Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, moleculo said:

The reason it would be lower than that is demographics.  Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone in that population segment but an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down.  That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).

Does the math say anything about the death rate going forward?  Assuming we get to immunity, particularly in the elderly, so we see a well under average death rate for the next few years?

I keep wondering if COVID essentially just pulled forward a bunch of deaths that would have happened in the next couple years regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

This seems like a good idea to incentivize vaccines.

When state and local governments release data on the number of deaths and hospitalizations, they should segregate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.

release the facts on obesity over and over and over and how covid deaths are tied to obesity and ...

well, no .... people don't want to hear that their obesity/weight/choices in eating/dieting/exercising is likely the main reason they're unhealthy/susceptible to covid 

sometimes the truth really does fall on deaf ears IMO

 

I am curious to see how long the "vaccination" lasts .... how many get covid anyway, booster shots in the future, a mutation changes vaccinated people's immunity etc etc

time will tell and until then, I'm fine with millions of others being test subjects instead of me thank you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sand said:

I keep wondering if COVID essentially just pulled forward a bunch of deaths that would have happened in the next couple years regardless.

well absolutely the vast majority of covid deaths were older than 50 years old and most above 60-65 and in poor health

but that doesn't negate their lives or the premature deaths, it DOES illustrate that unhealthy and older people are susceptible to diseases especially unknown ones that we don't have good treatments for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

release the facts on obesity over and over and over and how covid deaths are tied to obesity and ...

well, no .... people don't want to hear that their obesity/weight/choices in eating/dieting/exercising is likely the main reason they're unhealthy/susceptible to covid 

sometimes the truth really does fall on deaf ears IMO

 

I am curious to see how long the "vaccination" lasts .... how many get covid anyway, booster shots in the future, a mutation changes vaccinated people's immunity etc etc

time will tell and until then, I'm fine with millions of others being test subjects instead of me thank you 

Utterly absurd.   Putting giant, morbidly obese models on magazine covers and pasting it with "body positivity" 

The diabetes treatment commercials make it look like diabetes is fun!! Heck I want diabetes!!!  Everyone looks so happy and healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

The reason it would be lower than that is demographics.  Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone in that population segment but an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down.  That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).

We can argue about true numbers of infected people across the entire population vs reported positive tests.  But it's widely assumed the COVID death toll is underrepresented as well.  There are errors on both sides of the equation.

My general premise is that to get to herd immunity without vaccine, a hell of a lot more people would have to get sick and a hell of a lot more people would die.  Remember the initial projections of 2.5M?  That's a far cry from the 4M that I was talking about, but 2.5M dead Americans is still a hell of a lot. We can use that number - call it 4x instead of 7x if that makes @supermike80happy.

Further, as has been pointed out above, these numbers do not account for what happens when there is a run on PPE, oxygen, intensive care beds, etc.  If we had stopped mitigation efforts in favor of just letting everyone get sick, the death toll would compound and be much, much higher - 10x?  20x?

If we just kept doing what we did, it might take 5 years to get to herd immunity.  That's what a flattened curve would look like.  5 more years of wearing masks, restaurants being closed, no movies, empty stadiums, etc. 

Almost.

We figure out how to protect the elderly.  AND  We don't do what we did.  We go about our lives, without restrictions, letting the virus spread through the healthy population at a much lower mortality rate.

The fact that you have more death, just what you state above, almost proves having the restrictions in place for healthy people was the wrong thing to do.  When we do reach heard immunity, it's going to be a combination of the vaccine and and natural immunity. Not just vaccine immunity.  That natural immunity portion was delayed just as you describe above which caused more death.

I will see your run on healthcare resources and raise you the economic, social and health costs of keeping people locked down.

ETA: We had this opportunity because we recognized the mortality was so slanted towards one segment of the population.  We had the opportunity to do the math Dr. Zias illustrated.  It doesn't work if the mortality rate is the same for all demographics.  

 

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, supermike80 said:

Utterly absurd.   Putting giant, morbidly obese models on magazine covers and pasting it with "body positivity" 

The diabetes treatment commercials make it look like diabetes is fun!! Heck I want diabetes!!!  Everyone looks so happy and healthy.

I noticed while shopping with my lady this past weekend the plus sized models in stores .... not many slim healthy models anymore

Oddly enough, fast food commercials etc ALL have skinny smiling healthy people eating 5,000 calorie meals ..... amazing what media feeds us isn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

I will see your run on healthcare resources and raise you the economic, social and health costs of keeping people locked down.

 

smart words

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I noticed while shopping with my lady this past weekend the plus sized models in stores .... not many slim healthy models anymore

Oddly enough, fast food commercials etc ALL have skinny smiling healthy people eating 5,000 calorie meals ..... amazing what media feeds us isn't it ?

Beyond even "plus" sized.  Heck that's a good representation of the American population.  I'm talking about hugely, morbidly fat people..In bikinis on magazine covers, telling all the little girls (and some boys) that isn't not only OK to be huge, you might even be a model too!!!!   More Pepsi please!!!

