Posts by Jessica Gonzalez

Shaved, painted, and polished

I think I can only say two words—COVID-19, COVID-19!

As soon as I roll out of bed and turn on the TV, it's nothing but bad news,
My mother-in-law is in the kitchen making delicious flatbreads.
My wife is watching another episode of Love is Blind,
I wonder if Dad will get even a tiny bit of attention from the TV?

There's no soccer on, and no FC Barcelona either,
At least it isn't summer, so I don't have to deal with mosquitoes.
I guess I'm wondering whether I should wear a mask or not,
Since the guy on TV is shouting, "People, COVID-19 is taking over!"

I'll just turn off the TV and head back to the forum to see what's up,
Paul Martinez73 is causing a panic, though everyone seems to be breathing easy regardless,
There's some good stuff here and there, but I really miss Tore,
Maybe he's just staying low-key or maybe he caught COVID-19, I guess it's hard to tell.

As soon as I check my phone in the morning
I start scrolling through everything
The news, all those sites
Just a daily dose of negativity

With those sensationalist headlines
Celebrity gossip and crime reports
Who’s getting married versus the death toll
Terrorism and local band news

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

Laura Chavez93 said:In South Korea, about 90% of those who supposedly recovered have tested positive again... things are starting to get interesting 🍿

I honestly don't understand you people, I really don't.

It actually says 90 patients out of 7,000 who recovered. That's 90 people, not 90% of the population. If you do the math, that's basically just 1.2% of patients where we don't even know why they're testing positive again. Maybe they got reinfected, maybe they're just long-term positive, or maybe the tests aren't quite accurate.

When someone reads that, it's enough to give them a heart attack because you're spreading totally untrue nonsense.
I guess this calls for a ban for a few days, whether it was intentional or not.

There always seems to be someone looking to cause trouble, I guess.

Paul Martinez73 said:Every year, the flu kills somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 people in the States, mostly concentrated between October and March.
So, looking at those five months, we’ve already hit about 100,000 deaths from COVID-19, and mind you, we still don't know the outcome for about 60% of those cases. If this current trajectory holds, we could easily end up doubling the usual flu death toll... especially since the flu typically infects around 5 million people annually.

Not quite. That number usually refers to more severe cases; depending on the year, maybe 3 to 5 million people develop serious complications from the flu, leading to roughly half a million deaths. As for infections, it's estimated that about 9% of the global population gets it every year. That would be around 700 million people, and in some years, it might even exceed a billion.

restlesssurfer97 said:GQ actually dropped some recent studies suggesting that unemployment doesn't hit mortality rates nearly as hard as people claim, and it definitely isn't the massive deal they made it out to be in The Big Short.

I mean, looking back, nobody was really paying attention to that H1N1 swine flu pandemic either, which honestly took a ton of people with it, but that all went down when the world felt like it had much more pressing issues on its plate, whereas now we're living through this era of sustained economic growth where everyone seems way more preoccupied with climate change, transgender rights, and the whole political correctness debate.

Unemployment definitely plays a role, I guess, and in the USA, life expectancy has actually dropped since the last crisis, which seems unusual for a highly developed nation. It probably has something to do with the opioid crisis, homelessness, and debt issues. Whether the number is 40,000 or less, the math remains the same: if life expectancy drops, it means people are dying sooner than statistical models predicted, which is essentially what's happening with COVID. The USA is such a unique system where both positive and negative shifts happen incredibly fast. That’s why I feel like the government, especially at the federal level, needs to be very careful with radical measures, given how massive the territory is and how incredibly different the states can be. Comparing New York City to North Dakota is maybe a bit like comparing Paris to a tiny rural town.

Eric Fox7 said:But honestly, that number doesn't mean squat—it’s not giving us the full picture at all.

The only real, accurate figure we have right now is that the mortality rate here in the United States is sitting at a fucking 1.4%... everything else is just the Golden State Warriors guessing in the dark.

We won't know the actual, definitive number until this whole epidemic is finally over, but it's going to be way closer to my estimate than to whatever nonsense Branko is peddling.

