• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Virus - Are You Affected?

It seems the ridiculous “social distancing” has gone out the window as people protest and riot. God forbid you sit down on the beach though.

Wait, you think these are the same people? :confused:

Most epidemiologists I know are incredibly worried about the effect these riots will have on the spread of COVID -19.

And many of the rioters are, surely, as angry as you about the shut down. People with money in the bank don't go looting their local Macy's when the rubber bullets start flying.

Get it into your head, most people won’t get the virus, of those that do, very, very few will show any sign of illness. If you are so worried, stay home and save lives.
 
It seems the ridiculous “social distancing” has gone out the window as people protest and riot. God forbid you sit down on the beach though.

Wait, you think these are the same people? :confused:

Most epidemiologists I know are incredibly worried about the effect these riots will have on the spread of COVID -19.

And many of the rioters are, surely, as angry as you about the shut down. People with money in the bank don't go looting their local Macy's when the rubber bullets start flying.

Get it into your head, most people won’t get the virus, of those that do, very, very few will show any sign of illness. If you are so worried, stay home and save lives.

So what's your problem? Go out and live your life.
 
It seems the ridiculous “social distancing” has gone out the window as people protest and riot. God forbid you sit down on the beach though.

Wait, you think these are the same people? :confused:

Most epidemiologists I know are incredibly worried about the effect these riots will have on the spread of COVID -19.

And many of the rioters are, surely, as angry as you about the shut down. People with money in the bank don't go looting their local Macy's when the rubber bullets start flying.

Get it into your head, most people won’t get the virus, of those that do, very, very few will show any sign of illness. If you are so worried, stay home and save lives.

You continue to repeat your unsupported claims, and you don't respond to data and arguments that people present to contradict your assertions. All you do is whine, whine, whine. Back up your assertions with data and citations, or shut up.
 
So a random IT guy out of Copenhagen is better qualified to comment on the Swedish economy than the top economists contracted by the EC to project the country's economic trajectory, because he "used to live there" and "has property there"? By the way, it doesn't even appear to be true that Sweden's economy has been growing slower before the crisis than Denmark, at least not up to 2018 inclusive: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2018&locations=SE-DK&start=2008

I'm not an economist, and if you want to make the argument that a lot of what we see under the heading of economic theory is pseudoscientific at best, I'm not going to debate you. But there's degrees of fishy pronouncements, and an IT guy who "used to live there" is still a bit fishier a source for unevidenced claims than the EC's experts.

Yeah, right.

Your assumptions did not come from the European economists. You just inserted that and asserted it as true. How about assuming less?

huh? I directly reacted to your claim that Sweden is getting away without crippling their economy, unlike its neighbours - and I reacted with links to the EC's projections on Denmark's and Sweden's economic trajectory, without extra commentary and without any assumptions inserted.

I'm Swedish. Io until three years ago I lived in Sweden. I live right on the Swedish border and spend a lot of time with Swedes

And you're a tech guy. Being Swedish doesn't qualify you to make valid projections of how the Swedish economy is going to cope over the next couple years.
 
You continue to repeat your unsupported claims, and you don't respond to data and arguments that people present to contradict your assertions. All you do is whine, whine, whine. Back up your assertions with data and citations, or shut up.
Clearly, you are confused about his argument.

Me, i'm not afraid of getting the virus. But i mask up and wash, and avoid crowds, under the assumption that I'm contagious, if so far asymptomatic. I want a clear conscience that i did everything i could to limit the number of needless deaths. So, my precautions are proportional to my generosity, or social burden.

Trausti's posts are all about fear. Taking precautions is inversely proportional to being manly. Numbers don't matter, so he doesn't have any to offer. Just sneers about how cowardly one must be to not want to be a plague monkey. That's the data. His balls. And you don't really want him citingnthem in the thread.
 
You continue to repeat your unsupported claims, and you don't respond to data and arguments that people present to contradict your assertions.

Male bovine excrement. I didn't make a claim. I stated a matter of fact which is self evident in the data.

The virus lockdown is almost over anyway but if you are afraid, stay home.
 
You continue to repeat your unsupported claims, and you don't respond to data and arguments that people present to contradict your assertions.

Male bovine excrement. I didn't make a claim.
Of course you did.
I stated a matter of fact which is self evident in the data.
You stated what you claim to be a fact. You provided no data. Why should anyone accept your claim?
The virus lockdown is almost over anyway
Another unevidenced claim.
but if you are afraid, stay home.

If you are unafraid, then you haven't been paying attention.

Self defence against a clear and present threat isn't a sign of insufficient machismo. And epidemics don't give a crap how much of an individual you want to pretend to be - they are a population phenomenon, not an individual one.

Your risk taking exposes others to risk, not just you. That's also why drink-driving is frowned upon.
 
