Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Yahwehismywitness
Scholar
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:26 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #1

Post by Yahwehismywitness »

https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-the ... gets-sick/
Breaking: “Cured� Coronavirus Victims Becoming Sick With Virus Again! Watch Live
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... ve-updates

Americans "Should Prepare For Community Spread," CDC Warns As HHS' Azar Admits US Lacks Mask Stockpile: Live Updates

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavi ... xpert-says
Coronavirus fits criteria for 'Disease X,' WHO expert says

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #41

Post by otseng »

Moderator Action

Moved to General Chat. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

justme2
Apprentice
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 12:07 pm

you have the virus killer within you

Post #42

Post by justme2 »

People, people, listen up, humans will overcome the Coronavirus when our own antibodies develop an inhouse virus killer. Once humans develop this antibody it will be passed on to our children and from then on, this virus will reside in our history books, not our morning news outlets. In the meantime, many will carry on, some we will lose;.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., such is life.
:study:

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #43

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to post 1 by Yahwehismywitness]

Yes, it is spreading and but it is not lethal to the majority of the population. When you consider that last part of the statement then we can reasonably say that there's little to panic about. This is why I advocate quarantining only those who have high chance of severe infection or death from Covid19, and that group is only the elderly and the infirm. It is absolute madness to shut down the entire economy for a virus that is not lethal to the majority of the population.

But how did we get to this? I blame mostly the media hype. The media also does same thing for hurricanes and now people do not take hurricane warnings all that seriously.


[Replying to post 42 by justme2]

Finally, a voice of science and reason. Nowadays, it seems that it's mostly the media that is driving the response.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

In The Mean Time

Post #44

Post by William »

Image

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #45

Post by Purple Knight »

AgnosticBoy wrote:It is absolute madness to shut down the entire economy for a virus that is not lethal to the majority of the population.
Only because more people will die. I think it's madness to have such an economy in the first place.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #46

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Purple Knight wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:It is absolute madness to shut down the entire economy for a virus that is not lethal to the majority of the population.
Only because more people will die. I think it's madness to have such an economy in the first place.
I'm not sure if you're going by "fear" or facts. First, about 1% of those in the US with covid19 have died. Out of that 1% of covid19 deaths, less than 1% of the deaths occurred to those under the age of 50. In a study sample of 12,000 (all under age 49) infected, only 26 deaths. That's less than 1% of of that 12,000 sample.(source).

Sure, not quarantining the less vulnerable population would increase deaths but that number would be so low compared to quarantining them that it would be negligible. You'd only have a 1% difference at most since that is the percentage of deaths for the less vulnerable population (I'm arguing for the younger crowd) when not quarantined. Quarantining that same population would drop that to what? From 1% to .5% of the deaths? Is that worth shutting down the economy? I would think not.

If the goal was to avoid any new covid9 cases, then why don't we have that same thinking and action for the flu and cold viruses? We let those with colds and flu roam around, freely spreading their viruses to others. We certainly don't quarantine entire cities and states and shut down economies because of flu.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #47

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Just turned to CNN and they report 32,000 covid19 cases in the US. Only 410 deaths from those cases. Again, still about 1% death rate.

So far this season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recorded 36 million cases in the US, with 370,000 hospitalizations and 22,000 deaths.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news ... flu-season

22,000 deaths vs. 410 deaths. Despite the flu having many more cases and deaths, we don't shut down the economy for it.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #48

Post by Purple Knight »

AgnosticBoy wrote:I'm not sure if you're going by "fear" or facts.
I'm saying that the economy completely tanking will kill more people than coronavirus. I would think you'd agree.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #49

Post by AgnosticBoy »

What I find extreme:
- keeping businesses closed for an indefinite amount of time
- keeping schools closed for an indefinite amount of time
- keeping stay-at-home orders in place for an indefinite amount of time.
- quarantining the entire country

We need a more selective approach based on risk factors rather than having a blanket response that treats everyone the same without regard to LOW risks. For instance, the elderly should have their activities restricted since they are high risk but the young should not be as restricted. The young, or even ages 50s and under should be allowed to go out and conduct normal business while applying some health measures.

