The Coronavirus thread

[jitter77]

And to think with H1N1 we had 60 million cases in the US.
Of course only a small fraction of the deaths at 12K.

But it makes you wonder back then if they counted someone who was hit by bus or died of a heart attack as an H1N1 death if they had the disease.

Only 3 children < 18yrs of age have died from COVID.

166 children this year have died from the flu.
317 children died from H1N1

And we want to shut down schools?

There was never any reason to shut down a nation for the best interests of old people. Myself included.

All we needed to do was to take measures to protect them.

30 kids 5-14 have died and 149 from 14-24 as of July 14th. Still a small number but not 3

 

[SteelChip]

Again....., Mike Rowe puts it all in perspective.

Mike. In a recent post, you said you’ve been to Tennessee and Georgia, giving speeches and filming for your new show. Before that, you were on the road shooting for Dirty Jobs. Is it really so important to film a television show in the midst of pandemic? Is it responsible of you to encourage this kind of behavior when infection rates are spiking? Don’t you watch the news? More and more cases every day – aren’t you concerned?

Darlene Gabon

“Hi Darlene

Of course, I’m concerned. I’m just not petrified.

On March 15th, the day after my part of the country was locked down, I posted a link to an interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm. I’m posting it again, because I believe you and everyone else in the country would benefit from listening carefully to what he has to say. https://bit.ly/2WLOM6o

Dr. Osterholm is the Director of Infectious Disease Research and Policy. This is the same epidemiologist who ten years ago, predicted a coronavirus would come from China and turn our country upside down. In his book “Deadliest Enemies,” he anticipated the utterly irresponsible way in which the media would report on the situation, the completely opportunistic and shamelessly political way our leaders would likely react, and the unprecedented chaos and confusion that would arise from all the mixed messages from the medical community. His resume is unexampled, https://bit.ly/3jvzQTW, and his analysis of the situation is the most logical and persuasive of any I’d heard so far. He’s also the only expert I know of who hasn’t walked back his numbers, reconsidered his position, or moved the goalposts with regard to what we must do, what we can do, and what he expects to happen next. I say all of this because Dr. Osterholm publicly predicted – in early MArch – that we could conservatively see over 100 million COVID cases in this country, with a very strong possibility of 480,000 fatalities – even if we successfully “flattened the curve.”

It took me a few weeks to accept this scenario, because 480,000 fatalities is a frightening number, and [a] lot of other experts were saying lots of conflicting things. But eventually, I came to the conclusion that Dr. Osterholm was probably correct, and quickly navigated the four stages of grief that usually precede acceptance – denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. By late April, I had come to accept Dr. Osterholm’s predictions as a matter of fact. Since then, I’ve had three full months to come to terms with the fact that, a) I am probably going to get COVID-19 at some point, b), I am almost certainly going to survive it, and c), I might very well give it to someone else.

I hope that doesn’t sound blasé, or glib, or fatalistic, or selfish. Four-hundred eighty thousand deaths is an obvious tragedy, and I’m deeply sympathetic to all who have been impacted thus far. I’m also very concerned for my parents, and everyone else in a high risk category. But when Dr. Osterholm says that COVID can be slowed but not stopped, I believe him. When he says a vaccine will not necessarily hasten herd immunity, I believe him. And when he says that people have confused “flattening the curve” with “eliminating the virus,” I believe him.

Thus, for the last three months, I’ve been operating from the assumption that this is a year-round virus that’s eventually going to infect 100 million people and kill roughly 1/2 of one percent of those infected, conservatively. I’ve accepted those numbers. Unfortunately, millions of others have not. Many people have no sense of where this is headed, and I understand why. They’ve been betrayed by a hysterical media that insists on covering each new reported case as if it were the first case. Every headline today drips with dread, as the next doomed hotspot approaches the next “grim milestone.” And so, for a lot of people, everyday is Groundhogs [sic] Day. They’re paralyzed by the rising numbers because the numbers have no context. They don’t know where it will end. But Dr. Osterholm says he does, and I’m persuaded that he’s correct. He might be wrong, and frankly, I hope he is, but either way, he’s presented us with a set of projections based on a logical analysis, and accepting those projections has allowed me to move past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and get on with my life with a better understanding of what the risks really are.