Of course you did.
I stated a matter of fact which is self evident in the data.
You stated what you claim to be a fact. You provided no data. Why should anyone accept your claim?
The virus lockdown is almost over anyway
Another unevidenced claim.
but if you are afraid, stay home.

If you are unafraid, then you haven't been paying attention.

Self defence against a clear and present threat isn't a sign of insufficient machismo. And epidemics don't give a crap how much of an individual you want to pretend to be - they are a population phenomenon, not an individual one.

Your risk taking exposes others to risk, not just you. That's also why drink-driving is frowned upon.

Why are we paying attention to that spreader?
 
It seems the ridiculous “social distancing” has gone out the window as people protest and riot. God forbid you sit down on the beach though.

Look for a spike in cases in about a week and a half, with hospitalizations following... and a spike in deaths about a week or two after that.

Viruses don't give a fuck about civil liberties, unfortunately.
 
Get it into your head, most people won’t get the virus, of those that do, very, very few will show any sign of illness. If you are so worried, stay home and save lives.

I'm not inclined to take your wishful thinking as gospel.

The ONLY reason "most people" haven't got the virus is because we've taken steps to control and minimize the spread. It's highly contagious, and over time it will infect most people.

MOST people who get the virus DO show symptoms. Not all symptoms are dramatic... but 1 in 5 end up hospitalized!

For fuck's sake, it's one thing for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with your own health. It's another for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with other peoples' health. And it's another thing altogether when you're deciding that it's okay for you to put other people at risk based on false information and wishes.
 
I'm not inclined to take your wishful thinking as gospel.

It's not wishful thinking. It's facts.

The ONLY reason "most people" haven't got the virus is because we've taken steps to control and minimize the spread. It's highly contagious, and over time it will infect most people.

Not what we are seeing in the data.

MOST people who get the virus DO show symptoms.

Male bovine excrement.

Not all symptoms are dramatic... but 1 in 5 end up hospitalized!

More of the same.

For fuck's sake, it's one thing for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with your own health. It's another for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with other peoples' health. And it's another thing altogether when you're deciding that it's okay for you to put other people at risk based on false information and wishes.

There is no reason that the vast majority of people who face a negligible risk from this virus should stay home. You stay home if you are so worried.
 
It's not wishful thinking. It's facts.

Not what we are seeing in the data.

Can you please provide me with some links? This is something I've been tracking fairly judiciously for work. If you've got reliable current sources that suggest it's not nearly as bad as my industry and profession are currently assuming, it would be very helpful.
 
It's not wishful thinking. It's facts.



Not what we are seeing in the data.

MOST people who get the virus DO show symptoms.

Male bovine excrement.

Not all symptoms are dramatic... but 1 in 5 end up hospitalized!

More of the same.

For fuck's sake, it's one thing for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with your own health. It's another for you to decide that the risk to you is minimal, and thus you're willing to take chances with other peoples' health. And it's another thing altogether when you're deciding that it's okay for you to put other people at risk based on false information and wishes.

There is no reason that the vast majority of people who face a negligible risk from this virus should stay home. You stay home if you are so worried.

That's a bit like wanting to drive through a pedestrian zone at 40 mph without looking left or right - in your well- buffered car, you're unlikely to suffer severe consequences from a collision with a pedestrian, stroller, or wheelchair at that speed, and if they are worried about the possible consequences to them, they should stay out of your way.
 
Can you please provide me with some links? This is something I've been tracking fairly judiciously for work. If you've got reliable current sources that suggest it's not nearly as bad as my industry and profession are currently assuming, it would be very helpful.

If you have been tracking this as you say you are, then you will know that the vast, VAST majority of people who contract the virus show no symptoms or mild symptoms, those that do show symptoms that are more severe most will recover and the the ones that die are in the upper age bracket usually with other health issues. i.e. one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. In California, anywhere between 50% to 65% of the deaths (depending on city) have been in care homes. The lockdown did these poor souls no favors.

The curve has been flattened and the health services never came close to being overrun in most places.

Anyway, lockdown is almost lifted (such as it was) so it is a moo point.
 
Can you please provide me with some links? This is something I've been tracking fairly judiciously for work. If you've got reliable current sources that suggest it's not nearly as bad as my industry and profession are currently assuming, it would be very helpful.

If you have been tracking this as you say you are, then you will know that the vast, VAST majority of people who contract the virus show no symptoms or mild symptoms, those that do show symptoms that are more severe most will recover and the the ones that die are in the upper age bracket usually with other health issues. i.e. one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. In California, anywhere between 50% to 65% of the deaths (depending on city) have been in care homes. The lockdown did these poor souls no favors.

The curve has been flattened and the health services never came close to being overrun in most places.

Anyway, lockdown is almost lifted (such as it was) so it is a moo point.

That's a strange way to say "No, I've got nothing."
 
