Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Coronavirus 2020 Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Savatage79 said:

The studies are indicating tho that its unlikely 

I don’t think that’s true unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean and is far cry from there “has been what, one documented case outdoors”. It’s most commonly spread through close contact amongst infected people. That can happen indoors or outdoors. Outdoors may mitigate the lifespan of the virus on an object- playground railing, park bench, etc but it isn’t instantaneous death to the virus and can be absolutely be spread from common touching of outdoor objects. The humidity outdoors may also impact the ability of the virus to linger in the air but breathing common air isn’t considered to be a typical spreading mechanism. Misinformation like implying it’s extremely difficult to catch it outdoors is counterproductive to getting back to normal-ish life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 833
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thinking like this is going to get many people infected and killed. As a frontline responder, I hope you will be able to actually look at the evidence without the partisan chicanery. Recent polls show

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Bmore86 said:

I don’t think that’s true unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean and is far cry from there “has been what, one documented case outdoors”. It’s most commonly spread through close contact amongst infected people. That can happen indoors or outdoors. Outdoors may mitigate the lifespan of the virus on an object- playground railing, park bench, etc but it isn’t instantaneous death to the virus and can be absolutely be spread from common touching of outdoor objects. The humidity outdoors may also impact the ability of the virus to linger in the air but breathing common air isn’t considered to be a typical spreading mechanism. Misinformation like implying it’s extremely difficult to catch it outdoors is counterproductive to getting back to normal-ish life.

This was the article I had caught 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china

 

"Nearly 80 percent of all of the outbreaks occurred in a home setting, while 34 percent came from a transportation setting. Additionally, most of the home outbreaks resulted in three to five cases.

However, researchers were only able to find one outbreak that took place in an outdoor environment, involving just two cases"

 

One outbreak is what I had meant . The point being that to me outdoors areas unless people are literally on top of each other sucking in each others air the transmission is possible but improbable 

Edited by Savatage79
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Savatage79 said:

This was the article I had caught 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china

 

"Nearly 80 percent of all of the outbreaks occurred in a home setting, while 34 percent came from a transportation setting. Additionally, most of the home outbreaks resulted in three to five cases.

However, researchers were only able to find one outbreak that took place in an outdoor environment, involving just two cases"

 

One outbreak is what I had meant . The point being that to me outdoors areas unless people are literally on top of each other sucking in each others air the transmission is possible but improbable 

Thanks for the link. So that “one” you referenced was one outbreak out of 318 studied in a world with millions of outbreaks. Anyways we may be discussing apples and oranges here. Close contact with an infected person or common contact with infected objects spreads the virus most frequently. That study demonstrates that those things happened far more frequently indoors which is certainly true but speaks to the nature of people more than the virus. If that’s all you’re saying I have no disagreement. I jumped in because claiming there’s been like one outdoor case could cause reckless behavior if someone didn’t understand that, in addition to the one case thing being untrue, lower frequency of outdoor transmission speaks of behavior outdoors by people rather than the virus and you can absolutely get it outdoors. If you change that behavior, there isn't much in the virus itself to prevent you from giving or getting it outdoors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bmore86 said:

Thanks for the link. So that “one” you referenced was one outbreak out of 318 studied in a world with millions of outbreaks. Anyways we may be discussing apples and oranges here. Close contact with an infected person or common contact with infected objects spreads the virus most frequently. That study demonstrates that those things happened far more frequently indoors which is certainly true but speaks to the nature of people more than the virus. If that’s all you’re saying I have no disagreement. I jumped in because claiming there’s been like one outdoor case could cause reckless behavior if someone didn’t understand that, in addition to the one case thing being untrue, lower frequency of outdoor transmission speaks of behavior outdoors by people rather than the virus and you can absolutely get it outdoors. If you change that behavior, there isn't much in the virus itself to prevent you from giving or getting it outdoors.

 

TRUTH!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every article when it comes to outdoor transmission says its possible but not as likely, that's good enough for me. 

Bottom line is there are those who obviously want to hide and then there are those who realize that in history pandemics are not an unusual event, it happens and all throughout history we mitigate it the best we can and life has never needed to halt. 

As I stated before masks, distancing,  over and above hygiene,  all awesome and what needs to be commonplace. After that the notion of saving lives while ruining lives is horrible and a horrible tactic, so slice and dice that however ya want 

Edited by Savatage79
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Savatage79 said:

Every article when it comes to outdoor transmission says its possible but not as likely, that's good enough for me. 

