Response to California ER doctors video

[gwraigty]

Granted that was "early on", but its still "early on" and we don't know a damn thing for certain about this bug yet.

I am VERY surprised that the studies on sample testing in NYC and CA that showed much larger % of the population as being positive hasn't made a dent in news cycle.
21% of people tested in NYC has already been exposed...
The Stanford study said " 50 to 85 times more than the official count" had been exposed....

So I don't know what to think about 2 Drs grabbing 15 minutes of fame. But there is other data that suggests the seriousness of this disease is over blown. Now its down right nasty/deadly/long term serious for a % of patients, but it does suggest there are other ways to go at this than locking EVERYBODY down.

Given starvation vs. the virus, I'll take my chances with the virus and I'm in an elevated risk group (age, weight, blood pressure). I'm down 30lbs in 7ish weeks skipping meals so my wife doesn't have to... I can't do that for another 18months till a vaccine fast-tracked in 1/3 the time it normally takes to deliver a supposedly safe vaccine.

https://news.yahoo.com/stanford-study-coronavirus-exposure-far-180622931.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/health-official-million-nyc-possibly-exposed-virus-70307686

During Ohio's press conference yesterday, Dr. Acton said that a huge number of the confined population that has been tested are 80% to 90% asymptomatic. They don't know yet how many of them may eventually develop symptoms vs. remain asymptomatic. I sure hope they're monitoring these people closely.

Spock, please take care of yourself. Not that you're not.

 

[Music Lover]

I agree with this for the most part.

But, thinking for myself in this case, the docs extrapolated a massively biased sample (walk in test takers at an urgent care testing facility during a pandemic) to the entire population. This may as well have been the Three Stooges pretending to be medical professionals.

Perhaps the study was biased, but how biased was it? A group of walk-in people could very well be close to "average" (or not) but without reviewing the people studied no one can say for sure.

Maybe it's fair to say that more research is needed but to completely dismiss is as "Three Stooges" might be too extreme. It's already estimated that between 15% - 25% of the population in New York have the antibodies. The study that was dismissed has numbers far closer to that than the "official" numbers.

 

[cooch96]

My conclusion was not to believe them simply because the majority of other in their profession was saying quite the opposite.

Yikes! Science is not a popularity contest. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

 

[eytonxav]

One can argue with the statistics the two docs presented which may have been faulty, but their bottom line premise was:

1) They agreed with the initial lockdown approach to flatten the curve; they also pointed out that antibody testing showed many more Californians had already been exposed. They also pointed out from a historical perspective in treating diseases, the sick are the ones that get quarantined, not the healthy.

2) And now since that has occurred its time to open things up, but keep the elderly and compromised folks quarantined. I do not believe their guidance was to go immediately back to the way things were pre-virus, just that it was time to return to work and open things back up vs continuing with the broad lockdown.

This might or might not be an issue with asymptomatics in the population, but can that be definitively proved to be a problem? Further, if this seems like lunacy, why is the WHO now backing away from criticizing Sweden, and one of the WHO directors has actually lauded Sweden's approach? For me, I found their video educational, and they made some good points regardless of what others say.

 

[Spock]

One thing that I find really disingenuous about the "must stay locked up" arguments is that its pitched as all-or-nothing. As if re-opening business means we drop any and all precautions and "social distancing".

Even after re-opening, people will still:
* wash their hands a lot more frequently (already a subconscious behavior)
* maintain a distance away from others (strangers/crowds) (already a subconscious behavior)
* frequently clean commonly touched surfaces like shopping carts and checkout counters.
* generally avoid touching things you don't have to (already a subconscious behavior)
* wear some form of PPE
* quarantine/isolate high risk populations (specifically elder care facilities)
* stay home when sick enabled by new sick leave laws
* avoid physical contact such as handshakes
* and the ever popular ETC.

The CDC never (to my visiblity) recommended closing restaurants... thats from the local virtue signalers that feel they can one-up the other government entities by imposing ever harsher restrictions than everybody else. A cloth mask isn't as good as an N95, but its better than nothing... yet holier-than-thous will deride somebody wearing a cloth mask as stupid.

With nothing to back it up... do you really think we'd need to do anything more to "flatten the curve" than:
1. everybody wears a mask when out in public
2. everybody avoids touching things as much as possible and washes hands when they do
(I did some math, if all the ethanol we put in gas tanks was used for hand sanitizer we would have 1.4 GALLONS per person (including children) per WEEK)
3. everybody avoids close physical proximity to others

The virus is going to be around forever and a vaccine is a lot farther out than our food supply will reach. "Adapt or die"... either from the virus or starvation.
I can chose how to manage my exposure to virus risks.
I can't do a damn thing about starvation when others make the decisions for me.