Can you please provide me with some links? This is something I've been tracking fairly judiciously for work. If you've got reliable current sources that suggest it's not nearly as bad as my industry and profession are currently assuming, it would be very helpful.

If you have been tracking this as you say you are, then you will know that the vast, VAST majority of people who contract the virus show no symptoms or mild symptoms, those that do show symptoms that are more severe most will recover and the the ones that die are in the upper age bracket usually with other health issues. i.e. one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. In California, anywhere between 50% to 65% of the deaths (depending on city) have been in care homes. The lockdown did these poor souls no favors.

I rather feel like you didn't read my post to you earlier in this thread... I've bolded a couple of key items where my research and monitoring disagree with yours:
And the reality is that this virus poses very little risk to most people.

What do you consider risk? Are you only considering death?

Yes, the mortality rate for COVID is moderate, and is highly correlated with age. Unfortunately, morbidity is a completely different animal. Here are some things that might be worth consideration:

People can be contagious, spreading the illness to others, for about a week and a half before they develop any noticeable symptoms. This has two major consequences. First, it means that an infected presymptomatic person can infect a lot of other people that they come into contact with because neither they nor anyone else realizes that they're infectious. Secondly, it means that the early reports of large volumes of people being asymptomatic were overstated, and that a lot of those people who tested positive and had no symptoms later developed symptoms.

About 20% of symptomatic cases end up admitted to the hospital. Of those admitted, about a third of them end up in ICU with extreme respiratory distress. Unlike the mortality rates, admission rate is a lot less correlated with age. It turns out that the rate of admission varies between about 15% for people between 20 and 45, and about 30% for people over age 65. That's a pretty significant amount of people, especially because symptomatic cases aren't correlated with age (with the exception of children under about 10 or so being very rare to have COVID).

Symptoms for COVID can last a long time. Seasonal flu usually lasts about a week with severe symptoms for only a couple of days. It's rare for flu cases to last closer to two weeks. COVID, on the other hand, frequently has severe symptoms lasting over a week, and lingering symptoms like fatigue and trouble breathing that last three weeks. For people who are admitted, it's not uncommon for them to be in the hospital for two weeks, ICU admissions are even longer.

There's growing evidence that COVID damages internal organs, especially lungs, in ways that can have long-term effects. It's fairly common to see lung scarring from pneumonia, and COVID does the same thing. Because of the particular way that COVID attacks lung tissue, there's concern that the long-term effects might be worse than for more common forms of pneumonia. There's also suggestions that COVID (or the immune response to it, cytokine storm) damages other internal organs that weren't directly involved in the illness.

One of the most worrisome things, to me, is that getting and surviving COVID may not make you immune. Most of the strains in the coronavirus family don't confer lasting immunity. The group that is included in the seasonal common cold tend to last for less than a year. I don't recall which is which, but SARS1 and MERS only confer immunity for 18 months and about 3 years IIRC. So even if you get sick, that doesn't mean that you're safe. It's far too early to tell, but it's a definite risk for this family of viruses.

Finally, I think it's important to note that it's not just personal risk that we're talking about. Honestly, I'm not overly concerned about getting COVID myself. It would suck, and it would be expensive, and I definitely don't want to get sick... but odds are that I would survive. But it's not just my health that I put at risk when I go out in the world - it's everyone else's health as well. Infectious diseases end up being a lot like drunk driving and cigarette smoking. The general public doesn't give a damn if you injure yourself if you drive while intoxicated; the public cares about the other people who could be hurt by your negligence. The general public doesn't really care if you get lung cancer from smoking; the public cares a lot if a non-smoker who's been exposed to your second-hand smoke get cancer because of it. It's the same thing with COVID. If all were were talking about was the personal risk to oneself, I think most people would say "go do whatever man, it's your life, your decision. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Unfortunately, that's not the situation. It's not like you're playing Russian Roulette all by yourself, with only one round in the chamber. It's more like you're playing Russian Roulette with two revolvers, both of which only have one empty chamber, and you're pointing them randomly around a room full of people while you pull the trigger repeatedly.
 
I rather feel like you didn't read my post to you earlier in this thread... I've bolded a couple of key items where my research and monitoring disagree with yours:
And the reality is that this virus poses very little risk to most people.

What do you consider risk? Are you only considering death?

Yes, the mortality rate for COVID is moderate, and is highly correlated with age. Unfortunately, morbidity is a completely different animal. Here are some things that might be worth consideration:

People can be contagious, spreading the illness to others, for about a week and a half before they develop any noticeable symptoms. This has two major consequences. First, it means that an infected presymptomatic person can infect a lot of other people that they come into contact with because neither they nor anyone else realizes that they're infectious. Secondly, it means that the early reports of large volumes of people being asymptomatic were overstated, and that a lot of those people who tested positive and had no symptoms later developed symptoms.

