Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
User avatar
catsrback76
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7548
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
Location: 2300 meters up in Ethiopia!

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by catsrback76 » Thu May 28, 2020 11:17 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 6:09 pm
catsrback76 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:15 pm
Rich K wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am
Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.

Did you EVEN LISTEN to the interview? He did NOT recant...please listen and learn! :coffee:

"It's not inevitable...IF we do it correctly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t that like saying any of the following:

“If Covid goes away, nobody else will get sick”
“If we score more points, we will the game”
“If TA had a cape, he would actually be Superman”
Before commenting...just listen! :roll:



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......




91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7080
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by 91catAlum » Fri May 29, 2020 7:08 am

I linked this article back on page 17 but nobody responded. It's pretty surprising after everything we've been hearing for 3 months, isn't it?


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Fri May 29, 2020 7:10 am

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 6:53 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 6:05 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
IAAfan - Why are you so worked up about ILTC’s position? Isn’t he entitled to believe what he chooses to read? It has been stated here many times that there are multiple viewpoints from the scientific community. Yet somehow, you are adamant that only your beliefs are correct.

I actually agree with a lot more of ILTC’s opinion than yours, but I do understand that I could be wrong. Your determination to completely disprove ILTC just makes you look stubborn.
iltc still needs to show me what he’s learned about models in the Discussing Issues page first, then he can respond to this. \:D/
That’s not fair Tom, I told you what I’ve learned about models!

Models are what would happen if no person did a single thing ever, in light of a pandemic. In fact, they’d likely have to walk up to a stranger, pry open their mouths, and spit inside.

They are also an arbitrary number, guessed by vert smart scientists, that are to be considered 100% fact, without a shadow of doubt.

I feel like I’ve learned a ton actually! Predict lots of deaths if Americans do absolutely nothing on their own. Force people to quit work and school. Tell people not to wear masks, maybe wear masks, save masks for hospitals, no wear masks, DEFINITELY wear masks, you’re a selfish jerk if you don’t wear masks. Then, when the death count is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the original “model”, give peeps a pat on the back for being good little humans and saving millions of lives!

I’m not sure why you guys don’t think I understand models! I do! We all did excellent. :wink:



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Fri May 29, 2020 7:11 am

91catAlum wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:08 am
I linked this article back on page 17 but nobody responded. It's pretty surprising after everything we've been hearing for 3 months, isn't it?
It will surprise some! However, I’m sure it’s a faulty source and just an opinion held by us and a few doctors here and there... :wink:

Sorry I missed that though. I must have been going off on one of my bizarre rants trying to think freely and not believe everything I’m told!

Speaking of which, did you see the piece on CNN about the states that opened up too early, and how they’re experiencing a “2nd wave” and it’s killing people? Montana was listed, big and bright red, as a state whose cases increased 450%. VERY scary. Especially if you live in other states and see that. I guess not as scary if you live here, know that we had basically zero cases in the whole state for weeks, when suddenly 7 people working together contracted the deadly virus after 1 person came back from a trip. None hospitalized...

I wonder why a news network would be so misleading as to impose fear? :-k



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Fri May 29, 2020 7:36 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:11 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:08 am
I linked this article back on page 17 but nobody responded. It's pretty surprising after everything we've been hearing for 3 months, isn't it?
It will surprise some! However, I’m sure it’s a faulty source and just an opinion held by us and a few doctors here and there... :wink:

Sorry I missed that though. I must have been going off on one of my bizarre rants trying to think freely and not believe everything I’m told!

Speaking of which, did you see the piece on CNN about the states that opened up too early, and how they’re experiencing a “2nd wave” and it’s killing people? Montana was listed, big and bright red, as a state whose cases increased 450%. VERY scary. Especially if you live in other states and see that. I guess not as scary if you live here, know that we had basically zero cases in the whole state for weeks, when suddenly 7 people working together contracted the deadly virus after 1 person came back from a trip. None hospitalized...

