What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

"Americans Dramatically Misunderstand Risk of Dying from Covid" ...You Don't Say (1 Viewer)

TripItUp

Footballguy
LINK HERE

I think it's clear that the liberal media and the Democratic party had an agenda in creating a fear for political gain.   What a terrible thing to do.  

:rant:

Americans “dramatically misunderstand” the risk of death they face during the coronavirus pandemic, according to the findings of a joint Franklin Templeton-Gallup research project released last month.

Researchers found that Americans overestimate the mortality rate for people aged 55 or younger, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22. For example, respondents estimated that people aged 44 or younger accounted for 30 percent of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure for that age group was 2.7 percent.

Conversely, Americans estimated that people aged 55 or older accounted for roughly 57 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 92 percent. Americans thought people aged 65 or older accounted for roughly 40 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 80 percent.

The misconception “translates directly into a degree of fear for one’s health that for most people vastly exceeds the actual risk,” according to Sonal Desai, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Fixed Income.

“The fact that a large share of the population overestimates the COVID-19 danger to the young will make a targeted public health response more difficult to agree on,” said Desai. “We think it is also likely to delay the recovery, causing a deeper and prolonged recession.”

While people aged 18 to 24 accounted for 0.1 percent of overall COVID-19 deaths, about 59 percent of respondents in that age bracket said they fear significant health consequences if they contract the virus. The CDC’s website notes “the risk for severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at highest risk.”

Researchers identified “partisanship and social media” as key factors in the discrepancies.

“Fear and anger are the most reliable drivers of engagement; scary tales of young victims of the pandemic, intimating that we are all at risk of dying, quickly go viral; so do stories that blame everything on your political adversaries,” Desai said. “Both social and traditional media have been churning out both types of narratives in order to generate more clicks and increase their audience.”

Franklin Templeton and Gallup found that people who relied on social media as their key source of information on the pandemic had the “most erroneous and distorted perception of risk.” Researchers drew results from online surveys conducted by 10,014 U.S. adults aged 18 or older from July 2 to July 14.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just want to make sure I understand. In order to protect my parents, who are in their 80s, it’s cool to let the virus spread to many more people, increasing their risk of contracting it, when there is an 80% chance they will die?

 
The probability of surviving Russian Roulette with a 6 cylinder revolver is 83%.  Doesn't mean we should run out and point loaded guns at our heads.  

You have to ask - is the juice worth the squeeze?  If the downside is infinitely bad (i.e. death), and the cost isn't high (i.e. wear a mask, avoid large crowds), it is 100% rational to take every precaution even if the odds of death are very low.

Consider: the odds of dying in a car crash are 1:114 - 0.88%.  Maybe that's on par with CFR for COVID.  Yet, we still do everything we can to stay safe while driving - we wear seatbelts, we drive cars with airbags, we have instituted lots of traffic laws, etc. We, as a society, have done a lot to make the roads safe and we continue to do so.

 
The probability of surviving Russian Roulette with a 6 cylinder revolver is 83%.  Doesn't mean we should run out and point loaded guns at our heads.  

You have to ask - is the juice worth the squeeze?  If the downside is infinitely bad (i.e. death), and the cost isn't high (i.e. wear a mask, avoid large crowds), it is 100% rational to take every precaution even if the odds of death are very low.

Consider: the odds of dying in a car crash are 1:114 - 0.88%.  Maybe that's on par with CFR for COVID.  Yet, we still do everything we can to stay safe while driving - we wear seatbelts, we drive cars with airbags, we have instituted lots of traffic laws, etc. We, as a society, have done a lot to make the roads safe and we continue to do so.
Add to this that we have no clue what the long term health effects of this virus are as well.

 
This is the most important part right here...we have no clue at this point.  We know if does damage to the heart, the lungs and in some even the brain.  It appears to cause serious long term clotting issues and of course, there is death...
I believe there's consideration of whether this virus can cause sterility in children who contract it as well.

 
Gr00vus said:
I'll remember this sentiment the next time you parrot right wing fear mongering talking points to further misguided political/economic beliefs. As you are now by creating this very thread to propagate a straw man article attempting to spread FUD for political and financial gain.
are you talking about how Biden will take everyones guns?  Or, maybe that socialism means end of private business ownership?

 
How the country feels about this issue and whether they accurately assess the risk seems important. 

Not sure how this went off the rail to sarcastic (I'm assuming) Biden taking guns. Seems like there can be a real discussion on this.

Fear is always a thing. It's very often overestimated. And that's probably not a bad thing for our survival. 

