Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

COVID-19 Check-in

1139140142144145159

Comments

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The only saving grace is that pretty much every country in the World is also destroying their citizens lives. Except for N Korea. Their people are still pretty much status quo.

  • SupraSupra Posts: 109 ✭✭✭ Junior

    The problem is that it's not that simple. 97.5% seems like a really good survival rate, but there are a ton of people in this country.

    To reach a point where the virus will start to go away on its own, best case scenario is 50% of the population needs to be infected. That would be 164,000,000 x .025 = 4.1 million deaths.

    Now hopefully the death rate is lower than 2.5% (I think most are pretty sure it is), but my point is that when you're making decisions for 330,000,000 people you can't just rely on common sense. That doesn't mean you have to shut everything down, but it does mean we need a plan.

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,306 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I was saying how you post things without understanding them. This is yet another example.

    1. If you take a moment to read this article, you would quickly realize how unreliable it is without having to do further research. The two major concerns are that he never actually cites his sources by providing either links to the primary source or titles and his numbers are weird. Not properly citing sources is a common tactic to try and appeal to an authority while also making it harder for people to check the primary information. He tried to claim that the shutdown would cost 971 billion lives. I don't think that needs further clarification.
    2. I did what he desperately didn't want readers to do and found the primary source he used to "calculate" his numbers. It became quickly apparent why he didn't want people to find it for two reasons. First, the authors of the paper were looking at a very specific subset of workers in a very specific region of the country during the recession of the 80's that caused mass layoffs. It was middle aged male workers in positions of seniority in Pennsylvania. "As we discuss more fully in the conclusion, the situation of an individual displaced worker differs qualitatively from that of the average worker during a recession. Briefly, for the average worker, short-term declines in economic activity may increase time available for healthy activities without significantly reducing lifetime resources. However, the high-tenure displaced workers we study suffer significant long-term earnings reductions without benefiting from an offsetting increase in leisure time." It's improper to apply the results of their study to the entire population during a recession because most people aren't male workers in positions of seniority. Second, the authors appear to be fairly liberal. They claim their results show that losing a high paying job mid career is tied to a large reduction in potential life time earnings which has negative effects on health. Those on the left have always claimed having less money leads to poorer health outcomes, so this result is not a surprise. I will quote two parts of the paper that are particularly interesting: "U.S. health care and labor market institutions differ substantially from those in Europe, where workers often have access to universal health insurance and where the earnings consequences of job loss typically are less severe than in the United States." and "Our results do not speak to the role of noneconomic factors such as stress, self-worth, and happiness. Yet they suggest that an important avenue for future research would be to examine whether the negative health consequences of mass layoffs can be prevented by providing assistance that stabilizes the level and variance of earnings." They are essentially advocating for better social programs to protect displaced workers from economic hardship that leads to adverse health affects.

    Here are links so people can go read the articles for themselves.

  • texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Yep.....and all these protesters and liberals......not suggesting anyone on Dawgnation.....love all you guys

    But those concerned about the wealthy having too much..... and want to share the wealth.....

    Keep people from going to work.... or going to games.... restaurants......bars...

    Then you'll see a huge redistribution of wealth....but it will be more to the wealthy....

    Wealthy can purchase foreclosed or under valued properties. Buy good businesses that are going under.... tons of opportunities for the super wealthy when people are unemployed.

    Put your head down, wear a mask, contribute to society, and stay home if you are sick.

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,306 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Interesting that you didn't quote the part directly under that.

    "But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

    A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

    Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

    Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive."

    You keep relying on those straw man arguments.

  • texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    That's my point.... there will be casualties....unavailable....but I think we all know it won't approach anywhere near 4.1 mill.

    For this economy to work for everyone.....everyone has to work....every paying job is essential.

    When 30% of industries aren't able to work.....eventually it will really hurt the other 70%.

    It sucks....but there will be loss of life. But it doesn't make sense to shut things down to save thousands.......when doing so destroys millions.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Doing nothing but go on as normal also will cause 30 times more deaths than the number quoted in 2 years let alone in 20 years.

  • texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    Are these the people who we should expect to self monitor and self isolate to protect others?

    Anyone going to the Georgia-Alabama game if fans are allowed?

  • Mia_Dade06Mia_Dade06 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I’m not saying they’re going to die I’m saying they’re in the hospital plain and simple. If there is football I think schools will go the Ohio State approach with the waiver, if they already haven’t done so silently not putting that info out there.

  • texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Don't know if masks really work or not.....but it's certainly easy to just err on the side of caution and wear one.

    Especially if it opens things up. Opens EVERYTHING up.

    If it's later proven that they were unnecessary....big deal....if it's later proven that they were very necessary......and many didn't wear them... ..even bigger deal.

    Those of us that believe we need to open things up......EVERYTHING......and fight through this.....

    Can we not give a little ground somewhere? Pick our battles. Fight closing stuff down.....but don't fight the masks.

    Wearing a mask won't jeopardize everyone's financial well being. Closing down will.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The article was based on deaths at the time of 81k and currently sits at 128k. Doing nothing likely means going back to at least April numbers of 60k per month or higher due to geographic spread and higher case base. By June 2021 deaths would likely be:

    128 + 12 x 60 x 1.5 (spread) = 1,208k

    By June 2022 the total would be increased by another 1,080 to 2,288.

    This does not include indirect deaths due to health resources being almost totally used on treating Covid.

    By the way the economy will not really improve to any large extent until the virus is controlled as business may reopen but customers don't come flooding back with deaths at 90k per month which is where it will be at "normality".

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    We can definitely get there without the numbers being thrown around. 60% of the US population is below the age of 45. The known CFR for that age group is not far from the flu. Current CFR for 40-49 year olds in Georgia is 99.22% 30-39 year olds is 99.65% 18-29 year olds is 99.92% 0-17 is 99.99999999%

    That's without using any CDC 10x case multipliers.

    Open up the World but tell Grandma to stay home until Easter , and the people with heart problems, diabetes, or other issues to be really vigilant.

This discussion has been closed.