The Coronavirus thread

[CharlesDavenport]

Really? Could you share ones in opposition? I’m referring to the ones the world leaders listened to when deciding to shut down society. Yes, there are many unknowns, not the least of which is getting people in a free society to co-operate with limited ability to control actually them.

LOL. You are asking for those in opposition whom the governments listened to but didn't listen to when they decided to shut down society?

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

If I claim 1000 people will die, but give myself a tolerance of +/- 10,000, it's kind of hard for my model to ever be wrong.

Isn't that the point. LOl. Same with polls.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

LOL. You are asking for those in opposition whom the governments listened to but didn't listen to when they decided to shut down society?

By default though he is arguing for Trump!

 

[Steeltime]

Personally, I think the vastly lower mortality rate is due to the fact that the President used his magic unicorn wand and ordered Americans not to go to the grocery store. You know, the place where dozens or hundreds of people are present at once, line up right next to each other at kill-sites to share the disease, touch products that have likely already been handled by at least two other people, put their goods on conveyor belts, and use touch screens for credit card purchases that have been infected by hundreds of customers per day and never cleaned.

God, I shudder to think how bad it would have been if the President did not ban going to the grocery store. And those massive box stores?!? Don't get me started.

 

[oneforthebus]

No I think you are wrong in that we did not overreact. I think these numbers bare a direct correlation to out actions. To many only look a the models and see the mid line and up but if you look at many of the models closely and look at the shaded area corresponding to the midline you would see many of these do have us within their margin of error. If we had not acted this would have been likey worse than the flu once again not be cause it itself is more deadly but we would have seen much higher rates of Vent use and ICU use. At least here in Ohio the models have been adjusted all along to track more closely with what is being seen as they took in to account the results of our efforts.

I look at it this way we may never be able to prove if we overreacted but thank god we didn't prove the opposite at this point and we may get out of this to a degree in the near future.

So it's ok if we separate families, destroy the economy, throw the country into a depression, create unemployment of 20 or 30 percent, have millions of people lose their jobs, businesses and homes, based on a theoretical worst case scenario of some mathematical model that may very well be totally wrong?

What a terrible precedent that is to set.

 

[Steeltime]

If I claim 1000 people will die, but give myself a tolerance of +/- 10,000, it's kind of hard for my model to ever be wrong.

Huh, your model sucks. Mine is 100% accurate. My model predicts 1 billion deaths, give or take a billion.

 

[Troglodyte]

Did you just ******* say that?? LOL

I AM playing Monday morning QB here. I have the benefit of hind sight (to a degree right now). So far these experts (all of them) are wrong to varying degrees, most of them wrong to very bad degrees.

The models? All ******* garbage.
The predictions based off of those models? They are so far off mankind should be embarrassed.

Death rate? Lower than predicted.
Infections? Lower than predicted.
Hospital beds needed? WAY lower than predicted
We are gonna run out of vents!!! Wellllll, not really.

EVERY day now the #s are moved down. Now they are predicting we won't have as many die from CV19 as we do from the flu....

Am I right saying we over-reacted and this is proving to be less deadly than the flu? Damn well looks like it. And Charles quoted a very bright epidemiologist who said social distancing MAY have made this worse because (ah **** it you can read it).

But keep on hoping for a longer lock down...one that is going to result in more American deaths than CV19 is going to. That is indeed rich.

You’re playing Monday Morning QB while we’re approaching what could be an extended (flattened) halftime.

The epidemiologist said lock down society to prevent hundreds of thousands or millions dying. You point to 13,000 (so far) and say it’s an obvious over-reaction. It could also be argued that it was an incredible success. What numbers are moving down? Yesterday was a record for deaths.

 

[str8liner]

The models predicted that WITH mitigation in place - social distancing, i.e., economic shutdown - the United States would have between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths. It was THOSE numbers that drove every conversation, including yours of course. "Oh. My. God. A quarter million dead even with preventative measures?? Holy ****, lock it down!!"

