Calm the F**K Down! - What is wrong with everyone?

and again, the issue is that if this thing kills people of all ages equally, then we'll have hundreds of millions more deaths.

That seems not to matter to you two, for some reason.

Care to explain?

agip wrote:

the world's gone mad wrote:

Amazing that you post faster than you think.

Keep backtracking until you get to the sane rationale. Or stop posting till you have actually thought through what you want to say in a responsible way.

I want you to say that it would be better news if this thing killed young healthy people.

Say that if you believe it.

If you can't say it then we are agreeing.

What are you going on about? Are you drunk? Post responsibly and coherently or go back to bed.

the world's gone mad wrote:

agip wrote:

I want you to say that it would be better news if this thing killed young healthy people.

Say that if you believe it.

If you can't say it then we are agreeing.

What are you going on about? Are you drunk? Post responsibly and coherently or go back to bed.

I'm arguing with at least 3 people at once...apologies if I have conflated you with someone else.

agip wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Amazing that you think it's better that some people die rather than others. We clearly have much less use for the old and the sick. The Nazis used to think the same way, about expendability.

same to you:

I want you to say that it would be better news if this thing killed young healthy people.

Say that if you believe it.

If you can't say it then we are agreeing.

Of course you want me to say what you want me to say - you need to be right. But your failure to see how trumpeting death rates - for any group - is misplaced and even ghoulish shows how you fail to grasp the human dimensions of this crisis. Your careless choice of language shows this. Utterly insensitive. As Governor Cuomo says - "language matters". Your passion is for your figures, and your vanity in posing as the voice for "reason" and "truth".

agip wrote:

the world's gone mad wrote:

What are you going on about? Are you drunk? Post responsibly and coherently or go back to bed.

I'm arguing with at least 3 people at once...apologies if I have conflated you with someone else.

You "conflate" people? You mean, like figures? Perhaps you might be conflated with being a jerk.

Armstronglivs wrote:

agip wrote:

same to you:

I want you to say that it would be better news if this thing killed young healthy people.

Say that if you believe it.

If you can't say it then we are agreeing.

Of course you want me to say what you want me to say - you need to be right. But your failure to see how trumpeting death rates - for any group - is misplaced and even ghoulish shows how you fail to grasp the human dimensions of this crisis. Your careless choice of language shows this. Utterly insensitive. As Governor Cuomo says - "language matters". Your passion is for your figures, and your vanity in posing as the voice for "reason" and "truth".

ok so you don't care about facts as much as you want to appear to be empathetic.

Gotcha.

Please ignore my posts. They are fact based so you aren't interested.

Clearly there should be room for both empathetic post and number posts.

Again, that this disease kills the old and sick rather than the general population means hundreds of millions fewer will die.

more good news:

But by armstrongdude's theory, since people died we should never say this is good news?

How do I have him wrong on this?

NYT

A new study reports that people who became sick with Covid-19 in Wuhan, the Chinese city where the outbreak began, had a lower death rate than previously thought.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Nature Medicine, calculated that people with coronavirus symptoms in Wuhan had a 1.4 percent likelihood of dying. Some previous estimates have ranged from 2 percent to 3.4 percent.

and

Also, on Thursday, China reported no new local infections for the previous day for the first time since the coronavirus crisis began, a milestone in its costly battle with the outbreak that has since spread around the world.

The stupidity of your views is revealed in your last statement. A disease can kill without differentiation in the general population and still not be as devastating as this disease is proving to be.

You use "facts" - if statistics are properly described as such - to reinforce your prejudices. This is what all ideologues, propagandists and spin-merchants do. Your consistent method is to diminish the seriousness of the pandemic - allying yourself, by implication, with those who call it a "fiasco". Your choice of language shows your complete insensitivity to its human dimensions - the suffering and stress it is causing and will continue to cause, while you pose as some kind of expert. You are an ignorant noise who adds nothing valuable or insightful to our understanding of this crisis.

Armstronglivs wrote:

agip wrote:

Iran had a goodish day - their numbers of daily new deaths have been around the same for 3-4 days now. And their daily new cases have been around the same for 7 days.

I think they report data once per day and don't adjust it as the day goes, so that number is probably final.

The hope is that the disease burns its way through the old and weak and then stalls. This data point does not contradict that. Doesn't prove it, of course.

I'm watching closely the combined daily deaths in Iran, Italy and Spain. They seem to be slowing, which. if continued, would suggest the curve in China, Japan and SK is replicable in Europe and North America.

Well, you might hope that - unless you are old and weak or someone you know is. Spoken like someone who sees numbers, not people.

