The Spreading (And Potentially Deadly) Coronavirus Epidemic....

[spacepup | 2,402]

Idk, my comments weren’t at all about people not telling the truth.  Just that it is a bit complicated with many variables but certainly worth investigating further.  I’m not trying to twist anything to fit or not fit any narrative

Nor was I dismissing it at all - merely adding some additional information.

[Tabonga | 2,312]

3 minutes ago, spacepup said:

Idk, my comments weren’t at all about people not telling the truth.  Just that it is a bit complicated with many variables but certainly worth investigating further.  I’m not trying to twist anything to fit or not fit any narrative.

Actually I wasn't trying to say that  (aimed at you) - but when you are addressing 3 people (call me lazy)  with one post it is hard to tailor it so it exactly  fits everyone  - while also  keeping it short and sweet.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Tabonga

[spacepup | 2,402]

It's alright - I didn't take it personally or anything, just was confused why I was included, as I was not in any way dismissing the information - merely adding a bit more context to it, and ultimately agreeing that it is something worthy of investigating and learning from.  People may draw different conclusions from the article, and that's fine.

I actually do agree with your comments, btw, regarding making sure the narrative fits the facts.  And that's why I'm basing my own actions and opinions not just on what I think, but on what so many experts are saying, as well as the data I'm seeing as I look at the different states and their approaches to this.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned about being right or wrong on any particular article, issue, or this entire situation.  My main concern is making sure people stay as safe as possible, and do what they can to help themselves and others as well.  I am indeed a bit concerned about the growing restlessness and the urgency of "getting back to normal," so I just hope that if it's going to happen that way, that people continue to act responsibly and to follow the guidelines as much as possible.  

 

[Tabonga | 2,312]

8 minutes ago, spacepup said:

It's alright - I didn't take it personally or anything, just was confused why I was included, as I was not in any way dismissing the information - merely adding a bit more context to it, and ultimately agreeing that it is something worthy of investigating and learning from.  People may draw different conclusions from the article, and that's fine.

I actually do agree with your comments, btw, regarding making sure the narrative fits the facts.  And that's why I'm basing my own actions and opinions not just on what I think, but on what so many experts are saying, as well as the data I'm seeing as I look at the different states and their approaches to this.

 

 

I included you since I wanted to acknowledge that I had read your post and wanted to include you as I  expanded (or maybe expounded - or both) on my reasoning.  

I sincerely hope that this is not a continuing occurrence - but I fear that it might just an extension of easily communicable diseases ability to propagate since we have had a spotty record preventing such diseases without an effective vaccine.  Without that we are fighting the very nature of such diseases and the impossibility of limiting social interactions enough to truly effectively fight those diseases.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Tabonga

[captmorgandrinker | 1,648]

49 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

@Tulpa @captmorgandrinker @spacepup

Yeah - people do lie but people also tell the truth.  As I said it might be a fluke - but it may indicate something else is going on that needs to be taken into account in dealing with things.  It is really really silly (and dangerous IMHO) to dismiss something out of hand simply because  it may contradict a prevailing narrative - sometimes prevailing narratives are wrong.   If something is dismissed because it doesn't fit the current narrative it becomes a form of circular logic style reasoning. And in fact, twisting/ignoring data to fit a narrative  is the wrong approach - you need twist/change the narrative to account for the facts (if the facts continue to accumulate). 

Let's say 25% of the respondents lied - that drops the 66% to 49.5% - still a very troubling figure is it not?  (Assuming this continues.)  While you can make guesses about what percent lies - and how they lied - but what percentage is "acceptable" to fit the prevailing narrative?  

You might be shocked or disappointed in the amount of people that lie, especially regarding medical stuff.

These days with every media thing being dominated by one slant or another or whatever agenda they're trying to push, it's hard to tell what's real anymore.

If what you presented is true, that would be alarming, but you would also think that would have had people going to the ER during shelter in place if it was more prevalent?

