[News] Coronavirus

A place to discuss the now-global coronavirus outbreak.

Yeah but I think the overall response is better and I only need a tiny excuse to think about moving. If I could just find a job I would be packing before the weekend

My company has 2 offices in Canada. The discussions have been more serious here.

Well, I work for state government with an advanced history degree and my wife is a counselor working for non-profit and our son is in third grade, which all goes to say that we aren't in a position to go anywhere, nor will another country exactly throw their arms open for our skill sets.

I don't begrudge anyone who would flee Dumb Gilead, but a mass exodus would make it harder for those of stuck behind enemy lines.

Canada may suck, but does it suck as bad as this?

I can't help but feel the US is doomed after seeing this anti-mask protest.

"Not on the backs of my kids are you gonna get more federal funding!"

"When George Floyd was saying 'I can't breathe', and then he died, and now we're wearing a mask and we say 'I can't breathe', but we're being forced to wear it anyway."

"I'll tell you another reason I hate masks: most child molesters love 'em."

gewy wrote:

Canada may suck, but does it suck as bad as this?

I can't help but feel the US is doomed after seeing this anti-mask protest.

"Not on the backs of my kids are you gonna get more federal funding!"

"When George Floyd was saying 'I can't breathe', and then he died, and now we're wearing a mask and we say 'I can't breathe', but we're being forced to wear it anyway."

"I'll tell you another reason I hate masks: most child molesters love 'em."

IMAGE(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/719/509/0ad.png)

Amoebic wrote:

I know people are probablt just joking, but please stop suggesting to move to Canada over this. Plenty of other good reasons, but not this. The government handled this well the first wave, but has been incredibly not great at the follow through regarding closure and responsibility since.

Most people up here seem to kind of just pretend it's not happening, for the most part and people making as though covid only happens in stores. Mask use unreliable and inconsistent. The MB premier is currently encouraging Canadians in other provinces to travel here for commerce. It's grossly irresponsible. Ontario is blowing up and we're getting anti mask proters being whole dumbasses in various cities. No social distancing in or around schools. I sincerely belive the color rating system (threat level yellow forever apparently) is installed to play down and dismiss the issue, not to actually inform.

Nova Scotia is doing great! (Don't move here either, though).

gewy wrote:

"I'll tell you another reason I hate masks: most child molesters love 'em."

I've been turning this over in my head for a few days, and I would really like to know if this was meant as just a general comment about child molesters liking masks for some reason or if this is meant to reference the Q conspiracy theory that Democrats are part of an international child sex trafficking conspiracy.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
gewy wrote:

"I'll tell you another reason I hate masks: most child molesters love 'em."

I've been turning this over in my head for a few days, and I would really like to know if this was meant as just a general comment about child molesters liking masks for some reason or if this is meant to reference the Q conspiracy theory that Democrats are part of an international child sex trafficking conspiracy.

¿Porque no los dos?

Tach wrote:

Nova Scotia is doing great! (Don't move here either, though).

Nova Scotia and Scotland are at the top of my list if I ever stumble onto a huge pile of money.

I saw that as a repost on Twitter, and the comment was like, "I thought this was an SNL skit, but it's not."
My coffee deprived brain only registered "SNL skit". Five seconds in I realized I was mistaken. It is just plain awful.

Also,Tach, I have good news and bad news.

Bad: Today, my wife brought up Nova Scotia as a place to retire.
Good: It is at least 10 years away.

I am thinking Wales...

Yep I'm just sitting here on my island in Souwest Nova Scotia hoping Corona continues to stay far away from me. Hopefully we don't get complacent here and allow it to get a foothold.

I am starting to see news coverage of a new drug treatment (Ab8) which is being said to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 in mice. They are saying it doesn't seem to interact with human cells at all so they are expecting it to be safe. I don't know if this will develop into something real, but I hope it doesn't turn into another hydroxychloroquine.

