Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Egomaniac]

Comrade Egomaniac, are you finding trouble with Glorious Capitalist Society?

Yes and no. For me it's not about capitalism, socialism, or communism. For me, it''s about humanism.

[Keosen]

Coronavirus will bankrupt more people than it will kill.

Especially in countries with no viable public health care like USA.
I read a about a case of a coronavirus patient where she got a bill for 40.000$ or something for her hospitalization, how can this be true?

Situation in USA (because public health = communism) and UK (because YOLO no measures) is expected to be warzone-dramatic in the next weeks.

Yes and no. For me it's not about capitalism, socialism, or communism. For me, it''s about humanism.

Capitalism certainly does not value humans more than profit.

[Egomaniac]

Throwing random numbers, yup....

The issue isn't with his numbers.

The issue is whether or not we'll actually "see" a billion cases. As in, will we detect that many.

More than a billion people are going to get corona virus before this ends...we just won't know who most of the people that get it are.

[szechuan]

But the media started blowing that number up anyway when it is just a flat out lie to say that 20% of people between 20-44 who catch it need to be hospitalized.

Wrong, they said that 20% of Hospitalizations are aged 20-44, they aren't saying that YOU/PEOPLE have a 20% chance of going to the Hospital.

[Zaktar]

Long text, it was worth of it.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coron...e-be9337092b56

Thanks for that, really well written explanation of the options and likely outcomes.

[cubby]

I dont think we will detect that much, oficially at least.

We'll have to see - at this point, the only two acceptable answers are "I don't know" and "it depends".

At some point, imo, governments like India who are suppressing testing and hoarding information, will tip over and collapse. Then we'll see what we can detect.

[PC2]

Well see a billion cases, minimum, before "it's all over".

No that's prophecy-based nonsense that's probably derived from "pattern projection". How many people actually get infected depends on how effective people are at finding new solutions tomorrow, the day after, and so on. Which is unpredictable in principle.

[cubby]

We'll never actually know how many cases there will have been before it's all over. Most of us that get it will never have been tested.

I don't know how you can say that with any authority at this point. We simply don't know how this will play out, nor when it will end - everything is at the infant stage right now.

Perhaps "we may not ever know how many cases" is the way to go here.

- - - Updated - - -

No that's prophecy-based nonsense that's probably derived from "pattern projection". How many people actually get infected depends on how effective people are at finding new solutions tomorrow, the day after, and so on. Which is unpredictable in principle.

No, it's based on CDC data.

160M-214M infected - in the U.S. alone.

[markos82]

The issue isn't with his numbers.

The issue is whether or not we'll actually "see" a billion cases. As in, will we detect that many.

More than a billion people are going to get corona virus before this ends...we just won't know who most of the people that get it are.

Again you are throwing numbers... In 10 years everyone will get it eventually... The point is saying 1 billion will get it is random number and we have no evidence how in future virus might mutate

[Egomaniac]

I don't know how you can say that with any authority at this point. We simply don't know how this will play out, nor when it will end - everything is at the infant stage right now.

Perhaps "we may not ever know how many cases" is the way to go here.

We won't. There's already people that have had the virus and recovered from it without ever being tested, there are people that have it now that are never going to be tested for it, and there are people in the future that will get it and not be tested.

[bmjclark]

The number of cases in the US is growing pretty rapidly and it seems a good number of the new cases are centered in New York. I really think that lockdown came way too late.

[Egomaniac]

Again you are throwing numbers... In 10 years everyone will get it eventually... The point is saying 1 billion will get it is random number and we have no evidence how in future virus might mutate

"Everyone" = 7+ billion people. I'm no mathematician...but I'm pretty sure that's more than 1 billion.

[markos82]

"Everyone" = 7+ billion people. I'm no mathematician...but I'm pretty sure that's more than 1 billion.

That is me throwing numbers....

[cubby]

Again you are throwing numbers... In 10 years everyone will get it eventually... The point is saying 1 billion will get it is random number and we have no evidence how in future virus might mutate

It's not a random number, and denying science doesn't help anyone. The CDC has excellent projections on these things - it's almost like they study infectious diseases for a living.

[PC2]

No, it's based on CDC data.

160M-214M infected - in the U.S. alone.

That's what I'm trying to tell you, that projection-based model is entirely pseudo-scientific because it's based on the premise that the future is determined by generalizing the past. It's an entirely fallacious form of reasoning and if you think it is scientifically rigourous then I invite you to go and bet more and more money based on projections. If your reasoning is correct then you're going to be a vastly wealthy person in no time.

[cubby]

That's what I'm trying to tell you, that projection-based model is entirely pseudo-scientific because it's based on the premise that the future is determined by generalizing the past. It's an entirely fallacious form of reasoning and if you think it is scientifically rigourous then I invite you to go and bet more and more money based on projections. If your reasoning is correct then you're going to be a vastly wealthy person in no time.

No, it's not - it's the CDC making scientific projections based on historical data. My reasoning is correct. If you have better data, other than your own *feels*, I invite you to present it.

[markos82]

It's not a random number, and denying science doesn't help anyone. The CDC has excellent projections on these things - it's almost like they study infectious diseases for a living.

It's not denying science it's using logic. Flu virus mutates fast, by spring this current virus could mutate to the point it kills itself fast, becomes less virulent, deadly and so on. We don't know. We don't know if measures taken by some governments will work and reduce infection rate.

[PC2]

No, it's not - it's the CDC making scientific projections based on historical data. My reasoning is correct. If you have better data, other than your own *feels*, I invite you to present it.

False, prophecizing the future is inherently unscientific. There is no scientific means of determining the future.

[tikcol]

That's what I'm trying to tell you, that projection-based model is entirely pseudo-scientific because it's based on the premise that the future is determined by generalizing the past. It's an entirely fallacious form of reasoning and if you think it is scientifically rigourous then I invite you to go and bet more and more money based on projections. If your reasoning is correct then you're going to be a vastly wealthy person in no time.

Your philosophy tantrums are not welcome neither are they appropriate, especially how dim-witted they come across.

[markos82]

No, it's not - it's the CDC making scientific projections based on historical data. My reasoning is correct. If you have better data, other than your own *feels*, I invite you to present it.

Historical data is BS in this case. If you follow 2hat happened with Spanish flu we should have 300m+ infected and 20-30m.dead by now. More people living, more, more. Crowded areas (huge overcrowded cities), after traveling....