Covid19 Seclusion Thread

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Tell me - how do you know who are asymptomatic? (PS - your link about the cruise ship? Read the fine print: 18% NEVER developed symptoms. Not a huge number)

And, a lot of "young, healthy" people get seriously sick (See the link above).

So, how do you decide who is/isn't going to get sick? The world would like to know.

you need a muzzle. I’m not the only one saying this look at reopening guidelines.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
you need a muzzle. I’m not the only one saying this look at reopening guidelines.
No, you made a simplistic, bullshit statement/solution to a very complex problem. "Just let the non-vulnerable out and about. Keep the vulnerable in quarantine."

You might as well have said: "The solution to poverty is for no one to be poor."

And, you are completely ignoring what those guidelines say needs to be in place before any loosing of restrictions takes place.
 

pinkytoe69

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2012
1,689
181
minnesota
I thought it was in my head because it was all over the news.

Just curious...

If you had not heard anything about anything for the past few months, would this illness have piqued your interest at all?

I.e. would you have thought what you and your family caught was simply an oddly symptomed and slightly more annoying cold?
 

SCSL

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2005
4,144
152
We need less arguing over the problem and more discussion as to the solution. I am not of the "it's just the flu bro" mindset. But it is an absolute fact that more damage will be done from many more weeks (let alone months) of economic near-shutdown than will be done from this virus if we do not figure out a middle ground between 5-6 million newly unemployed per week and woo-hoo let's all party. Can we at least start with that as a baseline for a more productive discussion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian4d

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
We need less arguing over the problem and more discussion as to the solution. I am not of the "it's just the flu bro" mindset. But it is an absolute fact that more damage will be done from many more weeks (let alone months) of economic near-shutdown than will be done from this virus if we do not figure out a middle ground between 5-6 million newly unemployed per week and woo-hoo let's all party. Can we at least start with that as a baseline for a more productive discussion?

and less fear mongering. But yes, I said as much above. We can’t shut down for 12-18 months, even though some would welcome that.
 

pinkytoe69

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2012
1,689
181
minnesota
We can’t shut down for 12-18 months

If something comes about that is this contagious, but had the symptoms and mortality of Ebola, you would probably have to shutdown for that long. Probably far more restrictively than the current rules.

How do we prepare for that not-entirely-unlikely scenario?
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
No, you made a simplistic, bullshit statement/solution to a very complex problem. "Just let the non-vulnerable out and about. Keep the vulnerable in quarantine."

You might as well have said: "The solution to poverty is for no one to be poor."

And, you are completely ignoring what those guidelines say needs to be in place before any loosing of restrictions takes place.

Only in your head would you consider keeping the young/healthy and the asymptomatic away for our vulnerable elderly simplistic and bullshit. It's also amusing the same person saying this is the same person that keeps preaching cover your mouth, stay six feet away! How simplistic and bullshit of you. Why don't you preach some more preacher man!
 
Last edited:

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
We need less arguing over the problem and more discussion as to the solution. I am not of the "it's just the flu bro" mindset. But it is an absolute fact that more damage will be done from many more weeks (let alone months) of economic near-shutdown than will be done from this virus if we do not figure out a middle ground between 5-6 million newly unemployed per week and woo-hoo let's all party. Can we at least start with that as a baseline for a more productive discussion?

It's going to take a bit more number watching.

By that I don't mean numbers we can see. Those are useless. Any government with an ounce of sense is keeping the live data away from the people and media. People are stupid, and they don't need it. The media is stupid, and will cram it down their throats with a side order of supposition and bias.

If we live in the world I hope we live in, I have no useful data. If it turns out I do... I'm going to be pissed.

Governments need to keep looking at the numbers they have, and wait to see if something pops back up. In the meantime, hospitals can be restocked properly and encouraged to build a surplus, and they can develop better plans for storing an increased body count in the future. Doesn't really affect anything real, but it frightens people.

Shipping can be tightened up, stores that are still open can replenish their stock, courts can start rolling through cases they couldn't handle. Moves can be made to secure currency values, manipulate commodity markets just a bit...