So the school district I work for caved to the pressure. After opening the year by splitting the student population to ensure distancing at school--half at home and half at school each day--3 weeks* later, we're going right back to a full schedule.** That's after the school I work at having no less than 3 staff on leave for COVID, one of which exposed me the same day they got tested (luckily didn't catch it--masks to the rescue), and enough students quarantining to spark school-wide emails on how to handle testing of those students from home. I took heart in the initial cautious approach, but as with the early lockdowns, I'm quickly disappointed by the lack of longterm commitment.

It's not so bad as the St. George video, but it's all Utah, and it's not all that different. Different county, same cloth of people.

*Three weeks that consisted of a total of 11 school days.

**Technically Fridays are remote days for all students, so not quite a full schedule, but there little benefit when you're cramming 30 elementary students and up to 38 secondary students into a classroom 4 days a week, regardless of day 5.

My brother (who is immuno-compromised, like me, and has been in lock down - also like me) was forwarded this link.

It seems wrong to me and goes against all the things I and (based upon most of this thread) you believe is happening.

So is it right? Or am I missing his argument's flaw.

I'd like to be able to provide a strong rebuttal to my brother but can't based upon this video.

As an aside, my bro lives in the UK. Hence the Euro-centric focus.

TL:DW.

What is it he’s trying to say that is wrong?

Jayhawker wrote:

TL:DW.

What is it he’s trying to say that is wrong?

That social distancing and other lock down protocols are not necessary.
That the CV-19 deaths can be attributed to a reduction in expected deaths from flu late 2019.
That the whole pandemic is global hysteria (basically).

That graph is deaths, not cases.

If I'm not missing my guess, the mortality rate for COVID has gone down as (a) the curve has successfully been flattened, so healthcare systems aren't overwhelmed, and (b) we've learned how to better treat cases of COVID with experience, so there's fewer deaths per case.

It entirely misses the non-death impacts.

Amoebic wrote:

The government handled this well the first wave, but has been incredibly not great at the follow through regarding closure and responsibility since.

I feel this is true for many, many countries (mine included).

Moggy wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

TL:DW.

What is it he’s trying to say that is wrong?

That social distancing and other lock down protocols are not necessary.
That the CV-19 deaths can be attributed to a reduction in expected deaths from flu late 2019.
That the whole pandemic is global hysteria (basically).

I have such a hard time with this because I find it hard to believe that world health leaders all over are just stupid. I know that is my bias so I try to be open but it is difficult.

Why does Ivor Cummins know so much that everyone else doesn't? His graphs seem logical and clear!

But no one else is saying the same thing so my alarm bells are ringing!

farley3k wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

TL:DW.

What is it he’s trying to say that is wrong?

That social distancing and other lock down protocols are not necessary.
That the CV-19 deaths can be attributed to a reduction in expected deaths from flu late 2019.
That the whole pandemic is global hysteria (basically).

I have such a hard time with this because I find it hard to believe that world health leaders all over are just stupid. I know that is my bias so I try to be open but it is difficult.

Why does Ivor Cummins know so much that everyone else doesn't? His graphs seem logical and clear!

But no one else is saying the same thing so my alarm bells are ringing!

Exactly! But if what he is saying is true, *why* is no one else is saying it? and if he's wrong, *why* is he wrong.

This video isn't going change my behavior, but I'm worried that without a good rebuttal my brother (and other family members) will put themselves at risk.

So I've come to the hivemind for help!

A quick look at that video would tell me that he's being very selective in the data he's using to support his thesis and not looking at the wider picture. But I'm working and don't have time to go through it in detail.

He's also making massive assumption about the death rate due to 'normal' flu because to be blunt, nobody has measured this any type of meaningful way. So that's a massive assumption he just doesn't have the data to back up.

So yeah, be skeptical

One angle you counter it is that it doesn't take math and charts and rigorous statistics analysis to defeat this virus. It just takes people wearing masks. (which we can't be bothered to do...) If we want to get analytical, I would love to see someone do the math where at what point of mask usage %, if we opened up everything aside from retirement villages, would the cases and deaths be less than what they are currently.

I'd wager it is not much more of a % based on a couple of things. That at 60% mask usage we would have an R < 1. And that I believe current estimates are around 50% mask usage in the states. The only wrinkle is an uneven distribution of mask usage in some states, cities and regions.

60% mask usage at a 60% effectiveness would reduce the R value below 1.

*I forget where I saw it, and it’s been ages since I did, so take it with a pile of salt.

Refuting arguments like that is difficult. It reminds me a lot of refuting arguments against climate change. It requires that you pick through a long, dry YouTube argument to spot logical fallacies and misused data that are layered on top of previous logical fallacies and misused data, all in an effort to demonstrate that a random biochemist who bills himself as "The Engineer Who Knows More Than Your Doctor" whose focus has been low-carb and keto dieting for weight loss has somehow discovered the actual truth of the pandemic against the overwhelming weight of evidence and informed professional opinion of epidemiologists, virologists, and other public health experts from around the world. He's previously been a big proponent of the Sweden Model and herd immunity, which empirically failed in the real world and whose engineers have expressed regret about it. There's absolutely no reason to trust this source, but debunking each of his claims is an exhausting and overwhelming exercise.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

herd immunity

Herd mentality! [/Trump]

GOD f*ckING DAMNIT just walked out of the house without a mask and had to go back for it.

Haven't watched the whole video, but...

1) Is he seriously claiming that 80% were already 'somewhat immune' to covid-19... sigh. I think I need a few sources for that.

2) He then makes a completely unfounded claim that lockdowns, masks and social distancing has very little effect, before moving on to what seems to be his main point

3) So... his argument is that people died from covid because they had unexpectedly survived flu in the previous months... That is a new/old take on "they were going to die anyway".
I mean, even if true that the previous flu season was weak, how the heck does that make subsequent deaths any more acceptable.
His own graphs at 9:20 doesn't seem to do a good job supporting his claim either. With weak 2016 flu season that somehow isn't followed by a spike the year after.
He then refers to a study that mentions 14 reasons why Sweden had higher death tolls. One of them is indeed his theory of "they were going to die anyway". But plenty of the other reasons in the paper basically is "Because Sweden failed" (11:19) (such as slow lock-down)

4) The claim that Sweden has basically no social distancing is simply not true. They were slow, and did less than similar countries. But they sure did a lot compared to doing nothing.

5) What he and others like him seem not to grasp is, even when we have rolled back the lock-down, much of the social distancing, the sanitizers, washing hands, sometimes using masks etc. is still in effect (by government decree or by peoples own choice). Which is what works. A complete lock-down is useful, but not really needed if people behave properly and are not idiots (sadly, lots of people are exactly that).

If he had merely gone with an argument of "lockdown is overkill", then I might have somewhat agreed (but not really, it was an important way, early on, to show people that this was serious. Now you can threaten people with locking things down again, if they fail at social distancing). Instead of trying to argue that covid was no problem and people were going to die anyway...

Re: Herd Immunity, I can't remember what i was listening to but some doctor on a podcast made a good point about it not being a sure thing (with rigorous vaccination to prop it up) and his example was chicken pox. Chicken pox isn't a newly emerged virus, nor is it a rapidly recombining virus like flu, and yet it has still been present in human population for thousands of years and never reached a state of protective herd immunity.

60% mask usage at a 60% effectiveness would reduce the R value below 1.

I know.
What I was asking was what usage and effectiveness would be required to "open back up" but have better case/death numbers than we have now. Meaning that Trump's biggest fallacy is not promoting wearing masks instead of demanding normalcy, re-opening, etc. Say our current is 2. What average mask usage numbers would we need to lower the R to 1.9 if we reopened?

I think that's still 60/60. that calc is based on free random association