It’s probably impossible to measure mortality accurately, and it can't be a single universal number because the disease hits older people much harder. You can see this in daily death reports—even without official statistics, it's clear that while infections happen across all age groups, the elderly and those with underlying conditions make up most of the fatalities. Every country or region has its own demographic quirks. For example, Italy or the US tends to have an older population with many people over 65, whereas African nations usually have high birth rates and a very young population. Plus, it depends on the season; the virus and the human body react differently at -10 degrees versus +35. So, statistics from Italy compared to, say, Nigeria might look completely different. To build solid, large-scale statistics, you need a lot of time; these real-time tallies aren't really reliable by any standard. Studies from Heinsberg or Iceland are trying to find the bigger picture, but they feel more like surveys than comprehensive research. It takes years to get a clearer view, though these studies already suggest we won't see 10% of the world's population die if they catch it. However, if the virus hits a nursing home where everyone is 80+, the mortality rate in that isolated sample could hit 100% if everything goes wrong. I wrote a little while ago, maybe a few weeks back, that the baseline annual mortality rate in the USA is 1.4%. That means just by breathing and walking around, there's a 1.4% chance you'll pass away this year for some reason (which is a pretty grim statistic and not exactly a highlight for the US). But since everyone is lumped together, it's obvious more seniors will die this year than young people. If research shows the cumulative mortality of corona is around half a percent, and that overlaps with that 1.4% baseline, then we should carefully look at how many deaths occur in the US by the end of the year and whether corona actually significantly changes the overall stats. We can debate all we want, but some of these seniors might have passed away later this year from something else anyway. Not everyone, of course, but it wouldn't be zero. Over the last 15 years, the number of deaths in the US has hovered between 50,000 and 54,000 annually. For this disease to truly justify shutting down the entire system and wrecking the economy and quality of life, it would need to add at least an extra 10,000 deaths per year—something we can't even know for sure if it would have happened without restrictions (since that's not how we proceeded). Back in early 2015, we had a very harsh winter, and that year saw nearly 4,000 more deaths than the previous two, yet nobody shut down the economy for that. On the other hand, we shouldn't deny the numbers from Bergamo; the truth is likely somewhere in the middle that no one has found yet. Governments worldwide are making decisions on the fly. Whether they implement strict measures or none at all, it's all guesswork, and above all, these are political decisions. Maybe save that bolded part in your bookmarks or set it as your phone wallpaper. Everything we are seeing consists of political decisions, not scientific ones. Healthcare funding is a political decision, building or not building a hospital is a political decision, quarantine is a political decision, the Immunology Institute is a political decision, and having Beroš instead of Kujundžić is a political decision, too.

I'm not entirely sure about the exact accuracy of this claim, so I'd probably need to look it up, but in the movie >, the character played by > mentions that every single percentage point increase in the US unemployment rate leads to an extra 40,000 deaths. Since unemployment jumped from 3.5% to over 10%, I guess you can do the math on what that implies. We're talking about hunger, homelessness, substance abuse, alcoholism, poor nutrition, domestic violence, stress, and so on. Millions of people might end up facing those struggles, which is pretty heavy. Maybe that's why > was being so careful with his moves? Their economy seems to move faster—it recovers quickly, but it can also crash just as fast. A house might be worth a million dollars one day and only 100,000 the next.

Paul Martinez73 said:Are you being serious right now, or are you just trolling...? 🤷

If the genetic sample matches the virus, you're positive—it’s just basic science, same as any other virus out there. Every single virus carries its own unique genetic code, which is exactly why they have to pull massive amounts of samples just to map it out so they can actually build a test in the first place... but honestly, I think you're just trolling. 🤣

I mentioned I was exaggerating, but your answer isn't really what I'm looking for. In fact, it’s kind of the opposite. Those tests are pretty cheap, and when things are inexpensive, they can definitely be inaccurate. Is there a chance that the test might accidentally detect other coronaviruses that almost everyone picks up when they have a common cold?

