“If most people are sick they will soon be recovered.”
Bullshit statement that has no meaning. That’s where I brought 90% in. Make it whatever you want.
Bonkers in the sense that it’s not even worth discussing. A lot of people would live if a nuclear bomb was dropped on Chicago. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prevent that. I meant bonkers as in not even worth your time to say nor my time to point out the stupidity.
You’ve been saying it like it’s a fact and old news. What you don’t seem to get is that we still don’t know much about this whole thing. Pretending like we do doesn’t make sense. You keep bouncing around between ideas that have either already been outright debunked or were speculation from the jump.
We have very few things about the virus that are concrete 100% slam dunk facts right now. We are learning more everyday, but still in a place where most of what we think we know we don’t.
“If most people are sick they will soon be recovered.”
Nope that’s pure bullshit. If most people are sick you have no clue if they will soon be recovered.
Said in response to your statement about if most people are sick they will soon be recovered. I was trying to help you figure something out and analyze what was wrong with your statement. It didn’t work.
It was never a fact dude. It not being a fact is old news I suppose.
Yes. People are quoting me and agreeing with what I’m saying. And others and me are doing our best to prevent the spread of falsehoods. If you have a problem with that perhaps think or read before posting?
Only you have no clue. Go and look at the statistics. Most cases aren’t severe and people are being told to stay home for 14 days. Or is the government telling us pure bullshit and refusing to test people for some other reason?
No, you got it backwards, you came up with this 90% scenario and it appears that the whole point was to start a bizarre strawman argument that I can’t possibly win because you define the parameters and change the story as you go. So just drop it, it’s not going anywhere. Focus on reality, not made up situations.
It’s the most accurate information we have so far. Can you provide better information?
I’m quoting the news and you tell me I’m making up bullshit. Some guy on T-nation that quotes zero articles or studies now has more credibility than them, despite having no opinion of his own other than everything I say is wrong.
It’s either that or we just have to learn to live with the virus. And if that is the case then we are going about this the wrong way.
I don’t know how to fix it for you. If most people are sick they will soon be recovered isn’t something we know. First off how are you defining most people? I said 90% and you threw a fit. If 90% of the population has the coronavirus tomorrow you have no evidence to say they will soon be recovered. We don’t know what soon means in your scenario.
I don’t have evidence to say they won’t. It’s discussing something that is impossible to determine. My point with the 90% is that more people will die when all infected at once than spread out. Now I can’t definitely prove that, but all logic points to that being correct and you know it.
I was responding to something you made up! You made up something and presented it as gospel. I simply said it wasn’t gospel.
I already did. Why you failed to read the article is beyond me. It said exactly what I’m saying. That we simply don’t know all the facts about surface life and what that means.
I’ve done this often in the last two weeks with you. I’ve probably posted zero articles that you’ve read. Doesn’t mean I haven’t posted them. I don’t have more credibility than you. What I seem to have that you need to develop is how to avoid jumping to conclusions with minimal evidence.
Define most. Because it isn’t a question of percentages but actual numbers. As in, the actual number of people who will need hospitalization and the number of people who we have the resources to hospitalize.
The key point here is that we don’t know for sure yet. It is EXPECTED that data from different sources disagrees. That’s why I said results converge over time.
There are multiple reasons either value could be wrong–was there a problem with the study methodology? Did the surface inoculation study represent an accurate viral shedding estimate in real life? Was the cruise ship scenario due to periodic repeated viral deposition from multiple sources or not?
The problem with research is that it requires being able to get comfortable with a) not knowing for sure b) needing to work it out and c) not being able to draw conclusions you want, just because you want them.
In other words, you have to be comfortable with the gray area of life.
You’re not posting anything on this recent discussion and just arguing with every point I make while saying that very little is certain and so on. There is data out there, go look at it.
If percentages dont matter then why do you want a definition for “most”? Of course this is pushing resources beyond the limit, we all know that. Your buddy is just trying to have an argument about a hypothetical situation, maybe you should take this up with him instead.
Well, we are doing what we can so far, right? The problem is that the longer we shut things down the worse the economic prospects for the future are, and it’s not about stock dividends and private jets but buying food and paying for a place to live. Unemployment numbers just exploded, and you can expect it to get worse.
Doing anything other than what is being done in most place with the shutdown would be very risky right now, but that is why I was saying we need and exit strategy and some sort of long term plan.
Yeah I did. I posted an article that says what we know about the coronavirus keeps changing. Either my T Nation is broken or you’re needing an eye exam. I can post links for you, but I can’t force you to read em.
I specifically linked that one because you seemed to be enamored with these “facts” you had gleaned from reading other articles. I linked it because it talks about how we don’t know much at this point.
Dude is still caught up on me using a hypothetical in response to his original hypothetical. Most, lots, many are pretty open terms so you need to hammer down definitions before attempting to show someone the potential error of their thinking. Or error of their lack of thinking in some people’s cases.
But my original point is we are still completely clueless as to what the results of mass infection look like. We could estimate death rates from the information we have right now. We can’t estimate what the death rate looks like when we have no resources to help people or even more limited ones than now.
Just the Covid 19 death rate hasn’t been the concern for a while and Chris knows that. He’s acknowledged this stuff, but then he will go back on what he’s acknowledged. We don’t know much for a 100% fact, but we certainly know what limited resources in health care is going to do to people with Covid 19 and those with all the other potentially deadly illnesses.
Do you believe everything in a super old book is accurate even its contradictions? Of course. Ignore undeniable evidence from virtually everyone on a situation that is happening right now? Not a problem.
With the concept of exponential growth, not being able to contain the spread etc a 90% infection rate wouldn’t be particularly far fetched. Say the no# of cases rises twenty percent per day… 120000 cases currently confirmed… in 40 days you have a little over 176 million infected… this is the trajectory the USA is currently looking at.
There is no indication that they do either… Its possible one would become immune for a little while, as is the case with the cold/flu. If this were the case, immunity would be temporary, and the infection would have the potential to spread back and fourth amongst the general populace. You seem to not understand WHY being cautious is extremely important.
healthcare system burden
lowering death rates within the populace
By taking preventative measures/curbing the rate of spread, the healthcare system is less overwhelmed… With more resources available to each and every critically ill patient, the higher the rate of survival for said critically ill patient. By not taking extreme preventative measures to combat a viral infection that is highly, highly infectious (basal reproduction number around 2x that of influenza) we risk massive spread, hospital overload, more people dying due to lack of ventilator access/standardised care for each patient. How long do you think it’ll take before the doctors start prioritising younger patients (me) over older patients? How long do you think it’ll take prior to elderly patients being taken off ventilators to make room for healthier, younger patients with a higher chance of survival?
The goal is to NOT reach this point
Do they now?
Trump isn’t an expert, as a matter of fact he consistently refuses to listen to experts (and makes up facts… similar to what you appear to have done on a few occasions here). None of us are particularly educated regarding this issue, and thus we are all liable to having our own opinions. The fact still stands that you’re opinion doesn’t take into account the potential ramifications of not controlling the spread or just how lethal this virus might be. This is no time to loosen restrictions because it “might not be that bad”
This is correct according to the current data available. Viral latency for Covid-19 can last up to 14 days, hence why it’s important we keep the population on lockdown to avoid communicable transmission from those who otherwise have no idea they’re infected. Furthermore, avg time til death is 18.5 days (after becoming symptomatic I believe)… give it a month and recheck the death rates…
The “it stays alive on surfaces for 2-3 days” may not be true, the Diamond Princess cruise ship had detectable traces of covid-19 on it 17 days after all passengers left!
It’s not about to happen with the measures currently in place. If they can’t do something about it and the virus keeps spreading for a couple years then sure, 90% or more could get it but it will be a totally different story in that case because you won’t have as many cases at one time as would happen with no shutdown or anything.
If that’s the case then we just have to live with it. Go back to work, if you get sick you get sick, if you die you die.
What makes you think I oppose “being cautious”? I’m just not getting hysterical about the virus.
Why are you answering for another person on the next point?
What does that mean? I quoted the WHO, among others, and provided a link.
Strawman argument. You seem not to know what my opinion is. And it’s bad, but only because it spreads so easily, for most people it’s not severe.
Detectable does not mean viable. I already pointed this out, I’m tired of going through the same argument multiple times.
All I can say is that if something could be done to prevent the economic disaster that is waiting for us once the epidemic is over, I would be all for it. But right now here in Canada things are moving in the opposite direction with tighter restrictions. I can only hope it results in this ending sooner.
In Ontario you are now not allowed to gather with more than 5 other people (unless you all live int he same house) and in Quebec it is two. I went grocery shopping yesterday, it looks like Venezuela with lineups outside the stores. Not because of a shortage though, they are onlly letting a limited number of people in at a time. One store had maybe a hundred people lined up, I wasn’t dressed warm enough because I didn’t plan on standing outside so I found another store with a shorter lineup. This was an unexpected surprise.
Schools are closed indefinitely, they are sending kids homework by e-mail. 1 million people applied for unemployment benefits in Canada last week. Healthcare workers in Ontario are now not allowed to work in more than one facility, people working two part time jobs (which is very common) are having to quit one. And this is only the beginning.
Oh, I thought you stated they invent facts… I said in response “do they now”. Due to anxiety in relation to this entire scenario unfolding round the world I’ve been averaging about 3-4 hours of sleep per night for the past two weeks, some nights I’m not sleeping at all
It appears to be taking a toll on my mental acuity.