Bottom line is there are those who obviously want to hide and then there are those who realize that in history pandemics are not an unusual event, it happens and all throughout history we mitigate it the best we can and life has never needed to halt. 

As I stated before masks, distancing,  over and above hygiene,  all awesome and what needs to be commonplace. After that the notion of saving lives while ruining lives is horrible and a horrible tactic, so slice and dice that however ya want 

Good, you should have noted that in your initial post rather than saying there’s only been one outdoor case. Ideally with some other information about why it’s transmitted less outdoors but I get the impression not much can be expected from you.


There are also those who spread misinformation, potentially making this worse.  Masks, distancing, etc, all the things you mentioned are indeed great but lessened if people think simply being outdoors will grant them a large degree of innate protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Savatage79 said:

This was the article I had caught 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china

 

"Nearly 80 percent of all of the outbreaks occurred in a home setting, while 34 percent came from a transportation setting. Additionally, most of the home outbreaks resulted in three to five cases.

However, researchers were only able to find one outbreak that took place in an outdoor environment, involving just two cases"

 

One outbreak is what I had meant . The point being that to me outdoors areas unless people are literally on top of each other sucking in each others air the transmission is possible but improbable 

So if everyone just stayed in their homes and didnt come into contact with people outside of their home, the disease will transmit MORE?

 

I dont think the author knows how diseases work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Savatage79 said:

I am all for saving lives, but I'm sorry ruining my own life for indirectly saving older folks that I will never know, will never meet, will never know if I saved them or not by ruining my life is not something I nor anyone should be down with.  Know what I mean ?

 

 

This right here should be put onto a plaque, and the plaque mounted on the wall of every ER, and Doctors office as inspiration. BTW, you do realize that many of those older folks who you will never meet, were forcibly drafted and fought in wars, many not coming back, so that you can whine about how temporarily staying at home is ruining your life. Those older folks never knew you either. Thank you for making me consider that, and actually hope we do have a second wave. I am less enthusiastic about a future if it contains humans that share this view. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Troutbum said:

 

This right here should be put onto a plaque, and the plaque mounted on the wall of every ER, and Doctors office as inspiration. BTW, you do realize that many of those older folks who you will never meet, were forcibly drafted and fought in wars, many not coming back, so that you can whine about how temporarily staying at home is ruining your life. Those older folks never knew you either. Thank you for making me consider that, and actually hope we do have a second wave. I am less enthusiastic about a future if it contains humans that share this view. 

Insanity right here. So I'm supposed to be ok to not provide and feed my family? Really? What planet are you from ?  So how about you give me all that money you have so that I can just throw my hands up and quit work and stay home until It all passes ? Yea....didnt think so.

Its called being reasonable. I complied with everything they've asked , my point is there comes a POINT  when it's time to fix the back end problems that were created while home, end of story.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gohawks said:

The argument that it is between life and death is an absurd straw man pushed to make people that want to get on with their lives seem like horrible and selfish individuals. The choice isn't between life and death. It is between death and death. 

But it's not an absurd straw man. A few weeks ago we saw the horrors running through New York as people streamed into hospitals, and hospital workers were having to reuse PPE (which it is not designed for) or having to go all McGyver with plastic bags, hockey masks, etc. All they were asking for was for some time such that they could handle what was being thrown at them, and not have thousands upon thousands of people descending all at once to the ED front door for a sustained period. Thankfully it seems like we're over that hump. At that time, it wasn't absurd to ask the public to spend as little time congregating with each other as possible so as to slow down the transmission of the virus. If you've taken huge offence to being asked to literally stay home and do nothing, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were actually out on the front line waiting for infected sick coughing spluttering person after infected sick coughing spluttering person to come face-to-face with you whilst you're not wearing anything to protect yourself, then have to go home to your family and come back day after day after day because your city needs you at work.
Soldiers don't get sent to war without guns, bullets, or armour. Healthcare professionals shouldn't have to go to work without PPE, and shouldn't have to die at work, even in a pandemic. Doctors and nurses don't grow on trees - once they die, you have no safety-net.

Now that the "peak" might be over, there is the realistic fear that transmission kicks off again as trying to get people to follow simple directions is like herding cats. I do not believe the US has the political spine to act in a considered manner and instead wants to throw open the gates without any contact tracing, ability for rapid testing, or other measures designed to stop a second outbreak. So yes, whilst there are economic considerations (and I'm sure these are going to be debated), without the ability to contact-trace or isolate people, re-opening isn't some magical cure to the economy. People will not turn up to work if they risk getting sick or dying. You've seen it in Amazon, you've seen it in the meat works factories, you've seen it in public transport workers, and to think things won't grind to a halt without solving those issues ignores any idealism about an economic recovery.