My take is that in the long run the numbers being wrong was a GOOD thing for most of the country. They may have been too late to contain it in the big cities but us peasants in the rural areas look to be spared most of the outbreak.A coupler more weeks late and I think the original numbers would have been nothing and we would have had a much bigger problem.

 

[Steeltime]

So it's ok if we separate families, destroy the economy, throw the country into a depression, create unemployment of 20 or 30 percent, have millions of people lose their jobs, businesses and homes, based on a theoretical worst case scenario of some mathematical model that may very well be totally wrong?

What a terrible precedent that is to set.

Anybody who disputes what you are saying needs to come back in six or eight months, when we finally see the devastation caused, and apologize.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

So it's ok if we separate families, destroy the economy, throw the country into a depression, create unemployment of 20 or 30 percent, have millions of people lose their jobs, businesses and homes, based on a theoretical worst case scenario of some mathematical model that may very well be totally wrong?

What a terrible precedent that is to set.

Would the opposite have been better? I think our economy will recover without to much problem personally. Yes our debt expanded but it was already ridiculous to he point does it really matter anymore? I hate that we did it but not as much as what might have happened if we did not.

 

[Troglodyte]

LOL. You are asking for those in opposition whom the governments listened to but didn't listen to when they decided to shut down society?

Should China have listened to Li Wenliang? Or were they right, before they were wrong and overreacted and shut down Wuhan?

 

[oneforthebus]

Would the opposite have been better? I think our economy will recover without to much problem personally. Yes our debt expanded but it was already ridiculous to he point does it really matter anymore? I hate that we did it but not as much as what might have happened if we did not.

There is literally no evidence the opposite would have happened. Because the models that predicted it were wrong, even with social distancing factored in. So that means one of only a few things:

They way overestimated how contagious the virus is.

There are many more people who had it and were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and thus we already have a lot of immunity to it.

The virus would have petered out on its own some, like SARS did, like MERS did, even without all of these drastic measures.

Or maybe it was some combination of all three. The social distance we've done over the last 3 weeks clearly had some effect, but there's no way it completely accounts for the massive discrepancy in the predictions and the reality.

Now, it's fine to say maybe we prevented the worst case scenario and you're happy about that.. It's unlikely, given these numbers, but ok. What's not fine is moving ahead with a course of action that ignores the fact that the models were very, very wrong. The consequences of doing that will be dire. I don't know why some people fail to grasp the costs of these measures and only look at the (theoretical) benefits.

Put it another way, we could stop global warming and supposedly save billions of lives right now if the whole world just decided to ban fossil fuel. Why don't we do that, based on some theoretical models that might be totally wrong? Because the cost (not just monetary, but in lives and human suffering) is way too high.

 

[Steeler Pride]

Should China have listened to Li Wenliang? Or were they right, before they were wrong and overreacted and shut down Wuhan?

If we were talking about shutting down the State of Pennsylvania and leaving the rest of the US open you might have a point. China did not shut down Beijing, Hong Kong, or most other major cities allowing their production and commerce to continue. China did not decimate their economy in locking down Wuhan.

 

[Steeltime]

The epidemiologist said lock down society to prevent hundreds of thousands or millions dying. You point to 13,000 (so far) and say it’s an obvious over-reaction. It could also be argued that it was an incredible success.

This has to be the dumbest argument you have ever offered, Trog, and that is saying a lot.

The models predict outcomes BASED ON MASSIVE RESTRICTIONS, AT A COST OF TRILLIONS.

The model estimates that 78,000 require hospitalization in New York alone as of April 1. Wrong, by a factor of four or five.

The model predicts that NY will need 13,000 intensive care beds by April 1. Wrong, by a factor of four.

The model predicts that NY will need 8,000 to 9,000 ventilators. Wrong, by a factor of ten.

The model predicts that ... who gives a ****? The ******* thing was wrong by a factor of four, five, or ten times what was actually needed.

https://www.westernjournal.com/expe...-hospitalizations-ny-april-1-turned-400-high/

Lesson: Don't implode the economy on doomsday models that have essentially zero backup for the projections.