Look at Tess Holiday on the cover of Cosmopolitan in October 2018.  If that women doesn't lose weight, and quite soon, she has a VERY short life expectancy

BUT BODY POSITIVITY!!

Edited by supermike80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Z Machine said:

Can someone explain how to "protect" the elderly from catching a novel, airborne, and moderately contagious virus over the course of multiple years?

Wait....Didn't we JUST do that.  Didn't we just lock everyone down to stop the spread?  That didn't work?  This board has told me that worked, well.  And masks...lots and lots of masks..Multiple masks actually.  One didn't cut it so we went with two.  I was told over and over, masks save lives.  Not true anymore?

This is so confusing.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at it this way:

Hypothetical - the vaccines don't work and there is no way to develop a vaccine and our only choice is to reach herd immunity the hard way.  Which option is the best?

a) Do nothing, let the virus tear through the population and running over our hospitals and heath care resources.  We reach herd immunity in the quickest time possible

b) Implement restrictions to slow the spread, just enough to flatten the cure and we can provide health care resources to everyone that needs it.  We reach herd immunity as fast as we can without giving up health care treatments to those who need it.

c) Maximum restrictions, healthcare resources are not fully utilized, we reach herd immunity in the longest time possible.

To me the choice is clear.  

 

Now back to reality.  We add effective vaccines into the equation, that doesn't change which choice is the best.  It just helps us reach herd immunity quicker, in all cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Wait....Didn't we JUST do that.  Didn't we just lock everyone down to stop the spread?  That didn't work?  This board has told me that worked, well.  And masks...lots and lots of masks..Multiple masks actually.  One didn't cut it so we went with two.  I was told over and over, masks save lives.  Not true anymore?

This is so confusing.

No.  We didn't do that.  We never had real lockdowns and we certainly never let the younger folks go about their lives while doing something explicit for the elderly. 

That's what @tonydead had suggested if I understood him right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

No.  We didn't do that.  We never had real lockdowns and we certainly never let the younger folks go about their lives while doing something explicit for the elderly. 

That's what @tonydead had suggested if I understood him right. 

Oh..So the stay at home order in Michigan here was voluntary.   I must have missed that when it was announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

No.  We didn't do that.  We never had real lockdowns and we certainly never let the younger folks go about their lives while doing something explicit for the elderly. 

That's what @tonydead had suggested if I understood him right. 

You are misunderstanding.  

Don't get hung up on "real lockdowns" that's a false talking point.  We've had varying forms of restrictions since March, and still do.  My state is still wearing masks everywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Oh..So the stay at home order in Michigan here was voluntary.   I must have missed that when it was announced.

I don't want to get hung up on that.  I would like to hear a proposal on how to "protect the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates."  How would that actually work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I don't want to get hung up on that.  I would like to hear a proposal on how to "protect the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates."  How would that actually work?

Masks?  Right.  Thats what I was told.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After waiting an extra week since the order was signed, Washington state finally puts it out that they will follow the CDC's guidelines.

Link

King County then tries to not follow the science as much as they possibly can without contradicting the revised state mandate:

Quote

 

All King County residents, fully vaccinated or not, are strongly encouraged to continue wearing masks in indoor public areas.

King County's Local Health Officer Directive urges residents to wear face coverings in all indoor spaces that are open to the public. Examples include:

Retail and grocery stores

Restaurants

Government buildings

Offices and other places of employment that are open to the public

Businesses that are open to the public are strongly encouraged to continue ensuring their customers and employees wear face masks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

After waiting an extra week since the order was signed, Washington state finally puts it out that they will follow the CDC's guidelines.

Link

King County then tries to not follow the science as much as they possibly can without contradicting the revised state mandate:

 

Sounds about right for this joint..

 

Oy

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

I don't want to get hung up on that.  I would like to hear a proposal on how to "protect the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates."  How would that actually work?

One thing that comes to mind in hindsight is that we probably shouldn't have kicked all of the college students off of campuses.  It was a reasonable decision at the time, but it may have been counterproductive.  A healthy population that is largely self-contained is just the sort of demographic that could help develop community immunity without a huge death and health care toll.  Instead, we potentially seeded outbreaks all around the country by sending the kids out into the wild.  It's tricky because schools will have vulnerable faculty and staff, so you have to somehow try to isolate them from the students, but it's definitely a win if you have a large amount of natural immunity in the student population before you send them back across the country.

I don't think anyone is talking about intentionally infecting healthy people, but to the extent you have restrictions they should not be uniform - they should be much stricter for the vulnerable or else they may in the end be counterproductive unless vaccines come fast enough to save everyone.  It's not necessarily "fair", but nature often isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, identikit said:

Sounds about right for this joint..