We don't start until we've caught up with the crap we've been putting off. Otherwise, it's just one big cluster fuck. Things need to be rolled out piece by piece, well before you let the people completely out of their little self-isolation cages. You can't just dump a pre-stressed population back into an unprepared economy and about a million and a half businesses all playing a frantic game of catch-up at once.

You've also got to plan for the inevitable rip-off artists, tricks, scams, cons, and other predatory practices that will either begin or reemerge. I'm going to assume that some manner of Federal law enforcement is trucking along much more efficiently at the moment, and they probably want to finish taking advantage of the easier pickings they've got for a change.

The problem is, we'll have parked the car a little too long when all this comes about for it's own good, in an effort to prevent catastrophe, and it's got to have a charge and a top-off before use.

Cheers,

Kennith
 
  • Like
Reactions: SGaynor

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
We need less arguing over the problem and more discussion as to the solution. I am not of the "it's just the flu bro" mindset. But it is an absolute fact that more damage will be done from many more weeks (let alone months) of economic near-shutdown than will be done from this virus if we do not figure out a middle ground between 5-6 million newly unemployed per week and woo-hoo let's all party. Can we at least start with that as a baseline for a more productive discussion?
Yes, at one end of the spectrum is let everyone get sick as fast as possible; at the other is lock down until a vaccine is developed.

And, yes, there is a middle ground.

It's what I said two months ago that looked like the way to go: What S. Korea did. And, it's the basis for every plan out there - Germany, US, etc.

We need widespread testing of symptomatic patients and contact tracing of who they came into contact with (and isolating those people). Antibody testing will also help ID those that were previously asymptomatic (completely) and those that were sick (but not confirmed).

None of these things (virus/antibody testing, contact tracing) are currently where they need to be, in the US. Virus testing is getting there (TN announced yesterday that ANYONE can get tested, for free - that's where we need to be); antibody testing is just now being fine tuned/developed; there aren't enough public health staff to track and trace (states are starting to build up the staffing). Places like S Korea/Sinagpore - and Germany - did it from the jump and they had success in really tamping it down.

But the fact remains that in parts of the US this is fairly widespread, and in others it's out there, but not widely spread. Stop social distancing now, before those things are in place - and it will be more than two weeks before they are - just means that the virus will resume it's rapid spread. You have to really tamp it down - not just slow it - before you can let everyone back out.

That's (hopefully) likely another month away. (See: Cuomo extended the lock down in NYS until then). Some places might go sooner, some later as the peak comes later for them (New Orleans, Detroit, S. Dakota).

To blithely state, "Just isolate the vulnerable," shows a complete lack of understanding of the severity, and seemingly randomness, of this virus - people of all ages, regardless of their current health, do get sick. A significant portion gets very sick. If we could just ID those that wouldn't, we'd solve this problem, but it doesn't work that way.

So, yes. There's a way out. But it won't be tomorrow and it will require a lot of work and coordination among hospitals, public health agencies, and government to figure out when areas of the country have a real good handle on it.
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
1,218
117
Western Slope, CO
What I think the DOJ and teams of lawyers in private industry is working on is how to handle the inevitable lawsuits once things do re-open.

"but der governmendt told me I kin get ter work again! I got Coronaverurs and killed mah mee-maw!"

Because the majority of motherfuckers out there still think that we are social distancing to end the virus and once we are done then they are safe as houses. Bullshit.

First we overreacted because the initial fatality reports said it was at 15%. In today's information age that spread faster than my old cheating girlfriend's legs every time I turned my back. And rather than say "well let's pause a moment" everyone reacted thinking that 15% of people were going to get it and die. Of fucking course you have to do some radical shit if you think 15% of your population is going to die.

Once that started there was nothing going to stop it. Nothing. Any counter figure was "you're hate the sick, man!" or "You're a (Republican)/(Democrat)" because once people believe something they're told, prying them off that is all but impossible. Add in media doing a 24/7 cycle of nursing home residents dying and there you are.

Now we're at much better and more believable and accurate figures of fatalities at around 1% or less. Question: Does anyone think anywhere would have shut down if the initial report was 1% infected expire? Answer: Me neither. We'd have gone about it completely differently.