As for "choice between death and death" - imagine a scenario where taking an objective costs 80,000 men vs 200,000 men. Why sacrifice the remaining 120,000 to get to the same place? Chanting "re-open the economy" does nothing to remove the notion that without being able to protect people an economy will not run, and the "oh well, some people might die anyway" is about as lazy an answer to a problem as can be given.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we dial it back on this get sick and die hyperbole already? The overwhelming majority of known cases are very mild and require no hospitalization. The threat of fatality for those under 50 years of age remains minuscule. Prioritize the vulnerable communities as needed, but let's also recognize the science and known information at hand and drop the scare mongering.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DeliciousGravy said:

But it's not an absurd straw man. A few weeks ago we saw the horrors running through New York as people streamed into hospitals, and hospital workers were having to reuse PPE (which it is not designed for) or having to go all McGyver with plastic bags, hockey masks, etc. All they were asking for was for some time such that they could handle what was being thrown at them, and not have thousands upon thousands of people descending all at once to the ED front door for a sustained period. Thankfully it seems like we're over that hump. At that time, it wasn't absurd to ask the public to spend as little time congregating with each other as possible so as to slow down the transmission of the virus. If you've taken huge offence to being asked to literally stay home and do nothing, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were actually out on the front line waiting for infected sick coughing spluttering person after infected sick coughing spluttering person to come face-to-face with you whilst you're not wearing anything to protect yourself, then have to go home to your family and come back day after day after day because your city needs you at work.
Soldiers don't get sent to war without guns, bullets, or armour. Healthcare professionals shouldn't have to go to work without PPE, and shouldn't have to die at work, even in a pandemic. Doctors and nurses don't grow on trees - once they die, you have no safety-net.

Now that the "peak" might be over, there is the realistic fear that transmission kicks off again as trying to get people to follow simple directions is like herding cats. I do not believe the US has the political spine to act in a considered manner and instead wants to throw open the gates without any contact tracing, ability for rapid testing, or other measures designed to stop a second outbreak. So yes, whilst there are economic considerations (and I'm sure these are going to be debated), without the ability to contact-trace or isolate people, re-opening isn't some magical cure to the economy. People will not turn up to work if they risk getting sick or dying. You've seen it in Amazon, you've seen it in the meat works factories, you've seen it in public transport workers, and to think things won't grind to a halt without solving those issues ignores any idealism about an economic recovery.

As for "choice between death and death" - imagine a scenario where taking an objective costs 80,000 men vs 200,000 men. Why sacrifice the remaining 120,000 to get to the same place? Chanting "re-open the economy" does nothing to remove the notion that without being able to protect people an economy will not run, and the "oh well, some people might die anyway" is about as lazy an answer to a problem as can be given.

The argument that the medical system needs to catch up is one that was not opposed and is a big reason almost no one was against the lockdown. So I don’t get the point.

Also, it is the very dictionary definition of the straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy is setting up a proposition without actually going after the opponents point to make your point seem stronger.

Almost no one in favor of opening the economy is choosing death over life nor has that ever been part of the argument from those in favor of opening. The entire argument was setup by people in favor of staying closed. The argument actually never addresses the root principals of opening up. Which are:

1) People are going to die regardless. Not only from external factors like depression but from COVID as well. Flattening the curve spreads it out not eliminates the issue. 

2) There has to be an evaluation if it is worth it or not. This is done in every aspect. 40,000 die from traffic accidents and 88,000 from alcohol. Both of these are preventable. However, we choose to take the risk. Yes, everyone understands it’s not the same as COVID but if your argument is “we should save as much lives as possible” then you better be applying it to everything.

3) Relating to point 2 and 1, we see increase in depression, domestic violence, decrease in mental and physical health, businesses being lost, children that are mentally challenged or in poor homes not having proper learning opportunities, 30 million people jobless, and countless other issues.

So the argument that “it’s life vs death” has two things.

1) It’s an argument setup by the opponent not one that was ever argued in the first place by those in favor of opening

2) Never actually attempts to address the actual argument for opening.

Straw man. By the very definition. I personally understand the reasoning people want to stay closed. There is a valid case to be made. However, when the other side is intentionally misrepresented and even worse vilified I start to have an issue. It’s not about wanting to go get a haircut or go play outside. Peoples lives and everything they’ve worked for is at stake. It’s not that simple.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

The argument that the medical system needs to catch up is one that was not opposed and is a big reason almost no one was against the lockdown. So I don’t get the point.