 

Oy

It will be interesting to see what Kroger and Walmart do.  Washington is the only state that Kroger hadn't lifted the mask mandate and I know Walmart was still trying to enforce masks last weekend.  We need a couple of the big guys to say no to the "strong suggestion" and most of the little guys will follow suit.  When we get some options I'm going to choose to spend at places that do not require masks and let those that do know they are loosing my business.  So glad that some of my watering holes that have already ditched the masks aren't going to have to revert back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Utterly absurd.   Putting giant, morbidly obese models on magazine covers and pasting it with "body positivity" 

The diabetes treatment commercials make it look like diabetes is fun!! Heck I want diabetes!!!  Everyone looks so happy and healthy.

I think they should call it Livebetes.  that way, instead of moping around saying, "oh no, I have diabetes", they can say "Look out world, I've got livebetes! Here I come!"

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tonydead said:

After waiting an extra week since the order was signed, Washington state finally puts it out that they will follow the CDC's guidelines.

Link

King County then tries to not follow the science as much as they possibly can without contradicting the revised state mandate:

 

Follow the science people.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Walmart's already lifted the mask order here...HD, Lowes, Publix, Target etc all still have it.  Needless to say, Walmart is PACKED once again.  It was a good run.

:thumbup:. Being told Walmart dropped mask requirements here once the state finally decided to follow CDC guidelines. I'll start buying groceries from there if Kroger doesnt follow suit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, tonydead said:

After waiting an extra week since the order was signed, Washington state finally puts it out that they will follow the CDC's guidelines.

Link

King County then tries to not follow the science as much as they possibly can without contradicting the revised state mandate:

 

From your link, where it is in large font and boldfaced:

"Counties and businesses have the right to set their own rules and regulations on face coverings to respond to the level of transmission in the community."

King and Pierce are probably going to be the last to fully relax restrictions.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr_Zaius said:

One thing that comes to mind in hindsight is that we probably shouldn't have kicked all of the college students off of campuses.  It was a reasonable decision at the time, but it may have been counterproductive.  A healthy population that is largely self-contained is just the sort of demographic that could help develop community immunity without a huge death and health care toll.  Instead, we potentially seeded outbreaks all around the country by sending the kids out into the wild.  It's tricky because schools will have vulnerable faculty and staff, so you have to somehow try to isolate them from the students, but it's definitely a win if you have a large amount of natural immunity in the student population before you send them back across the country.

I don't think anyone is talking about intentionally infecting healthy people, but to the extent you have restrictions they should not be uniform - they should be much stricter for the vulnerable or else they may in the end be counterproductive unless vaccines come fast enough to save everyone.  It's not necessarily "fair", but nature often isn't.

We didn't need hindsight for this.  We knew it at the time.  It was discussed at length (in here and in the real world).  The decision to send college kids home from campus was one of the single dumbest things we did -- and it didn't take a genius-level IQ to figure that out in the moment.   Very very frustrating that we botched that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

From your link, where it is in large font and boldfaced:

"Counties and businesses have the right to set their own rules and regulations on face coverings to respond to the level of transmission in the community."

King and Pierce are probably going to be the last to fully relax restrictions.

Right now it's only strongly encouraged in King County. The news reported that that weak kneed Dr was thinking about making it a mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Can someone explain how to "protect" the elderly from catching a novel, airborne, and moderately contagious virus over the course of multiple years?

We tried to protect the elderly and high risk people and that lasted a few months before people decided they just wanted to go back to normal. And we didn’t even succeed in keeping them safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Wait....Didn't we JUST do that.  Didn't we just lock everyone down to stop the spread?  That didn't work?  This board has told me that worked, well.  And masks...lots and lots of masks..Multiple masks actually.  One didn't cut it so we went with two.  I was told over and over, masks save lives.  Not true anymore?

This is so confusing.

If you want to see how well a true lockdown and mask mandate works look at Singapore.  I’m not suggesting that we should have done that but it’s obvious if we did do it that our cases and deaths would be much lower.  But there’s a lot of trade offs to doing it that make for a good argument whether we should have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

100% chance we could do the same thing to confidence in gravity with Trump's help.

Unbelievable isn’t it? And they act proud of it. Trump and his followers have spent the last year and a half promoting ignorance over science, lies over facts, distrust of public health officials...and they’re proud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deplorables.  Neanderthals. Anti-vaxxers.  Anti-science.  Clinging to guns and bibles.  Wrongthinkers

 

Loving all the labels

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Unbelievable isn’t it? And they act proud of it. Trump and his followers have spent the last year and a half promoting ignorance over science, lies over facts, distrust of public health officials...and they’re proud. 

The state you live in is ignoring science right now and you're complaining about Trump supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, John123 said:

The state you live in is ignoring science right now and you're complaining about Trump supporters. 

I am. They’re the ones refusing to take the vaccine, refusing to bring us to herd immunity, refusing to wear masks. Obviously not every Trump supporter but the ones who reject science are really creating a problem for the rest of America. 
As far as my state goes I never complain when officials err on the side of caution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, identikit said:

Deplorables.  Neanderthals. Anti-vaxxers.  Anti-science.  Clinging to guns and bibles.  Wrongthinkers

 

Loving all the labels

 

 

snowflakes, crazy Hillary, sleepy Joe, lamestream media, fake news, commie pigs, etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...