I wonder why a news network would be so misleading as to impose fear? :-k
Yes, forecasts change as more data and more reliable data comes forward. Amazing! So when a storm system is evolving way out in the Pacific Ocean and it's estimated to enter Montana in two weeks the forecast for that system can change as it draws nearer. It may call for 12" of snow two weeks prior, but change to 6" a week prior, then 2-4" a day prior. Or it may be exactly right or it may be wrong going the other direction.

Models are correct based on the data fed into them and the humans running the models or anyone disseminating the info from the model should always include the variables they've input into them. The humans running model should say, "this is based on no one doing anything to prevent the spread." Those disseminating info should say, "be prepared, because this storm MAY drop over a foot of snow."

I agree if anyone is saying "cases increased 450%" without giving context, they should be called out.

Everyone should be a little skeptical about the absolute accuracy of a model. They aren't precise and they give a great clue about their precision by giving wide ranges, such as 1-2 million or "as many as" 2.2 million or 6-12" of snow. This skepticism is what cause you to carefully read what the report on the model's projection says. After reading carefully, you have an a-ha moment of "oh they're assuming no intervention such as social distancing", so it won't get bad, but that still does give me an idea of how terrible this disease can be.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.



User avatar
grizzh8r
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5959
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:23 pm
Location: Billings via Livingston
Contact:

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by grizzh8r » Fri May 29, 2020 3:48 pm

iaafan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.
And yet you still haven't answered his question...:coffee:


Eric Curry STILL makes me sad.
94VegasCat wrote:Are you for real? That is just a plain ol dumb paragraph! You just nailed every note in the Full Retard sing-a-long choir!!!
:rofl:

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

iaafan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.
So you’ll continue wearing them from here on out? Far past this pandemic? Because they will still save lives long after this current situation.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Sat May 30, 2020 6:35 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm
iaafan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.
So you’ll continue wearing them from here on out? Far past this pandemic? Because they will still save lives long after this current situation.
Yes. Absolutely!! Now that I realize what simple thing it is to do. I would’ve done it years ago had I been made aware. That’s just my nature. I never used to wear a seatbelt, but once I understood it saved lives, not just my own due to how they keep you in the seat and enable you to control your car better it was an automatic yes. I believe seatbelt use is a law, so hopefully it becomes a law to wear a mask. I believe a mask has the potential to save more lives than helmets, seatbelts and probably a lot of other safety features we’ve established over the years.

I would ask you the same, but I assume you want to do this yourself and are crusading for this based on your previous comments regarding cancer, flu, alcoholism etc. I commend you for that if so.

Just keep one in your back pocket and if you’re going to a crowded place slap that puppy on for the brief time you’re there.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Sat May 30, 2020 8:50 am

iaafan wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 6:35 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm
iaafan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.
So you’ll continue wearing them from here on out? Far past this pandemic? Because they will still save lives long after this current situation.
Yes. Absolutely!! Now that I realize what simple thing it is to do. I would’ve done it years ago had I been made aware. That’s just my nature. I never used to wear a seatbelt, but once I understood it saved lives, not just my own due to how they keep you in the seat and enable you to control your car better it was an automatic yes. I believe seatbelt use is a law, so hopefully it becomes a law to wear a mask. I believe a mask has the potential to save more lives than helmets, seatbelts and probably a lot of other safety features we’ve established over the years.

I would ask you the same, but I assume you want to do this yourself and are crusading for this based on your previous comments regarding cancer, flu, alcoholism etc. I commend you for that if so.

Just keep one in your back pocket and if you’re going to a crowded place slap that puppy on for the brief time you’re there.
That’s impressive. While I disagree with your stance, there is no doubt I respect your take based on the fact you plan on wearing a mask forever now. I’m guessing most of the people that share your views won’t go this route. The masks will be off as soon as they deem the virus no longer dangerous. I just have a hard time believing in 5-10 years, or longer, I’ll be seeing many people; if ANY people wearing masks.

For me personally, I can equate wearing a mask to any other action we can take to save lives. We could ban fast food restaurants to curb heart disease too. We could ban cars to save the millions that die every year in accidents. Hell, we could keep schools and businesses closed from here on out and save millions of lives! Obviously all extreme, but still measures we could take to save lives.