Some doctors will say that that the low risk group will then spread the Corona virus to the high risk group. But this won't happen if the elderly restrict themselves from the young who are sick. Secondly, the young will develop immunity and once fully recovered they won't be infecting anyone. They will likely not catch the virus the second time because of their immunity. In fact, globally there has been about 25,000 deaths due to Corona virus but what the media underreports is that there has been over 100,000 reported recoveries (source).

Here is more on immunity:
Do people who survive the infection become immune to the virus?

The answer is a qualified yes, with some significant unknowns. That’s important for several reasons.

People who are confirmed to be immune could venture from their homes and help shore up the work force until a vaccine becomes available, for example. In particular, health care workers who are known to be immune could continue to care for the severely ill.

Growing immunity in the community also is the way the epidemic ends: With fewer and fewer people to infect, the coronavirus will lose its toehold and even the most vulnerable citizens become more insulated from the threat.

Immunity may also bring an early treatment. Antibodies gathered from the bodies of those who have recovered may be used to aid those struggling with the illness caused by the coronavirus, called Covid-19.
Source: New York Times

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #50

Post by Purple Knight »

AgnosticBoy wrote: What I find extreme:
- keeping businesses closed for an indefinite amount of time
- keeping schools closed for an indefinite amount of time
- keeping stay-at-home orders in place for an indefinite amount of time.
- quarantining the entire country

We need a more selective approach based on risk factors rather than having a blanket response that treats everyone the same without regard to LOW risks. For instance, the elderly should have their activities restricted since they are high risk but the young should not be as restricted. The young, or even ages 50s and under should be allowed to go out and conduct normal business while applying some health measures.

Some doctors will say that that the low risk group will then spread the Corona virus to the high risk group. But this won't happen if the elderly restrict themselves from the young who are sick. Secondly, the young will develop immunity and once fully recovered they won't be infecting anyone. They will likely not catch the virus the second time because of their immunity. In fact, globally there has been about 25,000 deaths due to Corona virus but what the media underreports is that there has been over 100,000 reported recoveries (source).

Here is more on immunity:
Do people who survive the infection become immune to the virus?

The answer is a qualified yes, with some significant unknowns. That’s important for several reasons.

People who are confirmed to be immune could venture from their homes and help shore up the work force until a vaccine becomes available, for example. In particular, health care workers who are known to be immune could continue to care for the severely ill.

Growing immunity in the community also is the way the epidemic ends: With fewer and fewer people to infect, the coronavirus will lose its toehold and even the most vulnerable citizens become more insulated from the threat.

Immunity may also bring an early treatment. Antibodies gathered from the bodies of those who have recovered may be used to aid those struggling with the illness caused by the coronavirus, called Covid-19.
Source: New York Times
Look, I agree with all of that. I even think people who everyone thinks will spread the virus but aren't at high risk of dying from it should just be put in camps until they all get sick and all get better. (Voluntary, of course; could even do this in staggered groups so the economy doesn't go all Titanic from it, then give people who volunteered a special sticker so people know they can't get sick from that person, plus to businesses, everyone will want employees with the sticker.)

What I'm saying is that we're learning a lot about our economy from this plague: Specifically, that it's an inverted tower of dominoes, all standing on one or a few but getting bigger as the levels rise. Take out anything, and boom, collapse.

Having such an economy in the first place is pure madness. There are only such easy solutions because coronavirus isn't that deadly.

This is the economy that naturally develops in an artificial absence of threat, and it mimics the overspecialisation of an animal that likewise isn't being taxed in any way (from predators for example).

It's an express ticket to extinction.

Just the not-so-humble opinion of someone with a ludicrously high IQ.

Post Reply