Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
fr8mech
Topic Author
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

"The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:38 am

..., the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

I heard this quotation while listening to a podcast on drivinig.

As more and more CoVid restrictions reinstated/continued/enhanced and cancellations (college fall sports), I continue to reflect on the statement.

I floated this topic at a dinner we had with some friends a couple of weeks ago, and again with some parents during a Scouts BSA camp-out this past weekend.

Some of the responses were interesting. I was particularly surprised with the conversation we had during that dinner a couple of weeks ago. Both of our friends thought this was a good thing. They felt that the assumption of risk, when possible, should be avoided. In fact, as it pertains to CoVid, they felt that our governor's restriction were too little too late, and the restrictions lifted way too early. But, in a more general sense, they both felt that safety should always trump risk.

The Scout parents' positions ranged from "we need to get moving on getting back to normal, or some semblance of it" to "let's take it easy and plug along the way we are". I'll note, that several Scout families didn't attend this outing because they felt it was "too soon".

So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:34 am

How many percent of people put safety first without loosing weight?
Loosing weight, doing sport and enough sleep are a good way to reduce risk significant. Why to wait for a vaccine?
I support restrictions, but I significantly increased time for sport.
Did people in the West increase sport?
In India I don't think so.

I find reducing risk in aircraft manufacturing and maintenance exaggerated. What rules for road traffic if one would apply the same standard?

But then overweight people may be afraid of all kind of things beside the metabolic syndrome.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13141
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:40 am

If you take a risk and lose, will society take care of your family ? That has to be a factor.

Gun sales in the US : how many panic buying guns already had a gun ? How many already had 10 ? How many buying ammo even though they already had tons ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12336
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:22 am

fr8mech wrote:
..., the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

I heard this quotation while listening to a podcast on drivinig.

As more and more CoVid restrictions reinstated/continued/enhanced and cancellations (college fall sports), I continue to reflect on the statement.

I floated this topic at a dinner we had with some friends a couple of weeks ago, and again with some parents during a Scouts BSA camp-out this past weekend.

Some of the responses were interesting. I was particularly surprised with the conversation we had during that dinner a couple of weeks ago. Both of our friends thought this was a good thing. They felt that the assumption of risk, when possible, should be avoided. In fact, as it pertains to CoVid, they felt that our governor's restriction were too little too late, and the restrictions lifted way too early. But, in a more general sense, they both felt that safety should always trump risk.

The Scout parents' positions ranged from "we need to get moving on getting back to normal, or some semblance of it" to "let's take it easy and plug along the way we are". I'll note, that several Scout families didn't attend this outing because they felt it was "too soon".

So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."


Psychologically, this is a pretty normative and predictable response to increasing levels of knowledge, competence, and even relative control over outcomes.

What strikes me as far more unusual is throwing caution to the wind and inviting unnecessary risk at a time when human knowledge to date is at its zenith.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
cpd
Posts: 6414
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:23 am

Sokes wrote:
How many percent of people put safety first without loosing weight?
Loosing weight, doing sport and enough sleep are a good way to reduce risk significant. Why to wait for a vaccine?
I support restrictions, but I significantly increased time for sport.
Did people in the West increase sport?
In India I don't think so.

I find reducing risk in aircraft manufacturing and maintenance exaggerated. What rules for road traffic if one would apply the same standard?

But then overweight people may be afraid of all kind of things beside the metabolic syndrome.


I've always been active for the last 6 or 7 years, so I've just kept fitness going using Zwift and a smart-trainer so I don't have to go out. I've become even fitter now.

The COVID cases are not under control in my area, we keep getting new cases appearing, it's too risky to go out unless it's absolutely an essential requirement (getting groceries).
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:16 pm

Aesma wrote:
If you take a risk and lose, will society take care of your family ? That has to be a factor.

Gun sales in the US : how many panic buying guns already had a gun ? How many already had 10 ? How many buying ammo even though they already had tons ?


Why should they? I take a risk and lose, why would I expect the consequences to be borne by people who had no say in the matter. Skin in the game and all that. Risks are better understood by those who closely bear the rewards and consequences.

Yes, something like 40% of guns have been to new people and lots of stats bear that out. TSA is finding guns in carry-on bags at increased rates; more new licenses issued; NRA instructors busy. Loads of these idiots six months ago we’re going on about how to write new laws with no new ideas. Now they complain about how difficult getting a license is; the training required and on it goes.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 pm

fr8mech wrote:
..., the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

I heard this quotation while listening to a podcast on drivinig.

As more and more CoVid restrictions reinstated/continued/enhanced and cancellations (college fall sports), I continue to reflect on the statement.

I floated this topic at a dinner we had with some friends a couple of weeks ago, and again with some parents during a Scouts BSA camp-out this past weekend.

Some of the responses were interesting. I was particularly surprised with the conversation we had during that dinner a couple of weeks ago. Both of our friends thought this was a good thing. They felt that the assumption of risk, when possible, should be avoided. In fact, as it pertains to CoVid, they felt that our governor's restriction were too little too late, and the restrictions lifted way too early. But, in a more general sense, they both felt that safety should always trump risk.

The Scout parents' positions ranged from "we need to get moving on getting back to normal, or some semblance of it" to "let's take it easy and plug along the way we are". I'll note, that several Scout families didn't attend this outing because they felt it was "too soon".

So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."



I think it's an amazingly trite platitude.

As of this minute, 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.

You can have all the bull sessions you want about how we, as a society, determine levels of risk that call for action. But the plain and simple fact is other countries shut down as much as possible, used masks, tested their citizens for COVID and for the antibody, and conducted contact tracing. As a result, these nations are open for business. When infection levels are very low, countries have more flexibility about sending kids to school, re-opening businesses, re-starting sports events, etc.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10612
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:53 pm

fr8mech wrote:
So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

Isn't this the norm throughout history? The key element in your quote is "appears".

I think the issue is where are you viewing it from. What is "risk" and what is risky? It depends on where you are coming from. For some nowadays it is getting their kids vaccinated, other too much time viewing crap on their phones. In history some people decided it was riskier to sail off to the New World and better to stay home where it was "safe". Others decided the exact opposite.

Watching our global population explode we are definitely very safe and very risk averse just by our nature. Really only a fringe of the population is REALLY risky. The vast majority work hard to not take any risk every day. So if 90% (making up a statistic here) try to stay safe, that's around 7 billion people that want to play it safe and "only" 700,000,000 that want to/are willing to really take risks. But that means the number of risk-takers is higher than it ever has been in history.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
wingman
Posts: 3952
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:15 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Why should they? I take a risk and lose, why would I expect the consequences to be borne by people who had no say in the matter. Skin in the game and all that. Risks are better understood by those who closely bear the rewards and consequences.