Also, it is the very dictionary definition of the straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy is setting up a proposition without actually going after the opponents point to make your point seem stronger.

So then in the interests of not being seen as a strawman (interesting that not once you have spoken about a solution to reopening an economy without protecting people btw) I will address your points one by one:

7 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

1) People are going to die regardless. Not only from external factors like depression but from COVID as well. Flattening the curve spreads it out not eliminates the issue. 

Lazy argument. People will die regardless, but does that mean we need to unnecessarily let people die because not doing so was too hard? Why even bother offering medical treatment to people over a certain age in that case? The cost/benefit ratio isn't there to give someone a TAVI over age 80 or give someone with multiple myeloma hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemotherapy every year, but we still do.

8 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

2) There has to be an evaluation if it is worth it or not. This is done in every aspect. 40,000 die from traffic accidents and 88,000 from alcohol. Both of these are preventable. However, we choose to take the risk. Yes, everyone understands it’s not the same as COVID but if your argument is “we should save as much lives as possible” then you better be applying it to everything.

So how do you want to sell that politically? The fundamental role of a government (well; most governments) is to keep law and order and protect its citizens - war, famine, plague, you name it. The argument was never "save as may lives as possible", it's "enacting policy that leads to people dying unnecessarily is not good policy". Now you can go ahead and try to model things with regards to cost vs lives, but I would think (!) it a very difficult political sell to go "so we save $200b but it costs 20,000 lives, all in favour?" Also your point is contradictory; traffic accidents and alcohol are by your own admission not the same as COVID so I don't really see how this is relevant...?

12 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

3) Relating to point 2 and 1, we see increase in depression, domestic violence, decrease in mental and physical health, businesses being lost, children that are mentally challenged or in poor homes not having proper learning opportunities, 30 million people jobless, and countless other issues.

Yet these have never really been an issue pre-COVID, so why are they suddenly a justification for allowing a second wave of disease to spread around the community? I don't recall during the "glory years" pre-GFC people stamping up and down in Congress demanding to know why people still weren't being fed or why homelessness was such an issue; just telling everyone how great their 501k was.

14 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

So the argument that “it’s life vs death” has two things.

1) It’s an argument setup by the opponent not one that was ever argued in the first place by those in favor of opening

2) Never actually attempts to address the actual argument for opening.

So the actual argument for opening I can appreciate, but if you're going to make the argument for opening, you can't just sweep under the rug the fact that a) there is still a pandemic going on; b) it might cause more harm than good by reopening right now; and c) any strategy that you have to protect people and contact-trace other than just "ah, we'll deal with that later".

15 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

Straw man. By the very definition. I personally understand the reasoning people want to stay closed. There is a valid case to be made. However, when the other side is intentionally misrepresented and even worse vilified I start to have an issue. It’s not about wanting to go get a haircut or go play outside. Peoples lives and everything they’ve worked for is at stake. It’s not that simple.  

I agree, it's not that simple. This is going to be an economic and healthcare challenge that lasts for years. But this is a question you probably need to be directing at the people that represent you; the people you elect. I mean, feel free to tear strips off me on a messageboard to make your point known, but that does nothing to take away from the reality that this is a pandemic, that opening things up again without measures being in place is doomed to fail, and that this might get worse rather than better if you do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

Can we dial it back on this get sick and die hyperbole already? The overwhelming majority of known cases are very mild and require no hospitalization. The threat of fatality for those under 50 years of age remains minuscule. Prioritize the vulnerable communities as needed, but let's also recognize the science and known information at hand and drop the scare mongering.

As a quick Googling, there are at least 1000 healthcare professionals in 64 countries who have died from COVID-19. Youngest 20, eldest 99. This isn't scare-mongering; this is reality. Frontline healthcare professionals should not have to die from lack of basic protective measures at work, especially in developed countries.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

Can we dial it back on this get sick and die hyperbole already? The overwhelming majority of known cases are very mild and require no hospitalization. The threat of fatality for those under 50 years of age remains minuscule. Prioritize the vulnerable communities as needed, but let's also recognize the science and known information at hand and drop the scare mongering.

