Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Tuor]

While I am in full agreement with you that Covid is worse than the flu, trying to present a graph like this as evidence does more harm than good. Anyone who already agrees with you, is going to agree with you. Someone who doesn't, is going to look at the blatant misrepresentation on the x-axis as you trying to manipulate the numbers to look worse than what they are.

I'm not trying to please no one.

If you don't understand graphical representation then you have a problem, even that i don't like it, the scales used in the graph are low, that is why you claiming the x-axis is wrong, if you haven't realised the used scale starts at 0.01.

We know that for both Covid and the flu, that it is worse the older you get. By having three columns for 65+ for Covid, and only one for the flu, it just looks bad.

I noticed that, but couldn't find better graph then this one.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't even begin to compare SARS-CoV-2 to Ebola. That's an apples and oranges comparison.

It's an example of whta we can achive if we follow the rules. They had social distancing rules aswell.

I'm aware that they totaly diferent virus, i'm aware they don't even a similar R0 (actually Ebola seems a lot worst then sars-cov-2 on that). Now, if the poor countries in Africa managed to control a much more deadly that spreads at a much higher rate why wouldn't i compare them? The example is almost accurate.

Don't pin all your hopes on a vaccine; it would be wonderful, but it would also be slightly miraculous.

- Jensen is developing a vaccine, and they speeding up the developing process.
- China is working on one aswell
- The Brits...
- And now Italy, and this last one already succed in initial tests, they speeding it up aswell.

We will have a vaccine within a year at most, not just one, but supposely several (most of them are vaccines based on the protein imunization, the same principle that worked for the Italian vaccine).

The only thing you can claim, is, can we produce those vaccines in a large scale?

[Endus]

1) We live in a democracy. In order to implement fundamental changes, you need the people to agree with you. What you propose is basically totalitarian in nature.

We have elected officials, elected to do exactly this kind of thing.

If you're claiming we need a vote before moving forward with something like this, that's bananas cuckoo and flies directly in the face of representative democracy's principles.

2) Eugenics? This has nothing to do with genetic purity, what a nonsensical connection are you trying to do here? What I propose is a shift in general values of society which would automatically lead to the widespread acceptance of your proposals. That has to come BEFORE you implement the systems, or people will simply vote for the next best government that undoes your unilateral decision.

You were talking about having to "breed out the incessant greed" in humanity.

That's literally eugenics. Breeding the population to create a desired improvement is literally what eugenics is about.

3) It's not anti communist BS, it's reality of human nature. Human nature leads to the forming of a powerful elite and them mis-using said power.
Again: you need to change the values perceived by humans in order to effectively curb such behavior.

If you're arguing against communist economics because of totalitarian rule, then yes, it's anti-communist propaganda, not an argument.

No, it is not about "human nature", at all. Because that flatly is not our "nature".

4) Rape and murder are generally viewed as bad things. These values have already been formed by society. Thus legislation works because most of us don't do it anyway. Wanting more power and riches as the dude living next to you is not seen as a bad thing.
It's basically marketed as the whole point of being alive by western society.

This is circular reasoning. The terms "rape" and "murder" presume their condemnation by society.

Whether any particular act qualifies as "rape" or "murder", however, there's no clear agreement upon, outside the most extreme circumstances.

There is your disconnect. There is your reason, why the majority would vote against things like UBI because they think "why should the one that does nothing have almost as much as I do?". We already have this situation here with our Hartz IV (basically a BI with a few strings attached). People that work low wage jobs already feel at a disadvantage to doing nothing and Hartz IV recipients are often stigmatized.

It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, since if that argument held true, no such social welfare programs would ever be passed into legislation. And they are. Regularly, consistently. And then many of them are wildly popular and enjoy broad support regardless of party affiliation, though that may change some fringe components.

Canada's healthcare went into effect pretty much via the kind of process I'm talking about. And nearly all Canadians are happy with its existence. They may wan to see certain aspects reformed, but the idea of universal healthcare is nearly universally agreed upon.

[Krastyn]

If you don't understand graphical representation then you have a problem, even that i don't like it, the scales used in the graph are low, that is why you claiming the x-axis is wrong, if you haven't realised the used scale starts at 0.01.

I have a problem? Do you understand the difference between the x and y axis? X-axis refers to the horizontal axis. In this case, the age groups. The Y-axis, had I been referring to that would have been the rate, which starts at 0 not 0.01.

I noticed that, but couldn't find better graph then this one.

No, you just chose to present bad data, from a limited sample set, broken up in a way to make it look worse, instead of modifying the data to show a more accurate comparison.

[Tuor]

I have a problem? Do you understand the difference between the x and y axis? X-axis refers to the horizontal axis. In this case, the age groups. The Y-axis, had I been referring to that would have been the rate, which starts at 0 not 0.01.

Yep, i got it wrong, i had already posteded it when i realised, my fault.