Yes, something like 40% of guns have been to new people and lots of stats bear that out. TSA is finding guns in carry-on bags at increased rates; more new licenses issued; NRA instructors busy. Loads of these idiots six months ago we’re going on about how to write new laws with no new ideas. Now they complain about how difficult getting a license is; the training required and on it goes.


Let's break this down. Without universal healthcare you bear the cost every day of your tax dollars providing care for people that took a risk by not having healthcare insurance (you made it optional and/or tied it to employment by employers that offer it). Second, by actively supporting the near total flooding of weapons into the populace you bear the increased risk that a random bullet will traverse your skull. It's just a fact of life. Someone always pays the price for risky behavior and it's very naive to believe that it's only the risk takers directly, it's also those that enable their decisions. When Trump decided that COVID would pass and less testing equaled less cases (not only risky but incredibly stupid) all of us paid the price..you do see that connection right?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:27 pm

mbmbos wrote:
other countries shut down as much as possible, used masks...

While I do support restrictions I'm not very confident in this opinion.
I do wonder if I'm wrong, but feel I don't have enough information.

Masks however I'm not willing to discuss. The refusal to wear masks is the climax of not a tiny rest of doubt of the superiority of one's opinion.
The less critical or trained thinking, the less doubt.
So taking risks has a strong relationship to ignorance or refusal to see.
I admit I sometimes forget the mask when I go out.

I hope all people with guns at least see the need to defend oneself/ others through masks.
I'm not against US gun laws. It may have saved the Jews in Germany. It's just a matter of being sincere in one's arguments.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:52 pm

mbmbos wrote:

I think it's an amazingly trite platitude.

As of this minute, 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.


This is wrong. Several nations have had a greater number of cases and deaths per capita.
The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing.

You can have all the bull sessions you want about how we, as a society, determine levels of risk that call for action. But the plain and simple fact is other countries shut down as much as possible, used masks, tested their citizens for COVID and for the antibody, and conducted contact tracing. As a result, these nations are open for business. When infection levels are very low, countries have more flexibility about sending kids to school, re-opening businesses, re-starting sports events, etc.


No country out there is fully 'open for business' Some that have gone through large waves have regained a semblance of normalcy, but are facing increasing numbers again and likely future waves of infections. Those few countries that have or are trying to completely rid themselves of the disease are finding it very difficult to keep it at bay and it is looking increasingly likely that they will either have to go down a path of regular lockdowns or accept some degree of infection.

Masks are great, and I support their use everywhere. They work and studies now show that they alone can decrease the transmission rate to a manageable level while operating a relatively normal society, if that hadn't been proven by several Asian nations already. Testing is great, but you can't test an entire population, and managing the positives is not an easy tasks, given the vast number of cases that do not require hospitalisation.
Contact tracing only works when the infection wave is very localized.

The OP's point remains valid. Why do we react so strongly to this threat, to the point of potentially wrecking society and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, for a disease that kills orders of magnitude less than cancer, heart diseases or malaria and which, unlike those, is an issue that will eventually solve itself?

Why is it that cancer cases per capita seem to be progressing and that it has killed almost 10x as many people as covid in the same timeframe, yet we sacrifice trillions of our collective wealth fighting Covid and barely a fraction of this researching cancer?
Is it because we have accepted it as a fact of life as it has been with us since the dawn of mankind? Is it because there is no alarmist headline on every news outlet in the World reminding us how many people have been diagnosed with it and died from it everyday? Is it because it's not contagious and none of us really give a cr#p about it until a doctor gives us the bad news?

There is much to be said about the rationality of our reaction to this virus, and I would say that it is at least as much an emotional one as a rational one.

I agree with the OP that it is a fascinating question. There is risk in everything we do in life. Obviously, the goal is always to reduce that risk, but we know we can't eliminate it completely. Maybe we have done such a good job of it that the very idea of being presented with any new threat that reminds us of our fragility and inevitable death, regardless of its magnitude, provokes a violent allergic reaction?

In light of the number of diseases out there that can take us and kill us at any given time in our lives, plus the inherently risky things that we regularly do such as driving or adopting unhealthy habits, it is fair to say that we would never manage to have any level of normalcy in our lives if we treated them as we treat covid.
We can't even seem to do much about decreasing pollution or fighting climate change, all of which will claim many more lives than this virus, and we know it.

We are not a rational species.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11566
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:01 pm

It would be interesting to poll with a correlation to job status.

People that still have stable work from home jobs are going to be more risk adverse in terms of opening up. Those whose jobs are threatened, are going to willing to risk it.

There are also those who work that feel their jobs are threatened in the discussions i have had, by having the kids virtual and at home from school.

We need the vaccine and soon, but right now we need to start making thoughts about moving forward if the vaccine is delayed too long.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:05 pm

Francoflier wrote:
mbmbos wrote:

I think it's an amazingly trite platitude.

As of this minute, 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.


This is wrong. Several nations have had a greater number of cases and deaths per capita.
The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing.

You can have all the bull sessions you want about how we, as a society, determine levels of risk that call for action. But the plain and simple fact is other countries shut down as much as possible, used masks, tested their citizens for COVID and for the antibody, and conducted contact tracing. As a result, these nations are open for business. When infection levels are very low, countries have more flexibility about sending kids to school, re-opening businesses, re-starting sports events, etc.


No country out there is fully 'open for business' Some that have gone through large waves have regained a semblance of normalcy, but are facing increasing numbers again and likely future waves of infections. Those few countries that have or are trying to completely rid themselves of the disease are finding it very difficult to keep it at bay and it is looking increasingly likely that they will either have to go down a path of regular lockdowns or accept some degree of infection.

Masks are great, and I support their use everywhere. They work and studies now show that they alone can decrease the transmission rate to a manageable level while operating a relatively normal society, if that hadn't been proven by several Asian nations already. Testing is great, but you can't test an entire population, and managing the positives is not an easy tasks, given the vast number of cases that do not require hospitalisation.
Contact tracing only works when the infection wave is very localized.

The OP's point remains valid. Why do we react so strongly to this threat, to the point of potentially wrecking society and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, for a disease that kills orders of magnitude less than cancer, heart diseases or malaria and which, unlike those, is an issue that will eventually solve itself?

