions based on their specific knowledge.  In this situation publicizing incomplete information that leads to people going unnecessarily overboard could lead to other consequences that affects society negatively. 

 

[moleculo]

@Gally and @matuski: do you think China overreacted?  Is Italy overreacting right now?

 

[Koya]

I agree that it would be great to hear more from experts, but part of the reason that we are not hearing as much from them is due to politics. Trump abolished the directorate for global health security and biodefense from the National Security Council that was established after the Ebola outbreak. There are vacancies all over the government for leadership in relevant agencies that Trump has not bothered to fill. Trump has appointed a politician (his VP) as the point man on the coronavirus response, and someone at the CDC who provided sound information got muzzled and subject to conspiracy theories from the right that she was trying to hurt Trump because she’s Rod Rosenstein’s sister.  

Honestly, I'm looking to other nations (and other sources in general) to get what I (personally) believe is more likely to be truthful information. What are they saying in Italy, Germany, what is being said by respected medical organizations, etc.

The reality is I can't trust this administration - not even stating that as a political wand, it's just my personal truth. Therefor, to enable me to take the best precautions (or to know if they are even necessary), I have to find better and more honest sources than this administration. That's scary, and that can lead into the "do we politicize this" question, because crisis management is obviously a major role for Federal government, be it elected or appointed officials. But politics aside, I personally can't trust them, and therefore find better sources to try to distill the truth as best we know it (understanding we don't "know" it fully, either()

 

[Gally]

the red above is what happens if we underreact, not overreact.

Overreacting leads to hoarding and quarantine.  a temporary disruption in availability of toilet paper.  Economic recession.

Underreacting leads to the medical system being overrun in addition to all of the above, except it will be too late for anything to have any meaningful effect.

I would think it could happen in both instances...when taken to the extreme.  Which is my whole point.  Taking it to the extreme with incomplete knowledge is the issue. 

 

[beer 30]

The shelves will be re-stocked by next week.  I'm sorry, but stores having demand disruptions are really minor on the grand scale.

I'm not saying there isn't overreaction.  Of couse there is.  There always is.  Hell, my town overreacts by clearing the shelves of milk and bread at the first sign of a snowflake.  Guess what - milk and bread magically reappear a few days later.

I don't have a dog in this discussion but I will attest to the truth of the above statement   It's pretty stupid around these parts

Detected is a pretty important word, no?

It is for this instance because the US is woefully behind in testing & detecting.

 

[Koya]

The difference here is the lack of clarity (unknown) is a hysteria making device to the masses.  Your example is a single person that can make decisions based on their specific knowledge.  In this situation publicizing incomplete information that leads to people going unnecessarily overboard could lead to other consequences that affects society negatively. 

Actually, I am making a point about a single person making a decision based on their specific knowledge.

I have enough knowledge to avoid going to large crowds, to wash my hands more diligently, to keep my eye out for any escalation.

I have enough knowledge to not go much beyond that, for now... because anything greater is not yet warranted by that information.

Just as if I know someone is infected with a VD, I do the math and say I might not KNOW I will get infected, but do I want to take that CHANCE.  Same here... I know I "can" get the virus, but there are ways I can minimize my chance of doing so.  And, fwiw, I am on a plane for client visits in NYC, so my personal calculation has suggested that while this behavior certainly puts me at more risk than staying at home like a hermit, it's still "safe enough" FROM WHAT INFORMATION I KNOW.

Hope that helps clarify.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think it's fair to assume that there are a bunch of unreported cases of COVID that would drive the numbers down.  I get that.  But, if you are being honest and want an apples to apples comparison, you have to acknowledge that the same is true for the flu.  Both of my kids had the flu over Christmas and I don't believe we saw a doctor for either one. 

Or, it's possible that the 0.1% for the flu has the underreporting baked in...I have no idea.

You monster. 

 

[BroadwayG]

There are 2 types of people:

those that can adjust for incomplete data

 

[Gally]

@Gally and @matuski: do you think China overreacted?  Is Italy overreacting right now?

Honestly I haven't looked into their specific situation enough to know one way or the other.  I do not know the right answer at this point because I don't have the necessary information. 

My gut feel based on reading about the symptoms and the most affected patients is that this is just a flu strain that we don't have a vaccine for yet because we haven't seen it before.  I may be biased based on how we have a handle on most flu strains now causing me to believe that this will be handled without much issue in the near term.  I think society fears the unknown and they hear that we don't have a vaccine and haven't seen this strain before and they become hysterical.  Seeing how many people die annually in the US alone from the flu makes me think this is similar to that.  Elderly people and compromised people are at a high risk just like with any bad virus.  I don't see this as much different. 

 

[Vanilla Guerrilla]

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm asking folks if they agree or disagree with the quote.

And folks are right, maybe this is too political for the FFA. Thought it might be interesting to get some votes on it. 

2 pages and it's already turning toxic with people arguing over nebulous numbers.  Everything is either just a cold or Stephen King's The Stand.

 

[moleculo]

I would think it could happen in both instances...when taken to the extreme.  Which is my whole point.  Taking it to the extreme with incomplete knowledge is the issue. 

for the record, I'm not advocating taking anything to an extreme.  My general thesis is that incomplete data is better than no data, and that for this case, overreaction is better than underreaction.