U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-31-2020, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,765 posts, read 7,056,218 times
Reputation: 4873

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I am reading your posts, but they seem to be a tad contradictory. I think we are finally in agreement that a lockdown (scenario 1) will save more lives than easing in and out of lockdown. If that's the case, which strategy do you support?
Acknowledging the nuance and unknowns of an unprecedented situation isn't contradictory. I don't believe you did read my post with this paragraph in it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
That said, I am dubious of the models that suggest any reprieves from economic lockdown are even possible. I read about those back in early March, and we have a lot more data now about how fast this disease spreads.
The critical thing is to slow down the transmission rate in order to have enough ventilators. There is indeed a theoretical balance between social interaction and number of ventilators needed, but with how explosively contagious this disease is, that balance is impossible to know and likely so close to total shutdown that it's not even worth exploring.

I only brought it up to show that the economic shutdown is pragmatic in nature, not based on the philosophical strawman you've been arguing this whole thread.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2020, 01:40 PM
 
561 posts, read 279,752 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
Acknowledging the nuance and unknowns of an unprecedented situation isn't contradictory. I don't believe you did read my post with this paragraph in it:
Giving two different answers to the same (hypothetical) question is contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
The critical thing is to slow down the transmission rate in order to have enough ventilators. There is indeed a theoretical balance between social interaction and number of ventilators needed, but with how explosively contagious this disease is, that balance is impossible to know and likely so close to total shutdown that it's not even worth exploring.
I never said otherwise. My stance has always been to make sure the healthcare system isn't overloaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
I only brought it up to show that the economic shutdown is pragmatic in nature, not based on the philosophical strawman you've been arguing this whole thread.
It's not a strawman. There are people in this topic saying they would not sacrifice lives for the economy, which is hypocritical and untrue, that's all I was saying.

I agree the economic shutdown is pragmatic (at this point in time) which is why I support it (at this point in time).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,765 posts, read 7,056,218 times
Reputation: 4873
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below... View Post
Perhaps Im misunderstanding, but it seems so be common scientific consensus that respiratory virus transmissions drop sharply with rise in humidity.

Here is an article from Yale in 2019 when discussing flu. The Coronavirus does seem to be following the same pattern as of now:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0513155635.htm
Lower humidity lowers humans' immune response to viruses, thus the higher transmission rates in low humidity. That's a bit different than saying viruses are more viable at lower humidity. Like every other biological agent (viruses don't really check all the boxes for "life"), viruses break down without moisture unless they're freeze dried.

We're finding out more and more about this virus, but it seems more apt to spread in cool, wet places with temps in the 30s-60s (like Western Europe, Washington, the Northeast in spring, central China in the winter) than cold, dry places (like northern China in the winter, Tibet, Russia).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
3,206 posts, read 1,215,080 times
Reputation: 4379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
e're finding out more and more about this virus, but it seems more apt to spread in cool, wet places with temps in the 30s-60s (like Western Europe, Washington, the Northeast in spring, central China in the winter) than cold, dry places (like northern China in the winter, Tibet, Russia).
Thats a good point. The question that becomes, is it the combo of temperature and humidity that effects it or is it one or the other?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,765 posts, read 7,056,218 times
Reputation: 4873
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
Giving two different answers to the same (hypothetical) question is contradictory.
No. It's just that the explanation that there's a theoretical balance that's not practically achievable or ethically significant goes over most people's heads.

Quote:
I never said otherwise. My stance has always been to make sure the healthcare system isn't overloaded.


It's not a strawman. There are people in this topic saying they would not sacrifice lives for the economy, which is hypocritical and untrue, that's all I was saying.
You've beaten that horse to death yet still seem to miss the point. For most people, 0.005% of the population dying from an unavoidable, heavily mitigated disease with proper care is indistinguishable from 0 and doesn't qualify as "sacrifice".

Believe it or not, arguing semantic technicalities when 2.5% of the population dying from a preventable, unmitigated disaster is on the line, then agreeing with InfoWars parrot War Beagle, might make some people think you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

Quote:
I agree the economic shutdown is pragmatic (at this point in time) which is why I support it (at this point in time).
Yeah, we all realize that the shutdown is only temporary, but there is very little light, if any, at the end of the tunnel. The main factor in the equation, the number of ventilators, will determine when it ends, not whatever sophomoric ethics a disturbingly large portion of America seems to have.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 02:56 PM
 
561 posts, read 279,752 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
No. It's just that the explanation that there's a theoretical balance that's not practically achievable or ethically significant goes over most people's heads.
It is absolutely contradictory to give two different answers to the same question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
Not really. You've beaten that horse to death yet still seem to miss the point. For most people, 0.005% of the population dying from an unavoidable, heavily mitigated disease with proper care is indistinguishable from 0 and doesn't qualify as "sacrifice".

Believe it or not, arguing semantics for pages in order to equivocate that 2.5% of the population dying from a preventable, unmitigated disaster, then agreeing with InfoWars parrot War Beagle, might make some people think you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
Strongly disagree with the bolded part, and I'd say that's a pretty heartless thing to say.