Why is it that cancer cases per capita seem to be progressing and that it has killed almost 10x as many people as covid in the same timeframe, yet we sacrifice trillions of our collective wealth fighting Covid and barely a fraction of this researching cancer?
Is it because we have accepted it as a fact of life as it has been with us since the dawn of mankind? Is it because there is no alarmist headline on every news outlet in the World reminding us how many people have been diagnosed with it and died from it everyday? Is it because it's not contagious and none of us really give a cr#p about it until a doctor gives us the bad news?

There is much to be said about the rationality of our reaction to this virus, and I would say that it is at least as much an emotional one as a rational one.

I agree with the OP that it is a fascinating question. There is risk in everything we do in life. Obviously, the goal is always to reduce that risk, but we know we can't eliminate it completely. Maybe we have done such a good job of it that the very idea of being presented with any new threat that reminds us of our fragility and inevitable death, regardless of its magnitude, provokes a violent allergic reaction?

In light of the number of diseases out there that can take us and kill us at any given time in our lives, plus the inherently risky things that we regularly do such as driving or adopting unhealthy habits, it is fair to say that we would never manage to have any level of normalcy in our lives if we treated them as we treat covid.
We can't even seem to do much about decreasing pollution or fighting climate change, all of which will claim many more lives than this virus, and we know it.

We are not a rational species.


1. You're right, Peru has a higher death rate per capita and yet we're still climbing. We'll be at the top of the list before the end of summer.
2. "The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing."

I mentioned death rates, not "number of cases." Also, the U.S. has proven to underreport their numbers as well.
3. The OP's argument is trite and it is a false equivalency. We can muse about cancer or traffic fatalities all we want. The plain and simple truth is this virus took off like a rocket and we still don't know how it ticks, how it will mutate, what the long-term damages it will have on the human body (and we already have see some disturbing signs on this front - permanent heart and kidney damage, for example).
4. "No country out there is fully 'open for business." I didn't make that claim. Twice in your reply you have put words in my mouth. Please stop doing so. Back to my point, if you bring infection levels down to very low numbers, you have more flexibility in how you deal with it, thus allowing to come up with strategies to re-open businesses, schools and sports.

Let me reitierate: 164,000 deaths in the U.S alone. But sure, let's have a jolly roundtable discussion about how society perceives threat and risk.

This is mere deflection.

Let me repeat: 164K dead.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
FGITD
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:08 pm

Francoflier wrote:

The OP's point remains valid. Why do we react so strongly to this threat, to the point of potentially wrecking society and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, for a disease that kills orders of magnitude less than cancer, heart diseases or malaria and which, unlike those, is an issue that will eventually solve itself?

We are not a rational species.


I do agree to a certain extent, but I don't think it's a good comparison. You don't go to the movies and catch a case of cancer from the person next to you, or go to work and get heart disease from your co-workers.

It's also not fair to make it such a clear distinction...you either get the virus and die, or get the virus and go back to normal. There's numerous cases of healthy, fit people, getting the virus and suffering irreparable damage that they will never be able to breathe correctly again.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:10 pm

mbmbos wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
mbmbos wrote:

I think it's an amazingly trite platitude.

As of this minute, 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.


This is wrong. Several nations have had a greater number of cases and deaths per capita.
The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing.

You can have all the bull sessions you want about how we, as a society, determine levels of risk that call for action. But the plain and simple fact is other countries shut down as much as possible, used masks, tested their citizens for COVID and for the antibody, and conducted contact tracing. As a result, these nations are open for business. When infection levels are very low, countries have more flexibility about sending kids to school, re-opening businesses, re-starting sports events, etc.


No country out there is fully 'open for business' Some that have gone through large waves have regained a semblance of normalcy, but are facing increasing numbers again and likely future waves of infections. Those few countries that have or are trying to completely rid themselves of the disease are finding it very difficult to keep it at bay and it is looking increasingly likely that they will either have to go down a path of regular lockdowns or accept some degree of infection.

Masks are great, and I support their use everywhere. They work and studies now show that they alone can decrease the transmission rate to a manageable level while operating a relatively normal society, if that hadn't been proven by several Asian nations already. Testing is great, but you can't test an entire population, and managing the positives is not an easy tasks, given the vast number of cases that do not require hospitalisation.
Contact tracing only works when the infection wave is very localized.

The OP's point remains valid. Why do we react so strongly to this threat, to the point of potentially wrecking society and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, for a disease that kills orders of magnitude less than cancer, heart diseases or malaria and which, unlike those, is an issue that will eventually solve itself?

Why is it that cancer cases per capita seem to be progressing and that it has killed almost 10x as many people as covid in the same timeframe, yet we sacrifice trillions of our collective wealth fighting Covid and barely a fraction of this researching cancer?
Is it because we have accepted it as a fact of life as it has been with us since the dawn of mankind? Is it because there is no alarmist headline on every news outlet in the World reminding us how many people have been diagnosed with it and died from it everyday? Is it because it's not contagious and none of us really give a cr#p about it until a doctor gives us the bad news?

There is much to be said about the rationality of our reaction to this virus, and I would say that it is at least as much an emotional one as a rational one.

I agree with the OP that it is a fascinating question. There is risk in everything we do in life. Obviously, the goal is always to reduce that risk, but we know we can't eliminate it completely. Maybe we have done such a good job of it that the very idea of being presented with any new threat that reminds us of our fragility and inevitable death, regardless of its magnitude, provokes a violent allergic reaction?

In light of the number of diseases out there that can take us and kill us at any given time in our lives, plus the inherently risky things that we regularly do such as driving or adopting unhealthy habits, it is fair to say that we would never manage to have any level of normalcy in our lives if we treated them as we treat covid.
We can't even seem to do much about decreasing pollution or fighting climate change, all of which will claim many more lives than this virus, and we know it.

We are not a rational species.


1. You're right, Peru has a higher death rate per capita and yet we're still climbing. We'll be at the top of the list before the end of summer.
2. "The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing."

I mentioned death rates, not "number of cases." Also, the U.S. has proven to underreport their numbers as well.
3. The OP's argument is trite and it is a false equivalency. We can muse about cancer or traffic fatalities all we want. The plain and simple truth is this virus took off like a rocket and we still don't know how it ticks, how it will mutate, what the long-term damages it will have on the human body (and we already have see some disturbing signs on this front - permanent heart and kidney damage, for example).
4. "No country out there is fully 'open for business." I didn't make that claim. Twice in your reply you have put words in my mouth. Please stop doing so. Back to my point, if you bring infection levels down to very low numbers, you have more flexibility in how you deal with it, thus allowing to come up with strategies to re-open businesses, schools and sports.