Be it fear of sharks or fear of flying or fear of just about anything. 

"Better safe than sorry" is a thing for good reason.

Seems to me like this is relevant as how we respond to this has giant effects on most all of us. Some are likely underestimating the danger. Others are likely overestimating the danger. 

An article discussing how a joint Franklin Templeton-Gallup research project might not be as accurate as a Footballguys poll, but it might be worth discussing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How the country feels about this issue and whether they accurately assess the risk seems important. 

Not sure how this went off the rail to sarcastic (I'm assuming) Biden taking guns. Seems like there can be a real discussion on this.

Fear is always a thing. It's very often overestimated. And that's probably not a bad thing for our survival. 

Be it fear of sharks or fear of flying or fear of just about anything. 

"Better safe than sorry" is a thing for good reason.

Seems to me like this is relevant as how we respond to this has giant effects on most all of us. Some are likely underestimating the danger. Others are likely overestimating the danger. 

An article discussing how a joint Franklin Templeton-Gallup research project might not be as accurate as a Footballguys poll, but it might be worth discussing
It might be Joe, but when the lead in to the "discussion" is this:

I think it's clear that the liberal media and the Democratic party had an agenda in creating a fear for political gain.   What a terrible thing to do.
the stage hasn't exactly been set for a productive exchange on the thing you think is relevant. People respond in kind when that sort of tone is set, and it's not really a mystery as to why the subsequent exchanges ended up "going off the rails" - is it?

 
It might be Joe, but when the lead in to the "discussion" is this:

the stage hasn't exactly been set for a productive exchange on the thing you think is relevant. People respond in kind when that sort of tone is set, and it's not really a mystery as to why the subsequent exchanges ended up "going off the rails" - is it?
Understood. I do think the actual article and research project is worth discussion. 

 
How the country feels about this issue and whether they accurately assess the risk seems important. 

Not sure how this went off the rail to sarcastic (I'm assuming) Biden taking guns. Seems like there can be a real discussion on this.

Fear is always a thing. It's very often overestimated. And that's probably not a bad thing for our survival. 

Be it fear of sharks or fear of flying or fear of just about anything. 

"Better safe than sorry" is a thing for good reason.

Seems to me like this is relevant as how we respond to this has giant effects on most all of us. Some are likely underestimating the danger. Others are likely overestimating the danger. 

An article discussing how a joint Franklin Templeton-Gallup research project might not be as accurate as a Footballguys poll, but it might be worth discussing. 
I think a discussion about risk tolerance is important when it comes to COVID for sure. The main issue is that assessing risk in this case seems to be framed as an individual decision affecting one person at a time. How do you measure the chances of catching COVID and possibly spreading it to family members, friends, co-workers, classmates etc... resulting in any one person getting critically ill or dying? This examination of risk tolerance doesn't occur on the same spectrum as deciding whether or not to say, go skydiving. 

 
I think a discussion about risk tolerance is important when it comes to COVID for sure. The main issue is that assessing risk in this case seems to be framed as an individual decision affecting one person at a time. How do you measure the chances of catching COVID and possibly spreading it to family members, friends, co-workers, classmates etc... resulting in any one person getting critically ill or dying? This examination of risk tolerance doesn't occur on the same spectrum as deciding whether or not to say, go skydiving. 
Sure. I think the spread has to be factored in to the equation.

I found the findings of the research in the article interesting. 

Researchers found that Americans overestimate the mortality rate for people aged 55 or younger, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22. For example, respondents estimated that people aged 44 or younger accounted for 30 percent of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure for that age group was 2.7 percent.

Conversely, Americans estimated that people aged 55 or older accounted for roughly 57 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 92 percent. Americans thought people aged 65 or older accounted for roughly 40 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 80 percent.

The misconception “translates directly into a degree of fear for one’s health that for most people vastly exceeds the actual risk,” according to Sonal Desai, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Fixed Income.

 
Sure. I think the spread has to be factored in to the equation.

I found the findings of the research in the article interesting. 

Researchers found that Americans overestimate the mortality rate for people aged 55 or younger, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22. For example, respondents estimated that people aged 44 or younger accounted for 30 percent of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure for that age group was 2.7 percent.

Conversely, Americans estimated that people aged 55 or older accounted for roughly 57 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 92 percent. Americans thought people aged 65 or older accounted for roughly 40 percent of COVID-19 deaths, when the actual figure was 80 percent.

The misconception “translates directly into a degree of fear for one’s health that for most people vastly exceeds the actual risk,” according to Sonal Desai, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Fixed Income.
you might as well argue that Americans aren't good at understanding math or science, or maybe reading current reports.  I mean, the breakdown of morbidity by age has been around since the initial reports from Wuhan - we talked about this back in February (or, at least March).

