COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 353

starting strength gym
Page 353 of 2309 FirstFirst ... 2533033433513523533543553634034538531353 ... LastLast
Results 3,521 to 3,530 of 23082

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #3521
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    467

    Default

    • starting strength seminar august 2022
    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    If not a troll then I don't know what. Talking to him is like jumping on a waterbed. All of that effort wasted, and the feeling of impending, deep regret if you continue.

    So we're up over 41 million unemployed. How much longer do you figure we'll have to wait before they shut the fuck up about social distancing forever? Also, how many people of that 41 million will permanently reject government (central) planning and control? I can't help but notice my conservative, hippie, libertarian and centrist friends are all saying the same things right now. All of my Leftist friends (who remain) just repeat the talking points.
    See - this is what I'm getting at. You combined a post about the effects of the virus with effects of the (largely stupid) shut down. I keep hearing people argue that the shut down is stupid AND in any case, the virus isn't a big deal. I'm saying the virus IS a big deal. Don't think I've argued for a shut down. I have argued for masks, distancing and hand washing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Let me try asking a different way, because you didn't quite answer what I (thought I) was asking. I'm not asking if it's deadly. If you can die from it, it's deadly. Chickenpox is deadly.

    You said earlier that it was "deadly to a large percentage of the population". About 84% of the USA is under the age of 65. That population has 77% of the cases but only 26% of fatalities. Given what we think we know about IFR/CFR, comorbidities, total COVID deaths, comparison to the seasonal flu, percent of cases that remain asymptomatic, seroprevalence/undiagnosed cases, etc. etc.

    Do you actually believe that COVID19 is deadly to a large percentage of the population?

    I'll lay my cards out in advance - I don't. Using the 77%/22% you get a CFR of 2%. If you look at the seroprevalence studies showing that a much higher percentage of the population had this thing (like 50 time higher), the IFR could be 0.04% for the under 65 crowd. This thing is just not that bad for the vast majority of people.
    So, again, i apologize. People have been saying only the elderly and very sick need to worry. I'm saying that 45-64 year olds die from it too. 45-64 is over 20% of the population. What I should have said is "Not only Elderly people die form it. ~25% of deaths are among those younger than 65."

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Let me try asking a different way, because you didn't quite answer what I (thought I) was asking. I'm not asking if it's deadly. If you can die from it, it's deadly. Chickenpox is deadly.

    You said earlier that it was "deadly to a large percentage of the population". About 84% of the USA is under the age of 65. That population has 77% of the cases but only 26% of fatalities. Given what we think we know about IFR/CFR, comorbidities, total COVID deaths, comparison to the seasonal flu, percent of cases that remain asymptomatic, seroprevalence/undiagnosed cases, etc. etc.

    Do you actually believe that COVID19 is deadly to a large percentage of the population?

    I'll lay my cards out in advance - I don't. Using the 77%/22% you get a CFR of 2%. If you look at the seroprevalence studies showing that a much higher percentage of the population had this thing (like 50 time higher), the IFR could be 0.04% for the under 65 crowd. This thing is just not that bad for the vast majority of people.
    Good point. A buddy of mine is an epidemiologist. He thinks the amount of asymptotic carriers is enormous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank_B View Post
    Let me try this again, because you're not understanding how this works.

    US Population: 330 Million
    26% of the population (45-64 age group): .26 * 330M = 85.8M people
    Total Deaths 45-64 age group: 41,000

    Deaths per million: 477

    This means that for every million people in that age group, 477 of them contract COVID-19 and die.

    Now, let's do 65+

    US Population: 330 Million
    17% of the population (65+ projected 2020 stats from 2017): .17 *330M = 56.1M people
    Total Deaths 65+: ~226K

    Deaths per million: 4028

    You have about a 10x higher death toll in the 65+ age group despite that population being about 40% smaller than the 45-64 group.

    Is 41,000 a lot? Yes. But, as a percentage of the entire 45-64 population it's about .05% of that age group.

    Now, for the next question... How many people in the 45-64 age group do you think are socially and/or economically affected by the lockdown?
    https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/p...p_2016-508.pdf

    41,000 deaths would make it the #4 leading cause of death in that age group - jusssst edged out by accidents. I say the 4th leading cause of death is not nothin. You may say it is nothing.

    Now, I have really tried to stay away from the govt shutdown. I'm saying this disease is "not a good thing" and people shouldn't minimize it. You can say it is a serious thing and the govt is all wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank_B View Post
    That must be the case, Rip. I can conceive of no other explanation for their inability to comprehend.
    I'm saying its likely a top-5 leading cause of death in the 45-64 year old age group.