Let me reitierate: 164,000 deaths in the U.S alone. But sure, let's have a jolly roundtable discussion about how society perceives threat and risk.

This is mere deflection.

Let me repeat: 164K dead.


1. 2. no argument. I'm the one who brought up the unreliability of the case numbers, just because.
3. Viruses don't mutate to be deadlier (not good for their business) and don't magically transform into something else either. We have been dealing with coronaviruses for a long time now, which is why vaccine development is relatively fast and there are reasonable expectations as to how it will evolve over time with or without a vaccine and what to expect. If anything, aggressive social distancing is more likely to selectively breed more virulent strains.
4. My point about no country being open for business is that everyone is suffering regardless of the approach to this virus, and I doubt any nation out there has adopted a strategy that will avoid economic doom. time only will tell.
As for having more flexibility to reopen when cases are low, it's of course the case, but the measures to be taken should be the same either way: wear masks, social distance when able and protect the more fragile. Strict lockdowns are useful to preserve healthcare capacity. Low daily numbers are great, but really only means you'll have them for longer. In any case, I'm not here to debate what Covid management tactic is best, I'd say that's for the other thread.

You can repeat 164K all you want. It's bad. people die. We know this. It's on everything everywhere...
That's the point: in the same timeframe those 164K died, about 1.3M (in the US) have died of something else, interestingly, mostly along the same age demographics. Why is it a false equivalency? Are some deaths acceptable but others not?
The philosophical question remains: why are we ruining society to prevent those deaths and not the others?

FGITD wrote:
I do agree to a certain extent, but I don't think it's a good comparison. You don't go to the movies and catch a case of cancer from the person next to you, or go to work and get heart disease from your co-workers.

It's also not fair to make it such a clear distinction...you either get the virus and die, or get the virus and go back to normal. There's numerous cases of healthy, fit people, getting the virus and suffering irreparable damage that they will never be able to breathe correctly again.


Define 'numerous'... As with any widespread disease, you'll find statistical outliers, i.e. people who die or greatly suffer from it even though they belong to a low risk category. This does not change the mortality statistics for Covid which remains clearly linked to age (and underlying conditions to an extent).
As above, my point is not the contagiousness of the disease, it's the perceived risk vs. actual risk. You and I are more at risk of dying of cancer (or another disease) than Covid. Interestingly, cancer is also a disease that leaves long term debilitating effects even if you survive, much more so than Covid.
Yet we are happy to live with that risk (and many others) and seemingly not with the other one. The difference to me seems to be that one of these risks is much more visible than the other.

Our reaction to Covid is fear bordering on panic. Our reaction to the much greater number of deaths brought on by countless other diseases affecting the same demographics is general indifference or fatalism... Why?
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
johns624
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:16 pm

Aesma wrote:

Gun sales in the US : how many panic buying guns already had a gun ? How many already had 10 ? How many buying ammo even though they already had tons ?
Very few.
 
wingman
Posts: 3952
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:40 pm

johns624 wrote:
Aesma wrote:

Gun sales in the US : how many panic buying guns already had a gun ? How many already had 10 ? How many buying ammo even though they already had tons ?
Very few.


Yep, lots of first time gun buyers in this pandemic, lots of 'em pre-Floyd too. But either way more guns will make us safer. That's a logical fact based on decades of research and statistical proof. The reason no other advanced nation has so many gun deaths in comparison isn't because of more highly regulated gun laws, it's because they're commie pinkos without a constitution and no access to Big Gulps. Murica baby, where more guns = more safer. Suck on that ya Euro fruits!
 
TangoandCash
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:52 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:36 pm

Going back to the OP's question, and broadening it a bit: Looking back, I am amazed at the things my brother and I did growing up on a farm in the Midwest US, which were considered perfectly normal and accepted back then. Playing around farm machinery (usually not running machinery), riding on the fender of tractors, being allowed to roam and play in creeks at will, driving farm trucks and tractors (supervised and shortly afterwards unsupervised) as soon as we were big enough to reach the pedals. If my brother allowed my nephews to do things like that today, child protective services would take them away! And my friends who lived in town (small town, population about 1500) rode bikes/skateboards, played in the park (talk about equipment that wouldn't pass inspection today!), and generally roamed free until dark, without cell phones or parents knowing exactly where they were or who they were with. Different age, and it wasn't that people were unaware of the risks, we were taught about them and expected to use common sense and good judgement.
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 534
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:15 pm

In the context of road safety, I'm not really sure that it hold true, at least not from my perspective.
We have made great strides in improving survivability of our machines and creating safer roadway fixtures but at the same time the general populace has become very comfortable with a number of very unsafe practices (distractions such as phones and in car touch screens near the top of that list) and even turn a blind eye to some of the worst safety hazards whilst also feeling that the newest safety tech in our machine will protect us and even enable us to be less engaged in protecting ourselves.

That's not to say the adage has no truth or value but there is a large matter of not how safe something is but instead how safe we choice to believe something is. A large factor in this is the risk we perceive, for example take football, right now we all clearly perceive their is a risk in play due to CoVID, as a whole the myriad of other risks imposed by play have been judged acceptable however (injuries, trauma, risks imposed by crowds not related to infectious pathogens). I'm not really sure what point I'm aiming for other than that you can mitigate and avoid some risks but you cannot eliminate it, life is risk and the universe is not safe, thats not to say you shouldn't try and avoid undue risk, just to ponder about what risks you may be overlooking or accepting already.
“Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.” ― Steve McQueen (Le Mans) 1971
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:31 pm

Obesity and inactivity are a more significant health threat, and they affect children severely. COVID is not as significant.

We need to be talking primarily about the obesity epidemic, and how we can reduce the fatness of the country. COVID only if we have time. My underlying point is that people do not really care about public health in the first place. They won't take small steps to cause a massive change to their own (or their child's) health. Suddenly they are cool with not being able to pay rent due to COVID? I think that's probably BS.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:41 am

wingman wrote:
The reason no other advanced nation has so many gun deaths in comparison isn't because of more highly regulated gun laws, it's because they're commie pinkos without a constitution and no access to Big Gulps. Murica baby, where more guns = more safer. Suck on that ya Euro fruits!