[Tulpa | 3,485]

I didn't say anything about people lying.

My point was that the article didn't say that people who never left home caught it, it said that people who didn't venture out much still caught it.

That's still people going outside, and still doing stuff that results in catching it. Or people visiting them aren't being careful.

Either this virus has the ability to walk through walls, or people aren't being careful even when they venture out once in a while.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Tulpa

[Tabonga | 2,312]

1 minute ago, captmorgandrinker said:

You might be shocked or disappointed in the amount of people that lie, especially regarding medical stuff.

These days with every media thing being dominated by one slant or another or whatever agenda they're trying to push, it's hard to tell what's real anymore.

If what you presented is true, that would be alarming, but you would also think that would have had people going to the ER during shelter in place if it was more prevalent?

We just don't know in this case (on the lies).  But there has to be level  of a base level of some sort that this has to be considered problematic (if it continues.

I am willing to bet that the antibody rate is also pretty high among those who sheltered in place in NY (who likely showed mild or no symptoms),  We are seeing more indications that the virus may have penetrated into the US populace as early* as the first part of December with very few serious manifestations  (some/most of those few might have been misdiagnosed).  So it could be there is just a weird progression in the spread of this - and we don't fully understand the mechanics of that.

*There seems to be reluctance in some quarters to take this seriously as it apparently conflicts with yet another narrative that some seem desperate to preserve. 

[Gloves | 11,749]

Just now, Tulpa said:

My point is that the article didn't say that people who stayed home caught it, it said that people who didn't venture out much still caught it.

That's still people going outside, and still doing stuff that results in catching it.

Either this virus has the ability to walk through walls, or people aren't being careful even when they venture out once in a while.

I go out once a week or so, as little as I can help it, and unfortunately I can wear a mask all I want but it's not going to help me a damn lick if people who are carrying the virus don't wear one. And I see a LOT of people not wearing masks while I'm out and about. I'd say it's about a 50/50 ratio. Fortunately so far I've not caught it and I attribute that to only going out when absolutely needed, and when I do so I make very short and calculated trips. Straight into the closest grocery store, staying away from major roads (Yonge Street here in Toronto), and keeping to 6'+ distancing.

[Tulpa | 3,485]

1 minute ago, Gloves said:

I go out once a week or so, as little as I can help it, and unfortunately I can wear a mask all I want but it's not going to help me a damn lick if people who are carrying the virus don't wear one. And I see a LOT of people not wearing masks while I'm out and about. I'd say it's about a 50/50 ratio. Fortunately so far I've not caught it and I attribute that to only going out when absolutely needed, and when I do so I make very short and calculated trips. Straight into the closest grocery store, staying away from major roads (Yonge Street here in Toronto), and keeping to 6'+ distancing.

That's possible, too.

Reminds me of the meme.

[Gloves | 11,749]

Just now, Tabonga said:

We just don't know in this case (on the lies).  But there has to be level  of a base level of some sort that this has to be considered problematic (if it continues.

I am willing to bet that the antibody rate is also pretty high among those who sheltered in place in NY (who likely showed mild or no symptoms),  We are seeing more indications that the virus may have penetrated into the US populace as early* as the first part of December with very few serious manifestations  (some/most of those few might have been misdiagnosed).  So it could be there is just a weird progression in the spread of this - and we don't fully understand the mechanics of that.

*There seems to be reluctance in some quarters to take this seriously as it apparently conflicts with yet another narrative that some seem desperate to preserve. 

I'm not one way nor the other with the December thing, but I DO find it somewhat hard to believe - in December people were out and about, visiting family for Christmas, etc.. I'd expect to see a big and concerning bump in overall death rates around that time if people were carrying it around. 

On the other hand maybe it was indeed popping around, and many of us have had and even gotten rid of/gained some immunity to it prior to Feb/March without even realizing it. Asymptomatic cases are the "norm" after all.

Frankly I don't know which I believe so I opt for the careful approach - hope for the best and be prepared for the worst. I like living, generally speaking.