 
I found the findings of the research in the article interesting. 
I think it's interesting in the same way that people are wildly inaccurate when they are asked, for example, how much wealth the top 1% have.  It's fun to see how wrong people are about basic information.

But both the article and @TripItUp seem to be implying that the public misconception about death risks is causing us to be too strict with our attempts to combat the virus.  And that's where I think neither the article nor TripitUp seem to grapple with the many other significant reasons why those measures have been taken besides the mortality of the non-elderly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's interesting in the same way that people are wildly inaccurate when they are asked, for example, how much wealth the top 1% have.  It's fun to see how wrong people ar about basic information.

But both the article and @TripItUp seem to be implying that the public misconception about death risks is causing us to be too strict with our attempts to combat the virus.  And that's where I think neither the article or TripitUp seem to grapple with the many other significant reasons why those measures have been taken besides the mortality of the non-elderly.
I don't put this in the "fun to know" type category. 

Getting this right seems super important. 

Granted, I'm particularly sensitive as a small business owner who has the chance of a zero revenue year because of the pandemic. But I think tons of people are interested in getting this right. 

 
I don't put this in the "fun to know" type category. 

Getting this right seems super important. 

Granted, I'm particularly sensitive as a small business owner who has the chance of a zero revenue year because of the pandemic. But I think tons of people are interested in getting this right. 
When you say "this" in the bolded places above, what do you mean?

 
As we approach 175000 dead, I think people have a right to be concerned for their well being as well as those they come in contact with.  How can they know how their bodies will react once infected?  It's also understandable that most survey participants (that's all this appears to be but maybe they were giving stock tips too) are not aware of actual morbidity rates since the messaging coming from Republican leadership has been nonexistent and in many cases, patently false.

 
Accurately assessing risk. 
Can you explain why you think it's so important in this situation for the general public to be able to accurately assess specific risks?  Is there something special about the pandemic that makes it different from other subjects or do you think it should be a priority to educate people about risks generally?  I only ask because the American public is generally pretty awful at assessing risks.  If you survey people about subjects like the relative dangers of, say, home invasions v. accidental swimming pool deaths, they routinely are wildly wrong.  This doesn't seem like an issue that's unique to the pandemic.

 
Can you explain why you think it's so important in this situation for the general public to be able to accurately assess specific risks?  Is there something special about the pandemic that makes it different from other subjects or do you think it should be a priority to educate people about risks generally?  I only ask because the American public is generally pretty awful at assessing risks.  If you survey people about subjects like the relative dangers of, say, home invasions v. accidental swimming pool deaths, they routinely are wildly wrong.  This doesn't seem like an issue that's unique to the pandemic.
The public has always relied upon the govt. and leadership to help assess risks.   The liberal media, as pointed out in the article, have minipulated and misconstrued the risk.  That's an assertion I strongly agree with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The public has always relied upon the govt. and leadership to help assess risks.   The media, as pointed out in the article, have minipulated and misconstrued the risk.  That's an assertion I strongly agree with.
The article says that traditional media have reported on the relatively rare stories of younger people dying and those stories have then circulated on social media.  What exactly should the media do to prevent this?  And what do you think would change if they did what you want them to?

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
do you mean the man on the street or policy makers?  I'd argue that it's not really important what the man on the street thinks relative to someone charged with setting policy.
Hopefully they're aligned. 

And for @fatguyinalittlecoat question, I think this is different because of the scale and the number of people affected. 

 
The public has always relied upon the govt. and leadership to help assess risks.   The liberal media, as pointed out in the article, have minipulated and misconstrued the risk.  That's an assertion I strongly agree with.
And the government and this administration have manipulated and misconstrued it far worse to the detriment of the American people.

 
And for @fatguyinalittlecoat question, I think this is different because of the scale and the number of people affected. 
That seems fair I guess, although public misperceptions about other death risks such as Islamic terrorism or murderous illegal immigrants seem to also affect a large number of people.

Putting that aside, though, my impression is that the general public has a LOT of misperceptions about the pandemic.  Some of those misperceptions, like the one discussed here, may be causing them to be more risk-averse than ideal.  But other misperceptions, like the speed of exponential growth within a community, may cause them to act in a riskier way than is ideal.  These different factors act in opposition to each other. 