If this is a joke, it's a good one. :lol:
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:49 am

Suppose 40% of people in country X support a war.
Suppose country Y is a major tourist destination of country X.
Suppose there is a single terror attack in country Y.
How many % of tourism decrease should we expect from a risk assessment perspective?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:57 am

Tugger wrote:
fr8mech wrote:
So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

Isn't this the norm throughout history?

Putting the Covid-19 situation aside or one moment, we are victims of our own success.

One benchmark I consider is infant mortality rates/death during childbirth.
There was a time when every mother became pregnant multiple times, losing several during pregnancy, others stillborn, and yet more children succumbing to disease or famine before they reached maturity.
I am going to take a huge risk here and suggest their investment (emotionally) in each child was somewhat less than today's generation. Losing a few along the way was just... "normal". The same thing happened to your mother before you. It happened to your sister(s). It happened to your neighbors. And you fully expected it to happen to you, at some point. Sad, but an unavoidable reality.

Somewhat more recently... if one of your children was knocked down and killed by one of those new fangled horseless carriage contraptions, it was most unfortunate, but your other five children still needed looking after, and after a brief period of grieving, life went on.

Where we are at today is that in China, under the one-child policy, doting parents put all their efforts into raising one "little emperor", and naturally would be distraught beyond belief if they were to lose that one-and-only child.

Meanwhile in Sudan or Somalia or wherever birth control is minimal, and amidst famine and food shortages, other parents seem to have more children than ever before. Dare I suggest they might be more accepting of losses? More willing to ride on the back of a motorcycle without a crash helmet? More willing to drive a car with dodgy tires? More accepting of their 14 year old sons going off every morning with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder?
It all rather depends if everybody around you is taking the same risks.

Ask any soldier in an active war situation if he is even slightly concerned about that cigarette potentially giving him cancer?

I'm not really stating anything new here, am I? :scratchchin:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:41 am

mbmbos wrote:
As of this minute [2 days ago], 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.

Francoflier wrote:
This is wrong. Several nations have had a greater number of cases and deaths per capita.
The number of cases is a very vague indication of the progression of the disease in any case. Since most cases seem to be unreported, it mainly depends on a country's approach to testing.
Ain't that the truth! :checkmark:

mbmbos wrote:
1. You're right, Peru has a higher death rate per capita and yet we're still climbing. We'll be at the top of the list before the end of summer.

:redflag: Not just Peru. And I wouldn't be so sure about the USA ever reaching the top either. :redflag:

At the risk of boring people with actual facts;

There are tables identifying death rates for every country on the planet. Unfortunately they often include much smaller nations that merely contribute background noise (apologies to San Marino, population 33.344)

Here is my (amended) list of the worst countries in terms of death rate per capita **
 Belgium 862 (deaths per million pop)
 Peru 672*
United Kingdom 622
 Spain 609
 Italy 581
 Sweden 564
 Chile 545
 United States 508
 Brazil 497*
 France 451
 Mexico 433*

* these countries are rising faster than average
** data correct at time of printing.

At the risk of offending more nationalities, even Belgium, Sweden and Chile are not exactly major players in terms of total population.

Taking the rest, I see Brazil catching up and equalling the US rate, with Mexico as another strong contender.

Pending new data or second waves, come September the USA may well end up 8th or maybe 10th.

It is also fair to note that the actual number of deaths in the US equals the total for the seven countries listed above it.


Let me reitierate: 164,000 deaths in the U.S alone. But sure, let's have a jolly roundtable discussion about how society perceives threat and risk.

This is mere deflection.

Let me repeat: 164K dead.


At least one world leader famously quoted numbers from other random countries every day in his press briefing ... right up until the day his country overtook them all to become the worst. After that, silence.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
ElpinDAB
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:00 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:01 pm

At risk of saying something that will piss somebody off, How about this for NYC?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyre ... odies.html

Certain neighborhoods in NY that were hit the hardest have over 50% testing positive for antibodies.

How does that play?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4236
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:04 pm

The last few days of February a chart was published stating that if people reduced their 'social distancing' by 75% of normal the R0 would be less than one*, and the virus would go away. I have not seen an update to that figure. I took it to mean only 25% of contacts closer than 6 feet for ten minutes. It plays hob with restaurants, theater, sports, and cultural events. Other than that (Mrs. Trump) you can lead a fairly normal life. My county was doing awesomely well for over two months, until we went into Phase 2, after which there was a sharp increase. We are doing OK but definitively not well.

*despite a lot of googling I have not been able to find that chart nor the article. Anyone have a link, or even better an update on what it takes to get to R0 of less than one?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
slider
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:07 pm

fr8mech wrote:
So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."


I think that statement is very profound, eclipsing just the obvious immediate Covid hysteria.

We (the broad, Western nations WE here) are fat, dumb, and lazy. Comfortable. We have, generally speaking, far easier lives than our parents or grandparents. Risk has been removed or substantially mitigated from almost every endeavor in our lives. Think about it: driving a motor vehicle today versus a generation ago with the increase of safety technology. Health care: medical care bountiful and knowledge plentiful at your fingertips. Economy and personal finance/retirement: more resources to help individuals than ever before to chart a path to a secure retirement. We have food. Medicine--diseases have largely been eradicated thanks to vaccines, infant mortality rates, etc. Shelter. American poor are still richer than most of the world's median income.

And on and on...

Consequently, when you eliminate all that risk, the thought of embracing risk becomes uncomfortable. The tendency to accept risk is then calibrated differently. Also as a result, the ability to weigh calculated risks and their consequence. And then you have an entire generation that cannot handle adversity because they've been conditioned that life is risk-free, rainbows and unicorns, and so on. That latter point would raise a separate discussion of is own, so I digress.

But the core point, fr8mech, I think is spot on.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:17 pm

mbmbos wrote:
As of this minute, 164,000 U.S. citizens have lost their lives to COVID. No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.



What other nation is as eager as we are you to flag every death as covid? The most extreme example I know of is the guy from Florida his 20s who was in a motorcycle accident and tested positive so naturally his cause of death was reported as covid. You have to realize there are tons of people similiar to you, some policy makers, who have been desperately wanting to get Trump out of office for the past three years and finally something is sticking. What other country is in an election year and has a leader hated as much as Trump?