    And who cares what my job is? Are we actually gonna argue credentials and bank accounts now?

  2. #3522
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    I'm not sure which ones are full fledged party candidates or not, but I have never seen an exception of someone using the title who ran under it. I think someone like Ron Paul may have been libertarian, but he didn't run as one the last time. He ran as a Republican, which I actually think was a bad move, but he was generally exempt from those three criticisms I listed.

    I'd extend those criticisms to most libertarians I have met as well too.
    Running for one of the two major parties is unfortunately the only way to get elected as a fringe candidate, barring a fluke here or there. Bernie and a few others do the same thing on the left side of the aisle where they really don't line up with most mainstream Democrats, but run under their banner to have a better chance at getting elected

    I really like Ron Paul, but I think he was one of those guys who was probably too much of an idealist to really make it as a politician. He voted against the Republican party on a number of issues, which is great as a point of personal honesty, but bad for a successful political career. I doubt Ron had many real "friends" at the water cooler in the House's backstage.

    The two-party system is another of those flaws/features of democracy that the founding fathers didn't seem to account for so far as I can tell, but honestly I've never seen any good solutions presented. Anything that requires a majority to make decisions is going to lend itself to a two opposing groups.

  3. #3523
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    I'm saying its likely a top-5 leading cause of death in the 45-64 year old age group.
    Just for this year or from now until the end of the CDC?

    Kinda like how the Spanish flu was a big deal and a leading cause of death in 1918 but pretty insignificant after that...

  4. #3524
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Had a thought today, I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but also haven't been reading every post on this thread (good lord, the intellectual output on this thread is almost as tiring as the idiocy):

    The reaction to this thing, if not interrupted could be quietly creating a lot of moral hazard, similar to the last few decades of monetary policy. Bailing out hedge funds that go bust on overleveraged financial products is not so different from forcing dramatic sacrifices for those who have been careless in their own duty and accountability to themselves.

    Both policies ride on the shoulder of millions who do not consent to the decisions made. Both discourage the development of preventative attitudes that might curb risk creating behavior in the future.

    I've been trying to explain to people around me that - if you support the nonsense that has occurred, and "after we reopen" (?) you smoke cigarettes, eat shit food, or fail to optimally train your body, amongst other things - you are a fucking hypocrite. No way around it.

    You can't have it both ways. If immense sacrifice is expected of the low risk cohort, the high risk cohort must do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate their own risk - otherwise there can be no sustainable social contract. In a parallel universe, with a decade of self accountability in healthcare, the burden of this thing would be the same as an average flu season. This is what collectivists will refuse to admit - the difference is ultimately rooted in individual behavior.

    I've found that most reasonable people, when presented with this argument, will admit they would rather that more people die in a viral epidemic, than give up their right to make unhealthy choices over the long term. I know more unreasonable than reasonable people, unfortunately.

  5. #3525
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,199

    Default

    Very good point, peters. It will be lost on the morons.

    Speaking of, here's a cool thing for Muntz: WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when '''taking care of''' coronavirus patients | Fox News

    Who said this, boys and girls? The WHO said this. The CDC doesn't agree. Our fucking bureaucrats vs their fucking bureaucrats.

  6. #3526
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Very good point, peters. It will be lost on the morons.
    Another area that a well meaning bureaucrat could help with:
    BMI standards
    Licensed trainers
    State funded running programs
    Etc

  7. #3527
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post

    https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/p...p_2016-508.pdf

    41,000 deaths would make it the #4 leading cause of death in that age group - jusssst edged out by accidents. I say the 4th leading cause of death is not nothin. You may say it is nothing.

    Now, I have really tried to stay away from the govt shutdown. I'm saying this disease is "not a good thing" and people shouldn't minimize it. You can say it is a serious thing and the govt is all wrong.
    First off, my apologies. I think I was looking at deaths by all causes in my previous calculations, so my numbers were pretty far off. I have to admit, the datasets on the CDC site aren't exactly super friendly. From this table on the CDC site, I finally believe I found the COVID-19 deaths separated from the totals. I had to sum up 45-54 and 55-64 age groups to make the 45-64 age group and then I had to sum up 65-74, 75-84, and 85+ to make the 65+ age group. Here's what I hope are the correct numbers:

    US Population: 330M
    45-64 (26% of Population): .26 * 330M = 85.8M
    Total COVID-19 Deaths 45-64 Group: 13668

    Deaths per million: 159

    For 65+

    US Population: 330M
    65+ (.17% Population): .17 * 330M = 56.1M
    Total COVID-19 Deaths 65+ Group: 65645

    Deaths Per Million: 1170*

    I'd like to note something specific about the 75+ age group. It totaled over 58k deaths as of the week ending 5/23/2020. From the Census Bureau, here, that's about 6.5% of the population. So, 6.5% of the population is responsible for almost 58% of the deaths. You may have seen Rip post this before, but it's basically the exact same thing in word format.