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Why are you so damn sure about that?

Nobody knows anything yet. For all we know, that virus could just vanish into thin air once summer hits. 🤷

I'll take it a step further. What if this virus doesn't even exist? All we know is that certain tests tell us whether we're positive or negative for it. But who is actually making these tests, what exactly are they measuring, and what do they truly prove?

I realize I might be oversimplifying things, but since we have some Doctors here, maybe they could shed some light on this. My main question is how such an affordable test can pinpoint this specific Coronavirus instead of something similar? There are millions of virus types out there in nature. How can a test be 100% sure it's specifically this one? If anyone has some details, please share; I suppose we have plenty of time to read up and discuss it.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Sure, but am I really going to be the one to send him to his grave through my own recklessness? How would I ever live with myself knowing I brought something into my house that ended up costing my old man his life?

That’s a fascinating point. Are we really suggesting we promote fear and shame for just one specific illness? Is there shame for the first person who ever offered someone a cigarette? Do they sleep soundly? Or should driving instructors feel shame because dozens of people die in accidents every year? Do they sleep okay then?

Don't worry, I think I see where you're coming from, but trying to instill those kinds of feelings in the public—making people feel ashamed or guilty just for taking a walk outside—is something we've never really seen before. I mean, you've probably brought a few bugs home to your dad over the years, right? And I assume you both slept fine. Honestly, it's not like you're going around licking handrails in the middle of town just to get in people's faces.

Michael Flores8 said:On another note, I was actually visiting New Zealand recently. It’s quite populated with Chinese immigrants, and it’s somewhat surprising how quickly things shifted there. About 15 days ago, they only had two reported cases, but just three days ago, that number jumped to exactly 1,036. My brother lives over there, and he’s the one giving me these updates. It seems like everyone is under quarantine, with only essential workers staying active.

New Zealand is seeing a spike — Michael Flores8.

Paul Martinez73 said:GQ is going to be clapping for you tonight with full hands. Unless you're Jugovic ☕

Thanks, buddy. I guess I might be listening back with a bit of a tear in my eye, but I'm just happy you guys are behind me.

What exactly makes it logical, though? Retailers haven't really been the main targets of the outbreak over the last few weeks, so I guess it's worth wondering how many people actually working in retail are even infected. You could probably argue it's either logical or illogical depending on how you look at it. Either way, the reality is that we're seeing the same amount of foot traffic squeezed into shorter windows. Even if you point out that there are capacity limits, stores end up losing money because they’re forced to operate for fewer hours. It feels like just another ad hoc decision made during this crisis—one of those moves that, in my opinion, doesn't seem based on any real data or deep analysis.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

Anthony Jackson2 said:With this whole contagion trend going on, people assume stores are prepping by cutting shifts—basically making sure they don't have to deal with staffing issues. My guess? This whole thing is going to wrap up even sooner than expected.

Are you sure about that, or is it just a hunch? I'm leaning toward it being a guess.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

restlesssurfer97 said:Pretty impressive stuff, honestly, because according to Google, Americans take these restrictions just as seriously as Germans do

Yawn ☕

I guess those are the stats Google gathered up until March 29th. It might be true that the streets were empty back then, but I think the sunshine over the last few days has definitely lured people back outside.

urbanhawk17 said:From now on, we’re calling those #safe-friend.

Can I be your #safe-friend too? 😢

Is GQ some kind of #safe-friend fiancé?

Yeah. Just bring yours along and you'll be all set.

Amanda Evans2 said:Where's the evidence?

I think I do!

In my neighborhood, I see larger groups gathering quite often; people are just hanging out on benches, and kids are walking around in groups of five or six. There isn't really anyone monitoring it, though I guess there isn't much reason to. I spend at least two hours outside every day. I still wear my mask, even though things seem to be shifting lately—today, maybe 80% of people were without them. Even over at the local park just now, it looked like 90% weren't wearing one. Personally, wearing it helps with my allergies, so I keep it on when I'm out cycling too.

I think there are actually more people out today than there were on this same day last year 🤣