About 20% of symptomatic cases end up admitted to the hospital. Of those admitted, about a third of them end up in ICU with extreme respiratory distress. Unlike the mortality rates, admission rate is a lot less correlated with age. It turns out that the rate of admission varies between about 15% for people between 20 and 45, and about 30% for people over age 65. That's a pretty significant amount of people, especially because symptomatic cases aren't correlated with age (with the exception of children under about 10 or so being very rare to have COVID).

Symptoms for COVID can last a long time. Seasonal flu usually lasts about a week with severe symptoms for only a couple of days. It's rare for flu cases to last closer to two weeks. COVID, on the other hand, frequently has severe symptoms lasting over a week, and lingering symptoms like fatigue and trouble breathing that last three weeks. For people who are admitted, it's not uncommon for them to be in the hospital for two weeks, ICU admissions are even longer.

There's growing evidence that COVID damages internal organs, especially lungs, in ways that can have long-term effects. It's fairly common to see lung scarring from pneumonia, and COVID does the same thing. Because of the particular way that COVID attacks lung tissue, there's concern that the long-term effects might be worse than for more common forms of pneumonia. There's also suggestions that COVID (or the immune response to it, cytokine storm) damages other internal organs that weren't directly involved in the illness.

One of the most worrisome things, to me, is that getting and surviving COVID may not make you immune. Most of the strains in the coronavirus family don't confer lasting immunity. The group that is included in the seasonal common cold tend to last for less than a year. I don't recall which is which, but SARS1 and MERS only confer immunity for 18 months and about 3 years IIRC. So even if you get sick, that doesn't mean that you're safe. It's far too early to tell, but it's a definite risk for this family of viruses.

Finally, I think it's important to note that it's not just personal risk that we're talking about. Honestly, I'm not overly concerned about getting COVID myself. It would suck, and it would be expensive, and I definitely don't want to get sick... but odds are that I would survive. But it's not just my health that I put at risk when I go out in the world - it's everyone else's health as well. Infectious diseases end up being a lot like drunk driving and cigarette smoking. The general public doesn't give a damn if you injure yourself if you drive while intoxicated; the public cares about the other people who could be hurt by your negligence. The general public doesn't really care if you get lung cancer from smoking; the public cares a lot if a non-smoker who's been exposed to your second-hand smoke get cancer because of it. It's the same thing with COVID. If all were were talking about was the personal risk to oneself, I think most people would say "go do whatever man, it's your life, your decision. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Unfortunately, that's not the situation. It's not like you're playing Russian Roulette all by yourself, with only one round in the chamber. It's more like you're playing Russian Roulette with two revolvers, both of which only have one empty chamber, and you're pointing them randomly around a room full of people while you pull the trigger repeatedly.

Tswizzle has been making this assertion for many weeks, and has been asked to cite his sources many times, and explain the basis for his claim. He has not provided any citations or explanations, nor have I come across any credible online source that supports his position. But he keeps on repeating his claim, under the mistaken belief that repeating a falsehood over and over makes it true.
 
Can you please provide me with some links? This is something I've been tracking fairly judiciously for work. If you've got reliable current sources that suggest it's not nearly as bad as my industry and profession are currently assuming, it would be very helpful.

If you have been tracking this as you say you are, then you will know that the vast, VAST majority of people who contract the virus show no symptoms or mild symptoms, those that do show symptoms that are more severe most will recover and the the ones that die are in the upper age bracket usually with other health issues. i.e. one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. In California, anywhere between 50% to 65% of the deaths (depending on city) have been in care homes. The lockdown did these poor souls no favors.

The curve has been flattened and the health services never came close to being overrun in most places.

Anyway, lockdown is almost lifted (such as it was) so it is a moo point.

We have been tracking it by sources other than Kremlin-approved propaganda.

It looks like maybe 80% have no symptoms, which is why the harping about masks.

I agree the lockdown didn't save the care homes--but a lot of blame there lies with the GOP. It came in with the workers in most cases--which wouldn't have happened had they had proper PPE and been required to wear it--rather than what we saw sometimes of being required not to wear it.

However, you are wrong about the other deaths--while they are mostly in higher age brackets it's not people with one foot in the grave already. That's what flu does, not what Covid-19 does. You're also ignoring how many of the survivors are impaired--something AFIAK we still have no data on. (Which isn't that surprising as rarely do we have a baseline. All we can do is ask people how they are functioning compared to what they used to be like.)

I strongly suspect the GOP is going to succeed in their plan to sacrifice a million on the altar of the DOW--but it's not going to work.
 
I rather feel like you didn't read my post to you earlier in this thread... I've bolded a couple of key items where my research and monitoring disagree with yours:

It's all but impossible to comprehend blasphemy and your words are blasphemy to the faithful of the orange one.
 
Back
Top Bottom