    Just for completeness, the 45-54 age group had 3893 deaths putting it right behind..... HOLY FUCK..... RESPIRATORY DISEASES as the 8th most common cause of death on this chart you posted. In the 55-64 age group, it was 9775, putting it in 8th behind cerebrovascular (stroke). Respiratory disease is 4th on the list for this group with 17,810.

  8. #3528
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Very good point, peters. It will be lost on the morons.

    Speaking of, here's a cool thing for Muntz: WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when '''taking care of''' coronavirus patients | Fox News

    Who said this, boys and girls? The WHO said this. The CDC doesn't agree. Our fucking bureaucrats vs their fucking bureaucrats.
    So, because of the huge pile-on I've reading a ton about masks. I got to say that the mask shit is much more unsettled than I thought. Y'all may be right that it does nothing. Johns Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic and The Cleveland Clinic all recommend it - with some caveats. Other 'respected' institutions disagree. I think we can all agree that none of us trust our govt and they are doing a terrible job. So yea - mask in your car makes no effin sense. If you are in an elevator or somewhere social distancing is impossible? It probably does.

    Johns Hopkins: Coronavirus Face Masks: Types & When to Use | Johns Hopkins Medicine
    Cleveland Clinic: Here’s How Wearing a Cloth Mask Helps Fight the Spread of Coronavirus – Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic
    Mayo Clinic: COVID-19: How much protection do face masks offer? - Mayo Clinic

  9. #3529
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Speaking of, here's a cool thing for Muntz: WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when '''taking care of''' coronavirus patients | Fox News

    Who said this, boys and girls? The WHO said this. The CDC doesn't agree. Our fucking bureaucrats vs their fucking bureaucrats.
    This is more than just their idiots vs our idiots. People have literally been killed over disputes about masks in this country. You know where that hasn't happened? Everywhere else in the world that's listening to the more sensible idiots as opposed to our complete fucking morons who make shit up for no good reason.

    This is the same CDC, you will recall, that less than a year ago was ready to create the largest public health crises in American history by banning the use of e-cigarettes because they thought they were all of a sudden mysteriously killing people before discovering that, actually, it was the vitamin E acetate in one bootleg producer's marijuana cartridges that were responsible for every single death.

    Funny how a mistake that disgustingly and dangerously egregious gets swept under the rug at the start of the next news cycle and all of a sudden the CDC are the iron clad experts again. You better believe they'll take full advantage of this pattern when the news switches from coronavirus to the widespread riots that are about to sweep the country.

    Speaking of which, I place the blame for the current situation in Minneapolis squarely on the government's intentional tanking of the economy. Riots are what happens when you push unemployment into the high double digits. We learned this in Los Angeles in the early 90s and nobody bothered to take notes apparently.

    Don't get me wrong here--I'm not saying the assholes cops who choked that poor guy to death are blameless; but, this was no Phillando Castille. This case appears to be accidental and negligent at worst. Proving malice on the part of the cops in this case is likely impossible.

    Minnesota, generally speaking, is the most consistently racist place I've ever lived (when I first moved there at the end of Obama's first term, the head of the NAACP called it 'Alabama with snow' and truer words have naer been spoken). But rioting was not how the people of Minneapolis reacted to the most racist political machine in the United States a few short years ago when Phillando Castille was shot dead in cold blood for no good reason. For what it's worth, I hope they burn both twin cities to the ground and tally all of those deaths up to 'coronavirus-related'.

    In the meantime, let us brush up on the fiddle so we can be can merry and rejoice when the fire lit in Minneapolis reaches Rome.

  10. #3530
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by ispeters View Post
    You can't have it both ways. If immense sacrifice is expected of the low risk cohort, the high risk cohort must do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate their own risk - otherwise there can be no sustainable social contract.
    It's interesting to me that the message consistently rammed down my throat is some variation of "yeah, you're low risk, but it's not about YOU".

    What if we applied this same logic to the significantly smaller at-risk portion of the population? I know you're immunocompromised/old/have comorbidities/whatever, but it's not about YOU. It's about the other 90% of the country that want to have something to go back to when this bullshit "ends". Why is the immense sacrifice required of the 90%, to the detriment of the 100%, instead of required of the 10%?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •