The " Book It " thread!

[Brownsfan]

Grey....I said the 'data' was no spin.

Didn't say I didn't have an opinion based on that data.

As for the data, I repeatedly point out how inadequate it is. Reality is, the 'flu' numbers are guestimations as well...based on historical guestimations.

Health outcomes are always a bit convoluted because there are too many variables...not just age, but baseline health, environment, social factors, time to treatment, type of treatment...it goes on and on.

The problem I am trying to address is the 'alarmist' tone to pretty much all of MSM in the way they report on this. They stopped talking about the death rate the second it dropped below 4%...and now with it sitting 1.3% or lower, they just go with raw death numbers...because it is scarier. They don't talk about the fact the vast majority of mild/moderate cases are not even tested due to testing parameters. They don't talk about who is ending up in the hospitals.

It is, pure and simple, inflaming the public panic...and I believe it is adversely affecting the ability of the US to react to and treat the people who need it.

Fully agree.

 

[Greythan]

Nothing wrong with putting things in context, Grey. Data is data. You suggest that the data set is small and haphazardly gathered. But the same is true for both and the conditions are similar. And here is the thing, one set of data is being essentially ignored while the other (smaller set) is allowed to set national policy. Of course, there is a difference. We know and are familiar with the effects of the flu. We know its limitations. We do not know the full effect of COVID-19. And so we imagine the worst and go into panic mode.

I think Dawg's argument is valid.

What set of data is being ignored to set public policy exactly?

Public policy isn't being set on mortality rates of this disease. That's only part of the equation and based on everything I've read its secondary to the rate of infection/rate of hospitalization estimates.

I've read a lot of off the run articles on this thing. I've also been tuning into mainstream media as well. My general sense is that the MSM hasn't been alarmist on the mortality rates at all. They've seem to have been more focused on the "curve flattening" aspect; which seems appropriate to me.

Sure, its the MSM after all so there's all kinds of political leanings, sensationalizing, etc but what else is new?

Dawg clarified, at least for me, what his argument is and I don't have a problem with it. His first post seemed a bit vague on what exactly he was arguing and for many they're taking any pushback on the mortality rate as a reason to call this whole thing a hoax. That's what scares me.

 

[DawgFan]

yeah, the 'hoax' crowd...if there really is one....I don't get.

I think that is based on the lack of trust for MSM, because they have gone from reporting to interpreting, and expecting people to not realize they are being preached to. People are not that dumb. They mostly realize when it is news and when it is an OPED. Trouble is the vast majority of MSM is now overwhelmingly based on OPED.

My local news does a better job than the MSM types...they talk about prevention and response. They talk about curtailing hoarding. They talk in a way that is productive. I watch CNN and end up talking through it because they don't give a balanced view. It is maddening.

I should be LEARNING from the news, not arguing with it.

 

[Brownsfan]

What set of data is being ignored to set public policy exactly?

I was referring to the death rate for influenza, of course. Nobody pays any attention to it.

Public policy isn't being set on mortality rates of this disease. That's only part of the equation and based on everything I've read its secondary to the rate of infection/rate of hospitalization estimates.

I would mention that actual numbers of deaths are real while death rates and rates of infections and hospitalizations are estimates. Estimates often depend on the estimators.

I've read a lot of off the run articles on this thing. I've also been tuning into mainstream media as well. My general sense is that the MSM hasn't been alarmist on the mortality rates at all. They've seem to have been more focused on the "curve flattening" aspect; which seems appropriate to me.

I suppose I was referring mainly to something I saw on the local news last night. They reported with great concern the 2nd death due to COVID-19 in Oklahoma with two interviews about the tremendous loss to the family of the victim. I understand that another death has occurred this morning bringing the total to 3. As for flu deaths, I had to look it up and found that there has been 67 deaths in Oklahoma due to the flu this flu season. Nobody seems to care much about the loss of those people to their families.

Sure, its the MSM after all so there's all kinds of political leanings, sensationalizing, etc but what else is new?

Nothing, just the usual sensationalism.

Dawg clarified, at least for me, what his argument is and I don't have a problem with it. His first post seemed a bit vague on what exactly he was arguing and for many they're taking any pushback on the mortality rate as a reason to call this whole thing a hoax. That's what scares me.

Dawg is a data guy. He deals in it and we need to make allowances. He knows what he means, but he can sometimes be a bit blunt.

I don’t think anybody is calling COVID-19 a hoax

 

[Greythan]

I was referring to the death rate for influenza, of course. Nobody pays any attention to it.

Agreed. Will be an interesting topic of conversation now perhaps. We'll see.

I would mention that actual numbers of deaths are real while death rates and rates of infections and hospitalizations are estimates. Estimates often depend on the estimators.

Of course, but its all we have to go on. Waiting for actuals would have required us to take the "do nothing" course. That's the quandary of this whole thing: insufficient data at a fixed point in time that required a course of action decision.