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-man-ki ... ta-1518994
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:32 pm

Contrary to divorce statistics people still get married. So people are not really good in risk assessment.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:00 pm

afcjets wrote:
What other nation is as eager as we are you to flag every death as covid? The most extreme example I know of is the guy from Florida his 20s who was in a motorcycle accident and tested positive so naturally his cause of death was reported as covid. You have to realize there are tons of people similiar to you, some policy makers, who have been desperately wanting to get Trump out of office for the past three years and finally something is sticking. What other country is in an election year and has a leader hated as much as Trump?

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-man-ki ... ta-1518994

The issue you're promoting is a non-issue. The claim stems from news stories from Colorado where a state senator made accusations of false COVID death assignments. The issue boiled down to the fact that COVID attacks a number of organs and some right wing coroners were reporting COVID caused deaths as "liver failure" or "heart attacks" or a myriad of other technical causes of death that were all brought about by COVID. The state was accurately reporting them as COVID deaths.

The particular case you cited above is another non-sequitur, as the "story" has zero description or detail, and only says that the person, "initially reported to have died from COVID-19", without the story of what happened this is just innuendo that comes from Florida where COVID has been highly politicized by the governor.

The facts are that COVID deaths have been significantly under reported in the US.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:43 pm

unscheduled wrote:
The issue you're promoting is a non-issue. The claim stems from news stories from Colorado where a state senator made accusations of false COVID death assignments. The issue boiled down to the fact that COVID attacks a number of organs and some right wing coroners were reporting COVID caused deaths as "liver failure" or "heart attacks" or a myriad of other technical causes of death that were all brought about by COVID. The state was accurately reporting them as COVID deaths.

The particular case you cited above is another non-sequitur, as the "story" has zero description or detail, and only says that the person, "initially reported to have died from COVID-19", without the story of what happened this is just innuendo that comes from Florida where COVID has been highly politicized by the governor.

The facts are that COVID deaths have been significantly under reported in the US.


No it doesn't, they are completely separate.

As if the Newsweek article is the only and complete source of his medical record.

Send a link that supports your claim that covid deaths in the US are significantly under reported.
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:10 pm

afcjets wrote:
As if the Newsweek article is the only and complete source of his medical record.

AFIK it is. It's the only source you provided.

afcjets wrote:
Send a link that supports your claim that covid deaths in the US are significantly under reported.


Take your pick.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... r+reported
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:28 pm

unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
As if the Newsweek article is the only and complete source of his medical record.

AFIK it is. It's the only source you provided.

Actually here in the US, doctors and hospitals are required to keep medical records. Media companies are not outsourced for that.

"A person who died in a motorcycle accident was added to Florida’s COVID-19 death count, according to a state health official.

FOX 35 News found this out after asking Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino whether two coronavirus victims who were in their 20s had any underlying conditions. One of his answers surprised us.

“The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident,” Pino said."....

"(UPDATE) On Saturday, Kent Donahue, from Dr. Pino's office, said the motorcyclist's death "was reviewed and he was taken off the list for COVID fatalities."

Two days after a FOX 35 investigation, health officials confirm that a motorcycle death that was initially counted among COVID-19 fatalities has been removed from the state's data."

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fox-3 ... d-19-death
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:46 pm

And that's all there is to the "story", a claim made by Dr. Pino, nothing else. No name, no date, no location of the wreck, no name of the person or office who removed the "claim that the death was from COVID": nothing. For all we know or anybody else knows, this could have been a typo, or someone trying to create a news story out of thin air. The only "news" outlets that carried the story are right wingers. This coverage is typical. https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-di ... ida-report

The apex of trash journalism, they provide a file photo of a motorcycle wreck that has nothing to do with the story, so as to create some drama. Then they go off on a gambit and tell their readers that "dozens of Florida labs still report only positive COVID tests", as if there is something remarkable or newsworthy about that.

And the state does report negatives: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/

This is your only citation to support your claim that 169,000 deaths from coronavirus is an exaggeration.
And your story, even says that this wasn't counted in the state totals anyway!

On the other side of the coin there are multiple sources supporting the fact that COVID deaths have been under reported in the US.

The New York Times ran a reasoned article last week claiming there have already been 200,000 Covid deaths in the US
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hs-us.html

Scientific American says: "data on excess deaths suggest coronavirus death tolls are likely an underestimate"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -counted1/

The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy believes that about 30% of COVID deaths may not be classified as such.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... ified-such

Medical Net says: "COVID-19 deaths most likely being underreported in the U.S"
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200 ... lData.aspx

Business Insider says: " No matter how you slice it, coronavirus cases and deaths are severely underreported in the US."
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-coro ... rts-2020-7

The trade publication "Pharmaceutical Today writes: "Estimates of excess deaths during pandemic show underreporting of Covid-19 fatalities"
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.c ... atalities/

NPR quotes Fauci as saying: ""Almost certainly it's higher (the covid death count)," said Dr. Anthony Fauci"

Yale University reports: "‘Official U.S. coronavirus death toll is a substantial undercount’ of actual tally"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/officia ... finds.html

So what are you doing here guy, are you dealing in truth and reality or are you trying to sell some hogwash? If you're selling hogwash, why are you doing that? Pushing propaganda here on A.net would be a waste of time.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:21 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I am going to take a huge risk here and suggest their investment (emotionally) in each child was somewhat less than today's generation. Losing a few along the way was just... "normal".

It was also normal to starve.
Strong stress impacts blood pressure and probably life expectancy by a few years, but doesn't prevent children.

I read somewhere about 19th century England that wealthier people on average had fewer children. Their infant mortality was way above today's, but way below of the poorer people. By having more children than being able to afford from a good nutritional status view, poor people indeed took a big risk.
Again: How many overweight people try to loose weight because of corona?
Most people do what their peer group suggests them to do, not what makes sense.

The "Malthusian Catastrophy" theorie was popular in the 19th century.
Malthus said the potential of poor people to get more children always outruns the potential for economic growth. Poverty and misery therefore can't be avoided. Social spending makes the situation worse.

I know a road in India where there were always 3-4 children below four years playing. I always wondered how the few surrounding houses manage too keep up replacing those who grow up. But since maybe two years it stopped.

What happened?
In socialist India there were few good jobs which moreover one got only through connections, not merit. Education wasn't important.
Capitalism doesn't ask for your caste or connections. In 1990 (1991?) the IMF forced India to open it's economy. (Never let a serious crisis go to waste.) Then it took some years of economic growth. So maybe fifteen years back people started insisting that children visit school. They wouldn't tolerate their children from dropping out of school any longer.
Also some people were willing to pay extra to get better education. In government added schools teachers are paid by government, but building, administration and other costs have to be paid private. E.g. the Catholic Church runs many such schools.
In Karnataka aided schools were mostly in the local language. But now people demand English medium schools. Also it takes 35 years after people reduce the number of children for increase in school age population to level of. But the government doesn't increase payment for more teachers. People have to finance English medium education themselves.