I’ve seen loads of old people today, here in the UK, out and about without a card in the world. Groups clogging up the pavements as usual having a chat. Saw an old guy sneeze and some of the snot land on his jacket. His pals laughed away.

Old folk sitting together on the bus. Old folk in the pub having a pint together.

Taking absolutely no personal responsibility. Not taking any government advice.

Meanwhile the economy is being ruined.

The army should be out getting these folk off the streets.

Reality and Truth wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well, you might hope that - unless you are old and weak or someone you know is. Spoken like someone who sees numbers, not people.

I’ve seen loads of old people today, here in the UK, out and about without a card in the world. Groups clogging up the pavements as usual having a chat. Saw an old guy sneeze and some of the snot land on his jacket. His pals laughed away.

Old folk sitting together on the bus. Old folk in the pub having a pint together.

Taking absolutely no personal responsibility. Not taking any government advice.

Meanwhile the economy is being ruined.

The army should be out getting these folk off the streets.

You can't have it both ways...the economy will be more ruined if people aren't doing those things. There's a trade off.

The main thing, is to quarantine off the vulnerable completely. Just because you are 70, doesn't mean you are vulnerable, you are more likely to be vulnerable if you are 70, but that doesn't mean anything at all in that specific case of that person. They may be completely healthy.

Be careful of statistics.

The majority of these fuckers didn’t look completely healthy.

Some had very visible underlying health conditions

The army needs to round them up!

Yes! One of the biggest problems here is that the media is in lock-step on this with Fox News in full agreement with the left. The politicians are apparently in full agreement - except that they are trying to outdo each other in eliminating civil liberties and promising non-existent dollars. Unfortunately, they'll be printing those dollars full steam - but with no production in the economy the dollars will be bidding up prices for declining product inventories.

10% of jobs are(were) in the entertainment/food service industry and 5% are(were) in transportation. We'll surpass 20% unemployment with ease very soon.

@Agip

.it's good that these deaths seem to fall massively upon the old and sick rather than the general population.

The hope is that the disease burns its way through the old and weak and then stalls.

From the mouth of someone who cares about "facts". One of his "facts" - you could be forgiven for thinking it was merely an opinion - is that it is clearly better that the old and the sick and the weak die, than the young and the strong. He says it's "good" and that is "the hope". (Whose? His?) Some lives are apparently expendable in the frontline against disease. By his values.

It isn't saying that it is good that death rates are low - because that would be untrue - or that the alternative is that the young will die. (That also is untrue, as diseases can strike at all parts of the population.) No one who understands the disease and cares about its consequences makes those kinds of value judgments.

agip wrote:

and again, the issue is that if this thing kills people of all ages equally, then we'll have hundreds of millions more deaths.

That seems not to matter to you two, for some reason.

Care to explain?

Young folks ain't scared enuff so the fear mongering gets ramped up

FFS.

The reason, again, that it is better that the disease is fatal to mostly one segment of the population is that THAT IS ONE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AND NOT THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

You completely refuse to deal with this. I would rather have fewer deaths. Therefore I am glad this thing only kills (for the most part) just one segment of the population.

What is wrong with you? How is this not simple to understand?

Some people want very much for this to be a disease that effects everyone. They want to show young people being hospitalized and point out high death rates in Italy, one country where 24% of people smoke, the average age of death is higher than the life expectancy in the US, and they may be lumping in all respiratory deaths in untested individuals with covid19 deaths. They want to feel that them staying at home, avoiding groups, not going to work is justified.

Others see a new great depression coming on and believe that could cause more deaths and worse situations than covid-19 ever will.

I don't know who is right, but there is no need for the personal attacks I'm seeing on this board from both camps. One thing is for sure, we need a real plan for when this happens again - one developed by epidemiologists, economists, civic leaders that takes into account more than just "stop the virus from spreading" so when a worse disease occurs, we can really beat it.

ECMO wrote:

Also, it’s not just about mortality. Even if these young patients recover, they’ll develop fibrosis and have reduced pulmonary reserve for the rest of their lives. Influenza A is a terrible as well. I have witnessed many patients in their 50s (which I consider young) pass away from flu. However, I personally have never seen someone in their 20s and 30s pass away from flu like I am seeing with COVID.

The answer here is to say the f*** away from doctors and hospitals.

Yes, I completely agree. This is entirely a media pandemic, not a pandemic caused by a virus.

Kvothe wrote:

they may be lumping in all respiratory deaths in untested individuals with covid19 deaths.

Yes, that appears to be what they're doing everywhere.