Without coming across as uncaring, we need to remember that people die. It’s part of life. You live, and then you die. And while I’m fine with safety measures and precautions, at some point you have to live your lives, and not just live in fear of dying.

In regards to this virus, what are they saying this week about the percentage of American deaths? I know for a while a huge majority of our deaths were older people, many in nursing homes already, and many with underlying conditions. Is that still the case? I honestly stopped paying as much attention.

I honestly respect your take though. And the good news is that in 5 or 10 years I think you’ll be very easy to find in public, wearing your mask! Commendable for sure.



User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10038
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by wbtfg » Sat May 30, 2020 9:18 am

This is kind of science-y, but some interesting info I haven’t seen previously. This is interesting as many younger people in their 20s 30s and 40s have seen an increase in strokes and brain hemorrhages.

Coronavirus May Be a Blood Vessel Disease, Which Explains Everything

https://elemental.medium.com/coronaviru ... 4032481ab2



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Sat May 30, 2020 9:50 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 8:50 am
iaafan wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 6:35 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm
iaafan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:46 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
You never answered my first item......

You will be wearing masks from here on out correct? It’s very easy to do and it saves lives. It’s not just me and a “few others” that suggest this. It’s science....I’ve been told. You’re planning on never taking off your mask in public, correct? Because that will save lives....

You keep talking about the “models”. Way more than I do. I simply suggested the original numbers, crazy high, might not be entirely accurate. I know how models work. But if the public has no idea, and they’ll accept anything as truth, what’s the difference between 2-3 million deaths. 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, or 5-10 deaths? You have to trust the source. I’m not disputing “models”; I’m simply asking if we take them to be the end all, be all, 100% accurate? You seem to think so, while I have questions......
Yes, to me wearing masks is a very trivial thing akin to taking off shoes when going into someone's home. It's a small request and isn't an inconvenience.
So you’ll continue wearing them from here on out? Far past this pandemic? Because they will still save lives long after this current situation.
Yes. Absolutely!! Now that I realize what simple thing it is to do. I would’ve done it years ago had I been made aware. That’s just my nature. I never used to wear a seatbelt, but once I understood it saved lives, not just my own due to how they keep you in the seat and enable you to control your car better it was an automatic yes. I believe seatbelt use is a law, so hopefully it becomes a law to wear a mask. I believe a mask has the potential to save more lives than helmets, seatbelts and probably a lot of other safety features we’ve established over the years.

I would ask you the same, but I assume you want to do this yourself and are crusading for this based on your previous comments regarding cancer, flu, alcoholism etc. I commend you for that if so.

Just keep one in your back pocket and if you’re going to a crowded place slap that puppy on for the brief time you’re there.
That’s impressive. While I disagree with your stance, there is no doubt I respect your take based on the fact you plan on wearing a mask forever now. I’m guessing most of the people that share your views won’t go this route. The masks will be off as soon as they deem the virus no longer dangerous. I just have a hard time believing in 5-10 years, or longer, I’ll be seeing many people; if ANY people wearing masks.

For me personally, I can equate wearing a mask to any other action we can take to save lives. We could ban fast food restaurants to curb heart disease too. We could ban cars to save the millions that die every year in accidents. Hell, we could keep schools and businesses closed from here on out and save millions of lives! Obviously all extreme, but still measures we could take to save lives.

Without coming across as uncaring, we need to remember that people die. It’s part of life. You live, and then you die. And while I’m fine with safety measures and precautions, at some point you have to live your lives, and not just live in fear of dying.

In regards to this virus, what are they saying this week about the percentage of American deaths? I know for a while a huge majority of our deaths were older people, many in nursing homes already, and many with underlying conditions. Is that still the case? I honestly stopped paying as much attention.