Fact is, we the people can accept almost anything if we’re given the facts, and enough time to get evaluate the risk and make our own decisions. Last year in this country, there were six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities. Tragic, for sure. But imagine for a moment if no one had ever died from a car accident. Imagine if this year, America endured six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities…for the first time ever. Now, imagine if these accidents and fatalities – over 16,000 and 90 per day respectively – imagine if they were reported upon like every new incidence of COVID. What would that do to our willingness to drive? For a while, I suspect it would keep us all off the roads, right? I mean, six million accidents out of the blue is a lot to process, and 36,000 deaths is scary – especially if you don’t know how high that number could get. It would take us a while to access the risk, before we blindly hopped into our cars again. Eventually though – after getting some context and perspective – we’d be able to evaluate the relative danger of operating a motor vehicle. Then, we could decide for ourselves when to drive, where to drive, and how much to drive. And so we do.

Again, don’t misunderstand. I’m not ignoring COVID, or downplaying COVID, or pretending the risks at hand aren’t real. Nor am I comparing COVID cases to car accidents – I’m simply comparing the fear of each to the other, and the fear that always accompanies uncertainty. I don’t want to get this disease or give it to someone else, any more than I want to be in a car car wreck that injures someone else. But I’ve accepted certain things about the pandemic, and now, I’ve gotten used to the risk as I understand it. I take precautions. I get tested as often as I can, and if I can’t physically distance, I wear a mask – especially around higher risk people. Likewise, I wear a seatbelt, obey the speed limits, and check my mirrors before changing lanes. Yes – I’m aware that we’d all be a lot safer if we kept our cars in the garage. I’m also aware we’d be a lot safer if we all kept ourselves in the house. But that’s not why cars, or people, exist.

Anyway Darlene, that’s a long way of saying that I have accepted Dr. Osterholm’s numbers, and now, after three months of acceptance, I’ve made a decision on how I wish to live my life. Sooner or later, you will too. We all will.

Mike

PS. My foundation is selling masks to raise money for our next work-ethic scholarship program. They’re going fast
https://www.redstate.com/beccalower...9-it-probably-wasnt-the-answer-they-expected/.

 

[Hypocycloids]

30 kids 5-14 have died and 149 from 14-24 as of July 29th. Still a small number but not 3

OK, I must have pulled up an older CDC page.

Edit that: No I didn't, I just read the damn thing too fast lol!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e4.htm

 

[Troglodyte]

No, you emphatically do not. Using the data we have, the survivability rate is over 96%. Empirical data.

For those of us below the age of 65, it's infinitely higher.

Stay on point.

Your point was that deaths would never have reached 7 figures and it was faulty science. How do you figure? For the fourth time, answer the question, or admit that your opinion is completely baseless.

 

[Troglodyte]

Fibs and Flogged appear to literally be cheerleading for it to increase. I won't outright say it, but one only needs read their words to see it. The arguments they make v those they don't. The comments they make v those they don't. Pretty apparent.

We accept the REALITY that it is increasing. Do you really expect that hospitalizations and deaths won’t increase following the increase in cases?

Do you realize how dysfunctional it is for you to deny something bad is happening and then to conclude anyone who acknowledges that it is happening is cheering for it to happen? You’re like a Browns fan blaming a 4-12 season on the officiating.

 

[oneforthebus]

30 kids 5-14 have died and 149 from 14-24 as of July 14th. Still a small number but not 3

I wonder how many of them are morbidly obese or have other serious underlying conditions. My impression is it's all of them.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

We accept the REALITY that it is increasing. Do you really expect that hospitalizations and deaths won’t increase following the increase in cases?

Do you realize how dysfunctional it is for you to deny something bad is happening and then to conclude anyone who acknowledges that it is happening is cheering for it to happen? You’re like a Browns fan blaming a 4-12 season on the officiating.

There isn't anyone here that knows what is going to happen. We realize it's REAL Flogged.

What this is is about is perspective, not denial. We all know the virus is here and is real. It's in my house. It's killing people. But it's not the Ebola, Everyone is Going to Die virus you believe it is. We are all on different sides of the aisle on how severe it is and what the appropriate reactions should be to it.

When you look at the California data I posted on the prior page, it would appear my position is bolstered and yours remains that of the unhinged, fear-mongering media. If you are between 1 and 64 years of age, you have a 99.5% survival rate. Working age humans have no reason to live in cocoons. None. Your side absolutely cheers for working age humans to shelter in place.

Mike Rowe was right, in what SteelChip posted above. Perspective:

Last year in this country, there were six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities. Tragic, for sure. But imagine for a moment if no one had ever died from a car accident. Imagine if this year, America endured six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities…for the first time ever. Now, imagine if these accidents and fatalities – over 16,000 and 90 per day respectively – imagine if they were reported upon like every new incidence of COVID. What would that do to our willingness to drive? For a while, I suspect it would keep us all off the roads, right? I mean, six million accidents out of the blue is a lot to process, and 36,000 deaths is scary – especially if you don’t know how high that number could get. It would take us a while to access the risk, before we blindly hopped into our cars again. Eventually though – after getting some context and perspective – we’d be able to evaluate the relative danger of operating a motor vehicle. Then, we could decide for ourselves when to drive, where to drive, and how much to drive. And so we do.