 

[Greythan]

I don’t think anybody is calling COVID-19 a hoax

A TON of people seem to be.

Just was watching the Ohio Department of Health livestream on youtube and the comments from the audience were discouraging. That's after filtering out the obvious trolls.

 

[Kegeratorz]

Never seen the flu shutdown states before, if this is as harmless as many would like to believe than the world's gone mad I guess.

 

[Brownsfan]

Of course, but its all we have to go on. Waiting for actuals would have required us to take the "do nothing" course. That's the quandary of this whole thing: insufficient data at a fixed point in time that required a course of action decision.

Let me ask a question: should a premature decision be required when insufficient data is available to make an informed decision? Also, should a course of action always assume a worst case scenario and what are the effects of an uninformed decision assuming a worst case scenario? Can the cure be worse than the poison?

Example: currently, there is not a single case of COVID-19 in the state of Oklahoma of a child under the age of 15. Nevertheless, schools are being closed in the entire state until at least April 6 in an abundance of caution for what might possibly happen to 700,000 school children if the schools are not closed.

Is it permissible to ask, what is the greater good or the greater evil? Unfortunately, it matters not. Once the panic sets in, it has a lemmings effect.

 

[Brownsfan]

A TON of people seem to be.

Just was watching the Ohio Department of Health livestream on youtube and the comments from the audience were discouraging. That's after filtering out the obvious trolls.

Are they referring to the virus itself or to the panic reaction to it.

I see this as rather like the difference between the climate scare we have been living with for a generation now which I consider a hoax and climate change which is, of course, continuing as in the past and which is obviously real.

 

[Brownsfan]

Never seen the flu shutdown states before, if this is as harmless as many would like to believe than the world's gone mad I guess.

COVID-19 is certainly not harmless. Take a look at what is happening in Italy or New York City if you need convincing. On the other hand, in most localities, the flu virus is probably a greater hazard to human health if you consider the number of flu strains that exist and typically results in a relative lack of effectiveness (40%-45%) of the vaccine.

 

[Greythan]

Let me ask a question: should a premature decision be required when insufficient data is available to make an informed decision?

Decision points are often unwilling to wait on a human's desire for information. They remain decision points none the less.

Stated another way, deferring a decision until a point of sufficient data has been reached is just a nicer way of saying we're "doing nothing". Its an option, but we can't pretend it isn't a decision within itself.

Also, should a course of action always assume a worst case scenario and what are the effects of an uninformed decision assuming a worst case scenario?

Well, none of the actions started in the U.S. were of the "worst case scenario". Quite the contrary, in some medical/scientific circles the feeling is we haven't done enough.

Can the cure be worse than the poison?

Sure Cliff. Any decision can be incorrect in hindsight. When isn't that the case?

Example: currently, there is not a single case of COVID-19 in the state of Oklahoma of a child under the age of 15. Nevertheless, schools are being closed in the entire state until at least April 6 in an abundance of caution for what might possibly happen to 700,000 school children if the schools are not closed.

Its, generally, not the school children's health that is the motivation for the closings. Its the battle to keep our medical system from being overwhelmed through unchecked spread of COVID-19. The calculus is pretty simple even if the data is not quite as robust or conclusive as we'd all like: if too many infections occur in a short period of time, the subset of severe cases requiring medical intervention will collapse our hospitals.

 

[DawgFan]

Love the discussion...and this is what should be on the news. Open ended, full potential options, discussions.

Again, I agree with the vast majority of the policies put in place. I have 2 kids (5 and 10) that are out of school...but I can also tell you that the schools are giving kids computers and school work to perform while out...and FL has canceled all those stupid 'standard tests' for the year. In other words, long term this might actually make the education system here better than it was.

I had a travel job...but now working remote. I love it....but most people don't have the option to work from home. They lose paychecks...and that is the part of the cure that is killing the average jane/joe. Is it worth presumably blunting the spike (but also prolonging the expansion) to have millions of people lose what little cushion they have in their lives. I have yet to see an expert tell us how many people are going to end up losing their jobs, going bankrupt, drain their retirments/savings, and lose their job related insurance due to the 'cure'.

That is why when Trump mentioned having a timeline to reverse the 'cure', I understand where he is coming from. You can't put the country in a non-tenable situation for the cost of a few lives (and yes, 100,000 is a few when compared to 348.2M in the US). It is harsh, but real.

I am just glad "I" don't have to make that decision.

 

[Kegeratorz]

I will never understand why so many want to compare this to the flu, it's wasting time. This is not the flu, it's Covid19. I understand that the flu may have more deaths but it doesn't matter right now. The flu doesn't cause the US gov to repurpose cruise ships as hospitles. Build temp hospital structures brought in via semis's with police escorts. The flu doesn't cause a country to stop caring for 60 and over due to how many infected at once. At least not in our lifetimes. Look around and use the eye test on this one and stop blaming the opposing media of your political party.