My overall impression is that the average person is taking this less seriously than they should if we want to get this under control.  This seems evident from the way the pandemic has spread in the United States compared to our peer countries.  If that's true, then the first mistaken beliefs we should be trying to correct are those that cause people to be less cautious.  Only if the pendulum swings too far the other way do we really need to be concerned that people are being too risk-averse due to misinformation.

 
The article says that traditional media have reported on the relatively rare stories of younger people dying and those stories have then circulated on social media.  What exactly should the media do to prevent this?  And what do you think would change if they did what you want them to?
Do their homework before they cover them at the very least. Multiple stories were reported as covid deaths that turned out to not be covid deaths in young people. (Infant in IL, Social worker in NOLA) 

Then some stories that were covid deaths were still botched and made to seem far more dramatic and political( 17 year old boy in CA that was first reported as being denied care in an urgent care because he didnt have insurance but it turns out he never even went to an urgent care and he did in fact have insurance.)

Then lets talk about the beaches...

 
Headline says: "risk of dying"
Article says: "fear significant health consequences"

OP says: "liberal media"
Article says: "social media"

CONCLUSION: Misleading click-bait thread designed to push an agenda.
And the people pushing this story now are the same ones that called it all a hoax six months ago.  And who literally laughed at the idea that 200,000+ Americans would be dead by the end of 2020.

So maybe most of us are just digging deep into the memory bank, all the way back to March, when the OP doesn't get a serious response.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That seems fair I guess, although public misperceptions about other death risks such as Islamic terrorism or murderous illegal immigrants seem to also affect a large number of people.

Putting that aside, though, my impression is that the general public has a LOT of misperceptions about the pandemic.  Some of those misperceptions, like the one discussed here, may be causing them to be more risk-averse than ideal.  But other misperceptions, like the speed of exponential growth within a community, may cause them to act in a riskier way than is ideal.  These different factors act in opposition to each other. 

My overall impression is that the average person is taking this less seriously than they should if we want to get this under control.  This seems evident from the way the pandemic has spread in the United States compared to our peer countries.  If that's true, then the first mistaken beliefs we should be trying to correct are those that cause people to be less cautious.  Only if the pendulum swings too far the other way do we really need to be concerned that people are being too risk-averse due to misinformation.
Great post. It’s not risk of death that’s important to those under 55 - although personally I prefer a 0% risk to a 0.3% risk ( or whatever it is) when it comes to death- but the exponential growth of the spread.

 
First, let me see if I understand reality:

  • The MSM has long been known to air the most sensationalist news in order to ensure viewership.
  • MSM has long ago gone thru a splintering process (or schism) to ensure they get a certain "world-view" or media market-share.
  • Both parties utilize "their" media network(s) to make the "other side" look bad, whether it be thru Faux News, MSDNC or whatever.
  • Covid-19 is actually killing Americans at a rate of ~ 1k/day, regardless of the administration or right-leaning media's attempts to either minimize Covid -or- compare its contagiousness/fatalities to the regular flu .
  • 9/11 killed ~3k in one day, followed by understandable American RAGE.
Now, the point of your post (as follows) could be:

Makes me sick to my stomach.
(1) You're sick to your stomach because the MSM is doing what they have been doing for decades, with this pandemic being an even more extreme reason for them to air our current reality?

(2) You're sick to your stomach because left-leaning media outlets/entities are not minimizing our current reality as the administration or right-leaning entities are trying to do?

(3) You're sick to your stomach because even though we're currently experiencing total fatalities of a 9/11-event every ~ 3 days.... we (or MSM) should NOT be alarmed by our current reality?

The above 3 are possible options (not all I admit - there may be more) but is one of the above closest in explaining why you're sick to your stomach?

I'll tell you what makes me sick to my stomach:    I believe the most important responsibility of a US President (other than to, in general, uphold the Constitution) is to maximize the safety of US citizens, especially in emergencies or extraordinary times -and- I can't fathom why/how a certain segment of our population believes that Trump's abdication of responsibility in this emergency is not only acceptable....but they plan on voting for his administration again!?!?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that physicians and epidemiologists are still suggesting we aren't doing enough not important enough?  Or that virtually every other country on Earth has taken this far more seriously than us and been far more successful in limiting its spread and impact?

That has NOTHING to do with political parties. It has little to do with media or "liberal media".  Travel, sports, business WORLDWIDE have been affected for months. They are starting to get back to normal while we still can't because our leadership UNDERestimated the severity. Your blame is misplaced.

And all those other countries aren't filled with "liberal media".

