COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (3 Viewers)

[sammymvpknight]

I would nominate Texas opposite California.

Just curious, but why? I would imagine that Texas has more similarities to Florida.

 

[sammymvpknight]

Good idea... suggestion... throw in the 3rd option... add a State that never issued a government mandated lock down at all. (there are several)

Any suggestions? I'd really appreciate it. It might come down to which states have good accessible online data to interpret.

 

[StudioSaint]

This is going to be slightly political b/c it deals with the best way to mitigate the economic damage. But consider the last stimulus measure - it was for $2 trillion dollars. For that amount of money, you could give every household in America $5000 a month for 3 months. Do you feel like that last round of stimulus gave you that kind of help?

This next round of stimulus is carrying a price tag of $3 trillion dollars. That would be $7500 to every household for 3 months. We should be asking if we're getting the equivalent of that if it gets passed.

Without any judgement on what is "right" or "wrong" thing to do, I just want to add that people need to remember that when we give money to businesses, we are actually giving the money to business owners who are actually people. There is no sentient entity called "a business" that is getting the money. People are getting it and it's obviously not being spread around by them in any equitable fashion.

 

[gboudx]

Just curious, but why? I would imagine that Texas has more similarities to Florida.

I was thinking in terms of size and population being more equal between Texas and California. Texas is more similar to Florida in terms of the pandemic than either are to California. But if stats are broken down per capita, then it probably doesn't matter.

 

[Taurus]

In overall raw (not contextual) numbers, sure that's the case... I'm not talking about raw numbers.... I am taking into account age and health history... and when you do that... it's more like "99% just fine and 1% dead" when it comes to that specific demo graphical group that will face this choice... they have the most to lose.... they will be faced with that choice... that was what I was getting at.

I agree that context is important, which is what I was also getting at. Even for young, healthy people, it's not 99/1. We need accurate (as accurate as possible, considering "long term" with C19 is two months) injury stats as well as a push to remind people they aren't as "healthy" as they think, for the most part.

The most dangerous jobs in America have between a .1 and a .05 percent fatality rate. Would people be so eager to return to work if they knew they're facing a risk ten times greater (at least) than the most dangerous occupation in the land?
I'm all about freedom of choice, but it has to be an informed choice.

 

[James Spader]

Petulant whiny children....all of them....great post....

Come on. People worrying about “overreach” of government and calling them whiny is a bit much.

My big issue, where were all these “patriots” when the Patriot Act was passed.

 

[Infoman]

Any suggestions? I'd really appreciate it. It might come down to which states have good accessible online data to interpret.

I'd suggest Arkansas or Iowa. Whichever you can get the most reliable data on (I know that's a task)... good luck. I like the idea.

 

[Xeno]

He did it line by line to dilute the entirety of it, and didn't take into account the other 20 responses I have in this thread already addressing everything he already knows... it's annoying... I have already asked him not to do it... he's looking for a fight/argument (not a meaningful conversation)... he can have it else where.

Now who's cherry picking? If someone doesn't respond the way you want them to they're trying to dilute your opinion. Even though it's all there, laid out in a nice and neat point-counterpoint format. So what's the real problem?

 

[sammymvpknight]

I'd suggest Arkansas or Iowa. Whichever you can get the most reliable data on (I know that's a task)... good luck. I like the idea.

I really like Iowa, just because I use to live close to there so have a decent sense of their politics. It's also a bit different culturally in the mid-west. That would be my preference if they have decent data

 

[Infoman]

Now who's cherry picking?

He is.

If someone doesn't respond the way you want them to they're trying to dilute your opinion.

Is that a question? What's your definition of dilute? I don't agree with your opinion of his opinion.

Even though it's all there, laid out in a nice and neat point-counterpoint format.

Can you post a link to this format? His counterpoint is simply to disagree, is that a point at all?

So what's the real problem?

This is.