In the end, you're like a Communist rooting for the destruction of a country given your willingness to cheer on the further lockdowns regardless what they do to this nation and her people.

 

[SteelerFan448]

I wonder how many of them are morbidly obese or have other serious underlying conditions. My impression is it's all of them.

It's just my impression, but every time I read something like this it sounds like anyone with an underlying condition is less of a person and its ok if they die from this. Almost as if "well, it's ok because the young and healthy are not at risk." The U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, which in itself causes many health problems. Again, just my impression, but it seems to carry in the attitude of many who don't want to do anything to prevent the spread.

 

[deljzc]

It's just my impression, but every time I read something like this it sounds like anyone with an underlying condition is less of a person and its ok if they die from this. Almost as if "well, it's ok because the young and healthy are not at risk." The U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, which in itself causes many health problems. Again, just my impression, but it seems to carry in the attitude of many who don't want to do anything to prevent the spread.

Don't worry, when the 1 in 10,000 person dies that DOESN'T have an underlying health condition, the media will certainly tell you.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's just my impression, but every time I read something like this it sounds like anyone with an underlying condition is less of a person and its ok if they die from this. Almost as if "well, it's ok because the young and healthy are not at risk." The U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, which in itself causes many health problems. Again, just my impression, but it seems to carry in the attitude of many who don't want to do anything to prevent the spread.

Then you miss the point. We are all human. Of course. And all lives matter (wait, does that make me a racist????).

The POINT is that for the VAST majority of us, this virus isn't deadly. The reason people point out OFTB's point over and over and over and over again is that our One Size All policy of EVERYONE stays at home punishes those of us who should not fear it.

Instead we should be protecting the most vulnerable among us - the infirmed and the elderly - while the rest of us - ages 65 and under - get back to work.

That is and has always been the point. People with underlying conditions and the elderly should be protected and taking EXTRA precautions. The rest of us should be driving this economy and living our lives.

 

[IndySteel]

Fronline doctors are trying to communicate directly to the American people regarding the virus and the bullshit peddling by the libtards / media.



Frontline Physicians Aim to Dispel ‘Massive’ COVID-19 ‘Disinformation Campaign’

American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” on Capitol Hill Monday to address what they call “a massive disinformation campaign” surrounding the Chinese coronavirus to which “American life has fallen casualty.”

“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.




The purpose of the two day summit is to allow “frontline doctors [the ability to] talk directly to the American people.” Topics to be discussed include the reopening of America’s schools, “medical cancel culture,” and the public policy.

Monday’s agenda is as follows:

8:30 am: Coffee, Opening Remarks

9:00 am: Panel #1 Schools

10:00 am: Topic #2 The Virus/Disease Facts

10:20 am: Topic #2 Hoaxes Identified

10:40 am: Panel #2 Hoaxes Demonstrated

11:10 am: Panel #2 Medical Cancel Culture

11:30 am: Topic #3 Fear

11:45 am: Topic #4 Public Policy

12:00 pm: Lunch

1:00 pm: Capitol Hill Photo Op

2:00 pm: Capitol Hill Press Conference

4:00 pm: Panel 2: HCQ

5:00 pm: Topic #4: Follow the Money

5:30 pm: Panel #3: Lockdowns

4:00-8:00 pm: Individual Physician Interviews

 

[deljzc]

There's a good probability that if Mike Rowe chooses to run for elected office, I would vote for him.

He's 58 now. Reagan became governor when he was 56.

He should challenge Diane Feinstein or Kamala Harris for Senator. I know California is almost hopelessly democrat, but I actually think Rowe would appeal to Hispanic voters more than Feinstein. Hell, she's ******* 87 years old now. Someone's got to take over her seat eventually.

Rowe winning in California with this Hispanic vote could be a monumental shift in conservative, logical politics in this country. Rowe is the type of conservative that can cross over like that, in my opinion. If not him, someone LIKE him. Salt of the earth, hard worker, family guy.

I think the downfall of democratic policies could happen if they try to turn Hispanics into a victim, dependent class like they did to blacks. I'm just not sure hispanics are dumb enough to fall for the lies over and over and over again like blacks have since the 1960's. Hispanics value the family unit too highly (at least I hope the democrats don't ruin that about them). In the inner cities it might be too late, but rural and suburban Hispanics are open to conservative points of view in my opinion, especially those that came here legally.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

There's a good probability that if Mike Rowe chooses to run for elected office, I would vote for him.