No, you just chose to present bad data, from a limited sample set, broken up in a way to make it look worse, instead of modifying the data to show a more accurate comparison.

I didn't. I can asure you. All other graphs didn't had a similar age group.

https://www.google.pt/search?q=covid...w=1024&bih=646

When i got the graph with the flu comparison i remembered of stevenho discussion here on this thread.

[Crissi]

Given that Abbot is issuing an EO to not allow "confinement" for disobeying closure orders and backdated it to when the Dallas hair Salon owner started getting in trouble, its become apparant to me that rules and laws do not apply to...err..."some people".

[Granyala]

We know that for both Covid and the flu, that it is worse the older you get. By having three columns for 65+ for Covid, and only one for the flu, it just looks bad.

Agreed, we would need the # of people in order to make a 65+ average % for COVID-19.
Righ now, the data has little meaning in the context of direct comparison.
@Endus: sent you a PM.

[Underverse]

Don't even begin to compare SARS-CoV-2 to Ebola. That's an apples and oranges comparison.



Don't pin all your hopes on a vaccine; it would be wonderful, but it would also be slightly miraculous.

Not that miraculous. Moderna is very close to a phase 2 study and many others are following.

[Granyala]

Given that Abbot is issuing an EO to not allow "confinement" for disobeying closure orders and backdated it to when the Dallas hair Salon owner started getting in trouble, its become apparant to me that rules and laws do not apply to...err..."some people".

We have a saying here: some people are more equal than others.

[Krastyn]

I didn't. I can asure you. All other graphs didn't had a similar age group.

But you could have taken a bit of time to compare the data, and not just the graph, and instead shown a table like this:

	Flu		Covid
Age	Mortality (%)		Age	Mortality (%)
0-17	0.01		0-19	0
18-49	0.02		20-44	0.26
50-64	0.06		55-64	1.4
65+	0.83		65+	4.6

[Tuor]

But you could have taken a bit of time to compare the data, and not just the graph, and instead shown a table like this:

	Flu		Covid
Age	Mortality (%)		Age	Mortality (%)
0-17	0.01		0-19	0
18-49	0.02		20-44	0.26
50-64	0.06		55-64	1.4
65+	0.83		65+	4.6

I wasn't even looking for that data when i found that graph, but when i sow it i remembered of stevenho discussion. I still think you can't take conclusions of it. Covid-19 is always more deadly then Flu, that is enought for me.

[Krastyn]

Agreed, we would need the # of people in order to make a 65+ average % for COVID-19.
Righ now, the data has little meaning in the context of direct comparison.

I fully agree, but that just exasperates the problems I have with the graph.

Aside from the already mentioned problem of the terrible comparison in age groups, it is also pulling from a small sample set of cases (2,449 total cases, not even per bracket). So for the 0-19 Covid bracket, since they are only looking at 123 cases, it's easy to see why the Case fatality rate is 0. It wouldn't have been unrealistic to see a case fatality rate of 0 in the 20-44 bracket either, as there was only 705 cases.

My initial point to Tuor is that if you're linking data to someone with an opposing viewpoint to you, linking badly misrepresented data is going to do more harm than good.

[PhaelixWW]

While I am in full agreement with you that Covid is worse than the flu, trying to present a graph like this as evidence does more harm than good. Anyone who already agrees with you, is going to agree with you. Someone who doesn't, is going to look at the blatant misrepresentation on the x-axis as you trying to manipulate the numbers to look worse than what they are.

We know that for both Covid and the flu, that it is worse the older you get. By having three columns for 65+ for Covid, and only one for the flu, it just looks bad.

Oh, come on now. That's just because of the way the data is accumulated in their source studies. It's not due to any attempt at manipulation.

But if you really want a balanced chart:

[Krastyn]

Oh, come on now. That's just because of the way the data is accumulated in their source studies. It's not due to any attempt at manipulation.

But if you really want a balanced chart:

That's still not a balanced chart, which is entirely my point. If you're going to cut the flu off at 65+, cut Covid off at 65+. Those making the graph could have easily done that, as the data was there. Doing otherwise skews the representation, either intentionally or not.

Or are you trying to argue that someone who is 65 has the same chance of dying from the flu as someone who is 85?

[Shadowferal]

Surprise surprise: Florida emerges as bright spot in COVID-19 fight

The case and death numbers point to something many may find surprising: Florida has not become as much of a hot spot as other states such as New York, California and Michigan.

The state has fewer cases per capita than other heavily impacted states, such as Louisiana. According to Johns Hopkins University, Florida has had a total of 176 cases per 100,000 people compared to Louisiana, which has had 644 per 100,000 people.

Most of the Sunshine State entered its first phase of reopening on Monday, with restaurants, retail stores and museums allowed to operate at no more 25 percent capacity with social distancing restrictions.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who took criticism last month for his initial reluctance to issue a statewide stay-at-home order, touted the progress his state has made in a press conference on Tuesday.