[Tabonga | 2,312]

5 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

I didn't say anything about people lying.

My point was that the article didn't say that people who never left home caught it, it said that people who didn't venture out much still caught it.

That's still people going outside, and still doing stuff that results in catching it. Or people visiting them aren't being careful.

Either this virus has the ability to walk through walls, or people aren't being careful even when they venture out once in a while.

Again, I was addressing 3 people with one post - and you did include captain morgans statement about lying when you quoted him.

[Tulpa | 3,485]

1 minute ago, Tabonga said:

Again, I was addressing 3 people with one post - and you did include captain morgans statement about lying when you quoted him.

I understand that, but a read of my post should have made it clear that I wasn't addressing that aspect, merely addressing the article itself.

[Tabonga | 2,312]

5 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I go out once a week or so, as little as I can help it, and unfortunately I can wear a mask all I want but it's not going to help me a damn lick if people who are carrying the virus don't wear one. And I see a LOT of people not wearing masks while I'm out and about. I'd say it's about a 50/50 ratio. Fortunately so far I've not caught it and I attribute thato only going out when absolutely needed, and when I do so I make very short and calculated trips. Straight into the closest grocery store, staying away from major roads (Yonge Street here in Toronto), and keeping to 6'+ distancing.

Unfortunately the masks may be quite a bit overrated in terms of their efficacy - they still leave gaps which the virus can escape through (which is why glasses fog up so easily (mine included).  And fabric is not enough to block a virus - might catch some of it   but certainly not all. (Some studies have concluded that they make a marginal at best difference - some were done much earlier than the coronavirus so likely wouldn't have had any agenda related to it tied to them).  And surface contact is also a vector.

The best that can probably be said about the masks is that they prevent you from messing with your nose/mouth with your hands while wearing them.  But they  do nothing for your eyes

[Gloves | 11,749]

3 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Unfortunately the masks may be quite a bit overrated in terms of their efficacy - they still leave gaps which the virus can escape through (which is why glasses fog up so easily (mine included).  And fabric is not enough to block a virus - might catch some of it   but certainly not all. (Some studies have concluded that they make a marginal at best difference - some were done much earlier than the coronavirus so likely wouldn't have had any agenda related to it tied to them).  And surface contact is also a vector.

The best that can probably be said about the masks is that they prevent you from messing with your nose/mouth with your hands while wearing them.  But they  do nothing for your eyes

My thinking on this and life in general in that doing something in better than doing nothing. If having a mask on has a chance of helping, I see no harm in wearing one. That's all. 

And that's not to mention too that stores around me now have a mask requirement for entry. 

[Tabonga | 2,312]

8 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

I understand that, but a read of my post should have made it clear that I wasn't addressing that aspect, merely addressing the article itself.

Not to quibble but you did acknowledge by using  Captainmorgans post - so you must have given it some signifigance whether you  directly responded directly or not.

[spacepup | 2,402]

Maybe let's just move on from who was quoting who or whatnot and just get back to supporting each other and talking about ways to help with this situation.  

[Tabonga | 2,312]

12 minutes ago, Gloves said:

My thinking on this and life in general in that doing something in better than doing nothing. If having a mask on has a chance of helping, I see no harm in wearing one. That's all. 

I am not trying to discourage anyone from wearing them or not   - as I indicated I wear them myself.  But I don't think they are a universal panacea for this thing.  (There is a reason, after all, they (fabric ones) are not used professionally and that early on it was recommended that people shouldn't wear masks at all.)