He's 58 now. Reagan became governor when he was 56.

He should challenge Diane Feinstein or Kamala Harris for Senator. I know California is almost hopelessly democrat, but I actually think Rowe would appeal to Hispanic voters more than Feinstein. Hell, she's ******* 87 years old now. Someone's got to take over her seat eventually.

Rowe winning in California with this Hispanic vote could be a monumental shift in conservative, logical politics in this country. Rowe is the type of conservative that can cross over like that, in my opinion. If not him, someone LIKE him. Salt of the earth, hard worker, family guy.

I think the downfall of democratic policies could happen if they try to turn Hispanics into a victim, dependent class like they did to blacks. I'm just not sure hispanics are dumb enough to fall for the lies over and over and over again like blacks have since the 1960's. Hispanics value the family unit too highly (at least I hope the democrats don't ruin that about them). In the inner cities it might be too late, but rural and suburban Hispanics are open to conservative points of view in my opinion, especially those that came here legally.

You in the once Golden State? While I agree with Rowe appealing to many, he seems too logical to run. Why would he put himself through that? Why does anyone?

 

[deljzc]

You in the once Golden State? While I agree with Rowe appealing to many, he seems too logical to run. Why would he put himself through that? Why does anyone?

It's sad because if we had term limits, people like Rowe MIGHT be tempted to run because it would not be a profession to them but a service.

If he KNEW he could only be a Senator for 12 years (max) and he said... "I'm 58 and believe in things based on my life, let me try and help.", that might make people want to run. Instead they have Feinstein, who's been in politics for like 40 years.

That's the exact mentality we need in Washington, right and left leaning. Instead we get AOC who in all likelihood will be a career congresswoman from a terribly over-populated and poor district (that will never get better under her watch) and be there in the House for 40 years, spending HALF of that time trying to get re-elected every other year. She will always be too polarizing to be anything more than in the House but she will milk that forever. Only way she ever gets booted out is if she becomes corrupt and caught (which is certainly possible).

 

[oneforthebus]

It's just my impression, but every time I read something like this it sounds like anyone with an underlying condition is less of a person and its ok if they die from this. Almost as if "well, it's ok because the young and healthy are not at risk." The U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, which in itself causes many health problems. Again, just my impression, but it seems to carry in the attitude of many who don't want to do anything to prevent the spread.

Not at all. The point of knowing who is at high risk is that we can protect those who are vulnerable while allowing those who are not to go on with their lives. Of course we don't want anyone to die. But it should be about risk reduction, not risk elimination. If zero deaths of anyone from infectious disease is the goal, then none of us can leave our houses ever again.

 

[Steelworth]

It's just my impression, but every time I read something like this it sounds like anyone with an underlying condition is less of a person and its ok if they die from this. Almost as if "well, it's ok because the young and healthy are not at risk." The U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, which in itself causes many health problems. Again, just my impression, but it seems to carry in the attitude of many who don't want to do anything to prevent the spread.

If you've read many (if any) of OFTBs posts, you'd know that's not the case at all; her implying that someone with an underlying condition is less of a person. I can't speak for her, but I think she's just confirming a reality. You yourself go on to say that the U.S. is one of the most obese countries in the world, yet criticize her for essentially saying the same thing. It's not an issue to take lightly, nor do I think it's something she takes lightly, at all.

It's a bit of an epidemic in this country actually. Way too many kids are eating way too many processed foods & just plain junk along with sugary sodas (with little parental intervention it seems) while not getting the daily exercise they need. Now with these lockdowns, many of these kids don't stand a chance to get into healthier habits.

And yeah, the young and healthy are not at risk (or are showing very little susceptibility to risk). That's why the director of the CDC and pediatricians all over the U.S. are emphatically for sending their own kids back to school in the fall.

 

[Steelworth]

Frontline Physicians Aim to Dispel ‘Massive’ COVID-19 ‘Disinformation Campaign’

American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” on Capitol Hill Monday to address what they call “a massive disinformation campaign” surrounding the Chinese coronavirus to which “American life has fallen casualty.”

“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.

The purpose of the two day summit is to allow “frontline doctors [the ability to] talk directly to the American people.” Topics to be discussed include the reopening of America’s schools, “medical cancel culture,” and the public policy.