And your response is, "See how well it worked!! Think how many could have died!" Oh for **** sake ... the model presumed the numbers based on strict quarantine and economic suicide. The devastating effects could have and should have been avoided, but for the ******* faulty bullshit models. What a stupid argument you make.

You want an exact analogy? I predict that the upcoming flu season, beginning in October, will kill 750,000 Americans even if extreme measures are taken - no travel, no restaurants, no public gatherings, no movies, no football, no nothing. Shut it down, *****. And the same model predicts that without these extreme measures, hoo-boy, 7.5 million dead.

So we shut down our nation, put 15 million out of work and at risk of homelessness, drain trillions out of the economy, and put government into a massive debt that effectively guarantees implosion at some point.

Boom. 25,000 die with the preventative measures in place, not the 750,000 projected. So your response would be, "Wow, think about how bad it COULD have been"??

Could have been, based on what? The same ******* model that missed projections by a factor of ten? THAT MODEL??

*******. Stupid.

 

[Steeltime]

If we were talking about shutting down the State of Pennsylvania and leaving the rest of the US open you might have a point. China did not shut down Beijing, Hong Kong, or most other major cities allowing their production and commerce to continue. China did not decimate their economy in locking down Wuhan.

Yeah, good point, but it's not like China has massive cities with citizens stacked on top of each other like rats in a cage.

Okay, never mind.

 

[Steeltime]

Damn it, Steeler Pride, you got me started. I am guessing that medium size cities like Shanghai, population 24 million, don't pack people into public transportation. Instead, they have so much free space that quarantine was never necessary - BRILLIANT!!

I mean, look at that leg room. No wonder the virus simply never took hold in Shanghai or Beijing, another smallish community.

So much ROOOOOOOOOM!!!!!

 

[Steeltime]

 

[Steeltime]

 

[Roy92040]

All this talk of models reminds me of the perfect scores of the election polls. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Steeltime]

All this talk of models reminds me of the perfect scores of the election polls. LOL

Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

Thank God the climate models have been so accurate. Can you IMAGINE the damage done in crippling arguing the greatest natural resource our incredible nation has - gas, oil, shale - based on ****** climate models that were demonstrably wrong, every time?

 

[Troglodyte]

If we were talking about shutting down the State of Pennsylvania and leaving the rest of the US open you might have a point. China did not shut down Beijing, Hong Kong, or most other major cities allowing their production and commerce to continue. China did not decimate their economy in locking down Wuhan.

Or how about New York and California? Both had about the same number of cases early in March. California got really serious about shutting down, New York not as much. Who made the right call?

 

[Steeltime]

Would the opposite have been better? I think our economy will recover without to much problem personally. Yes our debt expanded but it was already ridiculous to he point does it really matter anymore?

The national debt was horrendous, unbelievable, unimaginable as of January 1, 2020. We were going to add another trillion dollars to the debt based on the 2020 budget year with the projected spending and very good tax revenues from a vibrant economy.

Instead, we just spent another $2 trillion we don't have, and the economy is in the *******, meaning we are looking at a $4 trillion deficit. FOUR. TRILLION. DOLLARS. IN. ONE. YEAR.

Why do we simply ignore the fact that millions of citizens - literally millions - rely on government-funded retirement? Police, firefighters, teachers, social workers, and on and on. That is NOT counting social security.

We are on the precipice, dramatically advanced by the recent psychotic spending spree, of seeing governments not being able to pay the retirement income owed.

So what the **** happens then?? Citizens who are 60, 70, 80 going back to work in a ****** economy killed by recent events?

Yeah, great. What could go wrong?

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

There is literally no evidence the opposite would have happened. Because the models that predicted it were wrong, even with social distancing factored in. So that means one of only a few things:

They way overestimated how contagious the virus is.

There are many more people who had it and were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and thus we already have a lot of immunity to it.

The virus would have petered out on its own some, like SARS did, like MERS did, even without all of these drastic measures.

