death rate in perspective

[Beendaredonedat]

25 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Luckily they have lots of analysts and a cabinet to advise them, which tends to help.

Not so much when they are mostly yes men...

[Tamfana]

23 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

It's OT, but narcissistic personality disorder would be my take. Unlike many, he's been able to leverage it to get where he is.

He also seems to have a CEO's mindset but coupled with an oddball personality, so he does things like act dignified (when not triggered) e.g. at press briefings, but then when he's feeling comfortable spew random tweets with his immediate thoughts or hug the american flag. I can't tell if the hugging the flag was sincere or done for the cameras, but either way it's beneath the dignity of the office. A LOT of the stuff he does when feeling comfortable is beneath the dignity of the office. He clearly hasn't had feedback on his behavior from anyone who matters to him in decades. He just does what he feels like and smiles about it. He's actually very much in his own little world in some ways.

IMO he's definitely unfit to be President, but then again, no human is REALLY fit for that, there's too much info, too many decisions whose outcomes can't be foretold, etc. Luckily they have lots of analysts and a cabinet to advise them, which tends to help.

😄 Not quite the way I was heading with that question, but yeah, I agree with you on the NPD guess.  

[pepperbird]

15 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

There is also such a thing as journalism, which is traditionally what news outlets have relied upon to sell their publications.   It doesn't need to be fiction to sell.

I have come to understand that, generally, those who are constantly conjecturing about or promoting the idea of FAKE NEWS are heavily invested in only believing what confirms their bias, or swaying others to disbelieve any sources other than those recommended by a given entity.  

We live in a time when entertainment figures are revered by a large segment of the population, so reality tv personalities, shock jocks on the radio, talk show hosts, etc. are deemed credible and all real journalism is deemed FAKE.  People seem very happy to be told what to believe and not look into it; conveniently all fact checking sources have also been labled FAKE so those prone to follow this trend don't bother with that.  

I'd be interested in reading the article you paraphrased, can you link?  The headline you quoted says "some tell loved ones ..." and the way you paraphrase the article says exactly the same thing, only in more depth.

I  work in the industry and have seen it happen, have been asked to write it and and also to edit it. So I know it happens.I;ve been asked to write everything from fake news to fake medication reviews, but I wouldn't do it.  With the 24 hour a days news cycle and people demanding the news almost as quickly as it happens, facts are often not checked the way they should be. People have trust in broadcast news that quite frankly, they shouldn't..

I didn't paraphrase anything. Those are exact quotes form. CBC news article. The CBC is our state funded broadcaster. You can look up the lede quote-just enter the headline-it's word for word.

[schlumpy]

Here's a link to an article from Reuters about Sweden's decision to not follow the herd. Are they right or are they wrong? We shall see.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-idUSKBN21L23R

 

 

[major_merrick]

I agree with Sweden's take on the virus.  Those who are going to die WILL.  It is just a question of time, and dragging this thing out will probably cause more deaths overall than just going on as normal and getting it over with.  If we drag this thing out, those who REALLY need to shelter in place will eventually be unable to continue.  Meanwhile, the economy goes to crap and people who live paycheck-to-paycheck (which is at least half of the US population) will suffer.  And the increased stress will kill younger people, the isolation will kill those with depression, civil unrest and violent crime will occur, etc..

We stand to lose so much more from this total shutdown and social distancing than we have to gain.  If things keep going like this, the modern world as we've known it will not recover for decades. 

[elaine567]

Sweden is a country of 10 million people with a very low population density only 64 people  per sq mile.  
It is also home to one of the big players in the ventilator manufacturing market, 25% of the entire global market...
The cases and deaths are rising so I guess they will be locking down like everyone else soon.

[Gaeta]

2 hours ago, pepperbird said:

I  work in the industry and have seen it happen, have been asked to write it and and also to edit it. 

Then you didn't work for a newspaper that held up high bringning the truth to the population. A newspaper or a tv news network can be sued if reporting a lie. 

[Gaeta]

26 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

We stand to lose so much more from this total shutdown and social distancing than we have to gain.  If things keep going like this, the modern world as we've known it will not recover for decades. 

What shall we do then?

Look at how the hospitals are overwhelmed and people are dying by the thousands over  night. Imagine if there was no confinement at all.

[major_merrick]

7 minutes ago, Gaeta said:

What shall we do then?

