Coronavirus Impact

Status
Not open for further replies.
combatentropy said:
Easy, guys. If you're going to disagree on a forum, especially about a controversial subject, stick to evidence. Do not, under any circumstances, talk about the person you're disagreeing with. Do not answer sarcastically either. I love sarcasm, but I try not to use it online. It often doesn't translate, and I'm using it to kid people. If you use it in a serious disagreement, it will die in a fire.

Samurai would commit seppuku rather than face shame. I've noticed that ordinary people, while not stabbing themselves in the gut, will do all sorts of acrobatics to avoid shame.

If you contradict someone in a way that dumps shame on them, they will have a hard time accepting your argument, because it would embarrass them.

Furthermore, if they disagree with you, they will have a hard time just silently ignoring you. Now they must answer, to defend themselves. Now it's no longer about whether the coronavirus does x, y, and z, but whether Bob is stupid, and Bob doesn't want to be seen as stupid.

Bob will likely hurl some kind of response in kind back to you, and now you find yourself going through the same feelings Bob just went through. And so on, on and on.

Then a moderator lands upon the thread and sees that people are fighting.

LOCKED.
Click to expand...
What posts is this referring to? Thought we were getting on swimmingly, in which case, best not to stir pots unless we go back to talking about food.

And just for the record whenever someone says “no sarcasm” I assume they’re being sarcastic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBztjzDr0fM
 
Last edited:
It hasn't got there yet, but I thought I saw bubbles boiling. And maybe I have PTSD.

As for you, Eric, you are special and you get an extra 1,000 sarcasm-buffer credits ;)

(See what I did there? I broke both of my rules. But it's slightly mitigated by the winky face.)
 
There is some interesting numbers from the Italian health department.

99% of the deaths are from people with one or more existing illnesses/conditions
48% had 3 or more illnesses/conditions
26% had 2 or more
25% had 1 or more
1% had none

More than 75% had high blood pressure
35% had diabetes
33% heart disease
 
Barry_Green said:
I tend to think I have a brain, and I use it a lot, and I disagree with your conclusions. I used to think as you do. I no longer do. And I strongly suspect that a week from now, you will have changed your thinking quite a bit too.

I have been around the block a few times. I have watched this story develop. And I have steadfastly avoided the "opinion commentators" on the news, instead focusing on those who, to the best of our knowledge, are the best experts in the world on situations like this.

They do not agree with your assertion that 99% of us will, at worst, have a cold.

Italy is the 8th largest economy in the world, with a thoroughly modern health care system. Reading first-hand reports from doctors and health workers there provides a rather sobering contrast to the grasshoppers currently fiddling away on the beaches for Spring Break and in the packed bars on St. Patrick's day.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that Italy has the second best health care system on the planet.. america is in the 30s i believe... so what does that say for how things will be here when it peaks... not good i suspect.
 
DLD said:
FWIW, the spring breakers are inadvertently correct. Exposure to the UV rays - aka sunlight - higher temperatures and alcohol make all flu group viruses weaker to the point of disappearing almost entirely during the summers.
Click to expand...

Apparently does not apply in any way to this current situation. Southern hemisphere and equatorial countries are hot as hell and infections continue to increase in those places.
 
combatentropy said:
Yes, that is interesting. But in today's obese culture, 33% of the US has high blood pressure, and 33% has diabetes or prediabetes
Click to expand...

Most of that percentage of Diabetes is adults who are overweight with type 2... Type 2 can be fixed given changed in health and diet... Type 1 is with you for life regardless of what you do and is usually surfacing at no fault of the persons early in childhood... by adulthood it can do as much as cause people to loose legs, arms and their vision among other things. My fiance aside from his pre hypertension and type 1, is in fairly good health... hes thin as a rail and eats fairly healthy so, im hoping he makes it through it.
 
NorBro said:
Most here probably don't follow WWE, but the company continues to run production on their weekly shows in their performance center with no audience (that's where they train upcoming potential talent and have small side shows), and this is a clip of a promo between two top stars (I started the link at the best part).

If you didn't know, you'd think they were doing some kind of rehearsal here but this was live on television:

https://youtu.be/-ruCcewe7IM?t=108
Click to expand...

It definitely sucks the life out of the show. WrestleMania, the biggest event of the year, is going to be held in the same place under the same conditions, and will be a two-day event. I don't know how that's going to go over, but it is such a cultural shift it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

On the other hand, one of the most entertaining matches I have ever seen was the first empty-arena match they ever broadcast, it was a halftime Super Bowl match, a title match between The Rock and Mankind, about 20 years ago. If you subscribe to the WWE Network, I highly recommend looking that match up, it was absurd, preposterous, and quite fun. So who knows, maybe they will find a way to make WrestleMania work without an audience, with a suitable injection of creativity.
 
Barry_Green said:
I tend to think I have a brain, and I use it a lot, and I disagree with your conclusions. ....
Click to expand...

This is the best part of this discussion. Everyone here thinks they have a brain and everyone is expressing what they think is their brilliant thoughts (of course, mine are more brilliant than all a ya's). I get to know this pool of largely anonymous (to me) people so much better, seeing how they think about something that is so abnormal in our lives. If I were a hiring manager, this is exactly where I would go to learn more about the people I might or might not hire.
 