Do you have an example of where I am arguing semantics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
Yeah, we all realize that the shutdown is only temporary, but there is very little light, if any, at the end of the tunnel. The main factor in the equation, the number of ventilators, will determine when it ends, not whatever sophomoric ethics a disturbingly large portion of America seems to have.
Agreed, and that's what I've been saying from the start. This is about not overloading the healthcare system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
3,206 posts, read 1,215,080 times
Reputation: 4379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post

Yeah, we all realize that the shutdown is only temporary, but there is very little light, if any, at the end of the tunnel. The main factor in the equation, the number of ventilators, will determine when it ends, not whatever sophomoric ethics a disturbingly large portion of America seems to have.
Thats a little narrow IMO. What we are going through now is very serious, but this is something we will get over. A lot will die in the interim and thats awful. But to say there is "very little light, if any at the end of the tunnel" is to imply this is something we will never get over.

I on the other hand think there is a lot of light at the end of the tunnel, we just arent close enough to it yet. There will be treatment for this virus in the next few months. There will, more than likely, be a vaccine for it this coming winter. The virus will probably retreat a bit in the northern hemisphere in the summer giving us more time to prepare for the fall and winter.

So its bad now, but I dont agree with that particular statement.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,765 posts, read 7,056,218 times
Reputation: 4873
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
Strongly disagree with the bolded part, and I'd say that's a pretty heartless thing to say.

Do you have an example of where I am arguing semantics?
Absolutely. Basically all of your posts in this thread. You're intentionally trying to muddle the conversation and equivocate flu risk mitigation and COVID-19 risk mitigation by using the same semantics to describe the two without acknowledging how vastly different in scale and avoidability the situations are.

You're without a doubt arguing in bad faith, being obtuse, and talking out both sides of your mouth. If you actually believed and internalized your stance about the shutdown, you wouldn't be going out of your way to agree with Dan Patrick and War Beagle and asking when the economy would restart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
...isn't this how we handle the flu every year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I think once there is a vaccine for it, it'll be much easier for things to go on as usual. People will still die, as they do with the flu, but the amount of people affected/dying won't overwhelm hospitals, which is really mainly what we are trying to prevent here.

On a slightly related note, I wonder how many lives are being saved by 'flattening the curve'. My understanding of 'flattening the curve' is that we are mainly trying to spread out the deaths, not necessarily prevent them. Although by spreading them out, we don't overwhelm the healthcare system and we can save more lives in the process, but I just wonder what the number of deaths look like whether we flatten the curve or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
What is your stance on how we should handle the flu? Do we go into lockdown for that too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
That doesn't answer my question, though. How does everyone here think we should handle the flu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I actually say this same thing in my first post:
"On a slightly related note, I wonder how many lives are being saved by 'flattening the curve'. My understanding of 'flattening the curve' is that we are mainly trying to spread out the deaths, not necessarily prevent them. Although by spreading them out, we don't overwhelm the healthcare system and we can save more lives in the process, but I just wonder what the number of deaths look like whether we flatten the curve or not."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I understand that COVID19 is way more severe than the flu.

However, people do still die from the flu. Can't we go on lockdown to reduce those deaths? It's a seasonal virus, no? Meaning we could shut down until the weather warms up and the virus disappears?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I understand the differences between the flu and COVID19.

With that said, is it possible to reduce the number of deaths by going into a lockdown until the virus naturally disappears?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
That's what I was thinking. So we could shut down the economy and save lives every year during flu season, it seems.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't think it would actually be a larger percentage of people who are saved, no? The flu does not spread as quickly and easily as the COVID19, so if we took drastic measures to 'lock down', I just can't see how the virus would spread across the country? I would think this would save a LOT of lives, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I'm aware of this, however, people still die. Wouldn't more lives be saved by going on a 'lock down'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I'm talking hard numbers. Sorry if my question isn't clear enough:

Question: Will less people (numerically) die from the flu (not COVID19) each year if we went on a 'lock down'?
Answer: Yes or No? (A simple one word response will do).

Optional: If 'Yes', then do you support a 'lock down' every year during flu season. Why or why not?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 03:44 PM
 
561 posts, read 279,752 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
Absolutely. Basically all of your posts in this thread. You're intentionally trying to muddle the conversation and equivocate flu risk mitigation and COVID-19 risk mitigation by using the same semantics to describe the two without acknowledging how vastly different in scale and avoidability the situations are.
I most definitely acknowledge the difference (there are likely more posts by me that acknowledge it, I just gave up searching by page 9 of this thread).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I understand the difference, but my question still stands: How does everyone here think we should handle the flu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I understand that COVID19 is way more severe than the flu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I understand the differences between the flu and COVID19.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
The flu does not spread as quickly and easily as the COVID19
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I get that the flu is less fatal, but it still is fatal, yet we choose to go into work and potentially spread the flu to people who may die from it every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I can tell the difference. I'm just pointing out that everyone here (including myself), is okay sacrificing 5K-10K deaths every year for the good of the Economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
You're without a doubt arguing in bad faith, being obtuse, and talking out both sides of your mouth. If you actually believed and internalized your stance about the shutdown, you wouldn't be going out of your way to agree with Dan Patrick and War Beagle and asking when the economy would restart.
I disagree. I'm simply saying Dan Patrick and everyone here (including myself) are okay sacrificing lives for the economy (to some degree).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2020, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,765 posts, read 7,056,218 times
Reputation: 4873
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I disagree. I'm simply saying Dan Patrick and everyone here (including myself) are okay sacrificing lives for the economy (to some degree).
Again, that's semantic equivocation by leaving out the most critical aspects of the risk assessment. You don't acknowledge the difference in avoidability. You don't even know what you mean by "some degree".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top