 

[Gumby]

... Even after re-opening, people will still: ..... .

A big hole in this logic is the failure to recognize that:

1. A lot of people are selfish jerks. They will not stay home when they are COVID positive, regardless of the sick leave situation. They will not social distance or wear PPE. They will not have any concern for others.

2. Even if they are not jerks, a lot of people are stupid. They will do the same things as the jerks.

 

[Music Lover]

A big hole in this logic is the failure to recognize that:

1. A lot of people are selfish jerks. They will not stay home when they are COVID positive, regardless of the sick leave situation. They will not social distance or wear PPE. They will not have any concern for others.

2. Even if they are not jerks, a lot of people are stupid. They will do the same things as the jerks.

You can't control other people so take precautions and protect yourself.

 

[eytonxav]

A big hole in this logic is the failure to recognize that:

1. A lot of people are selfish jerks. They will not stay home when they are COVID positive, regardless of the sick leave situation. They will not social distance or wear PPE. They will not have any concern for others.

2. Even if they are not jerks, a lot of people are stupid. They will do the same things as the jerks.

This reminds me of Cuomo moving Covid patients into nursing homes

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

A big hole in this logic is the failure to recognize that:

1. A lot of people are selfish jerks. They will not stay home when they are COVID positive, regardless of the sick leave situation. They will not social distance or wear PPE. They will not have any concern for others.

2. Even if they are not jerks, a lot of people are stupid. They will do the same things as the jerks.

Yes, we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves. They, unlike we educated and enlightened, are typically jerks or stupid or perhaps even both!

[mod edit]

 

[Spock]

A big hole in this logic is the failure to recognize that:

1. A lot of people are selfish jerks. They will not stay home when they are COVID positive, regardless of the sick leave situation. They will not social distance or wear PPE. They will not have any concern for others.

2. Even if they are not jerks, a lot of people are stupid. They will do the same things as the jerks.

As long as I am protecting my self, I've done what I can.
I can reduce my exposure to them by only going out when I have to.
But I would have the option to go out when I HAVE to.
With everything shut down and a dead economy, there won't be any reason to go out to empty store shelves other than to scavenge.

 

[gwraigty]

This reminds me of Cuomo moving Covid patients into nursing homes

I believe this was part of DeWine's plan when they were looking into expanding hospital capacity back in March. They were going to use unused wings of nursing homes. I didn't realize that nursing homes had unused wings.

 

[gwraigty]

Yes, we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves. They, unlike we educated and enlightened, are typically jerks or stupid or perhaps even both!

[mod edit]

Well, someone must have eaten that silica gel packet at one time.

 

[Spock]

Well, someone must have eaten that silica gel packet at one time.

maybe if we quit protecting idiots from themselves
the problem might work itself out over time

 

[audreyh1]

maybe if we quit protecting idiots from themselves
the problem might work itself out over time

That would be just fine if idiots couldn’t infect others and contribute to spreading the disease..

 

[Beststash]

Yikes! Science is not a popularity contest. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

Agree it shouldn't be but too often I see "scientists" that take an opposite view for other purposes. I guess the better phrase would be "peer reviewed".

I do trust science more so than popular opinion, common sense, or anecdotal evidence.

 

[Spock]

That would be just fine if idiots couldn’t infect others and contribute to spreading the disease..

If I'm wearing some sort of mask
trying to stay away from everybody when ever possible
buying alcohol sanitizer from a distillery by the gallon
trying not to touch anything unless I have to
I've reduced already small odds even further.

It would help if everybody else did too... but it takes both a pitcher and a catcher and as a catcher I've made myself as small a target as I can.

 

[audreyh1]

If I'm wearing some sort of mask
trying to stay away from everybody when ever possible
buying alcohol sanitizer from a distillery by the gallon
trying not to touch anything unless I have to
I've reduced already small odds even further.

It would help if everybody else did too... but it takes both a pitcher and a catcher and as a catcher I've made myself as small a target as I can.

Unfortunately the protection from infection for myself of wearing a mask is not nearly as effective as an infected person wearing a mask in public which protects others. Masks protect others more than they protect the individual wearer. With lots of asymptomatic cases running around, wearing masks in public to protect others has great benefit in slowing spread. Unfortunately those who refuse to wear masks in public for whatever reason are taking the risk to endanger others.

 

[Dtail]

If I'm wearing some sort of mask
trying to stay away from everybody when ever possible
buying alcohol sanitizer from a distillery by the gallon
trying not to touch anything unless I have to
I've reduced already small odds even further.

