Mah mah mah mah myyy carona (my experience with it and some thoughts)

[Creedence]

The point of this thread is to do our best to have as apolitical a discussion of the virus and how responses could be refined based on new data as it begins to emerge as possible BECAUSE I believe it's a much more effective strategy to refine our ongoing national responses and speed ourselves to a global recovery (economic). Compared to most other discussions on the 'rona topic, I'm really impressed we've made it this far without going off the rails!

I keep trying to digest the data as dispationately as possible, and to summarize what I personally feel so far (explained in detail and substantiaed where possible in the previous pages):

RE the nature of the virus and the body's response:

1. If you have whatever genetic trait, comorbities (ie. diabetes), or physical condition (old age, or obesity, etc), your immunoresponse may over-do it damaging your internal organs, causing lingering ailments, and or causing this to be fatal. (1-5% of the population on average)

2. If you don't fall into the categories above, the virus is likely to come and go much like the other viruses that make the rounds each year. Should you be unlucky enough to get it again, it's likely going to do the same thing to you again. Again, pointing to the fact that the CDC has yet to find a case of reinfection causing the immunoresonse experiences by the group in bullet 1. (95-99% of the population on average)


RE the original government responses:

1. As a relative of a much deadlier disease, and being an unknown as a novel virus that was notably more infectious than it's more deadly sibling, the response was as significant and as timely as the individual governments felt it could be. This is where political fingerpointing seems to stem from and it's the biggest impediment to productive discussion. Look at any other discussion and it's a back and forth of (this government did it best, this one did it how the "other party" wanted to do it..because elections, etc). None of this has anything to do with the virus, and frankly is unproductive because it fails to account for the hundreds of other factors that have equal if not significantly more impact on how the virus spreads and kills different populations. Correlation is not causation, and it's a cop-out to center this discussion on politics or nationalism when so many other factors are simulatenously being ignored. At the very least debate the political element along side the other factors if that even possible (a multi-factored analysis that carries any validity is the domain of supercomputers not the human brain). Again, countries with more elderly people, countries with a high prevalence of comorbitities, etc WILL fare differently NO MATTER how the government responds. IE, there are not a lot of obese or diabetic people in China, so comparing death rates is an apples to umbrellas comparison. Yet we're so tempted to assign ALL numbers to government or political origins.

RE ongoing responses:

1. Continue to try to account for the physical and genetic implications when comparing how the virus continues to run it's course and see how the discussion evolves.

2. Given that an estimated 95-99% of the population fall into the less severe immunoresponse category, should not the focus of our collective energy be centered around trying to pin down the genetic traits and physical conditions that put an individual in the 1-5% of unfortunate victims rather than spending so much energy on bickering over broad brush spread-slowing behaviors?

3. Should we continue to follow the latter path in bullet 2, we will continue to suppress the well-being (economically, etc) of the ~95% of people who will be largely unaffected by the virus, and will damage the economic mechanisms that enable a society to remain resilient.

4. If we focused our collective energy on the former option in bullet 2, we could REFINE the ongoing mitigation strategies in a manner that carries the "least adverse" impact on society writ large. (This is where the "cure could no longer need to be worse than the disease").

[jimbunyard]

Your latest response belies your assertion that you have an 'apolitical' approach to this problem. So much so that I wonder where you're getting your information, and what definitions you're using for, in order, 'apolitical', 'economic', 'genetic', 'comorbidities', 'relative', 'disease', 'significantly', 'timely', 'productive', 'simultaneously', 'ignored' and 'well-being', because your usage of them doesn't always seem to always reflect their general meaning, or the documented actions of all those involved.

Again, the science is clear and has been for more than a hundred years, and the only place "so many other factors are simulatenously being ignored" is on such places as forum threads and in media reports. It is spectacularly easy (perhaps part of the problem?) to find many examples of the study of such 'other factors'.

My previous post's point was, as this one's is, is that, all other such worrisome 'factors' aside, what needs to be done is known, the problem is doing it because of cultural, including political, reasons.

And with that I'll leave it to y'all to figure it out without considering those implications...

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Creedence

The point of this thread is to do our best to have as apolitical a discussion of the virus and how responses could be refined based on new data as it begins to emerge as possible BECAUSE I believe it's a much more effective strategy to refine our ongoing national responses and speed ourselves to a global recovery (economic). Compared to most other discussions on the 'rona topic, I'm really impressed we've made it this far without going off the rails!

I keep trying to digest the data as dispationately as possible, and to summarize what I personally feel so far (explained in detail and substantiaed where possible in the previous pages):

RE the nature of the virus and the body's response:

1. If you have whatever genetic trait, comorbities (ie. diabetes), or physical condition (old age, or obesity, etc), your immunoresponse may over-do it damaging your internal organs, causing lingering ailments, and or causing this to be fatal. (1-5% of the population on average)

2. If you don't fall into the categories above, the virus is likely to come and go much like the other viruses that make the rounds each year. Should you be unlucky enough to get it again, it's likely going to do the same thing to you again. Again, pointing to the fact that the CDC has yet to find a case of reinfection causing the immunoresonse experiences by the group in bullet 1. (95-99% of the population on average)


RE the original government responses:

1. As a relative of a much deadlier disease, and being an unknown as a novel virus that was notably more infectious than it's more deadly sibling, the response was as significant and as timely as the individual governments felt it could be. This is where political fingerpointing seems to stem from and it's the biggest impediment to productive discussion. Look at any other discussion and it's a back and forth of (this government did it best, this one did it how the "other party" wanted to do it..because elections, etc). None of this has anything to do with the virus, and frankly is unproductive because it fails to account for the hundreds of other factors that have equal if not significantly more impact on how the virus spreads and kills different populations. Correlation is not causation, and it's a cop-out to center this discussion on politics or nationalism when so many other factors are simulatenously being ignored. At the very least debate the political element along side the other factors if that even possible (a multi-factored analysis that carries any validity is the domain of supercomputers not the human brain). Again, countries with more elderly people, countries with a high prevalence of comorbitities, etc WILL fare differently NO MATTER how the government responds. IE, there are not a lot of obese or diabetic people in China, so comparing death rates is an apples to umbrellas comparison. Yet we're so tempted to assign ALL numbers to government or political origins.

RE ongoing responses:

1. Continue to try to account for the physical and genetic implications when comparing how the virus continues to run it's course and see how the discussion evolves.

2. Given that an estimated 95-99% of the population fall into the less severe immunoresponse category, should not the focus of our collective energy be centered around trying to pin down the genetic traits and physical conditions that put an individual in the 1-5% of unfortunate victims rather than spending so much energy on bickering over broad brush spread-slowing behaviors?

3. Should we continue to follow the latter path in bullet 2, we will continue to suppress the well-being (economically, etc) of the ~95% of people who will be largely unaffected by the virus, and will damage the economic mechanisms that enable a society to remain resilient.

4. If we focused our collective energy on the former option in bullet 2, we could REFINE the ongoing mitigation strategies in a manner that carries the "least adverse" impact on society writ large. (This is where the "cure could no longer need to be worse than the disease").

Credence,

Your argument make perfect sense to me.

I’d add a couple of things.

WHERE your are makes a difference; NYC and Montana require different responses.

WHEN also makes a difference. NYC now vs April.

Virtually NONE of the main stream media takes any of this into account to help people realistically evaluate our personal risks. For many, most, the risks will be lower. But also for some the risks will be MUCH higher than average. Our reporting is doing both groups a sever disservice.

[Creedence]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Your latest response belies your assertion that you have an 'apolitical' approach to this problem. So much so that I wonder where you're getting your information, and what definitions you're using for, in order, 'apolitical', 'economic', 'genetic', 'comorbidities', 'relative', 'disease', 'significantly', 'timely', 'productive', 'simultaneously', 'ignored' and 'well-being', because your usage of them doesn't always seem to always reflect their general meaning, or the documented actions of all those involved.

Again, the science is clear and has been for more than a hundred years, and the only place "so many other factors are simulatenously being ignored" is on such places as forum threads and in media reports. It is spectacularly easy (perhaps part of the problem?) to find many examples of the study of such 'other factors'.

My previous post's point was, as this one's is, is that, all other such worrisome 'factors' aside, what needs to be done is known, the problem is doing it because of cultural, including political, reasons.

And with that I'll leave it to y'all to figure it out without considering those implications...

Apolitical: In my usage, I try to recognize when information I am digesting has a bias that aligns with a conservative, liberal, or independent bias. This is obviously a highly personal assessment based on an individual's life experience, world exposure, and regional culture, and upbringing. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has this mastered, but I do my personal best to recognize bias and work to retain or discard data based on my perception of reality as dispassionately as possible. I also make NO assertions that one party is better than another, or that their world view is more accurate than the other. I find the subject tiresome, and not worthy of my consideration.

Economic: In my utilization, I mean the adverse impacts on supply, demand, employment figures, and the ease with which products and services are able to flow relative to the pre-pandemic period. Anything prior to that period forms my baseline for this purposes of this discussion as the baseline, and I make the assumption that the desire globally is to return to as near that baseline as possible.

Genetic: Relating to ones genes/heredity. Pretty cut and dry there.

Comorbities: Those are chronic diseases or conditions that may also exist in a person. In my case, physical trauma that had me in an ICU then a neurological recovery ward for 2 months- turns out that set of physical comorbidities I carried were transparent to my infection with Covid. In other cases some comorbidities like diabetes or obesity DO seem to introduce more severe immunoresponses when infected with Covid.

My use of the other words you seek definition for align with the standard definitions.



The thoughts and concepts you responded to were borne from my experience. If my theoretical conclusions do not align with yours, you can attempt to muddy the discussion with semantics (it depends what you mean the word "is" is...etc) or try to drag me into political discourse, but I prefer to keep my discussion on this topic based upon my personal experience as a Covid survivor and the implications of the knowledge of the virus and the body's response to it gleaned from my discussion with a physician and sociologist. I'm happy to have a dialogue with you on areas where you have data or personal observations that conflict with mine, but I challenge you to to try to leave your political leanings out of your assertions.

I also feel your assertion of hidden political leanings comes from a misunderstanding of my last statement in bold. To clarify that statement for you, I believe the more effective use of our mental energy is to find the elements that make someone a high risk if infected rather than BICKERING over spread-slowing behaviors. To the politically inclined, I could imaging that being read as: spread-slowing behaviors are not as valid as identifying high risk individuals.

Let's try this again for the cheap seats:

Spread slowing stuff= good!
Bickering over spread slowing stuff = bad!
Finding risk elements= good!
Modifying the initial broad-brush control measures based on new data= good!

[Creedence]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Credence,

Your argument make perfect sense to me.

I’d add a couple of things.

WHERE your are makes a difference; NYC and Montana require different responses.

WHEN also makes a difference. NYC now vs April.

Virtually NONE of the main stream media takes any of this into account to help people realistically evaluate our personal risks. For many, most, the risks will be lower. But also for some the risks will be MUCH higher than average. Our reporting is doing both groups a sever disservice.

You bring up a great additional variable. Population density in New York probably (in my guess) enabled this thing to spread like wildfire and let it runs its course faster and with more intensity than other areas. To now highlight the fact that there is a dramatic lessening of active cases in New York feels to me like celebrating the fact that an area that underwent a forest fire last month is not on fire this month. I'm obviously taking some creative license with that analogy but it instinctively feels similar. I'm sure there were a ton of factors that made New York's experience unique to New York, but population density certainly must be among them.

I'll add my NEW and improved 2020 disclaimer for those so eager to pounce: Do political leanings of leaders or nations have ANY impact in the spread of the virus across nations, cities, etc? Yes, DUUUUUHHHHHHH (Good lord). Can we get back to refining control measures based on new data, or discussing personal accounts of corona virus infection, or highlighting novel control measures in your areas, or sharing other general thoughts while putting aside leanings?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well with luck online education may decrease some of the Woke/LBGT/Lefty crap being fed into young minds that should be concentrating on the Three R's not Drag Queens and why mommy makes Tommy wear dresses.

Amen! They can probably still peddle as much BS on line.

[AKA-None]

Still going back to my assertion that if this were the real killer with a very high kill rate we would have failed.

We as people should be examining this from that perspective so that when the killer virus comes we don’t drop the global population down towards zero.

Face it all of the existing efforts have failed from that perspective.

[Creedence]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Still going back to my assertion that if this were the real killer with a very high kill rate we would have failed.

We as people should be examining this from that perspective so that when the killer virus comes we don’t drop the global population down towards zero.

Face it all of the existing efforts have failed from that perspective.

That’s a solid point. With a 99% survivability rate, one would hope we’ll be able to use this experience to draw some lessons learned and shape future responses should some similar pandemic risk arise.

I think a post-mortem analysis that takes into account all relevant variables as they become evident will lead to better informed decision-making in the future. Different populations may benefit from different control measures. It’s apparent that it’s hard to understand what’s best for what population at this point.

[ilanortho]

And you work in a hospital like I do and see beds filling and people dying the likes of which I have never seen in 35+ years????
Its time you do so, and maybe you'll give up your conspiracy b*llsh*t. This makes me sick because of people like you and their BS idiocy. I have had friends and their family members die and you persist with this crap saying that this is no different than any other year. No wonder we have a total idiot in the White House. I will not respond further as you cannot be reasoned with if you can't see the facts on the ground and persist with this absolute crap. If wearing a mask is such a burden then don't. It's not your dying that worries me at this point, its the people you take with you and the poor healthcare workers who have to take care of you and are burning out.

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Still going back to my assertion that if this were the real killer with a very high kill rate we would have failed.

We as people should be examining this from that perspective so that when the killer virus comes we don’t drop the global population down towards zero.

Face it all of the existing efforts have failed from that perspective.

What was done in much of Asia has worked. And surprisingly it's not the more advanced countries like Japan and korea that did the best but thailand and vietnam. Thailand has 58 death and vietnam 22. I've been in China this whole time and have been around a few places by high speed rail since april. Everyone is out, street food is out and it's life as usual. It can work anywhere, but the age old argument is how much of your 'freedom' do you give up, even if it's temporary. So it comes down to your point, if this was the 'contagion' movie and death rate is more like 50% do you follow more authoritarian method of contact tracing using mobile phones and checkpoints in suburbs. For some they would rather die. And that is noble I suppose.

I realize this is not a world killer virus and some segments of the community are willing to take their chances for the economy. I think if done right there is a way to do it. But you need strong government leadership so its done in a safe way. Business as usual is not going to work.

[UFO]

How many people think that the following is OK:


1. Police locking thousands of healthy people in their apartments
2. Police Physically assaulting people who do not wear masks (even with medical exemptions)
3. Police smashing car windows and dragging people out on to the road who do not show papers.
4) Police checkpoints all over a city and no one is allowed to travel to work without papers.

5) Not being allowed to leave the country (Citizens and Residents) unless you have the right papers which are very hard to get.

6) Being arrested for incitement when trying to organise an anti-government demonstration (in an area where it is allowed re-covid)
7) Creation of Multi-generational public and personal debt.


I could go on but that's enough for now.


Sounds like the old East Germany to me - How many of you thought that was OK? Well this is Not East Germany its Australia.



The point some of us are trying to make is Not to deny the Virus exists as many of you try and label us, but to point out that the measures that are being taken are out of proportion to the threat. As many have pointed out this is NOT EBOLA and the death rate whatever you all say is still not that huge - 0.009% of the world population at the moment - Deaths so far this year from all causes are 0.4% - Even the USA where through whatever reason its relatively out of control its only 0.05% of the population has died - and remember that many of the covid deaths would have died at some point in the very near future as it is mainly the weak and infirm that it has taken.



This is such a small minority that the handling should surely be done in a way that protects the MAJORITY interests as well and not just the minority. Surely it is better sense to isolate the few that are at risk than take a broad approach of locking everyone up and in the process stamping all over our rights and freedoms, destroying economies and sentencing millions in the developing world to death.


And anyone that thinks these powers and laws will be relinquished after this is over are very foolish indeed.

[Yihang]

Yeh, the way Australian police handled it is confusing. Why was a guy eating a kabab on a park bench arrested?

The way checkpoints work in Beijing is they are all manned by local volunteers like old retired grandmas. You scan a QR code and if it shows you haven't been in an infected area then you are free to get on with it. I guess Chinese people in general are ok with following the rules as long as it doesn't impact them too much. I rarely see the police out. It's kind of a reciprocal trust thing. Violence breeds violence as they say.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Creedence

Apolitical: In my usage, I try to recognize when information I am digesting has a bias that aligns with a conservative, liberal, or independent bias. This is obviously a highly personal assessment based on an individual's life experience, world exposure, and regional culture, and upbringing. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has this mastered, but I do my personal best to recognize bias and work to retain or discard data based on my perception of reality as dispassionately as possible. I also make NO assertions that one party is better than another, or that their world view is more accurate than the other. I find the subject tiresome, and not worthy of my consideration.

Economic: In my utilization, I mean the adverse impacts on supply, demand, employment figures, and the ease with which products and services are able to flow relative to the pre-pandemic period. Anything prior to that period forms my baseline for this purposes of this discussion as the baseline, and I make the assumption that the desire globally is to return to as near that baseline as possible.

Genetic: Relating to ones genes/heredity. Pretty cut and dry there.

Comorbities: Those are chronic diseases or conditions that may also exist in a person. In my case, physical trauma that had me in an ICU then a neurological recovery ward for 2 months- turns out that set of physical comorbidities I carried were transparent to my infection with Covid. In other cases some comorbidities like diabetes or obesity DO seem to introduce more severe immunoresponses when infected with Covid.

My use of the other words you seek definition for align with the standard definitions.



The thoughts and concepts you responded to were borne from my experience. If my theoretical conclusions do not align with yours, you can attempt to muddy the discussion with semantics (it depends what you mean the word "is" is...etc) or try to drag me into political discourse, but I prefer to keep my discussion on this topic based upon my personal experience as a Covid survivor and the implications of the knowledge of the virus and the body's response to it gleaned from my discussion with a physician and sociologist. I'm happy to have a dialogue with you on areas where you have data or personal observations that conflict with mine, but I challenge you to to try to leave your political leanings out of your assertions.

I also feel your assertion of hidden political leanings comes from a misunderstanding of my last statement in bold. To clarify that statement for you, I believe the more effective use of our mental energy is to find the elements that make someone a high risk if infected rather than BICKERING over spread-slowing behaviors. To the politically inclined, I could imaging that being read as: spread-slowing behaviors are not as valid as identifying high risk individuals.

Let's try this again for the cheap seats:

Spread slowing stuff= good!
Bickering over spread slowing stuff = bad!
Finding risk elements= good!
Modifying the initial broad-brush control measures based on new data= good!

Though I said I'd leave it to y'all, can't resist the political "cheap seats" shot.

Or were you not aware of that aspect of 'politicization'. (note that the lack of a ? means that that is a rhetorical question)

So, for the final time, to the people who apparently can't even afford a seat in the auditorium...

The procedures to control this pandemic, and any other, even one much more severe in either infectivity or lethality have been well established for over 100 years. They are the same as they always were, and do not need a vaccine to be successful (though that might help, at least in the short run (barring eradication).

To reiterate my point (can hardly see how it needs explaining since it uses simple words colloquially). Because we know how to control the disease and virus, and apparently the only thing that has prevented some societies from doing so lies within the actions of those societies, the lack of control by neccessity must be caused (self-inflicted?) by that society's actions. (i.e. [for those kayaking in circles outside the park, waiting for that elusive HR to fall into their lap] for cultural reasons)

Left unsaid, because it seems so obvious, is that without a complete understanding of the actions of that aberrational (because it flaunts the definition) 'society', then there is no hope of even knowing what caused(s) the problem, let alone solves it.

Leaving out any of the conditions that led to the travesty affecting the US, be they political, religious, technological, economic -- whatever -- smacks of an agenda driven by things other than a desire for the resolution of the problem.

You want something to discuss on the 'real' factors behind this travesty? How bout these, in no particular order, for starters.

The apparent lack of understanding (abundantly on display here) that the economy is people.

Disaster capitalism.

Oligarchy.

Telecommunications act of 1996.

Bretton Woods.

Confirmation bias.

'Social' media.

Religiosity.

Secularism.

And so on.


And for an 'easy' fix?

(Re)Establish a centralized, dictatorial central control agency (the CDC?), consisting of epidemiologists, statisticians, sociologists, economic advisers, etc., that has ultimate jurisdiction to provide regional planning based on epidemiological and statistical data incorporating the relevant, most current demographic information. Remove all profit from any health-related industry, except those relating to 'elective' procedures. Ban advertising from 'social' media.

'Discuss' that for awhile, and when you get that hashed out, then you can move on to how to reconcile a Constitition that was formulated before the advent of the modern concept of electricity, let alone electronic communication, with the modern world...

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by UFO

How many people think that the following is OK:


1. Police locking thousands of healthy people in their apartments
2. Police Physically assaulting people who do not wear masks (even with medical exemptions)
3. Police smashing car windows and dragging people out on to the road who do not show papers.
4) Police checkpoints all over a city and no one is allowed to travel to work without papers.

5) Not being allowed to leave the country (Citizens and Residents) unless you have the right papers which are very hard to get.

6) Being arrested for incitement when trying to organise an anti-government demonstration (in an area where it is allowed re-covid)
7) Creation of Multi-generational public and personal debt.


I could go on but that's enough for now.


Sounds like the old East Germany to me - How many of you thought that was OK? Well this is Not East Germany its Australia.



The point some of us are trying to make is Not to deny the Virus exists as many of you try and label us, but to point out that the measures that are being taken are out of proportion to the threat. As many have pointed out this is NOT EBOLA and the death rate whatever you all say is still not that huge - 0.009% of the world population at the moment - Deaths so far this year from all causes are 0.4% - Even the USA where through whatever reason its relatively out of control its only 0.05% of the population has died - and remember that many of the covid deaths would have died at some point in the very near future as it is mainly the weak and infirm that it has taken.



This is such a small minority that the handling should surely be done in a way that protects the MAJORITY interests as well and not just the minority. Surely it is better sense to isolate the few that are at risk than take a broad approach of locking everyone up and in the process stamping all over our rights and freedoms, destroying economies and sentencing millions in the developing world to death.


And anyone that thinks these powers and laws will be relinquished after this is over are very foolish indeed.

Exactly

[Westcliffe01]

I'm afraid the civil war that would follow your easy fix would most certainly kill a lot more people than this "pandemic". But it seems that there is no lack of people who want to deprive us of our liberty and representative government. The constitution is about the limits on the government, not a list of permissions for the population. No-one gets to respond to any emergency by suspending the constitution, we got through 2 and nearly a 3rd world war with the constitution intact. In times of crisis, the government needs to be reminded of their limits more than ever.


People react to perceived dangers and adjust their behavior. Covid 19 is not nearly as dangerous as the medical experts and media have made out. This has gone on long enough that the general population is calling BS on all the fear mongering. Non western countries are not locking down and nor are they destroying their economies. The harm being done in this lockdown would probably not be corrected in 10 years time when the next recession will hit. I would support jail time for people making wrong projections to drive fear in the population. The same should be true for biased and inaccurate reporting in the media and inflation of cause of death by hospitals so that they can benefit financially by assigning every death as being a covid death.
It would also be great that people inciting their representatives to take actions contrary to the constitution and the bill of rights be charged with treason and sentenced accordingly. It's time to stop playing games.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And for an 'easy' fix?

(Re)Establish a centralized, dictatorial central control agency (the CDC?), consisting of epidemiologists, statisticians, sociologists, economic advisers, etc., that has ultimate jurisdiction to provide regional planning based on epidemiological and statistical data incorporating the relevant, most current demographic information. Remove all profit from any health-related industry, except those relating to 'elective' procedures. Ban advertising from 'social' media.

'Discuss' that for awhile, and when you get that hashed out, then you can move on to how to reconcile a Constitition that was formulated before the advent of the modern concept of electricity, let alone electronic communication, with the modern world...