And that is good:
Even poor people want to send their children to English medium schools. They reduce the number of children to be able to pay for it.
80 children in one classroom and all children are passed every year doesn't lead to optimum educational results, but it leads to a generation where school till 16 and having only one or maybe two siblings is the new normal.

Poor people take some time to copy the wealthier class. But in South India even poor people now usually get only two or three children. I don't know about the North, but the North is usually more backward.

Of course:
Nothing beats the development potential of the Chinese system.

So I disagree that education reduces the number of children. Capitalism causes both education and less children.
The good question is why this wasn't so in Malthus's time?
Was education free?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:45 am

slider wrote:
And then you have an entire generation that cannot handle adversity because they've been conditioned that life is risk-free, rainbows and unicorns, and so on. That latter point would raise a separate discussion of is own, so I digress.

Why would unicorns raise a separate discussion? :D
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:16 am

unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
What other nation is as eager as we are you to flag every death as covid? ...
What other country is in an election year and has a leader hated as much as Trump?

The issue you're promoting is a non-issue.
...
The facts are that COVID deaths have been significantly under reported in the US.

"I don't believe any statistic that I didn't fake myself."
Somebody who had survived two heart attacks, but gets a fatal one during Corona disease is a corona victim, but he would have died next year anyway.
What was the mortality July 19 compared with July 20?
More important:
What will be the mortality 2017 to 2019 compared to 2020 to 2022?



I tend to agree that the risk of death is exaggerated.
I still support restrictions because of the risk of lasting health damages. Unfortunately one only gets to hear cases, not statistics, of long term damages.
Which makes me wonder if critics of restrictions are right after all.

Trump's attitude to masks was stupid.
But considering that the US has a stereotype for having many overweight people one has to consider all factors before one makes conclusions about Trump's guilt.
Stress causes overweight which causes more corona deaths?
How many people live in cities and how are cases related to housing circumstances?
In India more than half the cases are from five cities. Should one blame the city administrations?
Munich has a high population density for German standards. But elevators are rare.
So many factors to consider.

Though I tend to not blame Trump I have to admit that his supporters coming to a rally without masks doesn't make a good impression.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:53 am

unscheduled wrote:
And that's all there is to the "story", a claim made by Dr. Pino, nothing else. No name, no date, no location of the wreck, no name of the person or office who removed the "claim that the death was from COVID": nothing. For all we know or anybody else knows, this could have been a typo, or someone trying to create a news story out of thin air. The only "news" outlets that carried the story are right wingers. This coverage is typical. https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-di ... ida-report

The apex of trash journalism, they provide a file photo of a motorcycle wreck that has nothing to do with the story, so as to create some drama. Then they go off on a gambit and tell their readers that "dozens of Florida labs still report only positive COVID tests", as if there is something remarkable or newsworthy about that.

And the state does report negatives: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/.

Since when has CBS been considered a right wing news outlet? Both your CBS link and the local Fox one I provided are dated 7/18, the difference is the Fox one reports the update the same day. Two days after their investigation, the health department corrected their error and reclassified his death as an accident. And your CBS link is the one that mentioned Florida only reports positive cases, not the Fox one. Are you really surprised CNN and MSNBC are not interested in this story? They likely wouldn't have time anyway. Their schedule is pretty booked up with Trump bashing.


unscheduled wrote:
This is your only citation to support your claim that 169,000 deaths from coronavirus is an exaggeration. And your story, even says that this wasn't counted in the state totals anyway!

On the other side of the coin there are multiple sources supporting the fact that COVID deaths have been under reported in the US...

So what are you doing here guy, are you dealing in truth and reality or are you trying to sell some hogwash?

No, it was the only one I posted because Iike I said when I posted it, it was the most extreme example. What I'm doing is responding to another poster's false claim that "No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.":

"Unfortunately, the total number of fatalities caused by the pandemic may be even higher, for several reasons. First, the official statistics in many countries exclude victims who did not test positive for coronavirus before dying—which can be a substantial majority in places with little capacity for testing. Second, hospitals and civil registries may not process death certificates for several days, or even weeks, which creates lags in the data. And third, the pandemic has made it harder for doctors to treat other conditions and discouraged people from going to hospital, which may have indirectly caused an increase in fatalities from diseases other than covid-19.

One way to account for these methodological problems is to use a simpler measure, known as “excess deaths”: take the number of people who die from any cause in a given region and period, and then compare it with the recent historical average. Many Western countries, and a handful of nations and regions elsewhere, publish such data regularly. The table below shows that, in most places, the number of excess deaths is greater than the number of covid-19 fatalities officially recorded by governments in the same period."

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -countries

The chart that follows this paragraph lists 24 places that report excess deaths and the US comes in 12th, behind five countries in Central and South America, Britian, Spain, Moscow, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:55 am

afcjets wrote:
Since when has CBS been considered a right wing news outlet?

I assume a local TV news program in a red state would be expected to cater to right wing views in today's polarized environment. The way that CBS affiliate covered the story along with their other misleading report that "negatives aren't reported" indicates bias; whoever created that "report" clearly had an agenda: two nothings sewed together..
afcjets wrote:
Both your CBS link and the local Fox one I provided are dated 7/18, the difference is the Fox one reports the update the same day.
Yes and?
afcjets wrote:
Two days after their investigation, the health department corrected their error and reclassified his death as an accident.
This is all within Orange County Florida, all we know it that two days later a database or some source of County information is said to have changed. The story was not followed up on, we are left with little more than innuendo, the information may have been corrected five minutes later, or it all may have been just a misunderstanding. [/quote]
afcjets wrote:
And your CBS link is the one that mentioned Florida only reports positive cases, not the Fox one.
Yes and?
afcjets wrote:
Are you really surprised CNN and MSNBC are not interested in this story? They likely wouldn't have time anyway. Their schedule is pretty booked up with Trump bashing.
What story? That's my point, there's no story here, there never was even an allegation that anything false was reported to the public or outside of Orange County FL. If this isn't just something made up out of whole cloth, it sounds like something on the level of a typo made by a clerk. Why would a news outlet report on something so trivial?