Or maybe it was some combination of all three. The social distance we've done over the last 3 weeks clearly had some effect, but there's no way it completely accounts for the massive discrepancy in the predictions and the reality.

Now, it's fine to say maybe we prevented the worst case scenario and you're happy about that.. It's unlikely, given these numbers, but ok. What's not fine is moving ahead with a course of action that ignores the fact that the models were very, very wrong. The consequences of doing that will be dire. I don't know why some people fail to grasp the costs of these measures and only look at the (theoretical) benefits.

Put it another way, we could stop global warming and supposedly save billions of lives right now if the whole world just decided to ban fossil fuel. Why don't we do that, based on some theoretical models that might be totally wrong? Because the cost (not just monetary, but in lives and human suffering) is way too high.

Woah stop right there you are wrong about the spread. We are finding it spreads very easily many just never know they had it or haven't been tested as you said in the second sentence. Their plenty of evidence how bad it could have been. Again you just have to look NYC and imagine if other major cities had had more exposure and poor management like they did. According to what I am seeing today more have already died from this than H1N1 with many fewer diagnosed cases. Now that will likely change drastically as we test and have better estimates on how many actually are infected.

You don't have any better idea yet if we overreacted that you say the models did. Still way to much unknown to make that judgment. I THINK we reacted appropriately you THINK we overreacted until this all over we won't really be able to say and maybe not even then.

I also THINK the economy will recover as long as the Dems don't win in November.

I am again also glad this is the argument we are having.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

The national debt was horrendous, unbelievable, unimaginable as of January 1, 2020. We were going to add another trillion dollars to the debt based on the 2020 budget year with the projected spending and very good tax revenues from a vibrant economy.

Instead, we just spent another $2 trillion we don't have, and the economy is in the *******, meaning we are looking at a $4 trillion deficit. FOUR. TRILLION. DOLLARS. IN. ONE. YEAR.

Why do we simply ignore the fact that millions of citizens - literally millions - rely on government-funded retirement? Police, firefighters, teachers, social workers, and on and on. That is NOT counting social security.

We are on the precipice, dramatically advanced by the recent psychotic spending spree, of seeing governments not being able to pay the retirement income owed.

So what the **** happens then?? Citizens who are 60, 70, 80 going back to work in a ****** economy killed by recent events?

Yeah, great. What could go wrong?

Oh I don't disagree but really as it borders on the ridiculous already is another trillion going to matter? We should seriously take China to task and just cancel our debt with them in recompense. It is all imaginary money to a degree. It makes my head hurt to think about it.

 

[Steeltime]

Or how about New York and California? Both had about the same number of cases early in March. California got really serious about shutting down, New York not as much. Who made the right call?

In your imaginary la-la land, where keeping people home for weeks or months on end and such approach has no cost, what do the citizens use for currency? Unicorn tears? Minotaur hooves? Dragon teeth?

Nobody can answer your question right now. First, we don't actually know how many have died due to COVID as opposed to heart disease, cancer, pneumonia, stroke, etc. because all deaths due to heart disease, cancer, etc. have been attributed to COVID if the patient had the illness.

Birx says government is classifying all deaths of patients with coronavirus as 'COVID-19' deaths, regardless of cause

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...avirus-as-covid-19-deaths-regardless-of-cause

Second, we have no way of knowing how many would have died with more stringent controls of public behavior. Would 100 more have died in Los Angeles? 1000? Nobody knows. All we can do is guesstimate based on the demonstrably flawed computer projections.

Third, what is the cost for a restrictive approach? Again, we don't know. How many will die due to the economic backlash - hundreds? Thousands? Could be.

And don't be ignorant. A leading cause of death in the world, and for our entire history as a species, has been poverty. Poverty leads to poor living conditions, poor medical care, poor diet, and early death.

So how many people have the Feds killed with their poverty-inducing measures? Tell me. If you are honest and say, "I don't know right now," then please, for the love of God, stop telling us how many people have been "saved" by the self-immolation of the economy.