High risk folks stay home.  Everybody else do independently as they think best.  National and state governments should shut up and take no position on the matter.  This is entirely about personal risk and personal responsibility, and local governments can control hot spots. There's no treatment, there's no cure.  Alcohol, honey, malaria pills (if that even works), and prayer.  About the only thing they can do that you can't do for yourself is a ventilator - and if you need one, there won't be one available.  Going to a hospital is basically pointless - people only do it because they still trust the folks in white coats to save them. 

This is NOT the black plague.  People are not dying like flies in the middle of the road.  Life has always been risky, we've just allowed ourselves to be convinced that it isn't.  The social and economic risks of this crisis are much greater than the medical risks.  Poverty and isolation kill.  

 

[Art_Critic]

40 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

We stand to lose so much more from this total shutdown and social distancing than we have to gain.  If things keep going like this, the modern world as we've known it will not recover for decades. 

From some of the sources I read this can be true depending on your perspective and how much you value human life.

If nothing was done the peak would be hugely higher meaning more deaths but we would also be over it faster, with social distancing we are lowering the death rate by huge amounts and lowering the peaks but extending how long it will take for the cycle to finish, we also will be at risk of a new spike after it is over.

All considering we live in a world where human life is valued more than human goods/services/economy.. in the end valuing  life and the lives of our fellow man wins..

 

 

[Art_Critic]

1 minute ago, major_merrick said:

Everybody else do independently as they think best.

 

That is exactly why the rates of infection and death continue to rise, the spread isn't being enacted by those who are symptomatic but those who have it and have no idea, the is also the reason to now wear masks in public, to stop infecting people as you don't know you are a carrier.

How pissed would you be if your husband got it and died and he got it from a non symptomatic carrier rather than from a high risk person. We need to learn from this not kill others all the while not knowing if we are carriers.

 

[Gaeta]

3 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

The social and economic risks of this crisis are much greater than the medical risks.  Poverty and isolation kill.  

Your error is to think this is only hitting old people. Half of our infected people here are between age 40 to 49. Those are people that have financial stability and make the economy go around. With doing nothing you'd have millions of death maybe not in the streets but people would die in their home in excruciating pain, this virus hits the lungs and you slowly die suffocating unable to breath. Don't you have a bit of empathy for humann suffering? 

This is not the first time the economy plunges and people & countries survive and rebuild themselves. 

[elaine567]

6 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

There's no treatment, there's no cure. 

True nothing kills the virus but there are plenty to treatments available to support people through the illness and get them safely out the other side.

[Gaeta]

4 minutes ago, Art_Critic said:

How pissed would you be if your husband got it and died and he got it from a non symptomatic carrier rather than from a high risk person

There is this one lady who didn't know she carried it, went to visit her old mom in a retirement home, it ended up killing 22 people there. 

[major_merrick]

13 minutes ago, Art_Critic said:

From some of the sources I read this can be true depending on your perspective and how much you value human life.

If nothing was done the peak would be hugely higher meaning more deaths but we would also be over it faster, with social distancing we are lowering the death rate by huge amounts and lowering the peaks but extending how long it will take for the cycle to finish, we also will be at risk of a new spike after it is over.

All considering we live in a world where human life is valued more than human goods/services/economy.. in the end valuing  life and the lives of our fellow man wins..

The problem is, you and many others are assuming that this is an either/or kind of choice.  It isn't!

Kill the economy, people will still die.  Poverty and isolation are killers.  So we're lowering the deaths from the virus only to increase death by many other causes.  We're also failing to take into account the fact that the virus is taking out mostly the weakest among us - those who will die earlier than the rest anyways.  That isn't a nice thought, but those folks should be the ones who self-isolate if they want to improve their chances.  Meanwhile, everybody suffers by following our government instructions.  I see the whole response to the virus as extremely poor logic.  Human life is not separate from goods/services/economy, as those are the things that make human life on this scale possible in the first place.   

In short, more deaths sooner means fewer deaths later.  Or fewer deaths now means more deaths later, and with widespread social and fiscal havoc.  This is a no-win scenario. 

[NuevoYorko]

1 hour ago, major_merrick said:

I agree with Sweden's take on the virus.  Those who are going to die WILL.  It is just a question of time, and dragging this thing out will probably cause more deaths overall than just going on as normal and getting it over with. 

I have not formed an opinion on Sweden yet, but "those who are going to die WILL" is false, except insofar as we are all going to die one way or another.  

Death rates are projected to be far lower in areas where the medical system is not overtaxed and people are able to get appropriate medical treatment, including those who are considered "high risk."  Highest death rates coincide with largest shortages of beds / ventilators  etc.  