I'd love to be wrong though and have all you say I told you so. I will humbly accept my defeat and celebrate with an ice cold Corona.

 

[Brownsfan]

Decision points are often unwilling to wait on a human's desire for information. They remain decision points none the less.

Stated another way, deferring a decision until a point of sufficient data has been reached is just a nicer way of saying we're "doing nothing". Its an option, but we can't pretend it isn't a decision within itself.

You are correct; deciding to do nothing is itself a decision. I will concede to your superior sense of logic. I am of the opinion that it is often the superior choice. I believe that errors of omission are generally less damaging than errors of commission. So if you don't know what to do, do nothing. The admonishment to do something even if it is wrong is generally counterproductive.

As for the remainder of your post, I would like for Dawg's post to suffice as my response. Cheers.

 

[Brownsfan]

I will never understand why so many want to compare this to the flu...

Because they are analogous.

Regarding the remainder of your post, I would like for Dawg's post to suffice as my response. Cheers.

 

[DawgFan]

Kegar...the 'response' has been totally different from the 'flu'...which by the way is short for INFLUENZA, and if you google that you see how severe IT really is....I highly recommend you take a look at this:

http://www.mypediatriccenter.com/brief-history-influenza-virus/

Influenza almost wiped out ENTIRE CITIES when it first broke out over 400 years ago.

In 1918 the 'Spanish flu' killed and estimated 25M people in the first 25 weeks...COVID is likely NOT going to hit those numbers.

The problem isn't with people associating the two...it is with people NOT associating the two. Influenza and the death it causes annually has become all to "whatever" to the population...but COVID-19 is a new and shiny example of what pathogens can do to the human condition...and instead of taking clues from history, we again are trying to control the uncontrollable.

I am not saying we shouldn't take precautions, but we can't stop living and making a living on the off chance we get it or someone we know unfortunately passes. That happens every year from the flu, and life goes on. Biggest difference seems to be that younger people recover at a much higher rate with COVID..which is a good thing.

Again, not saying don't do anything, just saying this isn't the plague some are making it out to be...it isn't even as bad (yet) as the flu is this year (38-54M infected, 23-59k deaths this flu season).

 

[Kegeratorz]

I personally know people with it, not knowing I've been in indirect contact with one of them. You throw all that other noise out the window when it's knocking on your door. I wonder if some will change that tone when people close or themselves are affected. I understand the economic issues. I own a small business and will probably have to lay off hard-working intelligent people. It pains me that I failed them and their family. It may ultimately put me out of business. We are at the beginning of a shit storm. Containment can help, ignorance will not.

 

[DawgFan]

I get it Keger...I was traveling when it broke...and working at hospitals. Chances are pretty good I was exposed, and based on a few symptoms, I am pretty sure I had a very mild case of it....and had to come home to my wife and children and likely expose them. So...it HAS hit home for me.

Problem is, the government needs to think for the greater good, not for the individual. WE can make decisions ourselves about the risk we are willing to take. But the government should not be holding us to a standard that costs us our living...which then may just cost us more down the line.

We don't do it with the flu...a proven killer...so why are we reacting so strongly to COVID...I really do believe it was the media hype that caused the fear...which in turn has formed the government response. Will we be able to 'blunt' the spike? I don't know, nobody will ever know...but I do agree some precautions are necessary.

 

[Kegeratorz]

@dawg

I posted above before I read your first response, and fully understand how devastating the flu is.

The real issue here is if we can minimize the threat, flu or C19, then why not? I do IT and have been begging my clients to do work from home scenarios for years. It's cheap and has way more benefits than just working homesick. I could never understand the come to work sick mentality. It's stupid, but many wear it like a badge of honor. Curb it and curb whatever infectious disease one may have.

Many of my clients and others around the world are now telecommuters. Getting a shit ton of work done while limiting unneeded Human contact. I do not want to shut the world down but If we have the technology to help contain then use it. The problem is unlike my company most waited too long.

I decided two weeks ago to go 100% remote unless it's a dire hardware failure. I'm nervous about the virus sure, but I'm more conscious of the spread. I couldn't imagine being in contact with it and going to 50 plus clients ranging 4-100 users the past week and a half. Working on their PC's and in their small workspaces. My company could cause a lot of infections that fall solely on me for ignoring an easy way to help the fight. Doing nothing is like sticking your head in the sand, counterproductive. Look around there's always room to improve and help.


Then I have clients that expect me to go onsite and do minor installs. There is absolutely no need to put anyone at risk at the moment. I can install it in a few weeks, not a problem. I truly don't get it and honestly it's embarrassing. I believe it's simple, forget the news and hype and use common sense. That's how I've lived my life and it's been good to me.


I believe this is the most I've written on here. haha!

 

[Danamal]

The entire conversation is available on you tube it’s close to 2 hrs long.