I honestly respect your take though. And the good news is that in 5 or 10 years I think you’ll be very easy to find in public, wearing your mask! Commendable for sure.
It’s easy to keep a mask with you. No different than a wallet or money clip. I don’t shake hands anymore unless someone offers to shake and even then I say things to deter that. It’s Such a trite thing. I don’t hug either unless (ditto). Pointless and trite. I’m rarely within six feet of anyone, but have mask handy at all times. I think lots of people will follow suit and maybe masks will be like seatbelts and have a law.



User avatar
catatac
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:37 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by catatac » Sat May 30, 2020 2:54 pm

Boy, I respect your right to do whatever you want but if they made it a law to always wear a face mask in public that would be a travesty.

For all the maskers, I sure as hell hope this virus doesn't morph into something much deadlier (something that actually kills young healthy people), then comes back and wipes out millions due to people not having built up any defenses.


Great time to be a BOBCAT!

User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10038
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by wbtfg » Sat May 30, 2020 3:46 pm

catatac wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 2:54 pm
Boy, I respect your right to do whatever you want but if they made it a law to always wear a face mask in public that would be a travesty.

For all the maskers, I sure as hell hope this virus doesn't morph into something much deadlier (something that actually kills young healthy people), then comes back and wipes out millions due to people not having built up any defenses.
Masks don’t protect the person wearing, it protects the people around you if you are a carrier.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Sat May 30, 2020 10:20 pm

The first face mask I had was cumbersome, but the cloth ones are nice. Could be a big key to having football this fall. I like that you can just fold up the cloth ones and put in a pocket. Very simple, unobtrusive object. More comfortable than a helmet.

Think of all the health adaptations we’ve made over history. Imagine if we just learned that we need to brush our teeth.

In a few years people will be saying, “I can’t believe we used to go around without masks, especially when we were sick or knew we were around people who could become sick easily.”



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Sun May 31, 2020 3:45 am

iaafan wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 10:20 pm


In a few years people will be saying, “I can’t believe we used to go around without masks, especially when we were sick or knew we were around people who could become sick easily.”
I would literally bet everything I own that this will not be the case. Though I respect anyone who wants to wear one going forward, there is about a zero percent chance it will ever be law and less than a zero chance people will do it on their own.



TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14037
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by TomCat88 » Sun May 31, 2020 8:28 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 3:45 am
iaafan wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 10:20 pm


In a few years people will be saying, “I can’t believe we used to go around without masks, especially when we were sick or knew we were around people who could become sick easily.”
I would literally bet everything I own that this will not be the case. Though I respect anyone who wants to wear one going forward, there is about a zero percent chance it will ever be law and less than a zero chance people will do it on their own.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3 ... -hindsight

Hopefully we do something that makes the thought of needing to where a mask obsolete. Here’s a good article on things experts think will be obsolete in the next 50 years. The one on abortion was eye-opening to me.

I can see a post-coronavirus society where businesses in the healthcare industry require masks. I also think schools and any business that has people in groups will require or recommend masks when there is a report of flu or other easily spread disease.

I work in a big, single room with about 100 other people (speaking of things that are hopefully obsolete). Over the years workers have frequently requested air quality tests due to its close proximity to high traffic volumes and the fact that they are in such a working environment. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when everyone goes back. I work close to a person with MS and a person who takes care of an aged mother and ailing spouse.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

User avatar
catatac
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:37 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by catatac » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:27 am

wbtfg wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 3:46 pm
catatac wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 2:54 pm
Boy, I respect your right to do whatever you want but if they made it a law to always wear a face mask in public that would be a travesty.

For all the maskers, I sure as hell hope this virus doesn't morph into something much deadlier (something that actually kills young healthy people), then comes back and wipes out millions due to people not having built up any defenses.
Masks don’t protect the person wearing, it protects the people around you if you are a carrier.
Yes, that's the theory, but to say "protects" is a bit misleading. It might HELP to protect, but it might be negligible. Eyes are still not covered so should we be talking about full on face masks? Also, my personal believe is that just touching stuff is more likely to pass it on, and when we're out and about we touch a lot of stuff. So are we going to start talking about laws to make full on face masks and gloves when one leaves the house?


Great time to be a BOBCAT!

Post Reply