It's already been demonstrated that observing social distancing is significant in reducing the mountain of cases that ultimately will clot the medical system, which is what happened in Italy,  other European countries and NYC.  

The whole idea of how a bad economy is going to kill just as many people as this virus will is just a load, if you're talking about the US.  This is a country overflowing with goods and wealth.  Most countries in the Western world can weather a terrible economy.  In countries with less resources, especially if they have a dense population (hindrance to social distancing), there is going to be a much more lethal outcome.  

Until the time when there is a vaccine, very one will ultimately get it; some will be asymptomatic.   In the mean time, spreading the infection over a  large time span is very beneficial compared with everyone getting sick at once.  For anti-vaxers, of course, you are right - everyone is going to get it and those who are going to die, will.  But even they  have a better chance of survival if they are able  to get best quality medical care.

 

[littleblackheart]

nospam, the title of your thread notwithstanding (on account of it being insensitive), I kind of get what you're saying. It's not so much the death rate than the mind blowing advances in science in the last couple of decades. Maybe that's what you meant?

30 years ago, C19 would have been an even bigger disaster. It's enough to look at malaria death rate in rural sub-Saharan Africa (for which prevention and treatment are affordable to us, but not to them) to see how sheltered and privileged we actually are. Now thanks to fast comms and huge scientific progress, we are looking at the development of medication / antibodies in a few months' time. There are a lot of research teams across the globe who are racing to get a vaccine ready within 2 years, which is an amazingly short time-span. 

At this point, until the scientists work their magic, the only thing standing in the way of the virus is our collective social responsibility for what is, in relative terms, a short amount of time. It'll come at a great personal cost for many, but it's the price to pay to save as many lives as possible.

 

 

[major_merrick]

Well, I don't believe in scientific magic.  I think there'll be a high price to pay and probably some kind of push for medical tyranny.  The powers that be will use this to consolidate control, rather than working purely for our benefit.  I also don't believe in "collective social responsibility."  That's communist talk.  The personal cost that everybody is paying is unneeded and detrimental. 

[mark clemson]

45 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

In short, more deaths sooner means fewer deaths later.  Or fewer deaths now means more deaths later, and with widespread social and fiscal havoc.  This is a no-win scenario

I agree. There is no "right" answer really in a situation like this, only choices and consequences.

There are possible mistakes IMO, like not killing it thoroughly the first time around and having a second wave withe further consequences. But we are not anywhere near that yet and hopefully it won't happen.

[major_merrick]

And we're at greater risk for a second wave with this social distancing.  The only real way to kill this is for as many as possible to get it and develop a kind of immunity.  The way TPTB are conducting this now, we'll be dealing with this thing for the next two years.  I personally don't want to stay at home for two years, thanks.

[mark clemson]

Not sure if that's correct, but could be.

The only way to actually end transmission with 100% certainty is to end transmission fully, worldwide. In theory it would take 3 weeks. In actual practice it's of course logistically impossible.

And of course you know this stuff will be kept alive at germ warfare facilities. Even though they'll never use it, no one likes having a gap in their arsenal.

[littleblackheart]

28 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

Well, I don't believe in scientific magic.  I think there'll be a high price to pay and probably some kind of push for medical tyranny.  The powers that be will use this to consolidate control, rather than working purely for our benefit.  I also don't believe in "collective social responsibility."  That's communist talk.  The personal cost that everybody is paying is unneeded and detrimental. 

Are you actually serious? You think social responsibility is communism? Is 'collective' a trigger word for you, or something? I'm baffled, genuinely.

Everybody for themselves during a pandemic is the definition of a profound sense of self-centeredness, as far as I'm concerned. Do you think you're the only one paying a personal cost? 

[major_merrick]

"Collective" is always related to something free people shouldn't want.  There's a reason collective farms or anything else simply don't work.  It has always been everybody for themselves, and a capitalist society is designed around that kind of independence and personal responsibility.  Do what you want to do, do what you need to do, and take care of yourself.  It works, until government gets in the way.

[Gaeta]

1 minute ago, major_merrick said:

 Do what you want to do, do what you need to do, and take care of yourself.  It works

It works for whom? and for what? The perfect society to you sounds like a bad post 3rd world war movie with Kurt Russell.

[major_merrick]

Well, we used to have a society that worked like that.  And people had more money, less debt, and more freedom.  It worked for almost everybody except those in power.