So now we're stuck with a global fucking train wreck and smart money for the US is on once the lawyers have a policy to deal with (read: Dismiss) every lawsuit that pops up once people start mingling but still get sick, then we'll reopen.

On topic: Rained today, staying inside. Sucks.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Between 2016 and 2018, they collected hundreds of samples of saliva and guano (or bat poop) from 464 bats from at least 11 different species; they sampled at three locations in Myanmar where humans come into close contact with wildlife due to land use changes and recreational and cultural activities — such as guano harvesting for fertilizer.

What grad student got that shitty job? :ROFLMAO:
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
First we overreacted because the initial fatality reports said it was at 15%.

Now we're at much better and more believable and accurate figures of fatalities at around 1% or less. Question: Does anyone think anywhere would have shut down if the initial report was 1% infected expire? Answer: Me neither. We'd have gone about it completely differently.
It was never at 15%. In Feb/early Mar it was estimated at ~3% (WHO said 3.4%); at the end of Feb Fauci said it might be <1% based on a Chinese report (1.4%).

And, by the time the US started locking down, it was predicted to be ~1% (see Fauci statements in mid-Mar).
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
It was never at 15%. In Feb/early Mar it was estimated at ~3% (WHO said 3.4%); at the end of Feb Fauci said it might be <1% based on a Chinese report (1.4%).

And, by the time the US started locking down, it was predicted to be ~1% (see Fauci statements in mid-Mar).

Are you admitting you were wrong? That's a step in the right direction! Congrats scott! You need a drive by on honk and wave party!!!
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
It was never at 15% : resident DISCOWEB CNN expert.

Love, people who actually look up their own research.
Sigh...You cite a report from Jan 24 (with only 41 patients covering ONLY the month of Dec 2019) but use that to say that is what caused everyone to "overreact" and shut the country down two months later. No one would have believed that to be an accurate number because only the sickest would have been known at that point, and there would be no way to even know if there were more - not in the first weeks of a new virus.

And, also the fact no one believed the initial China numbers, or that that was the very first report, but everything after that was less than ~5%. (the stuff that was coming out mid-Feb was painting a better picture - with hundreds/thousands of patients - WHO said 3.4%).

But sure - that very first report was what caused us to "overreact." Trump shut the country down the minute that came out.:rolleyes:

You also forgot that "what would have happened if it was 1%" was damn close to what was being said mid-Feb/early Mar by Fauci. I guess no one heard that.

NB: Today, the US has a 4.7% case fatality rate. Much higher than what was said of China in early Feb by the WHO (3.4%). But, hey...
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
1,218
117
Western Slope, CO
Sigh...You cite a report from Jan 24 (with only 41 patients covering ONLY the month of Dec 2019) but use that to say that is what caused everyone to "overreact" and shut the country down two months later. No one would have believed that to be an accurate number because only the sickest would have been known at that point, and there would be no way to even know if there were more - not in the first weeks of a new virus.

Good old scott, back to being dense and pedantic.

What the fuck do you think doctors and virologists and politicians were using in the beginning? Where do you think the reports were coming from?

Of course, everyone just ignored this report that was based on the very fucking outbreak that started all this.
And, also the fact no one believed the initial China numbers, or that that was the very first report, but everything after that was less than ~5%. (the stuff that was coming out mid-Feb was painting a better picture - with hundreds/thousands of patients - WHO said 3.4%).

But sure - that very first report was what caused us to "overreact." Trump shut the country down the minute that came out.:rolleyes:

You also forgot that "what would have happened if it was 1%" was damn close to what was being said mid-Feb/early Mar by Fauci. I guess no one heard that.

NB: Today, the US has a 4.7% case fatality rate. Much higher than what was said of China in early Feb by the WHO (3.4%). But, hey...

Fuck man, there's a reason half of us have you on ignore. I wish the old thread was up because you were preachy as hell that the rate was much higher. I was pointing to a 1 percent or less fatality rate back then and you were arguing against that, now here you are arguing for it. You're simply full of shit Scott.

Also "case fatality rate" is fucking useless since, again, it only counts known cases and everyone and their goddamned grandmother knows that the infected population is vast.

Go back to doing whatever it was when you weren't commenting here.