It would help if everybody else did too... but it takes both a pitcher and a catcher and as a catcher I've made myself as small a target as I can.

I hear ya, but as FLA starts opening up, I do believe there will be much less mask wearing and precautions taken.

A simple example is some of friends are asking why can't we play Pickleball, as we will follow social distancing, which in doubles Pickleball is not possible.
They didn't ask this question 2 weeks ago, but now....

 

[timo2]

That would be just fine if idiots couldn’t infect others and contribute to spreading the disease..

+100

The people that won't do even the smallest things to prevent the spread of this virus are behaving in a criminal manner:

"At least 3 Anne Arundel residents were charged for exposing others to coronavirus. What does that entail?" https://www.capitalgazette.com/coro...0200413-tarruy4o5rfm7pi5hm5ait2nma-story.html

There is legal precedence for this:
-People have been arrested and prosecuted for negligent HIV Exposure.
-People have been arrested and prosecuted for (failed) suicide attempts that killed another person.

 

[Gumby]

Yes, we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves. They, unlike we educated and enlightened, are typically jerks or stupid or perhaps even both!

[mod edit]

Who said anything about the selfish and stupid being the masses? or typical? or uneducated? I'm sure we've all met people who were educated and yet are both stupid and selfish. All I said was that there are a lot of them. And it won't take many to restart exponential growth.

Additionally, who said anything about protecting them from themselves? I'm interested in protecting the rest of us who are neither selfish nor stupid.

I guess I just recognize that any plan that relies on everyone doing the right things voluntarily may not work because almost certainly some will not do the right things.

 

[Music Lover]

Not everyone has to comply for success. If that was the case the entire country would have already been infected. But if the vulnerable people protect themselves it doesn't matter a heck of a lot what others do because the vulnerable people are already protected.

 

[Gumby]

Not everyone has to comply for success. If that was the case the entire country would have already been infected. But if the vulnerable people protect themselves it doesn't matter a heck of a lot what others do because the vulnerable people are already protected.

What are you going to do about people like this?

https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/kentucky-woman-arrested-at-kroger-for-violating-self-quarantine-order/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...35k-worth-food-woman-coughed-twisted-n1169401

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...items-walmart-mock-coronavirus-fears-n1168901


Other people, even vulnerable people, have a right to go grocery shopping too.

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

What are you going to do about people like this?

https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/kentucky-woman-arrested-at-kroger-for-violating-self-quarantine-order/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...35k-worth-food-woman-coughed-twisted-n1169401

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...items-walmart-mock-coronavirus-fears-n1168901


Other people, even vulnerable people, have a right to go grocery shopping too.

It seems the state has powers to deal with them, i.e. the power of arrest for those who violate court-ordered quarantine. The cases you list are edge cases, and not typical behavior.

The bigger question is the right of the state to indefinitely close businesses and not allow for rights as expressed in the bill of rights. Just because you "don't feel safe" isn't enough (at least not enough for a long period of time). I have the right to stay home, which I am doing...but do I have the right to tell others to lose their jobs, lose their houses, an so on for an extended period of time because I don't feel safe?

It has *ALWAYS* been true that my safety can be impacted by others. In the past, from people with the good old flu, with TB, with Hepatitis, by drunks in cars, and so on. But that didn't stop any (most) of us from facing the harsh world out there or demanding the end of society to somehow "protect" us.

“If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.”
— Justice George Sutherland (1862-1942)

I think I will just bow out here, and leave you all to the fun of dissing others.

 

[timo2]

It seems the state has powers to deal with them, i.e. the power of arrest for those who violate court-ordered quarantine. The cases you list are edge cases, and not typical behavior.

The bigger question is the right of the state to indefinitely close businesses and not allow for rights as expressed in the bill of rights. Just because you "don't feel safe" isn't enough (at least not enough for a long period of time). I have the right to stay home, which I am doing...but do I have the right to tell others to lose their jobs, lose their houses, an so on for an extended period of time because I don't feel safe?

It has *ALWAYS* been true that my safety can be impacted by others. In the past, from people with the good old flu, with TB, with Hepatitis, by drunks in cars, and so on. But that didn't stop any (most) of us from facing the harsh world out there or demanding the end of society to somehow "protect" us.

“If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.”
— Justice George Sutherland (1862-1942)

I think I will just bow out here, and leave you all to the fun of dissing others.

You are ignoring the 10th amendment

 

[eytonxav]

I believe this was part of DeWine's plan when they were looking into expanding hospital capacity back in March. They were going to use unused wings of nursing homes. I didn't realize that nursing homes had unused wings.

I don't know about DeWine, but Cuomo implemented it.