That's a bit scary, when doctors all across the country have to hold a summit to dispel disinformation campaigns about this virus.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Less than 9000 new cases today in florida. Trending down a few days. It's running its course. I feel bad for the entire service industry and fitness facilities. It's hard enough to make it in the buisness, let alone being forced to shut down for long periods of time. The rest is hysteria being pushed 24/7 on tv. The riot nonsense and protests by tens of thousands around the country did me in. Yet they shut down churches. Pretty high time the normal folks start their own civil disobedience, minus all of violence and destruction.

 

[SteelerFan448]

Not at all. The point of knowing who is at high risk is that we can protect those who are vulnerable while allowing those who are not to go on with their lives. Of course we don't want anyone to die. But it should be about risk reduction, not risk elimination. If zero deaths of anyone from infectious disease is the goal, then none of us can leave our houses ever again.

I wasn't trying to say you felt that way, it's just a lot of comments that people make to dismiss ANY mitigation measures are because it only impacts those with high risk. I've been following a lot of your posts here and was never under the impression you believed things that way, but many do. Though you can achieve zero deaths with a vaccination and hopefully that will be the case sooner rather than later. With that said, we need to continue to resume normal activities while taking measures to reduce risk of spread.

 

[oneforthebus]

I wasn't trying to say you felt that way, it's just a lot of comments that people make to dismiss ANY mitigation measures are because it only impacts those with high risk. I've been following a lot of your posts here and was never under the impression you believed things that way, but many do. Though you can achieve zero deaths with a vaccination and hopefully that will be the case sooner rather than later. With that said, we need to continue to resume normal activities while taking measures to reduce risk of spread.

We will not likely achieve zero deaths with vaccination because some people will refuse to get it, some will be advised not to get it due to weakened immune systems, not everyone has identical immune response to vaccination etc. It’s all about risk reduction not risk elimination, for this disease and many others. The over the top response to this one is what is different and as much if not more harmful to many people than the illness.

 

[Confluence]

Vaccines do not lead to zero deaths.

Vaccines are drugs administered to the population at large with the advance knowledge that for some unfortunate people, the vaccine itself will cause damage.

Individually, they bring a public health good like removing polio or the measles from the general population. But vaccines are poorly received by a small part of the population who can suffer significant, negative health effects.

Vaccines are tested individually, and have an efficacy for an overwhelming part of the population. Unfortunately, there is very little data on the cumulative effects/costs of multiple vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers enjoy significant, highly specialized relief from the legal process.

So vaccines have been great for public health and for removing some diseases caused by nasty viruses/bacteria. But some vaccines, like the annual flu ones, are just educated "guesses" about potential viruses, and many people point to the fact that statistics for this type of vaccine do not seem to have anywhere nearly as significant positive effect as, say, the measles/rubella/chicken pox ones we give babies/kids. The best vaccines seem to remove the possibility of human to human virus transmission.

So I am hopeful that as the Covid vaccines develop that they have much greater positive efficacy than normal flu vaccines, and they cause far less vaccine damage to susceptible/intolerant parts of our society.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[IndySteel]

Our immune systems are 99.96% effective in killing this hoax virus. I'm not an anti-vaxer, but it's simply not needed in this case and if "they" try to make it mandatory I'm going to buy 5 more guns.

 

[Steelin]

Our immune systems are 99.96% effective in killing this hoax virus. I'm not an anti-vaxer, but it's simply not needed in this case and if "they" try to make it mandatory I'm going to buy 5 more guns.

I'm with you. I haven't had a flu shot for 20 years. I was sick with the flu within 2 days after the last one I got. I've only had the flu once since then.

 

[Vader]

But some vaccines, like the annual flu ones, are just educated "guesses" about potential viruses, and many people point to the fact that statistics for this type of vaccine do not seem to have anywhere nearly as significant positive effect as, say, the measles/rubella/chicken pox ones we give babies/kids. The best vaccines seem to remove the possibility of human to human virus transmission.

Flu vaccines are based upon mutation rates unlike measles/rubella/chicken pox. All viruses aren't alike. Scientist try to track which way the flu will mutate. They make several different vaccines each year. Sometimes the mutation rate fluctuates and they are left with worthless doses of vaccines. But most of the time they have at least one of the samples that is useful and they can keep people from that year's flu. So again this is about mutation rate not the specific ability of scientist to produce a vaccine.

 

[Vader]

I'm with you. I haven't had a flu shot for 20 years. I was sick with the flu within 2 days after the last one I got. I've only had the flu once since then.

Are you saying you got the flu from the shot? That isn't possible. If you aren't saying that then I misunderstood you. I haven't had a flu shot in 20 years. But I haven't had the flu in almost 40 years. Sometimes the flu vaccine is ineffective because it is assembled after the wrong strain of mutated flu. But it won't hurt you or give you the flu.