 

[B4YOU]

So here's the kind of insanity that has gripped much of America right now. As a preface, I'm not going to pretend to know what the right policy answers are in this situation - there are clearly competing interests and priorities. I'm not going to argue with people over views of personal liberties versus common safety. But I will point out where I think someone is making a premise or relying on data that is objectively inaccurate. Numbers are numbers, methods are methods . . . these things, I think are much closer to being objective truths and not subjective interpretations. In other words, I don't care what people ultimately choose, but if they're basing their view on an inaccuracy, that bears pointing out. I don't ever suggest a course of action, only point out the flaw in the piece of information (and provide citation to why it is inaccurate).

What's really frustrating is how some people react to it. Example: yesterday a Facebook friend posted a screenshot purportedly from some surgeon (actual name or hospital affiliation not included in the screen shot) that said that the size of the coronavirus is between .006 and .14 microns . . . which is far smaller than can be filtered out by most medical grade masks, and certainly not standard N-95s (>.3 microns) or earloop masks . . . and cloth face coverings are worthless.

So I replied, "Actual medical research has found the size of the aerosolized particles (the virus gets in the air by attaching to respiratory droplets) to be between .25 microns and 2.5 microns). " And I posted the medical paper i was referring to (but there are others with similar findings). That was it - that was the post . . . I made no effort beyond that.

The response? Bwaaaahaaaa!! That paper you posted is from Wuhan! Come on man.

Nevermind that it's a proper medical research paper that has been published and has also since been cited in the work of western (and US) researchers. Nevermind that the team of authors are all research physicians with extensive publication in their bios. It's from Wuhan and is therefore instantly dismissible. The same people who are now acting like the critical-review dissertation panel were, moments ago, entirely carefree about accepting the claims in an unattributed Facebook post screenshot.

That sheet is maddening.

I really wish the CDC would give us the R0 value for stupid. I bet it’s higher than Covid-19 or measles.

 

[StudioSaint]

He did it line by line to dilute the entirety of it,

You spend way too much time wrongly guessing what my motives are. I went line by line for the sake of clarity of what I was responding to. I don't think changes the context of your entire post. It casts disagreement with the entirety of your post when I disagree with you, but that is in no way the same as taking things out of context.

and didn't take into account the other 20 responses I have in this thread already addressing everything he already knows... it's annoying... I have already asked him not to do it... he's looking for a fight/argument (not a meaningful conversation)... he can have it else where.

You continue to guess wrongly about about my motives. I do take into account everything you say, I disagree with most of what you say.

I'm voicing my disagreement. I think is important to a meaningful conversation that people be honest about what they think. All I'm doing is honestly disagreeing with you. I'm only saying what I honestly belief. I assume you are being honest in what you say, are you not?

I'm going to keep saying what I honestly believe and I'm going to continue to say it in the style that I want.

ETA: Sorry for all the typos. I'm listening to the House hearing while posting. Not a good combination.

 

[bclemms]

Come on. People worrying about “overreach” of government and calling them whiny is a bit much.

My big issue, where were all these “patriots” when the Patriot Act was passed.

I have no problem about people questioning the government. The problem I have is waiting to do it because it fits a political agenda when it otherwise makes the least amount of sense.

I mean, we found out the government knew that Saudi Arabia sponsored the terror attacks on 9/11 from inside the US embassy then we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan instead. We found out that a big chunk of our politicians sold all of their stock the same day they told us the threat to Americans from Covid was low and were comparing it to the flu. Yet the thing we are questioning is the government's right to ask us to wear masks and write out name down on a piece of paper for public gatherings during a pandemic. The priorities are really forked up.

 

[St. Widge]

Just curious, but why? I would imagine that Texas has more similarities to Florida.

I think one issue with Florida is what I think is a higher percentage of elderly people which could honestly cut both ways. They may be less likely to go out and get infected, but they are also more likely to die from being infected. Part of the problem you are going to have comparing any states, as I'm sure you know, is limiting the variables of the culture, geography, and demographics. Those things will change the numbers and really have nothing to do with how the government responded.

I mean, it's part of why Sweden is so controversial. Their culture is so different from ours that's it seems unlikely that what they did would work anywhere else, even if you believe that what they did is working.

 

[St. Widge]

Come on. People worrying about “overreach” of government and calling them whiny is a bit much.

My big issue, where were all these “patriots” when the Patriot Act was passed.

And the Patriot Act was far more intrusive on individual rights than anything being done in response to this virus.