Evidence over hysteria
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
I like it. In a nutshell it says the media is blowing it out of proportion with the way they report it. The numbers they use while accurate aren't the whole picture. It would probably imply the government actions while well intentioned may be over blown.
If you are a politician and it ends up actually being a significant problem then you can say we did our best and it made the situation better. If you are wrong All you did was blow up the world economy
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
You are right, the data is killing us before the virus does. Unfortunately the data in that link is wrong. The reality is this unfortunately...now I just hope we deal better that Italy with this virus.
What is 25% of today's population? Don't feel invincible people, this is worst than you can imagine....and actually the politicians are downplaying the gravity of the situation.
Stay home and invest 1k( or more) in any stock when dow jones is 15k. You will make 4x in 1 year....spanish flu below.
Would you take a chance to keep the economy going normal if the people you are governing have a 1% chance to die? Who cares about economy when death is in your back yard.....I don't give a f about economy, have just essentials going and thats it.
What is 25% of today's population? Don't feel invincible people, this is worst than you can imagine....and actually the politicians are downplaying the gravity of the situation.
Stay home and invest 1k( or more) in any stock when dow jones is 15k. You will make 4x in 1 year....spanish flu below.
Attachments
Joined
·
13,249 Posts
Anyone know who this guy is or what his credentials are?
Joined
·
13,249 Posts
That's what Abe Lincoln said.
Joined
·
762 Posts
Lol
It looks like the guy is a very conservative person who also wrote for Breitbart at some point. So yea the numbers are probably skewed, but no more than some the media are putting out just in the opposite direction.
Most of the politicians should be concerned about it most of them fall into the high risk categories. Should they be concerned that 1% of constituents can die sure. At the same time it's the age groups where they are occurring. Here is a chart 65-70 is 1.8% and it gets bigger by age
![16CC13A7-A1D3-48DC-A9A4-45BD0EC1E345.png]()
[/QUOTE]
Most of the politicians should be concerned about it most of them fall into the high risk categories. Should they be concerned that 1% of constituents can die sure. At the same time it's the age groups where they are occurring. Here is a chart 65-70 is 1.8% and it gets bigger by age
Anyone familiar with Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect? It goes as follows. If you read an article in a newspaper on a subject you know well and recognize the article to be completely wrong, why do you turn the page and accept as true everything else in the paper? This is Gell-Mann Amnesia.
A similar thing is occurring right now. We know our elected officials have a history of being greedy corrupt fools generally acting in their own interest not ours, who have spent us into massive debt, and government employees that face no loss of their jobs if they make mistakes or act illegally. Why do we think their decisions regarding this "crisis" are different?
They are attempting to find a optimal short-term solution to a problem, but are likely ignoring the better long-term outcomes. If the seasonal flu kills 50,000 a year and we believe this novel coronavirus is twice as deadly, shouldn't we be willing to accept 100,000? 6 times more deadly or 300,000?
They seem to be operating on the false premise that any loss of life is unacceptable, or that if it saves just one life we should pay any price. I want them to publish their expected number of infected, hospitalizations, critical patients, and deaths with their approach versus with no stay at home order. They claim to have looked at data and models, but they should show their work. That's the only way to evaluate them.
How many lives will be lost from a destroyed economy? Not theirs. They're just asking us to trust them.
They haven't earned that right.
A similar thing is occurring right now. We know our elected officials have a history of being greedy corrupt fools generally acting in their own interest not ours, who have spent us into massive debt, and government employees that face no loss of their jobs if they make mistakes or act illegally. Why do we think their decisions regarding this "crisis" are different?
They are attempting to find a optimal short-term solution to a problem, but are likely ignoring the better long-term outcomes. If the seasonal flu kills 50,000 a year and we believe this novel coronavirus is twice as deadly, shouldn't we be willing to accept 100,000? 6 times more deadly or 300,000?
They seem to be operating on the false premise that any loss of life is unacceptable, or that if it saves just one life we should pay any price. I want them to publish their expected number of infected, hospitalizations, critical patients, and deaths with their approach versus with no stay at home order. They claim to have looked at data and models, but they should show their work. That's the only way to evaluate them.
How many lives will be lost from a destroyed economy? Not theirs. They're just asking us to trust them.
They haven't earned that right.
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
An opinion and I respect that but I don't agree at all with it. One is to have hundreds of thousand infected and thousands deaths and one is to have millions infected and hundreds of thousands deaths. Honestly are people like tractors this days......money, money, money and money again!!!!! People, you need to chill a bit.....one month is not going to kill you. Sooner or later this closings would've happen.....guaranteed.
The sooner you act the faster we all go thru this, why is that hard to figure this one?!?!
Stop watching the news you will feel better
Actually the actions aren't going to reduce the number of cases. Most have said that it is about spreading out the time for them to occur to save hospital beds. It really comes down to wether the overall numbers in the rest of the world are somewhat accurate which given the sample size it probably is. In which case the numbers thrown out by politicians are probably wrong. They might be right as America seems to be one of the unhealthist countries in the world. I have relatives with friend in their upper 70's and 80's that are severely overweight and have diabetes. When they pass away everyone blames it on Vietnam and agent orange. Maybe that had some effect but sitting on the couch and being obese ain't helping the situation. It's the same with the flu coronavirus or anything that comes around. If you are close it doesn't take much
I done today and it sucked. Still better than watching the news. I should start golfing again. Or learn to fish. I could go to a bars and watch march madness but it's cancelled and they are closed
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
They are transparent, in Italy 675 people died today because of this virus.....the rest is only speculation , if, could, would, should......675 people died of this today in Italy, reality, transparent and scary. Who knows how many would die tomorrow.....
I never do what other people tell me to do....and politicians are the last to tell me what to do. That being said, today I started my second week in quarantine, one week before the politicians( Illinois) said so. As a parent of two I'm not playing with my life or my kids life. And don't tell me that kids are not at risk of this sheat because that is what politicians are saying too. It is all about instincts here....I can live without 5k, 10k or even 20k.
Italy still comes down to demographics. This story is a few days old but the attached part is very important. FWIW in the us the annual death rate at a similar age is 14 to15% should people take precautions with things like this yes thing need to be put in perspective so don't visit elderly people
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the cases in the US are skewing away from the older people and most are occurring in the under 55 category.
Actually, the cases in the US are skewing away from the older people and most are occurring in the under 55 category.
[/QUOTE]
I guess that's a good sign, in theory, as younger people should be in relatively better health so at lower risk
some of it could also be attributed to increased testing ( not huge amounts) Purely a guess but the first people being test were the highest at risk and now more people are getting tested. The number of cases of of
NBA players alone is probably enough to make he skew start going lower.
[/QUOTE]
I guess that's a good sign, in theory, as younger people should be in relatively better health so at lower risk
some of it could also be attributed to increased testing ( not huge amounts) Purely a guess but the first people being test were the highest at risk and now more people are getting tested. The number of cases of of
NBA players alone is probably enough to make he skew start going lower.
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
Then answer the question of, how you got that info? Don't let the members even have that nonsense of a optical illusions either.
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