The bottom line is that nothing about this should be partisan. It should be deferred to the scientific community and leadership should follow their lead. That's what has happened virtually everywhere else. The fact that your political party affects how likely you are to wear a mask, for example, is disgusting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That seems fair I guess, although public misperceptions about other death risks such as Islamic terrorism or murderous illegal immigrants seem to also affect a large number of people.
Exactly. I'm saying get those right too. I'd hope we get all these things as accurate as possible when weighing risks. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you guys think there is anything to the idea that the medical community botched this thing initially?  I'm not saying it was deliberate or anything close to that. 

However I remember here in MI if you were diagnosed with covid...bam...admitted to the hospital.  Now you're told to monitor like other things.  Rest fluids get to the hospital if certain things happen.

Michigan is seeing 400-700 or so new cases per day.   But the death count is in single digits.  Of course this is good but whats changed?

As jack Nicholson said in the departed.    "I think about this"

 
You know who could of stopped all this misinformation!  That would of been President Trump if he would of let the scientist get ahead of this.. instead of saying nothing to worry about ,its like a hoax, its just going to disappear.. that is why so many Americans are still not understanding the risks... 

 
I think they learned more about it more than they botched it...I wouldn’t say they botched it at all.

 
Do you guys think there is anything to the idea that the medical community botched this thing initially?  I'm not saying it was deliberate or anything close to that. 

However I remember here in MI if you were diagnosed with covid...bam...admitted to the hospital.  Now you're told to monitor like other things.  Rest fluids get to the hospital if certain things happen.

Michigan is seeing 400-700 or so new cases per day.   But the death count is in single digits.  Of course this is good but whats changed?

As jack Nicholson said in the departed.    "I think about this"
I think it’s unfair to the medical community to have the expectation of instant knowledge about COVID when it first hit, including best courses of treatment, minimizing transmission, etc....

There’s a reason why this is a “novel” virus:  Meaning that many things about it are/were unique and we have been learning as we go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you guys think there is anything to the idea that the medical community botched this thing initially?  I'm not saying it was deliberate or anything close to that. 

However I remember here in MI if you were diagnosed with covid...bam...admitted to the hospital.  Now you're told to monitor like other things.  Rest fluids get to the hospital if certain things happen.

Michigan is seeing 400-700 or so new cases per day.   But the death count is in single digits.  Of course this is good but whats changed?

As jack Nicholson said in the departed.    "I think about this"
Check out the ages of the infected, it could explain a lot of what's going on.

>> This means that the risk rises sharply to a very scary number even by middle age: 1 in 10,000 at age 20 70 in 10,000 at age 50 890 in 10,000 at age 70 3,680 in 10,000 at age 85. <<

https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1294752129333096449

Nice graphs by Marc Bevand showing case fatalities ratios by age and by date:

https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1293435528210034690

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know who could of stopped all this misinformation!  That would of been President Trump if he would of let the scientist get ahead of this.. instead of saying nothing to worry about ,its like a hoax, its just going to disappear.. that is why so many Americans are still not understanding the risks... 
This. If we had consistent messaging coming from health care professionals maybe we wouldn’t have such a problem with people following mask mandates and social distancing. And with the active efforts to discredit the media, reporting the messages of health care professionals doesn’t reach the people who really need to hear it. Sensationalism seems to be needed for people to take it seriously.

Take Arizona for example. Right now most metrics outside of deaths are down significantly. It would be great to be able to shout that from the mountaintops but unfortunately what a lot of people will hear is ‘I don’t have to take it seriously anymore’ just like when they reopened. If we had that consistent national messaging, there would be more chance that we’d be able to keep everyone focused on precautions without trying to scare them. I don’t like it but it seems to be necessary.

 
Do you guys think there is anything to the idea that the medical community botched this thing initially?  I'm not saying it was deliberate or anything close to that. 

However I remember here in MI if you were diagnosed with covid...bam...admitted to the hospital.  Now you're told to monitor like other things.  Rest fluids get to the hospital if certain things happen.

Michigan is seeing 400-700 or so new cases per day.   But the death count is in single digits.  Of course this is good but whats changed?

As jack Nicholson said in the departed.    "I think about this"
The medical community erred on the side of caution earlier in the pandemic, as we didn’t (and still don’t entirely) know what to expect from this novel infection. But I assure you, not everyone was being admitted, even in March.

 
I think it’s unfair to the medical community to have the expectation of instant knowledge about COVID when it first hit, including best courses of treatment, minimizing transmission, etc....

There’s a reason why this is a “novel” virus:  Meaning that many things about it are/were unique and we have been learning as we go.
I agree.  Thats why I said I don't think it was deliberate.  No one really knew.  So uf you could maybe focus on the question that might help

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top