Understood. But the number infected are at least ten times larger than reported. So opening up means we will lose a generation of knowledge. One that went to WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... I don’t want them lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looking at better news here in a fantasy forum. Seems like the NFL is planning on pumping in crowd noise and using virtual fans. I don't care for either of those, just makes me feel good knowing they are still planning on playing football this fall.  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2891610-joe-buck-says-fox-sports-may-pump-crowd-noise-use-virtual-fans-for-nfl-games

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the director of the National Institutes for Health, underscored the level of uncertainty when he told Peter King of Football Morning in America it is "feasible" the NFL could play to empty stadiums or perhaps with limited attendance:

"I think it's feasible that negative testing players could play to an empty stadium. Is it guaranteed? No way ... There will be virus out there and you will know your players are negative at the time they step onto the field. You're not endangering ... Also, if the virus is so low that even in the general community the risk is low, then I could see filling a third of the stadium or half the stadium so people could be six feet apart. I mean, that's something that is again feasible depending on the level of infection."

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LarryDavid said:

Well, looking at better news here in a fantasy forum. Seems like the NFL is planning on pumping in crowd noise and using virtual fans. I don't care for either of those, just makes me feel good knowing they are still planning on playing football this fall.  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2891610-joe-buck-says-fox-sports-may-pump-crowd-noise-use-virtual-fans-for-nfl-games

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the director of the National Institutes for Health, underscored the level of uncertainty when he told Peter King of Football Morning in America it is "feasible" the NFL could play to empty stadiums or perhaps with limited attendance:

"I think it's feasible that negative testing players could play to an empty stadium. Is it guaranteed? No way ... There will be virus out there and you will know your players are negative at the time they step onto the field. You're not endangering ... Also, if the virus is so low that even in the general community the risk is low, then I could see filling a third of the stadium or half the stadium so people could be six feet apart. I mean, that's something that is again feasible depending on the level of infection."

Pumping in noise?

To make it realistic I assume they’ll be making it louder when the Chargers have the ball at home than when they’re on defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DeliciousGravy said:

As a quick Googling, there are at least 1000 healthcare professionals in 64 countries who have died from COVID-19. Youngest 20, eldest 99. This isn't scare-mongering; this is reality. Frontline healthcare professionals should not have to die from lack of basic protective measures at work, especially in developed countries.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976

 

um... ok? and who should I vote for to ensure that happens? or do we have to overturn capitalism itself?

that list pretty much proves my original point though, as tragic as it may be

 

1 minute ago, PizzaBeerFF said:

Understood. But the number infected are at least ten times larger than reported. So opening up means we will lose a generation of knowledge. One that went to WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... I don’t want them lost.

 

which means the actual fatality rate is lower than what is currently known. the majority of cases, regardless of age, do not require hospitalization. of course risks go up with age and pre-existing conditions, but even if 100% of the population somehow got infected the majority of the elderly generations would survive. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

um... ok? and who should I vote for to ensure that happens? or do we have to overturn capitalism itself?

that list pretty much proves my original point though, as tragic as it may be

I'd probably vote for the people who believe in science / don't think it's a hoax / don't tell you that ingesting bleach can cure it, but I don't want to derail this thread into a political one. But to your point, if the whole death/dying thing is really happening, is it truly scare mongering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joshua18 said:

Exactly. People who think COVID is just going away so they can get back to normalcy are in for a rude awakening.

it's really too bad your original predictions were so horrible, now you can't circle back and tell everyone how right you were for the next two to three years

 

  

On 3/24/2020 at 4:24 PM, joshua18 said:

The general mortality rate is about 3%. 
 

The mortality rate among people age 70+ is about 20%. 
 

Right now there are 52,966 reported cases in the USA (and a study revealed for every known case there are 5-10 unknown cases). If the numbers continue to spread over the next month as expected, with the time it’s taking to double (The NYC mayor said the number is doubling every 3 days), at that rate we could easily reach 10 million cases in the USA before May. With a 3% mortality rate, that means 300,000 people die. 
 

This is very serious.

 

On 3/25/2020 at 2:23 AM, joshua18 said:


Exactly. So if anything, the 300,000 deaths by May is an optimistic projection.  Stay safe everyone.

 

Edited by lolcopter
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DeliciousGravy said:

I'd probably vote for the people who believe in science / don't think it's a hoax / don't tell you that ingesting bleach can cure it, but I don't want to derail this thread into a political one. But to your point, if the whole death/dying thing is really happening, is it truly scare mongering?

“I don’t want to turn this political but let me say some passive aggressive stuff about the president real quick that’s already been disproven multiple times.

Be better than that. 

Edited by Gohawks
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gohawks said:

“I don’t want to turn this political but let me say some passive aggressive stuff about the president real quick that’s already been disproven multiple time.”

Be better than that. 

I was literally asked a question that I responded to. Not to get too bogged down in the details, but the guy leading the response doesn't seem like he wants to accept the reality as reality. That's a worry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...