Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll take an informed discerning brain over an uninformed, unconscious immune system any day. Proactive vs reactive. The former can adjust behavior to conditions when they seem to call for it. The latter sits and waits for something new to walk up and invade it.
If you believe you can identify all biological threats, then you would be wrong. A logical approach of "stay out of the line of fire", along with a robust immune system, is a multilayered defense against disease. You and I just happen to be the benefactors of a robust human immune system development.
Correct. We'll never know either unless everyone is checked for antibodies. Even if it was possible to check everyone, if we find out that antibodies don't persist after some period of time, a definitive answer would still elude us. Some people just refuse to hear bad news. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
Too bad even some of the antibody tests are unreliable. Maybe a year from now they will be better.
"...In fact, the CDC study suggests the all age death rate from the virus is roughly .5%. Meaning 99.5% of all people infected with the coronavirus, regardless of age, recover. (There are other studies that suggest the .5% death rate is still far too high, but it’s still significant that the virus has a 99.5% recovery rate per the CDC).
Now as a point of fact we know that deaths from the coronavirus are heavily slanted towards nursing homes and the elderly — most states report over half of all deaths in nursing homes — so this means, as was reported via a study by Stanford scientist John Ioannadis, most people in this country are under a greater risk of death driving to and from work than they are from the coronavirus...."
"...In fact, the CDC study suggests the all age death rate from the virus is roughly .5%. Meaning 99.5% of all people infected with the coronavirus, regardless of age, recover. (There are other studies that suggest the .5% death rate is still far too high, but it’s still significant that the virus has a 99.5% recovery rate per the CDC).
Now as a point of fact we know that deaths from the coronavirus are heavily slanted towards nursing homes and the elderly — most states report over half of all deaths in nursing homes — so this means, as was reported via a study by Stanford scientist John Ioannadis, most people in this country are under a greater risk of death driving to and from work than they are from the coronavirus...."
I'm not afraid of dying from this virus. I would prefer to not spend 2 weeks miserably sick in the hospital, end up with a giant hospital bill and have (maybe permanent?) lung damage. Oh, and I'd rather not give it to someone in the grocery store either if I happen to be an asymptomatic carrier.
The REALLY SCARY takeaway was that the viral process described in my OP will be causing a lifetime of lung and heart and ??? issues for all of these younger asymptomatic victims of the disease. We won't know for years after the Pandemic is over just what the healthcare outcome will be!
NBA basketball players should be a good test. Latest pool testing of a couple hundred came back with 5% positive. For the most part they're all asymptomatic. After two weeks they'll be back on the courts practicing and competing.
So some scientists and science are more scientist and science than others?
So what is "science", exactly, depends on someone's meticulousness?
Just askin'.
Like so many other things, science can be driven by the agendas of funding sources. These days the whole definition of "science" seems diluted, even if an empirical approach to generating information is followed. However, in order to get results published in prestigious publications research studies/results are peer reviewed, often internationally. So, the papers are critiqued by field experts that may or may not share the same agenda. Peer review tends to weed out the wackos a little more than otherwise. Sloppier examples can be ridiculed and dismissed until the media gets hold of them. If someone wants to survive and succeed in a science field they must publish. If respected publications won't accept your work, you don't get funding...you're cooked. Publish or perish!
Last edited by Parnassia; 06-28-2020 at 12:34 PM..
Like so many other things, science can be driven by the agendas of funding sources. These days the whole definition of "science" seems diluted, even if an empirical approach to generating information is followed. However, in order to get results published in prestigious publications research studies/results are peer reviewed, often internationally. So, the papers are seen by field experts that may or may not share the same agenda. Peer review tends to weed out the wackos a little more than otherwise. Sloppier examples can be ridiculed and dismissed until the media gets hold of them.
Thank you. That's what I'm driving at.
I know that water boils at exactly 212 degrees and freezes at exactly 32 degrees, it happens every single time I try it. I'm a scientist.
I don't know exactly when or where the next hurricane is going to strike, or when climate is going to change. I'm an educated guesser.
Too many "scientists" nowadays sound a lot like medieval priests, and with similar agendas.
I know that water boils at exactly 212 degrees and freezes at exactly 32 degrees, it happens every single time I try it. I'm a scientist.
I don't know exactly when or where the next hurricane is going to strike, or when climate is going to change. I'm an educated guesser.
Too many "scientists" nowadays sound a lot like medieval priests, and with similar agendas.
The pendulum swings.
All the best!
Well you could always get you "science" from the huffy post... right? Science isn't an absolute unless it's math or math provable... since math is the science of logic.
Science rarely predicts outcome when biology is involved.
Some are born worriers and live that way most of their lives, and some work to change that constant worry state. If I hadn't worked on myself about the worry stuff, I could be a basket case now. Do things to change the brain's thinking and other stuff to keep healthy.
For me it's a HIGH not to turn on any media so far and not hear the constant bombardment of negative feed.
I agree. I’ve tuned most of it out. I’m careful, but not a recluse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
