Coronavirus - COVID19

[Ax]

All the numbers in this thing are yet to be final.
None can be trusted, yet. If ever.

But all reported data is being steered towards one end.
These invasive measures taken, worldwide, MUST be justified. At any cost.

 

[Boone]

You just used detailed stats to suggest Sweden is doing well despite very few restrictions.

I guess stats are only meaningful when they support your suppositions?

 

[Chris]

One of the common denominators in any country with high death numbers has been the presence of large urban centers. Stockholm is literally the ONLY Swedish city with even a million residents. 616 or their 1003 deaths in Sweden have occurred in Stockholm.

So - coronavirus has been far more devastating in urban environments. And Sweden is relatively low in terms of COVID-19 deaths because it has only 1 large city. That's why pointing to a country like Sweden and saying - see, not imposing restrictions doesn't result in a catastrophe may be connecting the wrong dots.

The greater Stockholm metropolitan region has 2.35m inhabitants that account for 23% of the countries population.

The greater Helsinki metropolitan region has 1.5m and 27% respectively.

Sweden’s deaths per million (with very limited interventions) is more than 8x their eastern neighbor.

 

[Boone]

Just to expand a little here...

No one can know what impact restrictions such as travel bans, social distancing, closing of 'non-essential' businesses has had on the spread of COVID-19 and related deaths. We will likely never know - because there is no way to accurately predict what would've occurred without them. It's easy to opine that they have all been a monumental overreaction or waste of time because there is no way to disprove that.

However - I'd consider this. When looking at the difference between urban and rural parts of individual countries and in the world in general, there is an undeniable and stark contrast in what has transpired. Areas in which humans are in very close proximity to one another and where travel to/from is very active, have been ravaged by COVID-19. Areas where humans are far more geographically separated, and where travel to/from areas is far more limited, have largely been spared.

If that isn't compelling evidence that both travel restrictions and social distancing have been critical in reducing COVID-19 deaths, I don't know what is?

 

[Neophyte]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Context is everything. Without it, there is no objective way to view the data.

 

[Ax]

You just used detailed stats to suggest Sweden is doing well despite very few restrictions.

I guess stats are only meaningful when they support your suppositions?

Sweden got a mention. They also got a "this may change, of course". But let's just ignore that.
The main point was how much better the U.S is doing in terms of DPM.

But the media driven hysteria, from the beginning, continues still. Like the big headline of the US passing Italy in terms of cases.
Big fucking deal. DPM isn't in the same zip code. But let's not do anything to make people think they don't need to still be wrapped in plastic, quivering in fear.
Most have already determined that all the measures worked. Even though the data isn't complete. Why is that?
It's because it cannot be allowed to be proven otherwise. And maybe it did/does. Who knows? But how do you trust people who have already determined the results, before they're even known?

Here's a stat I heard on the radio. So, don't shoot me if it's incorrect, or outdated, or simply offensive to the narrative.
90% of US deaths have occurred in 15 cities. And THIS, warrants shutting down the whole friggin country?

I ain't buying it.

 

[MikefromOH]

so, there have been 24.5K deaths from COVID in the US...and 10K of them are from one city? If so, that is REALLY bad news.

 

[Boone]

There are plenty of 'narratives'... not just the one you have a problem with

To piggyback on Mike's post... it's very easy to look at infection/death rates in non-urban areas and proclaim that all that has been done is completely unnecessary. But we have no idea what doing nothing in areas less affected would have on overall infection and death rates. Let's assume COVID-19 is largely a huge threat in cities. Diseases and their transmission aren't static. They travel - just like people do. What if every American city had the infection rates of a New York City? Do you not think allowing suburban and even rural citizens to go about life as if there were no threats might radically increase exposure to cities?

This is an incredibly complex challenge. There are no perfect approaches or answers. And the people having to make these decisions have to worry every single second about making the wrong call. I don't envy them. I think they are making the best decisions they can under incredibly stressful conditions.

 

[Ax]

True. Just as there are plenty of things that support all narratives...not just the one you believe in.

 

[MikefromOH]

I didn't mind them shutting it down to try and getting a handle on things

but, now...people are ticketed for sitting in their cars in a parking lot to listen to a sermon. people in Michigan can't go to their cabins up north...but, I can go in to Michigan to my cabin. PA shut down liquor sales. Things like that really make me question what they are really doing.

 

[Boone]

I didn't mind them shutting it down to try and getting a handle on things

but, now...people are ticketed for sitting in their cars in a parking lot to listen to a sermon. people in Michigan can't go to their cabins up north...but, I can go in to Michigan to my cabin. PA shut down liquor sales. Things like that really make me question what they are really doing.

Contrary to some other 'narratives' being pushed, you know, that we're all being oppressed for reasons that have nothing to do with saving lives.... MOST of the decisions regarding what people can and can't do are being made, not by the Federal Government, or on some mass scale, but at the county and state level. The positive side of decentralizing a lot of the decision-making is that leaders are free to make most decisions based on what they think is right for their locality and constituents. The downside is that some of the folks making decisions are dipshits, or are leaders who are most concerned about blowback should they go with less restrictive approaches that blow up in their faces later. I think if you were to look at the sum total of decisions being made across the US, the vast majority are a blend of restriction vs. allowing some freedom. In most areas, masks are recommended, not mandated for example. 'Essential businesses' have been defined very liberally in most areas. Folks are generally not being ticketed, harassed, or punished, even when they may be pushing the limits of restrictions. The National Guard is not preventing travel or rounding violators up. The instances of overreach, ridiculous overkill, or overly aggressive enforcement that make the news, get headlines, or spark 'outrage' on social media are exceptions, not the rule, imho.