One thing people don't consider either is that, while being young and healthy might mean you'll survive the virus, you could still end up hospitalized and on a ventilator for several weeks, which is not a fun time. I have asthma and I've been there. And that's assuming you will be able to get on a ventilator when hospitals fill to capacity. A friend of mine in Calabasas knows someone who is in his early 50's, a fit, avid mountain climber, healthy eater, with no health conditions who is on a ventilator and just got put into an induced Coma.
 
Barry_Green said:
It definitely sucks the life out of the show. WrestleMania, the biggest event of the year, is going to be held in the same place under the same conditions, and will be a two-day event. I don't know how that's going to go over, but it is such a cultural shift it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

On the other hand, one of the most entertaining matches I have ever seen was the first empty-arena match they ever broadcast, it was a halftime Super Bowl match, a title match between The Rock and Mankind, about 20 years ago. If you subscribe to the WWE Network, I highly recommend looking that match up, it was absurd, preposterous, and quite fun. So who knows, maybe they will find a way to make WrestleMania work without an audience, with a suitable injection of creativity.
Click to expand...

I saw it live back then! That was a spin-off match from the hardcore title (championship) stipulations when wrestling would occur anywhere 24/7 (but it only happened when they were live during the 2-hour program or a PPV, or they would show pre-recorded material from earlier in the day). That SB match was more prepared for the SB audience though.

They actually still have those where a camera will follow around the wrestlers wrestling out in the parking lot, or somewhere in the arena, etc. but giving promos to an empty crowd is surreal. (They do it into cameras from anywhere all of the time, but not in the ring to no people.)

Mick Foley (Mankind) lives 10 miles away from me here on LI.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
That’s one way to skew statistics. Let’s imagine it takes four days to die or three weeks to recover. So in the first two weeks and six days of the virus, imagine if of 1000 reported cases 20 people died and zero recovered (because no one has gotten to three weeks yet). Oh snap, that’s a 100% death rate for closed cases. Let’s panic from skewed statistics.
Click to expand...

Except coronavirus takes weeks to kill you.

The Chinese dr who discovered it got a fever on January 10 and died on February 7.
 
ahalpert said:
Except coronavirus takes weeks to kill you.

The Chinese dr who discovered it got a fever on January 10 and died on February 7.
Click to expand...
True!

Early studies showed that the median days from first symptom to death were 14 (range 6-41) days, and tended to be shorter among people of 70 year old or above (11.5 [range 6-19] days) than those with ages below 70 year old (20 [range 10-41] days.
 
ahalpert said:
Except coronavirus takes weeks to kill you.

The Chinese dr who discovered it got a fever on January 10 and died on February 7.
Click to expand...
Does it typically, though? I thought it was much quicker than that because whenever we hear about an outbreak in an area (like Seattle), it seems it's just a couple or few days later that we hear deaths being reported. The virus just started in America exactly one month ago ago and we already have over a hundred deaths, many from much closer to the January 19 start point. I'm sure in some cases a person can survive for weeks with the virus and then die, but from what I've seen it kills much quicker than that when it does kill. I imagine it takes the old and unhealthy much quicker on average than a healthy person such as that doctor who had an abnormally high level of exposure to it but was as far as I know otherwise healthy.



________________________



And why do so many people use the fallacy of providing small statistics to back up a claim? It's really irritating. The most common is, "Young people can die from this. Check it out, this ONE young healthy person just died from it." So what. Young people can die from being struck by lightning even without a storm nearby, so now we can't ever go outside again? It would be cool if people would stick to overall broad statistics that actually matter rather than pointing out exceptions. Broad statics are worth taking note of and acting upon, rare exceptions, not so much. The people who bring up isolated statistics like that are probably the same ones who quoted "that one episode of House used a Canon 5D" to falsly imply that a 5D is a commonly worthy camera for high budget production.

I'm not saying young people can't die or get sick or be in the hospital for weeks or that they don't need to worry about it; I'm just saying bringing up isolated incidents is not helpful when one should be sticking to broad statistics that more accurately show what the actual risks are.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a situation where I'd rather have people err on the side of caution. It's one thing to engage in a risky behaviour when you are the only one it can impact, like, say, rock climbing, or jumping out of a plane. But here you could unwittingly put others at risk, people who might not even know they are in a risk group. I just read a story about a twenty year old who fell ill from the virus, was told by doctors not to worry, and died within a few days. Turned out, he had undiagnosed leukemia, which accelerated the effects of the virus. What's happening isn't just about you alone. People should heed the word of health officials until they give us the all clear.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm not saying young people can't die or get sick or be in the hospital for weeks or that they don't need to worry about it; I'm just saying bringing up isolated incidents is not helpful when one should be sticking to broad statistics that more accurately show what the actual risks are.
Click to expand...
You want facts, here is one for you to digest:

"New C.D.C. data shows that nearly 40 percent of patients sick enough to be hospitalized were age 20 to 54. But the risk of dying was significantly higher in older people."


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top