(And for what it is worth I don't take everything (or anything actually) that Dr. Pinkus wants me to take - might do me some good (and likely not hurt me) but I kinda doubt it. ^__^_

Edited May 8, 2020 by Tabonga

[spacepup | 2,402]

I mean, yeah, to be fair - of course the mask is not an impenetrable fortress or the cure for this situation.  I think it's just a combination of many different things we can all do to help the situation, as I said before.  Trying to not go out as much, avoiding large crowds, washing hands often, good hygiene, wearing masks - all of these are things that can help prevent more spreading of the disease and even doing ALL of them doesn't make you 100% immune to getting it.   But I fully and sincerely believe, that doing as many of these things as possible, can make a real difference.  It's not about a narrative or a side here - I think these things can not only help me, but also other people I could influence, so it's worth it to me to do as much as I can.  I hope that others feel the same, but obviously not everyone agrees and I can't control them anyway.  All I can do is do the best I can, try to encourage others, etc.

 

[Tabonga | 2,312]

44 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I'm not one way nor the other with the December thing, but I DO find it somewhat hard to believe - in December people were out and about, visiting family for Christmas, etc.. I'd expect to see a big and concerning bump in overall death rates around that time if people were carrying it around. 

On the other hand maybe it was indeed popping around, and many of us have had and even gotten rid of/gained some immunity to it prior to Feb/March without even realizing it. Asymptomatic cases are the "norm" after all.

This is illuminating on the early history of the disease:

https://www.livescience.com/first-case-coronavirus-found.html

And who knows how long it was bouncing around with lots of asymptomatic* cases before this man.   And all it would take is one person (but likely more than that) to travel here and start spreading it. So a December date is not at all impossible IMHO.  

*From what can be told with the data there seems to be a really high ratio of asymptomatic/minimal symptom cases to ones requiring medical intervention.

[Boosted52405 | 178]

Idk I find it crazy that that plant in Missouri had like 400 out of 2300 workers test positive without any symptoms just recently.  There are arguments that they are "pre-symptomatic" and still incubating or whatever, but isn't that just crazy when you consider everything beginning to reopen and the day to day things we do?

Not trying to debate the reopenings or anything, just truly questioning how many of us could perhaps, right now, be infected and not even know it.  Bizarre.

[Strange | 1,698]

A friend of mine I went to college with is in the ER with breathing troubles. The jury is out on whether or not it’s Coronavirus. He works fast food drive thru (temporary job to help his wife with their rent).

Edited May 8, 2020 by The Strangest

[Tanooki | 4,929]

7 hours ago, Boosted52405 said:

Idk I find it crazy that that plant in Missouri had like 400 out of 2300 workers test positive without any symptoms just recently.  There are arguments that they are "pre-symptomatic" and still incubating or whatever, but isn't that just crazy when you consider everything beginning to reopen and the day to day things we do?

Not trying to debate the reopenings or anything, just truly questioning how many of us could perhaps, right now, be infected and not even know it.  Bizarre.

Wasn't someone weeks ago tossing around the idea that for all we know 4 out of 5 people have already been exposed and either felt nothing, a bit off, maybe figured it for the flu, and that was that?  I would not be all that shocked if the whole herd immunity thing has been at play for a time now and while yes it's serious, the media is playing it far worse among other entities to scare the piss out of people for ratings, budgets, control, etc.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,010]

58 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Wasn't someone weeks ago tossing around the idea that for all we know 4 out of 5 people have already been exposed and either felt nothing, a bit off, maybe figured it for the flu, and that was that?

Not 4/5 but substantially higher than the confirmed cases. Some studies say x12, x16, x32, or x50 of confirmed cases. Either way, at the biggest estimate that's roughly 50M and that's only 15% of Americans. Unfortunately, we would need 5 times that to reach heard immunity comfortably, as little as x3. Either way, were several months away from her immunity in the best case scenario ( mostly asymptomatic, mild symptoms, highly contagious )

[Estil | 1,258]

Do we know for sure if you get immunity from this virus?

[Tulpa | 3,485]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

Do we know for sure if you get immunity from this virus?

It's a little too early to tell, but if the human body does produce effective antibodies, and recent studies seem to indicate that it does, we should get immunity. But like developing a vaccine, it takes time.

The virus is called a novel virus because we've never seen one quite like it. That's why it's so dangerous. And why we can't rush into anything.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Tulpa