 

[MikefromOH]

Dr. Acton and Governor DeWine said in the beginning "we are looking at 10K cases reported per day" "We are looking for up to 1K deaths per day" and we have not hit anywhere near that. Now they say "we are looking at wearing masks for the next year". I can't afford to buy a new mask for 4 people nor do I want to do that.

The instances I stated were all from different states. The numbers and news being reported are dishonest to put it nicely.

I may be pushing a narrative, but I have also been very vocal in support when it first started. I just know the government will always try to limit your rights and keep you from doing what you are supposed to be able to do WITHOUT permission.

If you don't want this type of talk, I can stop. Not trying to get in to anything rude here. I just know that the more I see things going on, and the more my liberties are being restricted the more I am starting to question it.

 

[Boone]

I didn't say anything about YOU pushing a narrative Mike. Everyone has their opinions and that's perfectly fine.

I have heard leaders all along (most notably Fauci and Birks) discuss that all they have are statistical models to go by - that even the slightest change in any factor (such as how infections COVID-19 actually is) could result in exponential changes in predicted outcomes. I don't think a lot of folks appreciate that these models are better than 'guesswork', but they are not radically better. At best, they are educated guesses based on data that is not entirely reliable and constantly morphing. They have also said all along that if/when numbers are far below dire prognostications, that's evidence of success and the wisdom of the decisions made, not that they were unnecessary. Of course, that's a convenient belief as many would point out. But the only way we'd know would've been to not implement radical restrictions - and we all know that gambling with large #'s of American lives was never an option.

I think there's a big difference between 'dishonest' information and 'imperfect' information (unless perhaps we're talking about China who we know is trying to mitigate blame by withholding or outright lying about data).

I'm a Libertarian. On the other hand, when it comes to a globally infectious disease, I have to recognize that my desire for max personal freedom could well put others at risk. As with almost every 'controversy', it is not an 'either/or' issue. I have absolute faith that Americans will not accept onerous restrictions on their personal liberty for any extended period. This not a typical challenge. We shouldn't expect a typical response. Just my opinion and I'm not judging anyone else for theirs or trying to squelch dissent from what I believe.

 

[MikefromOH]

oh, Im pushing a narrative and I know it now. No paranoia or anything like that LOL I am very self aware of what I am saying. I just want to make sure I am being respectful as well..

It just feels dishonest to me that we went from 10K cases reported per day to....350. Seems a bit on the dramatic side. I know I will use dramatics to help stop situations or cause panic.

I'm a Libertarian. On the other hand, when it comes to a globally infectious disease, I have to recognize that my desire for max personal freedom could well put others at risk.

and that quote right there is where my conflict lies. I dont want to get my family sick, die, or anything like that. I just see things like "ticketing people sitting in cars in a parking lot" and go..."wait a minute!"

also, China needs to pay for this. Currency, debt reduction, whatever. They need to pay.

 

[Boone]

Well - 'narrative' is a loaded word - whether I use it, you use it, etc...

One man's devout, sincere belief system is another's 'narrative'

I have no doubt China will pay. They're in line behind Mexico and that wall-building invoice.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

The thing about the stats is that they can be used to explain any opinion you want. That's true of sports stats as well, but in this case we are talking about COVID-19. I've seen people use these same stats to argue for stricter isolation and for less isolation. It's a strange place we are in right now. I think the stats are important to see the true impact of the virus as well as to keep things in perspective. Me personally, I think some of what has been done is overkill, but at the same time I don't know what else could be done. Boone is 100% right that the virus has spread much faster in urban areas where this is much denser population, so there has been value in avoiding large groups to keep people from spreading the virus faster. Time will tell if what was done was enough, too much, or just right.

 

[JPPT1974]

There is talk of having the virus cure be found in 2022. Per CNN but really having people being quarantine, lose their jobs and livelihood, really come on?!

 

[Boone]

My co-worker’s COVID-19 test came back negative. Very glad she dodged that bullet.

 

[MikefromOH]

The thing about the stats is that they can be used to explain any opinion you want. That's true of sports stats as well, but in this case we are talking about COVID-19. I've seen people use these same stats to argue for stricter isolation and for less isolation. It's a strange place we are in right now. I think the stats are important to see the true impact of the virus as well as to keep things in perspective. Me personally, I think some of what has been done is overkill, but at the same time I don't know what else could be done. Boone is 100% right that the virus has spread much faster in urban areas where this is much denser population, so there has been value in avoiding large groups to keep people from spreading the virus faster. Time will tell if what was done was enough, too much, or just right.

Ohio had 500 added to their death toll in one night and NY 2000 because "adjusting numbers". What I take that as is if someone died of ANY cause and tests positive for COVID..it is now a COVID related death. that is dishonest at best.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Ohio had 500 added to their death toll in one night and NY 2000 because "adjusting numbers". What I take that as is if someone died of ANY cause and tests positive for COVID..it is now a COVID related death. that is dishonest at best.

I’ve heard that was going on. That stuff bothers me because it’s not just interpreting the data for your own purposes, it’s manipulating data. Are these states getting extra funding based on the number of deaths from the virus? Why else would they be classifying deaths not related to the virus as part of the virus?