723 posts shown.
ruggedjackal46 said:What an absolute ace.🙏
I mean, seriously, where did Vučić even find this guy? Did he just pluck him out of some random flower shop in New York?
Paul Sanders5 said:Tracking mortality rates is honestly a waste of time. Like, 80% of people are just gonna end up with symptoms that feel exactly like a common cold, so they won't even show up in the official data anyway.
Then you'll just end up with these massive, inflated numbers that trigger way more unnecessary panic than anything else.
Paul Martinez73 said:Well, I think I found my own answer...🤷
So if you have 8,000 deaths for every 80,000 recoveries, and you assume that ratio holds steady for everyone else, you’re looking at 160,000 recoveries and 16,000 deaths—which is a 10% mortality rate, not some tiny 1.3% figure people keep throwing around.
ruggedjackal46 said:I honestly think some level of quarantine and basic caution is necessary if we want to keep infection rates down and, by extension, keep the death toll from climbing. There’s a massive difference between a million people getting sick and just a hundred people getting sick when you factor in a 1% mortality rate. If I catch Corona, I probably won't die, but I could easily pass it on to ten other people—so, wouldn't it be better to just not spread it to anyone at all?
The second issue is that this kind of precaution should really be about solidarity with one another, rather than some desperate, panicked scramble because everyone is terrified the virus is going to catch up to us. Honestly, screw your hoarding of toilet paper and canned tuna.
wiredfalcon2 said:Alright, I guess I'll finally weigh in and sign off on this too. Jessica Gonzalez grabbed some statistical data that's completely irrelevant and spun an entire narrative out of it. Like, look, within those 1.3 or whatever number of posts, you've got people who just pass away from natural causes, not because of a disease you could easily prevent by simply not coughing in everyone's face. The mortality rate for Corona is 30 times higher than your standard flu. Plus, the strain on the healthcare system is massive because people actually need intensive care to recover, unlike the regular flu where you usually don't.
Paul Martinez73 said:I’ll give ZZ one thing.
The best way to throw out a "1%" figure is when you don't have any real data yet. GQ is usually a smart guy, but look at how he could spin it:
Say there are 100,000 infections, 1% die, and 99% recover. Sure, then you can say, "See, it's just 1%."
But if you've got 200,000 infected, 20,000 recovered, and 2,000 dead, you can't talk about a death percentage yet. You won't know the true impact of those deaths until you see what happens to the other 180,000, or whether they end up facing long-term consequences.
You can't just downplay it like it's nothing. I mean, take the people who survived Chernobyl—are they counted in the immediate death statistics? Of course not, because they died 10, 20, or 30 years later.
Talking stats when nobody actually knows what's going on with this virus—other than the fact that it's spreading like wildfire—is pointless. I’ve already posted this in another thread, but the entire Scientific Community agrees this is a massive deal. This isn't comparable to the flu or anything else; it's much worse. Governments are essentially nuking their entire economies, but hey, hundreds of these guys love to play the relativist. They act like it's not serious because the mortality rate looks low. Whatever you think about it, I'm telling you, world leaders and heads of research institutes are better informed than the rest of us mortals. Everyone agrees: "It's dangerous, stay calm, but it's not harmless." We know they always use careful language to prevent a total meltdown, which usually means things are even worse than they're letting on.
There's no need to panic and hoard toilet paper, but there's also no reason to brush this off.
And the absolute best argument is: "Well, older people are dying, but they were going to die anyway."
I'm sure when your parents or grandparents pass away, you'll just tell them, "Who cares, you were going to die eventually," or if someone dies in a car wreck, you'll say, "Whatever, they were driving an eight-hour shift in a truck, they had a high chance of dying regardless."
Jessica Gonzalez said:In the US, about 55,000 people pass away annually, and since we have roughly 330 million residents (give or take, let's round it), I guess that means there's a baseline chance of about 1.3-1.4% of dying in any given year, even without considering things like Corona. It might take a lot more time to get solid statistics for Corona, much like how we still don't have exact numbers for H1N1—just general ranges. But assuming a baseline of around 1.35%, I wonder how people have lived with that until now? Are we even really aware of that number? And since death rates tend to rise due to an aging population and shifting demographics, maybe that baseline percentage will continue to climb for a while. Naturally, just like with Corona, the risk increases as you get older. For young people, it’s definitely much lower than 1.35%, whereas for the elderly, it's likely higher.
Jessica Gonzalez said:You don't need to be a statistician or a doctor to look at the data from the Census Bureau. I'm not really getting into how dangerous Corona is or isn't—it’ll probably take quite a while before we have definitive stats on that. I’m just saying that, by default, the baseline risk of death seems to be in the same ballpark as what people are saying about Corona. For an average person in America, the default mortality risk isn't like, one in a thousand, whereas they say Corona is around 3.5 percent. The default is probably over 1.3 percent, and while it's hard to pin down the exact stats for Corona, it seems to be heading toward that 1 percent mark. So, when you head to the grocery store to grab something to eat, maybe we should think about what exactly we're afraid of. In my own company over the last two years, three people passed away between the ages of 30 and 50, and it wasn't because of a virus. There are deaths and serious illnesses in my family too, so I personally don't feel like this virus is the primary issue. America generally deals with high male mortality rates due to stress and lifestyle-related diseases. If an unprecedented panic is being declared, then I guess it’s no wonder people are acting panicky. The virus itself might not be the main problem; it emerged from nature, just like we did, and our species has lived alongside viruses since the beginning. Maybe the real issue is people and how they react. So many "ad hoc" decisions have been made in such a record-breaking short timeframe, and I suppose in time, we'll have to weigh all the pros and cons.
Amanda Evans2 said:I’ve struggled with fairly intense OCD for quite some time now, which means I tend to steer clear of handshakes, touching public surfaces, and all that other stuff... people have always looked at me like I was losing my mind.
Sometimes the panic starts to set in, but lately, I’ve managed to act just like everyone else around me.
I guess my moment has finally arrived ☕
Adam King6 said:There is actually a fix for this. 🧐
After you wash your hands, grab a paper towel, hold onto it, and use that to pull the door open. 🙂
brightpilot6 said:The fact that they left to play for FC Barcelona just proves they aren't up to the task, and everything else that's happened since only serves to confirm that reality.☕
Paul Sanders5 said:Nah, honestly, nothing's really changed since before. 🙏
God forbid, man... I'm saving the divorce for when my midlife crisis actually hits. 🙏
bluebison47 said:That’s such a shame, really... we used to take those optional trips out to the little villages in Lombardy.
The only rule was we couldn't bring the dogs into the dining halls, but whatever, I guess that was just how it was.😢
Paul Sanders5 said:Nah, honestly, nothing's really changed since before. 🙏
God forbid, man... I'm saving the divorce for when my midlife crisis actually hits. 🙏
Paul Sanders5 said:Just freaking chill out 🙏