Remember, this story was used to justify the claim that coronavirus cases are being overstated. That assertion has been completely debunked above where a number of legitimate sources indicated that coronavirus cases are being significantly under reported in the US. That's the real story here.
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:06 am

unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
unscheduled wrote:
This is your only citation to support your claim that 169,000 deaths from coronavirus is an exaggeration. And your story, even says that this wasn't counted in the state totals anyway! ......................

No, it was the only one I posted because Iike I said when I posted it, it was the most extreme example. What I'm doing is responding to another poster's false claim that "No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.":
If that's your most extreme example of "COVID overreporting" you have nothing at all to support that assertion. But I already knew that.

This exchange has gotten too rambling already, I'm not going to jump in and defend a specific statement by someone else (re: where the US stands among nations in COVID containment).
Last edited by unscheduled on Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:05 pm

unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Since when has CBS been considered a right wing news outlet?
I assume a local TV news program in a red state would be expected to cater to right wing views in today's polarized environment. The way that CBS affiliate covered the story along with their other misleading report that "negatives aren't reported" indicates bias; whoever created that "report" clearly had an agenda: two nothings sewed together..

I assume a local TV news program would actually report local news and the CBS 12 link you provided covers Palm Beach county which is hardly right wing. When you look at red vs. blue 60% are Democrat and 40% are Republican. Orange County, where the misreporting occurred and later corrected after the Fox investigation, is even more blue at 63% vs. 37%.

The only thing misleading was your straw man argument that Florida reports positive cases, when the CBS link you provided only stated that dozens of labs within the state only report positive cases, and concerns that policies are being made based on skewed data from those labs reporting 100% positive results.

https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/dat ... and-party/


unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
No, it was the only one I posted because Iike I said when I posted it, it was the most extreme example. What I'm doing is responding to another poster's false claim that "No other nation on earth has experienced this death toll - in raw numbers or per capita.
If that's your most extreme example of "COVID overreporting" you have nothing at all to support that assertion. But I already knew that.

If you don't believe the Orange County Health Officer and your own CBS link from a blue county reporting on another nearby blue county, and that a motorcycle accident being reported as covid is extreme, pull up the economist link I also posted.

unscheduled wrote:
This exchange has gotten too rambling already, I'm not going to jump in and defend a specific statement by someone else (re: where the US stands among nations in COVID containment).

You jumped in when you responded to my post that responded to his false statement, and more like too rambling now because you can't defend it as you were presented with actual data that shows it's a false statement. But we get it, you'll have the last word.
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:04 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
fr8mech wrote:
..., the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."

I heard this quotation while listening to a podcast on drivinig.

As more and more CoVid restrictions reinstated/continued/enhanced and cancellations (college fall sports), I continue to reflect on the statement.

I floated this topic at a dinner we had with some friends a couple of weeks ago, and again with some parents during a Scouts BSA camp-out this past weekend.

Some of the responses were interesting. I was particularly surprised with the conversation we had during that dinner a couple of weeks ago. Both of our friends thought this was a good thing. They felt that the assumption of risk, when possible, should be avoided. In fact, as it pertains to CoVid, they felt that our governor's restriction were too little too late, and the restrictions lifted way too early. But, in a more general sense, they both felt that safety should always trump risk.

The Scout parents' positions ranged from "we need to get moving on getting back to normal, or some semblance of it" to "let's take it easy and plug along the way we are". I'll note, that several Scout families didn't attend this outing because they felt it was "too soon".

So, what do you guys think?

"The safer we become, the more intolerable any remaining risk appears."


Psychologically, this is a pretty normative and predictable response to increasing levels of knowledge, competence, and even relative control over outcomes.

What strikes me as far more unusual is throwing caution to the wind and inviting unnecessary risk at a time when human knowledge to date is at its zenith.



You wouldn’t really know that listening to the scientific illiteracy and conspiracist garbage plaguing us at the moment.
 
unscheduled
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:22 pm

afcjets wrote:
The only thing misleading was your straw man argument that Florida reports positive cases.....
I posted a link above to the Florida "COVID dashboard" above that includes the number of positive and negative cases.
Testing Results
Positive 567,375
Negative 3,646,498
Total 4,220,532
afcjets wrote:
You jumped in when you responded to my post that responded to his false statement,
I jumped in when I witnessed you trying to sell the false idea that COVID deaths have been exaggerated in the US. You had asked:
afcjets wrote:
What other nation is as eager as we are you to flag every death as covid?
Which is the standard right wing innuendo to imply that the evil Dems have made this COVID thing up just to embarrass Donald Trump.

COVID deaths have actually been significantly under reported in this country. That's what this conversation is about; your bickering about news sources and one highly questionable case in Florida are attempts at deflection.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: "The Safer We Become...

Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:08 pm

unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
The only thing misleading was your straw man argument that Florida reports positive cases.....
I posted a link above to the Florida "COVID dashboard" above that includes the number of positive and negative cases.
Testing Results
Positive 567,375
Negative 3,646,498
Total 4,220,532


Which no one (including your CBS link you scolded for doing so) was disputing, the textbook definition of a
straw man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


unscheduled wrote:
afcjets wrote:
You jumped in when you responded to my post that responded to his false statement,
I jumped in when I witnessed you trying to sell the false idea that COVID deaths have been exaggerated in the US. You had asked:
afcjets wrote:
What other nation is as eager as we are you to flag every death as covid?
Which is the standard right wing innuendo to imply that the evil Dems have made this COVID thing up just to embarrass Donald Trump.

COVID deaths have actually been significantly under reported in this country. That's what this conversation is about; your bickering about news sources and one highly questionable case in Florida are attempts at deflection.


Not really, which is why I asked you to send a link and you did as I had only heard the opposite before. Thank you. I gave one IMO extreme example and still believe both forces are at work, and the original post I responded to made the false claim that the US is reporting the worst death rates in the world.

In all fairness to him, why wouldn't he believe that? It is the mainstream media and left wing constant innuendo and narrative to try and convince voters Trump is so inept that even the country with the greatest resources on Earth has the worst covid stats on Earth all because of him, even though the data says otherwise. You even have Kamala Harris spouting that lie just the other day:

"“This virus has impacted almost every country, but there’s a reason it has hit America worse than any other advanced nation. It’s because of Trump’s failure to take it seriously from the start,” Harris said. She spoke in Wilmington, Delaware, during her first joint appearance with former Vice President Joe Biden since she became his running mate Tuesday.""

Yet no MSM outlet questions her, because they're on her side and it fits their narrative.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/12/kamala- ... start.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seahawk and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos