Coronavirus

[Roert42]

Population of Canada is 38 million.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Just heard on the radio they are hoping to have the vaccine out in December.

 

[MikeG]

The purpose of ANY vaccine, is to get your body to create appropriate anti-bodies ahead of time, so your immune system can prevent pathogen from infecting you before you are even exposed to it. It is to prepare your immune system ahead of time - and in a perfect world, it creates the exact same anti-bodies that your own immune system would have created, if you had been exposed to the disease, and survived. That's just how they work.

But the world is NOT perfect and vaccines are an educated guess at what is coming down the pike, as far as mutations, and that's why for fast-mutating viruses (ie. influenza) there is a mixed tracks record, because sometimes there is a better 'guess' at what will happen next season. Factor in long lead times and it isn't hard to figure out why the effectiveness isn't 100%, and downright poor in some years.

Influenza tends to be seasonal, so it's a guess as to what will happen next year, based on what happened last year. How all this will play out with corona viruses, no one knows, as it doesn't seem to be nearly as seasonal as the flu, and we don't yet know how fast it will mutate.

We still don't have nearly the death rate (as far as a percentage of the population) that the screaming rectums on TV tell us, because far more of us have been exposed, and survived (often with no symptoms whatsoever) than we know by official 'tests'. That's what anti-body tests will tell us. Who already had it (whether they knew it or not) and now has their immune system ready to (hopefully) prevent it in the future.

 

[Dirtman]

Yay! Spaghetti!

 

[Grumpaw]

What is really sad is that so many people go totally apesh-t when one of our service personal is killed overseas (yes, it is a tragedy), or the population goes nuts and on a rampage when a police officer takes a life, whether right or wrong,
but stays almost mute about the fact that over 1000 citizens are dying, daily in the most advanced country in the world.
So what that the death rate isn't as high on a "percentage" basis to those exposed. Try explaining that the family member someone just lost, is just a "number" and their loss is just a small "percentage".
To put it into perspective....
If you know your history, during the US involvement in WW ll, Dec 7 1941 thru Aug 15 1945, approx 1350 days, the US lost about 300 serviceman and women daily, total being around 405,000. Population was around 133 million people.
We are now losing over 1000 citizens daily from the virus. Population is around 330 million.
So, on a "percentage" basis, we're losing more people to a virus than we did to a war.

 

[MikeG]

I'm not trying to be insensitive. I've known people who have died from this, and in fact, people who have died from other things this year for that matter. Attending funeral services is no fun, and at that point, the cause of death probably doesn't change one's feelings much. Dead is dead. I have relatives who WILL die if they get this 'stuff,' as some of them are barely hanging on to life as it is, and have a list of pre-existing conditions that boggle the mind, as far as why they are even alive at all.

But the fact is..... we accept a certain death rate for certain things, without shutting the entire country down. So the question is - at what death total, or death rate, do we shut the country down? As an example, practically no one gives a thought to how many people are killed on the roads every year. We get some new regulations and safety features, but plenty of people are still killed. Right now, we're accepting the death rate per mile driven as 'normal' and generally an improvement over previous years. That doesn't give much comfort to those who have lost a family member or friend.

We don't shut the country down for flu season every year, and plenty of people die from that, or complications from it, to be more exact.

We don't shut the hospitals down every time there is another case of MSRA that kills someone. We're just kind of accepting that it will happen, even if we don't like it.

There's plenty of products on the shelves that WILL kill the person who takes them, and sometimes innocent bystanders. We accept that. Some over the counter... some prescribed, and taken as directed.

Get on the CDC web site, and look up how many people die from what, every year, for some perspective.

I agree - 100% - that it is pretty disgraceful that our medical system is startlingly ineffective for MANY things. Not just this. There are third-world countries with longer average life spans than us. It is ESPECIALLY disgusting with how much we spend on medicine in this country, let alone considering the end result.

Unfortunately, this current 'issue' is all NEW 'stuff' that we don't have a good handle on, just yet. When will that happen? I don't know. Can we shut everything in the WORLD down at once, for long enough for it to go away? Kinda doubt that much, seeing as how we all need to eat, at a minimum.

Come up with a plan, I'm all ears. So far, our best-laid plans haven't worked out as well as we'd like.

 

[fastpakr]

We don't 'accept' the death rates of each of those things without actively investing in controlling that outcome. Every year, tremendous funds are invested in improving automobile safety as an example. We've spent decades focusing on that and slowly improving vehicles.

Why are we still discussing the flu as if it were some rational comparison? In a typical season there are roughly 12-60 thousand deaths from that. So at the high extreme of that, it's one quarter of what we've dealt with so far this year.

It's unfortunate that it's midway through November and we're still discussing major actions as a solution when we've allowed it to spread this far. Every country in the world has been hit with this, and it's easy to see the ones that made early and decisive steps compared to places like ours where it became a divisive political issue.

Choosing to respond to this with simple and effective steps isn't acting out of fear. It's not about controlling your life. Just rational management steps to mitigate the effects. It didn't have to be this way.

 

[Grumpaw]

Not saying we have to shut down, that would never go over now.
But during times of crisis in the past, our population banded together for the common good...
Civil War, both sides, families, towns, cities all pooled resources to help their chosen sides. From making ammunition, bandages, uniform, ect. Whatever helped.
During WW ll, the whole country banded together and did without many pre-war available items, from gas to meat, to cloth for clothes. No won bitched or complained.
Korean War, millions gave blood for our troops and allies.
But now, even the simplest request to wear a simple mask to possibly prevent the spread is "too restrictive" Granted, a mask is not 100 % effective, but it helps. Instead, the college kids go to their parties, groups have huge gatherings, families have get-togethers with no provision for their safety, or mine, or yours.
I'm sure going to a football or basketball game is a high priority for some, but to me it's a waste of human life that doesn't have to happen.
Is going to a party more important than staying healthy ? Does wearing a mask infringe on someone's rights over the well being of their family or friends, or general public ?

 

[MikeG]

Sure we have fewer deaths every year in the flu season, than what we have now from the cooties......

But the total over the past decade, or the past hundred years or so, completely dwarfs it. Millions? Dunno how long CDC has been keeping records.

When the 'problem' is drawn out over years or decades or centuries, then we lose perspective. But that doesn't change the total numbers. Should we have been shutting down the country every year for flu season, once the cause (virus) was identified? We'd likely have not killed millions over that span, in this country alone. We haven't mandated widespread wearing of masks in this country since the 1918 - 1919 pandemic (which killed a LOT more people). What would have happened if we had mandated masks every year since then? Would people have accepted it over the past century? I kinda doubt it.

Again, there is a threshold that is accepted, generally. What should that be? Total deaths? Death rates? Keep in mind that 'zero' isn't possible, and that the closer you try to get go zero, the more the cost rises, astronomically at times.

 

[MikeG]

Go to the source if you think we don't accept a certain number of deaths from certain causes as acceptable:

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.

www.cdc.gov

2.8 million total (we all gotta die from something)
heart disease 655k
cancer 599k
accidents 167k (presumably including vehicles which I think are 35-40k per year)
respiratory 159k
stroke 147k
Alzheimer's 122k
diabetes 84k
flu 59k
Nephritis (not even sure what that is) 51k
suicide 48k

and so on. Multiply each one of these by TEN, to get a rough idea of what the totals would be for the last decade, and so on. Given that a staggering amount of this is all self-inflicted (diet exercise smoking etc.), no one can tell me that we don't accept these things. Otherwise we wouldn't have a staggering number of completely useless, and downright harmful products, on the store shelves.

Food for thought.... literally.

 

[fastpakr]

What on earth makes you think we 'accept' these things?

For every one of those, tremendous amounts of money is spent every year in research and treatment. These examples don't make your case in any way whatsoever.

 

[Grumpaw]

Sure we have fewer deaths every year in the flu season, than what we have now from the cooties......

But the total over the past decade, or the past hundred years or so, completely dwarfs it. Millions? Dunno how long CDC has been keeping records.

When the 'problem' is drawn out over years or decades or centuries, then we lose perspective. But that doesn't change the total numbers. Should we have been shutting down the country every year for flu season, once the cause (virus) was identified? We'd likely have not killed millions over that span, in this country alone. We haven't mandated widespread wearing of masks in this country since the 1918 - 1919 pandemic (which killed a LOT more people). What would have happened if we had mandated masks every year since then? Would people have accepted it over the past century? I kinda doubt it.

Again, there is a threshold that is accepted, generally. What should that be? Total deaths? Death rates? Keep in mind that 'zero' isn't possible, and that the closer you try to get go zero, the more the cost rises, astronomically at times.

Unfortunately, we're not in the "past", but the here and now, and we're losing an unacceptable number of people, possibly because many don't want to believe that some simple measures would work.
Answer your own last sentence...what do you consider an "acceptable" number of deaths ? And would you consider one of your family members"acceptable" ?
I truly hope it never happens, but I'd bet it would change your perspective.

 

[Dirtman]

And we are at 240,000 covid deaths in 9 months, and numbers are increasing now faster than they were at the beginning. So according to your numbers covid is the 3rd leading cause of death by a large margin with numbers showing no sign of stopping it's massive climb. By January deaths are likely to be well over 300,000.

Not to mention most of those things on those lists are not contagious. No one gets gets in a car accident from not washing their hands. I can't walk into a store and give you cancer from not wearing a face mask.

If wearing masks could lower the mortality rate even 1% thats 2,400 lives saved. How is there a rational argument against that? It costs nothing, it doesn't change your personal life, doesn't effect your freedom. You just slip something over your face at the damn grocery store.

 

[MikeG]

So here's a completely different way of looking at masks, in a non-emotional way, detached wa-y.

Say there's a number of Rangers on the road, maybe a small percentage, spewing highly abrasive one micron particles. And it isn't easy to figure out which ones. But, those highly abrasive, one micro particles aren't good for the engines of the rest of the Rangers.

Unfortunately the best air filters we can buy only screen down to 100 microns, so our air filters aren't preventing our beloved Rangers from 'breathing' in those highly abrasive particles. And some of our Rangers are about to lose valves, or compression, or bearings, and a cloud of those one-micron particles will put them in the junkyard, ASAP. What to do? Well, we can shut down ALL the roads, which would surely solve the problem.... for a while.

Or.... let's mandate that those same, 100 micron intake filters.... be put on the EXHAUST of EVERY Ranger. Hey.... it will catch at least SOME of those abrasive particles, right? We gotta help our fellow Rangers, right???? Never mind fuel economy, and performance will suffer, somewhat. WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!! THE TALKING IDIOTS ON TV INSIST THAT WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!!!

So we slow down the rate that Rangers go to the junkyard, a little, at 'some' cost to the rest of the Rangers. Doesn't take long to calculate, objectively, what the cost/benefit is. Then we make a decision, and live with it.

I'm just trying to put it in non-emotional terms with inanimate objects that we're familiar with. Substitute other numbers / objects if you wish. Strictly a thinking exercise.

 

[Dirtman]

People aren't inanimate objects...