“The fact of the matter is, Florida has met all the gating criteria to be into phase one,” DeSantis said at a press briefing on Tuesday.

Florida has a large elderly population, which raised fears it could suffer from a high number of COVID-19 fatalities. Images of young people partying over spring break in the state compounded some fears.

But experts say many in the state appeared to take a diligent approach on their own to COVID-19.

“Many older people self-quarantined before being told to do so by the governor,” said Laurence Barton, a crisis management and public safety professor at the University of Central Florida. “That decision by an older population may have well saved, in my opinion, tens of thousands of lives.”

Cindy Prins, a health care epidemiology professor at the University of Florida, said that coverage of Florida’s crowded beaches over spring break in March also likely drove a number of the state’s residents to self-quarantine in an effort to protect themselves.

“People got some information about what we should be doing as opposed to what we were seeing,” Prins said.

Other experts say they are perplexed by the coronavirus’s impact on Florida so far, citing luck as a potential factor.

“Other aspects are just luck. It hasn’t gotten to some places yet, but it may still be on its way,” said Roger Shapiro, associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

[Captain N]

I dont know how I feel about taking Florida's numbers accurately considering they redacted a lot of information about the deaths due to COVID-19|

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health...s-blacked-out/

[Shadowferal]

I dont know how I feel about taking Florida's numbers accurately considering they redacted a lot of information about the deaths due to COVID-19| https://www.tampabay.com/news/health...s-blacked-out/

“You have to take the word from the government that these are deaths related to COVID-19,” said Nelson, who is also the chief medical examiner for Polk, Highlands and Hardee counties.

Are they saying that the deaths might not be from COVID-19?
Now why would they inflate the numbers?

[szechuan]

Surprise surprise: Florida emerges as bright spot in COVID-19 fight

And Florida is a state that lies about Death Rates.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they saying that the deaths might not be from COVID-19?
Now why would they inflate the numbers?

Missing from the data set were the names of those who have perished from COVID-19, the illness caused by coronavirus infections, the probable cause of death (there can be multiple factors) and the circumstances of the person’s demise.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...242552796.html

[Poopymonster]

I dont know how I feel about taking Florida's numbers accurately considering they redacted a lot of information about the deaths due to COVID-19|

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health...s-blacked-out/

Probably because the state there is saying don't release the numbers?

[PhaelixWW]

It's an example of whta we can achive if we follow the rules. They had social distancing rules aswell.

I'm aware that they totaly diferent virus, i'm aware they don't even a similar R0 (actually Ebola seems a lot worst then sars-cov-2 on that). Now, if the poor countries in Africa managed to control a much more deadly that spreads at a much higher rate why wouldn't i compare them? The example is almost accurate.

No, because social distancing has nothing to do with Ebola. Ebola doesn't have asymptomatic cases. It also doesn't have an infectious incubation period. If you're symptomatic, you're contagious. If you're not symptomatic, you're not contagious.

At that point, it's very simple to isolate anybody who has Ebola symptoms, and by doing so, you've locked down the transmission.

That's simply not possible for a virus like SARS-CoV-2, which is infectious during the last few days of incubation, and which is extremely often asymptomatic while still being infectious for weeks after the incubation period ends.

We will have a vaccine within a year at most, not just one, but supposely several (most of them are vaccines based on the protein imunization, the same principle that worked for the Italian vaccine).

Do you have any idea how many vaccines fail? There's a reason why we've been working on an HIV vaccine now for some 40 years. Now, HIV is harder to make a vaccine for than coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2, but even though we have over a hundred different vaccines in the works, there's no guarantee that any of them will succeed, and certainly not "within a year at most".

[Tuor]

No, because social distancing has nothing to do with Ebola. Ebola doesn't have asymptomatic cases. It also doesn't have an infectious incubation period. If you're symptomatic, you're contagious. If you're not symptomatic, you're not contagious.

At that point, it's very simple to isolate anybody who has Ebola symptoms, and by doing so, you've locked down the transmission.

That's simply not possible for a virus like SARS-CoV-2, which is infectious during the last few days of incubation, and which is extremely often asymptomatic while still being infectious for weeks after the incubation period ends.

OK...

Do you have any idea how many vaccines fail? There's a reason why we've been working on an HIV vaccine now for some 40 years. Now, HIV is harder to make a vaccine for than coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2, but even though we have over a hundred different vaccines in the works, there's no guarantee that any of them will succeed, and certainly not...

... Dude, you can't compare ebola with sars-cov-2, now please read what you wrote, who is making comparisons at this time? You comparing HIV vaccine with Sars-cov-2, diferent virus, we know how to block sars-cov-2, and yes, already worked in a lab. No one has a clue of what to do with HIV vaccine.

..."within a year at most".

We will see.