Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (accept, meat)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by potatocoins

How many is 'a lot'?

A higher percentage than has gotten Covid nationally. Last I checked, I think 14.8% of her county has been infected, and I'm certain their testing has been poor. This has also been in a relatively short window of time, as they are very, very far from any of the early epicenters.

Originally Posted by potatocoins

Also, what does your aunt mean when she says it is a hoax? Does she think COVID doesn't exist at all, or something else?

She thinks it exists, but I think she thinks it really is no more dangerous than the flu. She thinks the entire notion of a pandemic has been overblown, and she probably thinks our uncle didn't really die of Covid (not certain of that last point, but I have had another family member say that she said something to that effect).

Originally Posted by potatocoins

Are you just assuming people in that county are misinformed, or do you go around asking everyone their stance on COVID and the vaccine, etc..?

I'm from that county. It is not an exaggeration to say that I probably know 10% of the county. A 25% vaccination rate is ipso facto proof that they are misinformed. But I also visited last summer, when Covid was raging. There was nary a mask to be seen. It's hard to argue that they aren't misinformed if they refuse to wear masks at the height of the pandemic and refuse to get vaccines despite having worse numbers than the nation as a whole (and the state in general has perhaps been hit harder by Delta than any other state).

Is it a surprise that this county went 80%+ for Trump both times? This is not a coincidence.

It's strange that you're arguing with me over this when you don't even know what county I'm talking about.

[potatocoins]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

A higher percentage than has gotten Covid nationally. Last I checked, I think 14.8% of her county has been infected, and I'm certain their testing has been poor. This has also been in a relatively short window of time, as they are very, very far from any of the early epicenters.



She thinks it exists, but I think she thinks it really is no more dangerous than the flu. She thinks the entire notion of a pandemic has been overblown, and she probably thinks our uncle didn't really die of Covid (not certain of that last point, but I have had another family member say that she said something to that effect).



I'm from that county. It is not an exaggeration to say that I probably know 10% of the county. A 25% vaccination rate is ipso facto proof that they are misinformed. But I also visited last summer, when Covid was raging. There was nary a mask to be seen. It's hard to argue that they aren't misinformed if they refuse to wear masks at the height of the pandemic and refuse to get vaccines despite having worse numbers than the nation as a whole (and the state in general has perhaps been hit harder by Delta than any other state).

Is it a surprise that this county went 80%+ for Trump both times? This is not a coincidence.

It's strange that you're arguing with me over this when you don't even know what county I'm talking about.

They don’t sound misinformed to me. Just rightfully skeptical and also have a higher risk tolerance than you. All of us have varying degrees of skepticism and risk. I don’t get why you think your level of skepticism and I’m risk is the “right” one.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by potatocoins

They don’t sound misinformed to me. Just rightfully skeptical and also have a higher risk tolerance than you. All of us have varying degrees of skepticism and risk. I don’t get why you think your level of skepticism and I’m risk is the “right” one.

Risk level has nothing to do with it. The risk from Covid is objectively higher. There's no argument to the contrary.

But I don't go back-and-forth with anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, so I'll let you have the last word.

[potatocoins]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Risk level has nothing to do with it. The risk from Covid is objectively higher. There's no argument to the contrary.

But I don't go back-and-forth with anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, so I'll let you have the last word.

That works out because I don’t go back and forth with single-maskers or flu-deniers.

[seerideeleven]

Originally Posted by potatocoins

They don’t sound misinformed to me. Just rightfully skeptical and also have a higher risk tolerance than you. All of us have varying degrees of skepticism and risk. I don’t get why you think your level of skepticism and I’m risk is the “right” one.

Gestures wildly to the 4 million+ people that have died during this pandemic.

[potatocoins]

Originally Posted by seerideeleven

Gestures wildly to the 4 million+ people that have died during this pandemic.

Gestures wildly to all the people who still aren't wearing face visors with double masks.

[Pilsn3r]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Risk level has nothing to do with it. The risk from Covid is objectively higher. There's no argument to the contrary.

But I don't go back-and-forth with anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, holocaust deniers or flat earthers, so I'll let you have the last word.

EDS_ suspected something was up, and I believe TC80 did too, with the poster.

[potatocoins]

What is the correct amount of risk I should be taking against COVID and what is the correct amount of skepticism should I have towards the leaders so that I am not labeled as misinformed or anti-vaxx?

Apparently there is only one correct answer to my question, because apparently me saying that people have varying degrees of risk and skepticism makes me anti-vaxx.

[albert648]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Risk level has nothing to do with it. The risk from Covid is objectively higher. There's no argument to the contrary.

No one argued to the contrary. The actual percentage value of the risk is irrelevant. Acceptability of risk and the marginal cost of mitigation are the two factors that go into decisionmaking. If it's below the threshold below you which you deem the risk acceptable, there is no need for further mitigation. You just assume the risk and move on.

Threshold: 0.01%
Unmitigated risk: 0.0001%
Mitigated risk: 0.000000001%

The difference between the unmitigated and mitigated number is irrelevant but the mitigated figure is MUCH smaller than the unmitigated.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by albert648

No one argued to the contrary. The actual percentage value of the risk is irrelevant. Acceptability of risk and the marginal cost of mitigation are the two factors that go into decisionmaking. If it's below the threshold below you which you deem the risk acceptable, there is no need for further mitigation. You just assume the risk and move on.

Threshold: 0.01%
Unmitigated risk: 0.0001%
Mitigated risk: 0.000000001%

The difference between the unmitigated and mitigated number is irrelevant but the mitigated figure is MUCH smaller than the unmitigated.

Yes, actually the other poster argued to the contrary. Did you read the post I was responding to? He has even followed up arguing that it is a matter of risk.

Your basic argument vis-a-vis risk assesment is that risks that are sufficiently low can be ignored. I agree. But that has nothing to do with this situation, as Covid is obviously not a risk that can be ignored. Its risk is not .0001% for unvaccinated people. 600k people in a country of 300 million have died. That's a .2% chance of death, and a much higher chance of serious sickness or hospitalization -- and that's just in a year or so. That's 2,000 times higher than .0001%.

I'm not sure if you're actually arguing that Covid presents such a small risk to unvaccinated people that the risk can be ignored or if you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.